🚀 go-pugleaf

Jack May wrote:
> "Mr. Precision" <Amaps.news@archeus.plus.com> wrote in message 
> news:843342-5dg.ln1@yelm.homenetwork...
> 
> 
>>And the overall efficiency is substantially worse than a conventional 
>>internal combustion engined hybrid. Significant amounts of fuel have to be 
>>consumed to generate the hydrogen.
> 
> 
> You assume we will always make hydrogen from fossil fuel which is unlikely. 

You either burn fuel to create electricity to create hydrogen or you 
strip the hydrogen from hydrocarbons.

> There are multiple ways being developed to get hydrogen, including direct 
> production from solar energy breaking water down into hydrogen and oxygen 
> with no intermediate electricity production.

You still have to put the same energy in to split the bonds. Unless they 
  can do it at near 100% efficiency, generating electricity from the 
solar energy might be more useful.

>>Fuel which could be used more directly and more efficiently. The only 
>>reason hydrogen fuel cells cars are feasible is that the electrical drive 
>>is so efficient. If they take that out they are completely missing the 
>>point.
> 
> 
> Well the experts writing in a feature summary article in Science a few weeks 
> ago disagree with you.

The best efficiency an internal combustion engine made out of 
conventional materials is around 30%, maybe 35%. In reality that is 
dropped to around 10%-15% by the gearbox, transmission, traffic etc. 
With a hydrogen ICE you have to produce the stuff in the first place 
which makes it even less efficient. We would be better off running 
Diesel hybrid ICEs than hydrogen hybrid ICEs.

If we're going to move to a hydrogen economy, high efficiency fuel cells 
are *the* key technology and they aren't ready yet. Until then batteries 
are the way to go.

>>And anyway, at 420 Wh/kg new generation lithium ion batteries have a 
>>higher energy density than compressed hydrogen so I'm not convinced that 
>>fuel cells will take off.
> 
> 
> Unless  you can charge them in a few minutes and don't have to charge them 
> again for at least 150 or more miles, then it is not a solution.  In Popular 

80% charge in 45 mins if fast charging. Simply upgrading from NiMH to 
current generation Li-Ions from someone like Thunder Sky would 
approximately double the range of the Sunrise to around 700 miles per 
charge. With next generation Li-S that could be around 1200 miles per 
charge.

> Science, I think this month, the have long article on batteries and their 
> future.   They are unaware of what you are talking about and don't see much 
> future for battery advances.

Maybe they're not looking very hard. The technologies these companies 
are developing producing batteries with an energy density twice that of 
the current Li-Ion or Li-poly. You'll see it first in mobile phones, and 
laptops.

http://www.sionpower.com/
http://www.polyplus.com/

-- 
UCE probe.
Don't send mail to Amaps.news@archeus.plus.com there's nobody home.
The address captures spammer addresses and /dev/nulls all their mail.
Regards, Colin.Smith at archeus.plus.com