Fuel-Cell Car Racing Series Aims To Spur Green Motoring

Anonymous Cow writes "The world's first international fuel-cell powered motor racing series kicked off in Rotterdam over the weekend. The organisers hope that 'Formula Zero,' like Formula 1, can become a forum for competing technology as much as anything else, helping green consumer cars to become better."

Not pompous enough

People aren't going to take green technology seriously until it wins in rally or 24 hour le mans or somethign similarly awesome to win. Having to make a special competition just for green cars seems like, well, these cars are cool and all, but just not actually competitive with already existant technology. This isn't good for the public image.

Re:Not pompous enough

People aren't going to take green technology seriously until it wins in rally or 24 hour le mans or somethign similarly awesome to win.

or until they actually drive a electric sports car. I think they'll change their minds then :)

Re:

http://www.teslamotors.com/ [teslamotors.com]
0-60 mph 2.9 seconds
256 mpg equivalent
220 miles per charge
less than 2 cents/mile

Re:

I can't help but note they carefully avoid answering how long it actually takes to refill the batteries beyond 'over night'. That's not going to help much if I find the battery's low when I want to be at home for dinner and find the battery's a bit low.

Re:

How about when all Formula one cars get full hybrid powertrains (mechanical regenerative breaking) in 2013? Or how about when BMW and Honda implement hybridisation in 2009, 4 years before the deadline, giving head to head competition between hybrid and conventional drivelines?

Here's something for you to chew on - people already are taking green technology seriously. Less so in the US than other places, but even that said the majority of the 1,000,000 Priuses sold so far are in the US.

Re:Not pompous enough

People aren't going to take green technology seriously until it wins in rally or 24 hour le mans or somethign similarly awesome to win.

Or until Jeremy Clarkson uses one to ride over a delicate ecosystem.

Re:Not pompous enough

Well, diesel engines have already won Le Mans three years in a row (only been allowed for three years) despite having a smaller fuel tank than the gasoline cars, yet the public opinion is that diesel engines are useless for any kind of fast car and especially race cars.

So no, winning Le Mans in a "green" car is hardly going to change the image.

Re:

Go take a ride in one of bmw's top of the line turbo d's, it'll make you cry. A friend of mine has one and I've *never* ever been in a car that had more torque, a shorter 0-100 time or top speed.

Zero Emissions?

Do fuel cells really produce no carbon emissions?
Granted, the cars themselves should produce nothing but water, but how do we produce the hydrogen? Does that not require energy? I simply don't believe that all of the hydrogen plants are powered by nuclear or hydroelectric energy.
I am not against these ideas at all, but let's not get carried away. I've no doubt that fuel cells are much cleaner than internal combustion, but provide the real facts, please.

Re:Zero Emissions?

Why did this get moded Troll? Concerns over just how much energy is being spent in actually PRODUCING these types of green cars are very real and shouldn't be censored just because they go against the current mob mentality.

My sources may be wrong, but I've read that producing green cars is more wasteful than they end up saving. For now at least, but if we ignore this issue improvement will never be made.

Re:Zero Emissions?

A large amount of the carbon footprint of producing so-called zero emission transportation comes from not yet having zero emission transportation. That is, shipping lines still use diesel engines. Once we've got fuel cell or whatever transportation nailed down, shipping the parts all over the world to assemble more fuel cell cars won't incur such a huge carbon cost because the shipping lines will also be zero emission.

The other big carbon cost is of course the production of the hydrogen, which is generally AFAIK done using electrolysis, powered by whatever power plants happen to be around, most of them high emission plants. Changing this is not so directly tied to producing the fuel cell cars, but once this issue is fixed, fuel cell (or whatever) cars will approach much more closely to zero emissions.

In short, the carbon footprint of producing the cars and the fuel is in part a separate issue. Fixing the cars themselves will probably come first, and the rest will follow.

Parent has a point: Troll or not.

Excuse me, but every time I see any sort of hydrogen powered (burning it or using it for some sort of chemical reactions) car, the source of hydrogen starts off with fossil fuels or using other forms of energy to extract hydrogen from water. We should be careful that we're not causing more pollution in one area just to lessen some in another area - maybe having a net increase in greenhouse gases.

We all know the BS about ethanol and how it takes more energy (all oil) to just to grow the corn than you get fr

Re:Zero Emissions?

Most commercially viable fuel cells contain a first stage catalyst which break down a hydro-carbon fuel (petrol or similar) to produce hydrogen and CO2. Obviously for racing, the extra weight of the first stage is avoided by loading up on pre-prepared hydrogen.

The difference in emissions is from the efficiency of the whole system - somewhere under 35% for a conventional IC engine drivetrain, and around 85% upwards for a hydrocarbon/fuel cell drivetrain. Meaning far more than twice the power delivered carbon emissions created.

Longer term, it is easy to replace the first stage with out-of-car hydrogen generation, if and when clean hydrogen becomes cheap and easy to transport. The second stage (the actual fuel cell) remains unchanged.

As with all technologies, it is an incremental process. However, a >50% cut in emissions is a breakthrough - once cells become viable, stable and maintenance free for long term use (still a number of years off), they will be everywhere. In the mean time, the electric drivetrain components are already being implemented, and constantly improved, in full electric cars and hybrid electric vehicles.

Re:Zero Emissions?

Granted, the cars themselves should produce nothing but water, but how do we produce the hydrogen? Does that not require energy? I simply don't believe that all of the hydrogen plants are powered by nuclear or hydroelectric energy.

Well here is the deal:

1. Even if you have to use a coal power plant to produce the hydrogen, its extremely more efficient than using petroleum in terms of releasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

2. And speaking of, this also means we don't have to rely on foreign oil.

As a small time investor, one of the odd things I've noticed is that currently the Brazilian economy is booming. Most Brazilian stocks are going through the roof. Now it could be that the US and China just aren't doing as good as they used to, but it also dawned on my that Brazil has almost ceased the need to import energy from foreign sources due to its aggressive ethanol campaign.

Now, IMO ethanol isn't the solution for the US, but anything that reduces the need to pay foreign sources for energy simply keeps the money in the US rather than someone overseas.

Can't be a bad thing.

The old is new again

From 1982 to about 1990, the Group C prototypes ran with regulations that basically allowed any engine as long as the fuel consumption didn't exceed ~60 l/100 km. Then the FIA fucked up and changed the rules to mandate F1-style engines, ending the series' popularity.
There were a few races that ended in drama as the leading competitor ran out of fuel, but on the whole it was rather successful, with wildly disparate cars running very close races. You saw 7-litre naturally aspirated V12s, 5-litre turbocharged V8s, 3-litre turbocharged flat-6s and Wankel engines.
It'd be interesting to see a revival of this idea. More interesting than a fuel cell-only class, I'd wager.

but could they carry gas anyway?

I'm ok with them using fuel cells just so long as they also include some manner of flammable liquid in the vehicle so that they keep the wrecks interesting.

Re:Definitely would help image

I'm not sure that six tiny fuel-cell powered go-karts going around a 500 meter track is going to help the image of alternatively-powered vehicles.

Re:

I'm not sure the ipod will ever catch on. No wireless, less storage than a nomad - lame.

While I'm at it, I'm sure that man will never fly. That's the realm of angels and birds.

Oh, hold on, you mean those bicycle mechanics were actually on to something?

It's odd that on a place like Slashdot, it's seen as cool to by cynical, and cynical is seen as non-critically putting down anything that hasn't been out and about for 5+ years. Who would have thought 10 years ago that Formula 1 would be leading the way in dev

Re:

Whoa, troll? Didn't see that one coming! It was meant to be a serious point - uncritically destroying every new technology is no better than hand waving beliefs in "technology will solve all our problems."

The first flight was hardly in a useful plane, yet 15 years of development later, we had large, multi passenger transport planes. Just a point.

Re:Definitely would help image

Did I say that fuel cell was a dead technology that won't go anywhere?

No. Quite the contrary - I think it is a very promising technology that has great potential.

However, the GP I was replying to said that maybe this will help the "image" of alternatively-fueled vehicles. And frankly, a bunch of tiny go-karts doesn't have much hope of beefing-up the wimpy image of the Insight, Prius, etc.

On Taco's iPod comment

"I'm not sure the ipod will ever catch on. No wireless, less storage than a nomad - lame."

Taco's statement has become somewhat infamous, but I have to defend him on this one. He was essentially right (and these words are being typed on a Mac). Simplicity and elegance in function are virtues... lack of meaningful features are not. As such, I've never owned an iPod, as I think it's ridiculous not to put a simple FM receiver and a built in Mic for quick voice recording in modern MP3 players.

When compared to their competitors... Creative's players, Sandisk's Sansa players... hell, even the Zune in some cases... the iPod simply isn't a very good value, unless being part of the crowd appeals more to you than price and features.

Re:Definitely would help image

Fuel cells are not "a good thing". They're an incredibly expensive boondoggle that's been leaching money from electric vehicles. Let's compare and contrast FCVs with BEVs that use modern automotive li-ions (phosphates, stabilized spinels, titanates, etc).

They're roughly a third the efficiency of EVs. Even if you use cleantech to create the hydrogen, you're still talking three times the coastline covered in wind turbines, three times the desert land covered in solar, three times the rivers dammed for hydro, etc -- not good. Even if your electrolysis was near lossless, as a couple techs in the lab are proposing to do, they're still nearly twice as wasteful as EVs. Even hydrogen from natural gas reformation compared to EVs powered by natural gas power plants is *still* significantly more wasteful for fuel cells ((25% efficiency versus 35% [sciencedirect.com]).

Hydrogen is expensive; electricity is dirt cheap. Hydrogen is fundamentally always going to be more expensive because it's such a PITA to handle -- leaks through practically anything, embrittles metals, is corrosive, etc -- and not to mention, poses safety and environmental risks.

Safety? Autmotive li-ions can be abused to heck and back without starting a fire -- discharged to 0V, overcharged, punctured, etc; the electrolyte is generally flammable, but no moreso than gasoline. Hydrogen is an incredibly combustible substance -- burns in almost any fuel air mixture, very vigorously, with a very pale blue, hard to see flame; rapidly evolves deflagrations into detonations in atmospheric conditions; pools under overhangs; can be ignited with less than a tenth the ignition energy of gasoline; enters pipes and tubes and follows them to their destinations, pooling there; etc. Liquid hydrogen is even worse; it acts like a high explosive. Check out NASA's safety guidelines [64.233.167.104] for dealing with hydrogen to get an idea of how much of a pain it is to handle.

Fuel cells are ridiculously expensive. Here, go shopping [fuelcellstore.com]. A good chunk of that price is due to the price of platinum, one of the rarest elements on the planet, although things like Nafion membranes don't help the price, either. Getting fuel cells for $10/W would be an outstanding price. Your average car will need ~10kW to maintain highway speeds, and more for accel/decel, so you're looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars. Automotive li-ions, except for the titanates, are usually a little over $0.50/Wh in bulk, and are projected to significantly decline with mass production, since they're not raw materials costs limited. A couple tens of kilowatts (a couple hours of driving at highway speeds) means $10-20k currently, and significantly less in the near future. And to top it all off, the batteries last longer, too. Nafion membranes tend to wear out over time in fuel cells, giving them around five years or so in typical FCV usage (some techs are proposed to raise that). And there are other components to break, too -- fuel cells have moving parts (compressors, pumps, etc), support parts (heaters, etc), and so on. Automotive li-ions will generally last for thousands to even tens of thousands (in the case of the titanates) of cycles. We're talking decades. To give an idea of how durable they are, the Volt is going to come with a 10 year warranty on its battery pack, and all of the other upcoming EV/PHEV makers are similarly talking about very long warranties. They should last the life of the car.

As for range, it's roughly a draw. 200-250 miles is a typical range for a FCV that costs hundreds of thous

Re:Definitely would help image

I think you do not deserve your 'insightful' one bit. Development platforms for a new technology do not have to be related in shape or function to the end product.

The length of the road on which they function has nothing to do with the length that they could be going to on real roads.

These are just abstractions, and in fact simplify the development process considerably. Think about how much more costly this would be if all these experimental vehicles had to conform to regular road standards and had to take a full complement of passengers.

Re:Definitely would help image

cars that look like the prius don't help this.
So if people can see electric cars with real performance that would even surpass the petrol counterpart it should make people more likely to change.

Just a tought, but maybe the major car makers WANT this? It seems to me that they produce ugly,slow cars that won't appeal to the masses with a reason. After all, electric cars need much, MUCH less maintenance and spare parts than a petrol car ... Lets hope the smaller manufacturers see the gap in the market.

Re:

Yeah, cause the Prius' looks are clearly stopping every single one from being sold the day it comes into the dealer. Clearly, the Prius looks longingly at the turnaround time for truck inventory [gminsidenews.com].