Talk:Fuel cell

In practice section and section merge proposal

I just realized that the descriptions of PEM, MOFC and SOFC fuel cells are listed under the "design" section, while the section "Types of Fuel Cells" has the large charts and then goes directly into efficiency. I think it would be helpful to the readers to maybe just replace the title "design" with "types of fuel cells" since both sections are really discussing the same things and slightly reorganize the sections to make it all flow. Can user:SSilvers or someone else help me with that? I'm afraid that if I try to change any large scale formatting I might really botch it.

On another note, the "In Practice" section gets a little off topic in my opinion. First, the comparison to batteries doesn't really belong here. Fuel cells are not an energy storage device, they are a power generation device. Comparisons to batteries should be on the hydrogen page not the fuel cell page, or should take the form of a new "Fuels Cells and Hydrogen For Energy Storage" or "Comparisons to other technologies" section. The reference ["Batteries, Supercapacitors, and Fuel Cells: Scope". Science Reference Services. 20 August 2007. http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/tracer-bullets/batteriestb.html#scope. Retrieved 11 February 2009.] used to cite the comparison actually says that fuel cells are not the actually "store" of energy. It doesn't make sense to say "cannot" when that is not a fuel cells job in the first place. When we are discussing "in practice" efficiency, we need to be very specific about what that "practice" actually is, especially when relating it to other technologies. I think that we should distribute the "in practice" efficiency information into the sections on the respective uses to help the reader understand what these numbers actually mean. Putting in the quote "While a much cheaper lead-acid battery might return about 90%, the electrolyzer/fuel cell system can store indefinite quantities of hydrogen, and is therefore better suited for long-term storage" really doesn't explain what the batteries and fuel cell are being used to do. For example, for powering an Electric vehicle, [1] says that lead-acid batteries are actually expensive, heavy, and have limited range. It really doesn't represent either technology well to pull arbitrary numbers from sources to make comparisons. To give both technologies their due respect and recognize that the efficiency can vary widely depending on factors like fuel and applications, I think we should take the "in practice" out (not saying we should delete the information or sources) and refer to the in practice efficiency of the different applications. Benfchea (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

edits to automobile

Hi, I am proposing the following edits to the automobiles section of this page. I would like to add some more up to date information and remove a statement that no longer includes a reference.

If there are no objections, I will post these edits on February, 21, 2012. Please let me know your thoughts if you think there is a better way to update this section. Thank you!

The start of the first paragraph would read:

Although there are currently no Fuel cell vehicles available for commercial sale, a number of manufacturers have announced plans to sell fuel cell vehicles commercially by the middle of this decade including General Motors (2015), Honda (2015), Hyundai (2012), Mercedes-Benz (2014), Nissan (2016) and Toyota (2015) . Over 20 FCEVs prototypes and demonstration cars have been released since 2009. Demonstration models include the Honda FCX Clarity, Toyota FCHV-adv, and Mercedes-Benz F-Cell.[60] Both the Honda FCX Clarity and the Mercedes Benz F-Cell are presently available to be leased by consumers in a very limited number of markets .

The second paragraph could then have the last couple sentences removed so as to not repeat similar information. The quote from GM CEO in this paragraph should also be removed because there is no reference for it. I would also like to add more recent information on market research to support this section. The second paragraph would read:

There is some debate in regards to the viability of fuel cell vehicles and soon they will be commercialized. Some manufactures are hoping to sell fuel cell vehicles as early as 2012, while other critics feel that they will never be a reality. Experts who are skeptical of the vehicles believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[67][68] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[69][70] A 2012 KPMG Global Automotive Executive Survey found that auto executives believed fuel cell vehicles would have a consumer demand similar to that of hybrid electric vehicles, and greater that battery electric vehicles in 2025, and that fuel cell electric mobility would be the second most important trend in the industry over the next 15 years . Other analyses cite the lack of an extensive hydrogen infrastructure in the U.S. as an ongoing challenge to Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle commercialization. In 2006, a study for the IEEE showed that for hydrogen produced via electrolysis of water: "Only about 25% of the power generated from wind, water, or sun is converted to practical use." The study further noted that "Electricity obtained from hydrogen fuel cells appears to be four times as expensive as electricity drawn from the electrical transmission grid. ... Because of the high energy losses [hydrogen] cannot compete with electricity."[72] Furthermore, the study found: "Natural gas reforming is not a sustainable solution".[72] "The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use."[16][38][73]

65.216.180.19 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC) User:Awrfch February, 17, 2012.

I strongly object to this proposal. As I have proposed many times in the past, if you change one or two sentences at a time, then we can discuss whether the specific change works or not. For example, the Hyundai 2012 date is wrong. Here is the most up-to-date information about Hyundai, and they are saying 2015:[2] By making multiple changes at once you nearly guarantee that this is going to get contentious again. I have also suggested that if you have changes to sections other than the car section, I think you should start with those. Please remember to log in before you edit, and sign your talk page messages with four tildes, like this ~~~~, which automatically generates your username and datestamps your message. More info re: Hydrogen cars: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much for the feedback and also for the note on my own talk page, i really apprecaite your advice and willingness to collaborate. I actually only changed a few sentances, but included the whole paragraphs for context and to show that most of the content was unaltered. I would be more than happy to make the changes more incrementally. I have made small changes previously to the PEM section and the Power section and certainly do not intend to only ever edit the auto section or to make sweeping changes to it. I will certainly look at modifying other sections, however, I would still like to proceed with a few changes in this section and would be happy to make them only a sentance or two at a time and discuss them with you before making them.

First change

I would like to propose adding 2 short sentances to the second paragraph to make it clear that there are various opinions about deployment of fuel cell vehicles. The current version is this:

Some experts believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[67][68] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[69][70]

I would like to change it to this:

There is considerable debate in regards to the viability of fuel cell vehicles and how soon, if ever, they will be successfully commercialized. A number of manufactures are planning to sell fuel cell vehicles commercially by the middle of this decade , while other critics feel that they will never become a reality. Experts who are skeptical of the vehicles believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[67][68] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[69][70]

Awrfch (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, good. Please be patient with me, because I am mostly away from the computer for the next few days. "Viability" is not a helpful word choice. The question is not whether you CAN build a car, but whether you can build one that will be economically competitive with other technologies on a commercial scale; and, even if you can build them at a competitive price, whether hydrogen storage and distribution systems will ever be built; and whether it makes sense to use energy to produce hydrogen, instead of storing that energy directly in batteries. Plus, in Wikipedia, you should not put more than two (or at most 3) citations in a row. Choose the best two. So, maybe something like this would be closer:

Experts debate whether fuel cell cars will become economically competitive with other technologies.[10], [11], [12] [AWRFCH, I assume you are suggesting moving the following sentence up from lower in the paragraph?] Several car manufacturers have announced that they are planning to sell fuel cell vehicles commercially by the middle of this decade.[75] For example, Toyota has stated that it plans to introduce such a vehicle in 2015 at a price of around US$50,000.[74] Experts who are skeptical of the vehicles, however, believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[67][68] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[69][70] -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, there is no rush do this. I think changing the word viable is a good idea. I was hoping to have the first sentance be neutral and introduce the fact that there are those who beleive the cars will be competitive in the near future and others who feel they never will, and then have the arguments presented for each side presented in the paragraph, similarly to how they already are. For this reason I think that no references are needed for the first sentance if it simply states that there is debate, and the reasons for debate are explained and well referenced in the paragraph. If you do want to include references for that first sentances, i propose having 2 references, 1 supporting each side. I would not like to move that sentance about Toyota up, ultimately I would like to add the names of the other manufactureres that have announced plans for selling the cars along with Toyota, but that can easily go near the end of the paragraph where that sentence already exists.

In that case here is my next suggestion for the opening sentences. I have slightly changed the first sentance so that 2 of the first 3 sentences do not start with the same word.

When, if ever, fuel cell cars will become economically competitive with other technologies is very much up for debate. Several car manufacturers have announced that they are planning to sell fuel cell vehicles commercially by the middle of this decade,[75]while other critics feel that they will never become a reality. [13] Experts who are skeptical of the vehicles believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[67][68] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[69][70]

Awrfch (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll be back home on Saturday with a better internet connection, and I'll review this and respond then. Thanks for your patience! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm back and ready to get to work.  :-) Unfortunately, phrases like "very much" and "up for debate" are not encyclopedic. See WP:Weasel Either there is a debate among experts or there isn't. And your second sentence is just repeating the sentence that is later in the paragraph. We can't say it twice. I would either leave the sentence the way it is now or go with something like this:

Experts debate whether fuel cell cars will become economically competitive with other technologies.(this says there is a debate) Some of the experts believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[67][68] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[69][70] -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice on the word use, you're right about that. My intention was to have the first sentence introduce the potential for fuel cell cars to be economically competitive, as well as that reasons why they may not. At this point, we are far from having a sentence that accomplishes that. I think the sentence that you last suggested, which is based off of my initial recommendation, does almost nothing to enhance or change the paragraph in any way, i feel like we should just leave it as it is. It is not a problem that needs to be fixed and we have not been able to come up with a constructive way to improve it, in my opinion. Let me know if you think otherwise, or we can just leave it and move on. Awrfch (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

seems to be error

In the opening paragraph, it says that cells are placed in parallel in order to increase voltage. However, cells would have to be stacked in series to increase voltage. I have never edit a page before, so I will leave the correction to someone else.

-Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.99.172.6 (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Second change

I would like for somebody to find a source for this sentence or else we should remove it:

In July 2011, the Chairman and CEO of General Motors, Daniel Akerson, stated that while the cost of hydrogen fuel cell cars is decreasing: "The car is still too expensive and probably won't be practical until the 2020-plus period, I don't know."[71]

The source is a broken link and I have not been able to find another source for it anywhere.Awrfch (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I updated the link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Awrfch (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)