Chrysler Announces Hydrogen Fuel Cell Van 324
Juanfe writes: "Chrysler group announced a concept vehicle called the Natrium, powered by a sodium borohydride (NaBH4) engine developed by Millenium Cell. NaBH4 can be made from sodium borate -- basic borax, used in laundry detergent.
MilleniumCell is a US Company that, not surprisingly, has made strategic agreements with major borax purveyors in the US (which just happens to be thought of as the largest borax reserve in the world). Could this be the start of the end of big oil and the start of the start of big Borax?" superflippy points out that Chrysler's press release is related to the Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas (EVAA) Electric Transportation Industry Conference 2001.
End of Big Oil? (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. auto industry and the U.S. oil industry are so tight that work has been slowed or delayed for decades on all-electric cars.
While this fuel-cell uses borax derivatives, I would be willing to bet money that any production fuel-cell based vehicles deployed in the U.S. use hydrocarbon-based cells. They're not going to let you just stop filling up every week, after all.
Re:End of Big Oil? (Score:2)
Sad but very true.
It's crazy that US Government wholeheartedly back this unethical business strategy to ensure their continuous inflows of political money, while letting oil exporters in Middle East holding our balls by altering the price and supply.
Pathetic. *sigh*
Re:End of Big Oil? (Score:2)
Get a grip, gasoline is incredibly cheap now...compare with 10 or 20 years ago, and add inflation, and think about it.
Moreover, thanks to RONALD REAGAN for the STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE, the USA finished off the USSR, and now backed by Russians who want to make a PROFIT, Russia is pumping all kinds of oil into the global supply, and OPEC is running scared.
Yes, I thought Reagan was crazy at the time too. Maybe he was. But gosh, ass was kicked, and the world is a better place for it.
-Thomas
Re:End of Big Oil? (Score:2, Informative)
The hydrocarbon fuel cells use a reformer to crack gasoline into hydrogen and CO2. It's just moving the chemical plant into the car.
Re:End of Big Oil? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly, no. The EV and Fuel Cell folks have continuously shot *themselves* in the foot by insisting that the EV/FC will instantly replace existing automobiles rather than finding a niche and growing from there. Poor planning, poor marketing, it kills 'real world' companies as much as it does dot-bombs.
k5 is still down I see. (Score:4, Insightful)
This makes a good story for movies in need of a bad buy but I've not seen any reason to believe it. As a matter of fact, no one in the industry (except the water injected carburator guy thats been in urban lore since the 40's), has ever accused big oil of maligning or hedging their work.
Its time to get out of fantasy land and into real life. Theres to many problems that need solving to get worked up over movie plots.
While this fuel-cell uses borax derivatives, I would be willing to bet money that any production fuel-cell based vehicles deployed in the U.S. use hydrocarbon-based cells
Its possible that this is a notion of the past. However, hydrocarbon fuel cells are non-puluting to California standards. So, I have no problem with it. After all, the energy has to come from somewhere no matter what transport agent is used.
We should constantly verify our perceptions... (Score:4, Informative)
Unlike some other conspiracies, the automobile/oil industry ones have some interesting history. I'd say it's more like interesting food for though, and it's not from some paranoid kook either --I'm not one to believe in paranoid conspiracies, new age cures, faith healing, visits from intelligent extra-terrestrials, mysticism, etcetera. I do however believe in sunshine (anti-backroom) laws, fair competition (through iron handed regulation if necessary, and good public policy.
Michael Parenti in Democracy for the Few (6th Ed.)[1] writes about some disturbing observations. The energy frugality of mass-transit was so "undesirable" to the oil and auto industries" that "[f]or over a half-century their response has been to undermine th nation's rail and electric-bus system."
The undermining of Los Angeles's 1935 "75-mile radius" "3,000 quiet, pollution-free electric trains [carrying"80 million people a year" was carried out by:
He follows up with the influence of cars, extended references of death rates --"2x accumulated number of Americans killed in all the wars ever fought by the United States"", urban air pollution, massive automobile land use, "$300 billion annual subsid[ies]", while "...mass transit--the most efficient, cleanest, and safest form of transporting goods and people" is abandoned. (p. 106)
I believe the money used "to subsidize automobile use" can be viewed, from one perspective, as an example of an economic freeloader. As auto companies undermine mass transit, thus using public dollars (which they only pay a fraction of) to fund expensive automobile public infrastructure.
I particularly like how he states that "[g]iven the absence of alternative mods of transportatoin, people become dependent on the automobile as a way of life so that their need for cars is often as real as their need for jobs." The economic burden of autos is pretty high for most americans. It's not like a $1000 tv, or $300 bike. It's a monthy loan payment, and then it's a bi-annual insurance payment, and finally its massive social/tax/healthcare cost from the "46,000 people killed" and "2,000,000 people injured" in traffic accidents. It makes wonder if the Segway could make a dent into this automobile entity we all have to live with?[24][25]
_____ >Parenti's footnotes<
23. Jonathan Kwitny, "The Great Transportation Conspiracy,"in Cargan and Ballantin (eds.), Sociological Footprints, 2nd ed. (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1982)
24. Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1992 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992); Andrew Kimbrell, "Car Culture: Driving Ourselves Crazy,"Washington Post September 3, 1989. Kimbrell notes that fatality statistics may be too low since they do not include deaths that occur several days after accidents or off-road.[2] he points out that motor vehicles kill easily one million animals each day, making road kills second only to the meat industry. More deer are killed by cars than by hunters.[3]
25. Kimbrell, "Car Culture" >/Parenti's footnotes<
_____
1. "a major voice among political progressives"...Ph.D from Yale...lectures frequently at college campuses across the country." --[from back cover]
2. My grandfather died because of accident related complications =(
3. Animal rights activists will have a hard time stopping consumers from driving though, considering how car ownership is ingrained. And/or how convenient it is.
Re:End of Big Oil? (Score:3, Funny)
Who controls the British Crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do, we do.
Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do, we do.
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do, we do.
Who robs cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do, we do!
Re:End of Big Oil? (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of this is that there's two big industries involved: the oil industry and the car manufacturers. Car manufacturers aren't going to let the oil companies keep them from doing what they have to to keep their market -- part of which is deflecting criticism about pollution and energy use.
Of course, the car companies don't really seem to want to improve energy use or pollution anyway -- SUVs being a primary example -- but at least they are doing enough to distract attention, and preparing a little for a potential future where they might have to do more for conservation.
But then they still have to figure out how to deal with traffic.
Re:End of Big Oil? (Score:4, Insightful)
> work has been slowed or delayed for decades on all-electric cars.
uh-huh.
You left out "black helicopters," "pough carbuetor," and "trilateral commission" . . .
:)
hawk
Re:End of Big Oil? (Score:4, Informative)
I can tell you that the U.S. auto industry and the U.S. oil industry are hardly in cahoots. The biggest problem is that the companies working on alternative fuel vehicles/electric vehicles/fuel cell vehicles basically keep screwing themselves over.
One problem is that they develop a technology, spending billions of dollars. As soon as it's proven that they can't make cars that are affordable or practical to the general populace, they scrap it and start over, rather than introducing the vehicles to certain niche market segments, learning from that and making improvements, all the while collecting revenue from the people and companies that are buying the vehicles.
Another problem is that they're too worried and too wrapped up in trying to make a vehicle that can be produced by existing manufacturing techniques. The car comapanies don't want to spend the required billions to completely retool all their factories to produce a different product.
Of course you know what the funny thing is? The car companies completely retool their factories every few years ANYWAY and spend those billions ANYWAY, because their current method of designing and building tooling pretty much involves this: if there is a change in the body style (for instance), no matter how insignificant, START OVER and redesign and rebuild the tool FROM SCRATCH. Really. I've worked with the tooling companies for years, trust me.
Shhh! Don't tell the car company execs that! They think they have billions invested in their current manufacturing techniques and that they haven't changed in years, when in fact they get completely overhauled every few years.
The car companies really have no loyalties to the oil industry. They're whores. They'll do anything to sell vehicles. And they KNOW that they must develop fuel cell technologies and make them so that they are affordable and practical for the everyday person. Otherwise, they face extinction. I've seen their business plans, and they definitely involve exploring every technology possible, be it borax-derivative fuel cells, solar power, wind power, ethanol, batteries, other technologies. Whatever it takes.
This is much too silly (Score:2)
Re:End of Big Oil? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:End of Big Oil? (Score:3, Funny)
An article from 4 years ago (Score:5, Informative)
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
A nickel!
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Yes I know, its not very punny.
More on Millennium Cell (Score:5, Interesting)
The article states that the process of charging up the borax produces pollution, though so does this not (for now) just represent the "make the pollution elsewhere" paradox of electric cars, whereby one uses coal-generated electricity to drive around instead of gasoline, substituting one fossil fuel's energy for another?
Re:More on Millennium Cell (Score:2)
So where does the energy come from to run the plant that refines / recyles the fuel? There's no real way to break the cycle that I can see.
Re:More on Millennium Cell (Score:2)
Tidal energy [slashdot.org]
Now repeat after me, "High-energy civilization does not require fossil fuels".
Re:More on Millennium Cell (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm assuming that you are only referring to pollution from generating power to generate hydrogen to run the reaction, not the reaction itself.
In which case, I will point out the huge differences between the little generator in your car and the big generator downtown. The little one must be lightwieght and portable. It has to have a power-to-weight ratio sufficient to cruise itself around town. I don't know about you but I have yet to see a 200MW power station tooling around on the interstate!
Furthermore, not every country thinks fossil fuels are wonderful like the US. France, for all their other shortcomings, generates most of their power with nuclear fuels. Much cleaner than coal. Furthermore, You can use things like that nifty solar chimney going up down under. True solar powered cars are a joke, but if the car charges off the grid and the grid were powered by solar (or hydro, or wind, or tides, or...) then wouldn't that be a very clean car indeed?
Re:More on Millennium Cell (Score:2)
Got a link for that? I could use some laughs.
Re:More on Millennium Cell (Score:2, Interesting)
That all became obsolete when along comes a method to make ice anywhere, and at anytime - but the original companies were focused on the wrong things - better saws, etc., completely missing the point - guess who survived? Then the next paradigm shift came when refrigeration was used...in a free market, the best ideas will eventually win out - they just need to be packaged in the right way, have the right backing, marketed ad infinitum to get the average Joe to notice, etc. Another great example of a paradigm shift that greatly marginalized a former monopoly: IBM almost completely missed the PC boat. I don't really buy that an attractive idea can be held back by a company or group of companies for very long - if the idea is truly viable. If that were possible, IBM/Digital would have held back the PC, and forced consumers to keep buying expensive Big Iron and expensive proprietary terminal hardware, etc. Paradigm shifts happen. Once there is enough momentum, and mindshare, etc., they seem to almost explode with force and get adopted at a rapid pace. Sometimes, it happens almost independently - the phone, for example. Also cryptography and calculus - I think all of these were developed independently at nearly the same time - I doubt this is an accident. If inventors/thinkers/whatever are really "standing on the shoulders of giants" then there reaches a point where it seems like these kinds of things almost naturally fall out of the R&D process. I bet there is some chaos theory about this somewhere, but anyway. I just think it is highly possible we may be on the verge of another paradigm shift...it may take a few decades, but hey, it's a start.
I also won't deny that in many cases Big Brother and Big Oil or other such entites conspire(d) together to keep a certain product alive and well - a great example is diamonds - I don't know about any U.S. government involvement with that specifically, but diamond cartels have done a great job at making people think diamonds are rare or valuable. That's why government should stay, as much as possible, out of business dealings. Eventually, there will be corruption of the payoff type to provide protection for a certain product - campaign funds, lobbying, etc...in a truly free market, this would be kept to a minimum.
Re:More on Millennium Cell (Score:2, Informative)
In addition, since all the polution is produced in one place, many measures can be taken to ensure that the polution is minimized.
Basically, it's like everyone getting their power from one big car that is constantly worked on by a team of engineers to ensure maximum efficiency.
So in the worst case, electric cars are better.
In addition (Score:2)
Phillip.
http://www.FutureEnergies.com/
Re:More on Millennium Cell (Score:2, Informative)
And b/c you aren't tied to petroleum as an energy source anymore, you can go really green and produce your electrical power or hydrogen (apply the former to water to get the latter) or boron hydrides using wind or solar energy- wind energy is economically competitive with the fossils today.
SO as much as boron hydrides seem to have better energy density that today's batteries, I'm intrigued.
Re:Get over 'Dubya's Oil folks' stuff (Score:2, Troll)
This has absolutely zero to do with who is or was president. If you don't think our fearless leaders are in bed with big oil then you are the one who is blind to "FACTS".
Re:Get over 'Dubya's Oil folks' stuff (Score:2, Insightful)
This is all about supply and demand. The summer road trip season is over. The economic downturn since 9/11 really cut into people's travel plans. Sucks to be you if you built a new refinery during the $2/gal gas days and it's just coming online now.
Re:Get over 'Dubya's Oil folks' stuff (Score:2)
Perhaps the conspiracy theory needs to be amended with an explanation that while the conspirators are clever enough to operate a vast network of wrongdoing without detection, they just aren't smart enough to figure out how to actually make oil prices go up. If I was one of these theoretical Big Oil execs with a bunch of politicians on the payroll, I'd fire them, they're doing a lousy job. I put gas in my car the other day for 98 cents a gallon.
On the other hand, perhaps we should consider the possibility that George W. just might have things on this *other* than oil companies.
Re:Get over 'Dubya's Oil folks' stuff (Score:2)
They need to make Gasoline look more economically attractive and viable while all this "fuel cell" and "solar power" nonsense blows over.
Last year, after my third rolling blackout, I was seriously considering selling some stock-options to buy some solar panels for my house. If they were going to jack up prices and reduce reliability, then FUCK the power companies, they can buy power from ME at their spot market prices.
Unfortunately, I delayed just long enough for the market to crash, and make it rather unattractive, as the power crisis disappeared.
And I'm sure there are power company execs (like the ones at Enron that got $200k bonuses this quarter prior to their bankruptcy) who are breathing sighs of relief.
Re:Get over 'Dubya's Oil folks' stuff (Score:2, Interesting)
The idea that's it inherently wrong to support fuel energy producers/distributors is insane on it's face, no matter who the president might be. The fact that GWB's family was in the oil business just makes it seem...errr...suspicious.
We all need to face one fact: until the energy needs of this nation are met in some other way, consistently and inexpensively, we will need oil to keep our economy moving at any pace.
All one has to do is consider, just for a mmoment, the inability of this nations's infrastructure to obtain the fuel necessary to transport goods and people (planes, traines and automobiles) and provide the electrical power to just survive in some basic fashion. That includes keeping food cold and fresh, keeping people on life-support systems alive, keeping our schools and job sites lit and, and allowing all of us here to sit on our arses and submit this stuff.
One can blindly blame the support of some politician towards oil companies for the lack of movement in developing new fuel sources. What I don't hear in this space is how the pressure from envionmental groups have nearly forced us into the dark ages, destroying our ability to build and operate nuclear power plants in this nation, the use of which would have gone a long way to reduce our need for fossil fuel.
Yes, I know the down side to that concept, especially in regards to disposal. But, we've come a long way technologically since the early days of nuke power, and there are other civilized nations (France, for example) who have been using it safely for nearly 40 years. Politicians in this nation are so frightened of the envionmental groups that they dare not breathe a word of support, lest they be accused of creating another China Syndrome or Chernoybl. Which is what 90% of this country views as the reality of nuke power, anyway.
Re:Get over 'Dubya's Oil folks' stuff (Score:2)
And for those who don't keep track of such things, oil prices are in the toilet because Russia is bringing new production online like they're Texas in the 20's, despite OPECs calls for a cut to raise prices. Russia now has the lowest cost-per-barrel and they know that they can win a price war with anyone, and be sitting very pretty when some other producers close up shop (especially ones with high costs-per-barrel like many places in the U.S.) and the price bounces back to $30.
Re:Get over 'Dubya's Oil folks' stuff (Score:2)
Fuck man, accidents happen no matter how careful you are. It's okay when an oil refinery catches fire. Maybe it sucks a lot when a tanker spills it's guts on pristine shoreline. Maybe it sucks a WHOLE lot when we have to bomb some uppity dictator into submission to keep them from clenching the supply line. But it's sure a hell of a lot better than watching a populated area get turned into an uninhabitable wasteland for the next 12,000 years. And if you reply to say that Kiev is inhabitable, then why don't you prove it by moving there, and raising a load of kids. Leukemia anyone? Thyroid cancer anyone?
The only thing fission power does is prove how prone humans are to screwing up, because when (not if) screw ups happen, they're of tremendously huge proportions.
We have to ask ourselves why these accidents happen. It's easy to point fingers to a profit-hungry power company cutting safety corners to pad the bottom line and the CEO's bonus - but if you look at Chernobyl, that wasn't the case because we're talking about a state-run institution. Sure - safety measures were in place, but laughably inadequate. At the end of the day, whether it's private enterprise, or state-run, someone's going to cut corners, and even when they don't cut corners, someone's going to screw up, and even when everyone is doing their best, some religions fanatic hijacks a plane, and even when airline security is tight, an earthquake happens.
My point is, no matter how careful we are, no matter how infinitesmally small we reduce the probability of an accident, the deal is - the CONSEQUENCES of this kind of accident are so profound as to be unacceptable to any person with the facility of reason.
The same is not the case of every other method of power generation. Proponents like to discuss safety in terms of the chance of an accident. I'm saying they need to forget about chance, and think about the consequences, because accidents happen and it's always only a matter of time.
Re:Get over 'Dubya's Oil folks' stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you trying to suggest that the present depression in US gas pricing provides any evidence for or against the suggestion that US President Bush is involved in the oil business?
To attempt to drag this stuff back on topic and away from Republican American ethnocentrism, let me try this:
I would humbly suggest that this venture will face significant opposition from the traditional energy (nee oil) companies.
You're right tho, facts don't get points unless they're relevant or related to the discussion. Otherwise we could all get our 50 karma by posting mathematics formulae, now couldn't we?
Re:Get over 'Dubya's Oil folks' stuff (Score:2)
E = MC^2 !
0 = ax^2 + bx + c !
s = s0 + vt +
Oh, wait, I've already got 50 karma.
Anyway, oil companies wouldn't have much to worry about. Well, they would, but it's not like the only thing we use oil for is to power our cars. There's plastics, there's airplanes until they switch over to something a little less nasty, fertilizers, all the common byproducts of oil refining.
There is no such thing as an 'oil company' (Score:5, Insightful)
Being the clever industry they are, the oil companies LONG ago realized they were dependent on a limited resource. Indeed, the reserves wouldnt make it out of the 21st century.
Hence they all now refer to themselves as 'energy companies', and work with all sorts of things, not just oil.
Its in their best interests that things start moving off fossil fuels, given their limited supply, and people move onto things like hydrogen, which is pretty damn common. And they know this.
You'll still be getting your fuel from them in 20 years...it just might not be gasoline anymore.
Re:There is no such thing as an 'oil company' (Score:2)
For as long as Oil is the major fuel source globally the Oil industry can fix prices, hold nations to ransom, and generally act like dicks.
As soon as alternative fuels start to account for more than 10 - 15% of transportation they are mainstream - in that everyone that wants one can have one. At that point any government, city, company can simply say 'okay - we're going oil free' an average city council / police force / medium sixed company in the UK will replace 90% of existing vehicles within 3 years. Not long if you decide to buy fuel cell only in 2004.
As soon as Oil has to COMPETE for markets against alternatives (not just oil from another supplier) prices will come down - they will have to - hopefully they will drop below viability and the oil cos will have to stop extraction.
With an average field life cycle lasting upwards of 30 years there are a LOT of young fields which will only start paying for themselves 5, 6, 7 years from now. Shell doesn't want fuel cells to be common until at least 2015 for that reason.
Re:There is no such thing as an 'oil company' (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Fuel is not the only application that petroleum is used for. Petrochemicals are a prime example (who didn't see that one coming). Plastics and lubricants are others. Fuel may be a leading use for petroleum prodcts, but alternative energy sources won't necessarily cause everyone to stop producing it.
Ballard Power Systems (Score:4, Informative)
Millenium makes the system that turns the sodium borohydride into hydrogen, then Ballard's fuel cell turns the hydrogen into electricity.
I want one.
Why fuel cells? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why fuel cells? (Score:2)
All the organic sources are horribly inefficient (like ethanol) or they have a small capacity -- peat, for instance. Is there some great source for methane I don't know about? Why aren't they using it for power plants, then?
And the non-organic sources are all mostly equivalent -- one day natural gas is cheaper, demand goes up and it's more expensive, and so on.
At least for all the hydrocarbons.
Huge water tank? (Score:3, Insightful)
So does this mean you need a huge water tank? I saw no mention of this in the article - but I would guess you'd need more water than you need petrol in current cars.
Re:Huge water tank? (Score:2, Informative)
So, every 3+5+4 = 12 grams of sodium borohydrate (1 mole) need 2 * (18) = 36 grams (2 moles) of water. At that rate, you end up with four times the mass, which is over twice the volume, of water and sodium borohydrate together, as you'd need of gasoline.
Re:Huge water tank? (Score:2)
Either my chemistry is wrong (say it isn't so!) or they exaggerated slightly on their web page.
Re:Huge water tank? (Score:2)
Re:Huge water tank? (Score:2)
Ok, NaBH4 = 11 + 5 + 4 = 20. Don't know where you're getting your mass of Boron; 23 is the mass of Vanadium. :)
NaBH4 + 2H2O = 20 g + 36 g = 56 g ~ 24 g of gasoline, energy-wise. I don't know if the reaction itself generates energy, all we're really concerned with is the energy we can get from burning the 4 H2's. So we'll ignore anything but them; this is therefore something of a worst-case scenario.
So: 24 g gas ~ 56 g NaBH4/H2O
1 L gas ~ 1.7 L NaBH4/H2O
Hey, maybe eventually one of us will get all this right :)
Re:Huge water tank? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, just follow the reaction:
NaBH4 + 2 H2O ----> 4 H2 + NaBO2
Now, burn the H2:
4 H2 + 2 O2 ----> 4 H2O
So, we end up with MORE water than we started with. The other point to consider is that the conversion process is happening on the demand. You don't convert the entire tank of NaBH4 into H2 instantly, that would defeat then entire idea of "storing" the hydrogen.
Re:Huge water tank? Not needed... (Score:2)
It's all about the distribution (Score:2, Interesting)
Even if you could convince people to buy the cars, none of the gas stations will want to take on the expense of converting to the new stuff in the first place.
A solution won't fly unless it's cheaper, easier, AND performs better than what people have now. Unless, of course, Microsoft's marketing people have at it.
Re:It's all about the distribution (Score:2)
This exact thing happened in the 70s, when diesel cars got (moderately) popular, and diesel prices went up past gas.
Pollution Free? (Score:2)
Also there is a problem with that left over borax that has to be recycled and delivered back to the consumer. Once its used, its spoiled. You can't wash your clothes with it. It has to go through a process to recycle the chemical. How much pollution will that process create? Same problem with electric cars. If they are getting electricity generated from a dirty power plant are they really helping the environment? A truely Green car will have to have a power source that is clean from beginning to end not just from the tailpipe on.
I think I will stick with my buck a gallon gasoline for the time being and use Mass Transit when I can. The ironic thing about the war in Afghanistan were the initial liberal handwringers screaming that Bush II was just trying to jack up oil prices to help out his evil, rich Texas buddies. As we see today, its dirt cheap -- bottled water costs more per gallon!!!
Re:Pollution Free? (Score:2)
Anything that uses a chemical reaction to create power is going to create pollution of some form. We can get very cleaver about what form that will be. But the fundamental truth is that you are taking big complex molicules and breaking them up into smaller compounds and releasing energy. This applies to the Human body (and all other animals and plants) as well as cars, airplanes and powerplants.
Re:Pollution Free? (Score:2)
Re:Pollution Free? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, most everything before this is quite correct, but it drives me crazy when people say this. You can't put a nuclear power plant in a car. Nor tidal power, nor hydro power, nor solar chimneys, nor any other type of clean, non-fossil-fuel source of power. But you can put them on the power grid and then run your car off it, so all of this is quite worthwhile.
Re:Pollution Free? (Score:2)
Electric cars do open up the potential for using clean power. But with the tremendous efficiency problems electric cars have... clean power is not limitless any more than dirty power is.
Right now we could all convert our heating systems to electric -- without needing any technological breakthroughs! But that wouldn't be any better for the environment -- quite the contrary, it would be much worse for the environment. Electric cars seem like the same thing.
Re:Pollution Free? (Score:2)
Point is, an electric car or or similar device dissociates the power generation from the power usage. You are free to improve one side of it without affecting the other. That is, an electric car doesn't care how you generate the power so long as it's there. Or the switchover from nasty coal to sparkling clean hydro doesn't change how you use the power, just how you make it.
But you are right, even where this sort of thing already applies we seem stuck with oil. But automobiles are such a huge market that switching from fossil fuels in them would have an enormous impact on the power industry. They will have to simultaneously become the replacement for half the oil pumped out of the desert and deal with the fact that Americans don't want to be dependent on foreign oil anymore. In light of recent events, companies like Millenium Cell or power companies looking to expand into non-oil based plants need only do a "Get the US off of dependence on these wierdo Arab countries" ad campaign and they'd be swamped with supporters.
Re:Pollution Free? (Score:2)
At one point -- admittedly, quite a while ago -- I had heard of studies that electric cars cause more pollution than normal cars. A large part of that might be in the form of heavy metals, due to the large battery packs. I've heard bad things about "light" rail as well, as moving 40 ton trains around (my, what passes for light these days) -- even on rails -- is not very efficient considering the average occupancy.
You also have to consider the pollution due to production. I've heard people say that those with old cars should buy new cars that pollute less. I'm very suspicious of that -- the waste of getting rid of that old car and the pollution to produce the new car may be much more than any pollution created in the use of the old car. I don't really know one way or another -- I haven't seen many studies of overall pollution (though I have seen a book that talks about the pollution due to production of various goods).
I suppose the ideas of free market environmentalism -- where try to expose the true environmental impact of items through price (through taxes) -- would make this clearer, as the price would reflect a balance of resources, labor, and environmental impact. It still wouldn't allow us to judge potential benefits that much, but at least we could understand the present situation.
Source of hydrogen... (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless they've altered the laws of physics, it will still take energy to do this "recharging" of borax that the article talks about, but hopefully this can be more effient than todays batteries, and will at least provide an alternative to oil that does not pollute the air.
Re:Source of hydrogen... (Score:2)
No, you're smoking crack here boopus.
Production of hydrogen can be done many ways, but all of them require energy in.
They have no novel or interesting process for it. They haven't figured out a way to trick the first law of thermodynamics, and all of the efficiencies or inefficiencies of the hydrogen generation will be based on their actual energy source.
-Rothfuss
Wait a minute - borax? (Score:2, Funny)
Its not just cost its Infrastructure (Score:2, Redundant)
1) Where do I go for fuel?
2) How much does it cost per mile for fuel?
3) When it breaks where do I get it fixed?
4a) When it needs a part where do I get it
4b) How long does it take for the parts to show up?
5) How much does it cost to insure?
In the US we are real good at Gas and Diesel fuel you can get them almost anywhere. And enough things run on them that getting spare parts and people who know how to fix the things is not hard. I have seen cars that run on Compressed Natural Gas, but there is no way in hell I would buy one. Why because there are like 3 places in all metro Boston that I can get CNG. Where as the 87 octane gas that my Saturn wants can be gotten anywhere.
Remember the cost of owning a car is not just the fuel prices.
It will change the industry forever! (Score:4, Funny)
Safe? Nope (Score:5, Informative)
http://espi-metals.com/msds's/sodiumborohydride
http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/SO/sodium_borohyd
Here's what the article says about Sodium Borohydride...
"To solve those problems, Chrysler's system stores hydrogen in sodium borohydride powder, which is nonflammable and nontoxic"
Here's what the data sheets say...
"Stable, but reacts readily with water (reaction may be violent). Incompatible with water, oxidising agents, carbon dioxide, hydrogen halids, acids, palladium, ruthenium and other metal salts, glass. Flammable solid. Air-sensitive."
"Toxic by ingestion. Risk of serious internal burns if ingested. Harmful if inhaled and in contact with skin. May cause burns or severe irritation in contact with skin or eyes.
Toxicity data
(The meaning of any abbreviations which appear in this section is given here.)
ORL-RAT LD50 89 mg kg-1
SKN-RBT LD50 4000 mg kg-1
IPR-RAT LD50 18 mg kg-1
Risk phrases
(The meaning of any risk phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
R15 R25 R34."
Looks to me like big business is full of shit yet again.
-
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Safe? Nope (Score:2)
ORL-RAT LD50 89 mg kg-1
89 mg of this chemical per kilogram of body weight is the LD50 (lethal dose to 50% of rats it was administered to orally).
(The funky bolding is to emphasize where each part fits in the LD specification.)
So, if a rat weighs 500g, there's a 50% chance that feeding it 44.5 mg (a very tiny amount) of this stuff will kill it.
Extrapolating this to an 80 kg (176-pound) human, ingesting only 7.12g of this chemical should be enough for a 50% chance of death (assuming it has the same toxicity to humans as rats).
All in all, pretty nasty stuff.
Energy (Score:2)
My feeling is that we need to either harness solar power more effectively or other natural phenomena such as wind or wave. Maybe even Fusion has a chance eventually, regardless any of these methods will be considerably cleaner than fossil fuels.
Re:Energy (Score:5, Interesting)
1) They generaly don't use any power when they are at idle. So when you are stiting in trafic at least you are not using power.
2) A large Gas-Turbine plant (Running what is basicly a Jet engine) can be more efficant that a Otto engine in a car. For one thing it does not have to go anywhere, and probably gets better maintinace.
And ofcourse it moves the polution to somewhere else. But it would be good if we used less Coal.
On the other had air polution has gone way down over the last 100 years. In 1905 or so My Great grandfather left London where he had go to from Russia because of all the polution from everyone burning coal for heat and cooking.
Re:Energy (Score:2)
Re:Energy (Score:2)
Re:Energy (Score:2)
Dubious distinction (Score:5, Funny)
Humm, I had no idea we were viewed this way by the rest of the world. . .
"Hi, I'm from the United States."
"Oh, yes, big land of Borax!"
"Well, um, sure, I guess. . ."
got borax? (Score:2)
It's all about _Regulation_ (Score:2, Interesting)
This is just a fuel tank (Score:3, Interesting)
The usual issues apply: finding a source for hydrogen, keeping the storage system and fuel cell from crudding up, and getting the system weight and cost down to manageable levels.
It's still at the "concept car" stage.
Dangerous X "made from" innocuous Y (Score:2, Interesting)
-Guncotton is made from wood chips
-Sodium cyanide is made from salt
-Hydrochloric acid is made from salt
-Carbon monoxide is made from coal and air
NaBH4 is -nasty- stuff. You don't want to touch it, it will take the water right out of your skin. You don't want water near it until you want the hydrogen. It -burns-, too.
Probably less dangerous than gasoline, but it is NOT as innocuous as laundry detergent.
Slightly off topic - Hybrid Cars (Score:3, Interesting)
We were leaning towards Toyota's Prius [toyota.com], although Honda makes one too (the Insight, I believe). Can't speak for Honda, but Toyota is very serious about this, selling them cheap at about $25K (and you get to deduct $2000 on your Federal income taxes. Some states give you incentives, too). Obviously, they're hoping to make it up on market share (not like the dot-coms, I hope!) and maintenance. We test drove one and it was nice, with the pickup of a small V6, but it was uncanilly quiet -- your brain thinks you're coasting even when you're cruising or accelerating slightly. AT 50+ MPG and the tax deductions, we were hoping to come out ahead instead of maintaining our '94 Corolla.
...until our company laid my wife off. Damn recession. Still, the Prius is a pretty cool car. ;)
Re:Slightly off topic - Hybrid Cars (Score:2)
Re:Slightly off topic - Hybrid Cars (Score:2)
The Prius is a great car. My wife and I have had ours for a little over a month. It's quiet, roomy, fun to drive (we fight over who gets to drive it), and totally rocks on mileage and emissions. It's rated at 45mpg/highway and 52mpg/city, and is SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) -- the only thing cleaner running is a ZEV electric vehicle. The higher rating in city driving is because of lower speeds, and taking advantage of regenerative braking.
It's funny -- the car has a touch-screen display that shows your mileage and generated energy over 5 minute intervals, and besides being fun to play with, it has made us better drivers. We have a graphic indication of when some driving habit uses more or less fuel, and it's become a fun challenge to maximize our mileage. We've wondered if they made these kinds of displays required in cars, if all people might not become more efficient drivers, even in mega-SUVs.
We looked at the Honda Insight as well. It gets better mileage, but is only a two-seater with very limited cargo and carrying capacity. There was a local news story a while back about a couple of guys that bought one for commuting. They are both large-framed guys, and it turns out they were over the safe weight limit. After some prodding by the reporter, the dealer took back the car because the buyers hadn't been told about this problem, even though they'd told the dealer specifically the two of them planned to use it together.
We know the Prius is still burning fossil fuels and polluting, but it's a big step in the right direction. A friend and I took the Prius to Yosemite a couple weeks after we got it, and to point out the difference, we were parked next to a Ford Expedition at a spot along the Merced River. The Prius was off (we were off taking photos), and the driver of the Expedition was sitting in it with the engine running. It wasn't cold, it wasn't raining, so it was boggling to us why he'd be sitting there instead of actually looking at the scenery, and with the engine running.
Back to the topic -- I really hope Chrysler, Millenium, et al, can get this working. As other posts have pointed out, fuel cells aren't a new energy source, but an energy storage mechanism. Whether it's compressed hyrdogen, borax, or whatever, it takes energy to produce and distribute. But it will be another step in the right direction, just a hybrids or other very efficient vehicles are a good first step.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:300 mile range? (Score:2)
Won't happen. Electrolysis of Water to produce hydrogen is hideously inefficent. No commerical production of hydrogen is done this way, it's almost all steam reforming of methane. Good link on the process here [ieagreen.org.uk]. The only likely alternative source of hydrogen in the future is bioengineered alge, such as described here [doe.gov]. However this is probably still decades away from displacing steam reformation as the primary source of hydrogen.
NABH4 is NOT super safe (Score:2, Interesting)
And I'm still not sure where we're going to get all that hydrogen. In the US most of it is made with steam reformation of Natural Gas. This releases all the C02 from the methane into the atmosphere, and isn't particularly efficient either. Creating H2 with electricity is also possible but highly inefficient even when compared to the lowly lead-acid battery. Finally, where do we get our electricity from?... Oil and Coal. Back to where we started from. Watch out for the shell game folks!!!!
Still we have to do something about our oil gluttony. I think some better fuel efficiency standards would probably be the best thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NaBH4 isn't the safest stuff around... (Score:2)
it, right next to a little picture of a flame.
The text says: Contact with water liberates
highly flammable gasses. Toxic if swallowed.
Causes burns.
Sodium borohydride is a strong reducing agent!
It turns just about any metal cation (e.g. Fe+2,
Cu+2, etc.) into the metal!
According to the Merck, it also reduces:
aldehydes, ketones, acids, esters, acid chlorides,
disulfides, and nitriles. Ouch! Not exactly
inert or friendly. A mouthful of gasoline isn't
gonna kill you, but this stuff'll really do you in.
Re: (Score:2)
Mellunimum Cell across the parking lot from me (Score:2)
They have been testing this engine thing for years
in many different cars.. even Suv's. Its totally silent at low speed since it runs off batteries.. once it runs out of juice or needs more horsepower the very small engine kicks on to power the electic system. Its realy wierd seeing a suv moving across the parking lot totally silent. Suposedly they also have regenerative braking hooked up as well. Everything runs off this soapy mixture (which I no know as borax.. ) the soapy mixture is put torhough a catalist which generate hydrogen on the fly hence there is no hydrogen stored in the car.
Thermodynamics? (Score:2)
Except a couple of nagging questions. Like, how do you recycle the waste product (sludge?) to make it usable again? You have to reintroduce hydrogen back into the waste product to make it usable again, but that hydrogen has to come from somewhere. They mention seawater as the potential source of hydrogen in this process. Okay, true, water is two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. But you have to expend energy to extract the hydrogen. Lots of it. Where does that energy come from? Power plants, most likely. Power plants that burn fossil fuels, for the most part.
From what I understand, it's more efficient to burn the fossil fuels directly in your car's engine than to burn it in a power plant, transmit the energy somewhere, store it in some sort of battery or fuel cell, and use that to power your car. Even if that's not the case, you still have to burn fossil fuels, nullifying the supposed benefit of this new "clean" technology. Plus, we're still beholden to "big oil".
The other question is, what happens to the waste product? I guess it would go into some sort of holding tank in your vehicle or something Does that mean you would have to not only fill your tank when you go to the borax station to refuel, you would also have to empty the waste tank?
Oh well, at least this seems more useful than cold fusion.
Re:Thermodynamics? (Score:2)
Not the end of big oil (Score:3, Insightful)
What fuel cells do for you is provide a better way to store energy. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
Fuel cells are only part of the answer.. (Score:2)
Food for thought: a 300lb. hybrid recumbent bike / motorcycle design, somewhat bullet shaped, made out of modern composite plastics with large crumple zones and a strong rollbar. It has interchangable wheels for different seasons (if necessary) and generally has a very low rolling resistance. The vehicle is powered by a 10hp electric motor, which (if the vehicle had no rolling or air resistance) and assuming a 200lb driver, would reach 35mph in 3.7s. Reasonably, lets say 6s, but less if you decide to help out by pedaling. Obviously the power source is the greatest weight. Fuel cells would be ideal, but even without, modern lithium ion batteries would be a decent replacement at 300W/kg power density and 100Wh/kg energy density. 10hp = 7460W, so you'd need about 55 pounds for the Li-Ion batteries. A 1000W solar array ($5000), will fully charge the batteries in about 3-4 hours in full sunlight. So now you have a very cheap vehicle which will last nearly forever (except the batteries and tires), require virtually no maintenance, and once paid for, be free to operate as long as you live somewhere with halfway decent sun-hours. Who wants to build one? (-;
Re:Fuel cells are only part of the answer.. (Score:2)
Sounds like an expensive Sinclair C5. It failed. (Score:2)
The Sinclair C5 was a plastic-bodied electric trike with pedal assist, and was supposed to be the Next Big Thing at one point. But, nobody bought it. It was about an order of magnitude cheaper than what you're suggesting, too.
Basically, a car has to be a certain minimum size to be useful to people. Even the existing subcompact cars are too small for 99% of the public. For most Americans, it has to hold 4 people and their luggage. A trike has no chance in the market whatsoever.
Jon Acheson
Hark to old time ads... (Score:2)
Re:The Name (Score:2, Informative)
Latin, German, Norwegian, Swedish: Natrium
Czech: Sodík
Croatian: Natrij
Italian, Portuguese, Spanish: Sodio
Does this mean the Croatian trade name of Chyrsler's vehicle will be Natrij?
Re:cost? (Score:3, Informative)
One of the biggest problems for gaining acceptance of hydrogen as a fuel is containment of the hydrogen. Hydrogen gas will diffuse out of any container you put it in. So if you have a tank of hydrogen sitting around for a while (how long depends on the material), you will end up with an empty tank.
What makes this solution elegant is that they hydrogen is chemically locked up. As long as the NaBH4 is long lived, then you don't have to worry about it.
Also, the NaBH4 is only refined into hydrogen and borax when hydrogen is needed, so the amount of hydrogen around is relatively small at any given time.
Incidently, hydrogen is not that flamable. You need a proper combination of hydrogen, oxygen, and heat to set it burning and hydrogen dissipates very quickly. (And don't start talking about hydrogen bombs, you need a fission bomb just to ignite one of those and the hydrogen needs to be the heavier (and less common) isotopes anyway.
Re:cost? (Score:3, Informative)
You're smoking crack here dhovis.
Containment is one of the biggest problems with hydrogen fuel cells, but it is not because of the hydrogen diffusivity through metals (yes it does, but very slowly...not a big deal), but rather the handling properties of combustible gases as opposed to liquid fuels.
The energy density of a liquid hydrocarbon (based on heat of combustion) is about 100,000 Btu/gallon. For hydrogen it is a little less than 40 Btu/gallon at 1 atmosphere pressure and room temperature. So you need to compress the hell out of it to get a sufficiently high energy density.
That is the containment problem people don't like. Nobody will care if a year passes and you have lost 1% of your hydrogen.
-Rothfuss
Re:cost? (Score:2)
Pure oxygen and hydrogen are both materials you don't want to be around with an open flame, but saying that 'water isn't dangerous or flammable' is not by any stretch of the imagination misleading, despite its components.
This is really a very Good Thing. One of the biggest problems with H2 fuel cells is storing the H2. It's so pesky as a gas and impractical as a liquid. Storing it as part of another compound which can then be reused makes things a lot simpler. And it's not like Sodium borohydride is the new black gold; it's a charged battery for cars. You use it up, you get borax and take it back to the shop to be recharged with hydrogen. Very neat.
The difficulty now is how to 'charge' up the battery. Do the gas stations send all their spent borax (the customers sure aren't gonna keep it) back to the plant or would they keep facilities on site to generate H2 and run the borax -> sodium borohydride reaction? The former will increase shipping costs (though it's probably on par with getting the stuff from the Middle East), the latter more expensive to the gas stations and making it harder to switch to a different fuel should it become available.
Ha! I can see a future in which the auto industries don't settle on one type of fuel cell and gas stations are forced to carry a number of types of fuels as a result.
Re:cost? (Score:2)
Hmmm....in my local station and just about everywhere in the country (Ireland), you can get Unleaded, Lead-Replacement Petrol or Diesel.....surely all different for different engines? No really a problem either, if the "recharge with hydrogen" thing is the only constant, each auto maker could pick whatever they felt was the most suitable storage-sodium-borohydride unit.
Re:what i really want to know.... (Score:2, Informative)
Fuel cell vehicles do not use direct combustion engines so there is very little in common with a traditional vehicle. You would be much better off trying to upgrade from an electric car.
Rothfuss
yes, it is possible (Score:2, Interesting)
1) converting a carburator-equipped conventional car:
remove gas tank, gas filter, carburator;
replace with Hydrogen-on-demand unit with special adapter to replace carb with catlyst unit.
2) converting a fuel-injected conventional car:
remove gas tank, gas filter, fuel-injector system;
replace with Hydrogen-on-demand unit with special fuel injectors that handle hydrogen. The Electronic Control Unit would probably also have to be modified or replaced.
3) converting an electric car:
remove batteries, replace with Hydrogen-on-demand unit and fuel cells.
Re:Next Big Oil (Score:2)
Don't forget that power technology doesn't work on Internet time. By the time fuel cells become pervasive enough for people to worry about a monopoly, most of these patents will probably have expired.