Talk:Fuel cell vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Trucks (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Buses (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bus transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Environment / Green vehicle  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Green vehicle task force.
 
WikiProject Energy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge proposal[edit]

Support - I would support a merge of this article into Hydrogen vehicle. That article covers hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and I do not see any reason to split them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • No to merge - topic is notable and should have it's own page. When I came here I did it to research "hydrogen cars", not all fuel cell vehicles, I can't see the benefit in obscuring the topic by adding it to another article.--208.82.225.245 (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No to merge - fuel cells can operate on fuels apart from hydrogen. Producing, storing and distributing hydrogen is costly in both cash and carbon. The fuel with the lowest carbon footprint may be a suitable liquid. Ethanol is one candidate.SilverSurfer477 (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No to merge- hydrogen powered vehicles don't neccessarily use fule cells Greglocock (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

New Merge proposal[edit]

Support - I would support a merge of this afticle into fuel cells which covers this topic in much more detail in a subparagraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.108.206 (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • No to merge that article is too ong as it is and it would be better to pull the vehicle content on that page over here, rather than vice versa. Greglocock (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Revisions of Effiency section required[edit]

The effeciency section of this article is quite biased. Firstly, the reference its uses is nearly six years old. Secondly, while calculating the efficiency of a fuel cell engine it includes the tranportation and storage of hydrogen. It should just show the efficiency of the engine which has nothing to do with how unefficieny the root to deliver the fuel is. This is especially important because it compares it to the efficiency of the ICE (internal compustion engine) which does not take refinement and extraction of crude oil into account. Thirdly the American statistics during the second paragraph should be replaced by Internation statistics. Finally it contains no information about the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle thats its uses to calculate "resulting in a net increase in carbon dioxide production by using hydrogen."

No, I think most who work in the field accept that well (or equivalent) to wheel efficiency is the important parameter. PS sign your posts Greglocock (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, if you think a reference is out of date, please suggest a more recent reference to a WP:Reliable source that would cover the subject matter in that part of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal[edit]

This article is about cars powered by fuel cells which use hydrogen as the fuel source and the article should be moved to a title reflecting this. The article doesn't discuss vehicles using fuel cells that utilize hydrocarbons, for example, as fuel. Tempshill (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not add a section on vehicles using fuel cells that utilize hydrocarbons? It wouldn't be very long. The current title covers both. Greglocock (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a terrible article. There is hardly anything in it that is not covered better at Hydrogen vehicle. Why not merge it in? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As a hydrogen vehicle can be an ICE or a fuel cell vehicle, a fuel cell vehicle can be a fed by hydrogen or another fuel, maybe we should rewrite the intro of this artice a bit to make that more clear. Mion (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do, if you wish to keep this article. But what's the point? This article doesn't add anything. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The cars are not demonstration models but testing models, and they are leased, ramping up of mass production goes 10 -100 -1000 -10.000 10.000 in series, they are paid for by hynor (in the case of Hynor), Mion (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "introduced" is accurate. These cars cost $500,000 per unit to make. They will never be produced commercially. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, these cars run a normal ice engine, using common technology from a natural gas car (Compressed natural gas), the only difference is a hydrogen tank, certified for its purpose and some small modifications related to the higher burning temperature of hydrogen, i think you're mistaken with the price. Mion (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Then why are they "fuel cell vehicles"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

 :) Well, one of the questions on FCV's is can they kick start when the hydrogen infrastructure still has to get in place, the Mazda approach is a cheap co solution to make the hydrogen infrastructure possible, in that sense the Hice vehicles are sharing market with the FCV.Mion (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you two are talking at cross purposes. Frankly I don't really care what happens to this article, as fuel cells will never be practical for cars, and I don't much care what happens to hydrogen cars either, for much the same reason. However, we might as well try and classify the technologies correctly. All of the following fuels : hydrogen, alcohol, hydrocarbon, can be used in both of the follwoing technologies: fuel cell, internal combustion. So you have six combinations. Of those, two are adequately dealt with elsewhere, all you need to do is to decide how to split up H-FC A-FC HC-FC and H-IC. In my opinion the common denominator is that they are variously completely stupid answers to a question that nobody asked. incidentally this article is a disaster from beginning to end and needs a complete rewrite. Greglocock (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem inhere is that we don't invent classifications on WP, but follow the market (or science), the market has fuel cell vehicles and pure hydrogen vehicles, inventing classifications is OR, (aldo well ment). Mion (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
No, by its nature you have to classify stuff in an encyclopedia. So, just sort out how many articles you want, and what you want to call them, to cover those 4 types. I would strongly object to putting H-IC in a fuel cell article, for example. Greglocock (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
To answer that, i added in the section history. the difference between the start of the hydrogen vehicle and the start of the FCV vehicle 150 years later. Mion (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove Hybrid fuel combustion vehicle[edit]

I think that the section of Hybrid Fuel Combustion Vehicles is irrelevant to this page. The subject is fuel cell vehicles, which can run on a number of fuel sources, the topic of ICE vehicles running on hydrogen is completely out of place and serves to confuse those that are not knowledgeable on the subject. Connordfc (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think that this section should be replaced with a focus on hydrogen infrastructure, especially refueling stations for FCEVs. Connordfc (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the irrelevant info on Hydrogen ICEs. However, I disagree that there are zero emissions. There are usually a small amount of chemicals emitted because of impurities and chemicals involved in the storage of the Hydrogen. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Connordfc (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Efficiency bias addressed[edit]

I edited the efficiency section because it was limited in scope and it contained biased and out of date information. The new section reflects the current generation technology of fuel cell electric vehicles and is more neutral in its stance by referencing Department of Energy studies rather than biased battery electric vehicle studies. Pfchea (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What you did looks mostly OK, but you deleted some correctly referenced info. I have replaced this, and I took out some speculation that you added per our guideline WP:CRYSTAL. You need to add the title, date and publisher information to all your cites. See WP:CITE. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, however, it seems that the information you put back in, countering with EV's efficiency is just as speculative and actually several years out of date. Thus, it would not be within the WP:CRYSTAL that you sited (section 4) nor would it comply with WP:RSUW subsection "Other Aspects", sub-subsection, "Age of the source and rate of change of the subject."
The controversial hypothesis put forth by the Ulf Bossel study, which postulates that renewable electricity will be used for electrolysis, does not represent what is a majority occurrence in the hydrogen production industry. 95% of hydrogen production in the US is from steam reforming of natural gas http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/natural_gas.html The neutrality of the US Department of Energy should not be widely disputed given their wide scope of energy technology programs. Furthermore, steam reforming has historically been the preferred method of hydrogen production across the globe where roughly half of hydrogen production worldwide comes from steam reforming http://www.climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-2-2-3.pdf, and has done so since 1923.
This again is mainly a "crystal ball issue", which Wikipedia states "While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections." I will clear up the citations, and edit the title, date and publishers. Best, Pfchea (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is very misleading. Even Toyota concedes that, at best, it will introduce its FC vehicle in 2015 at a price point of $50,000. See this recent article. In contrast, you can buy a Nissan Leaf or a Chevy Volt today for much less, and by 2015, battery technology will be even better. There is no hydrogen infrastructure. As this article reports, although the article cites the Dept. of Energy's program, the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, believes that Hydrogen is not viable for transportation in the next couple of decades. We must make sure that this article reflects reality, rather than the hopes of hydrogen proponents. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't read the first article cited of the text you put back in, but the second assumes that hydrogen will be made via electrolysis from the grid- 95% of hydrogen in the US is reformed from natural gas- not made via electrolysis. The Department of Energy (DOE) states that the process of turning natural gas into hydrogen is 72% efficient.http://hydrogen.pnl.gov/filedownloads/hydrogen/datasheets/Hydrogen_Production_Efficiencies_Current.xls The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Fuel Cell Technology's Program validated the real world efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle “of up to 59% (more than double the efficiency of gasoline internal combustion engines).” DOE Fuel Cell Technologies Program Accomplishments and Progress, 6/24/2011,

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/accomplishments.html. Even with the energy it takes to transport hydrogen (given that you can reform natural gas on site for a gas station this will be really minimal) FCEV well-to-wheel efficiency is going to be about 35%. Given that generation electricity from coal is only about 33% efficient http://www.energy.gov/energysources/electricpower.htm, and that is the largest section of US power generation there is no way that BEVs could be three times more energy efficient Wells to Wheels then Fuel Cell Vehicles. I'm going to take out the last couple of lines as it does not represent the reality of the vast majority of FCEV or BEV energy trains Briannabesch (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, do not delete information from this encyclopedia that is referenced in WP:Reliable sources. Second of all, your analysis is flawed (there is not a single fueling station in the us that reforms natural gas on site, and there is no significant number of hydrogen refueling stations in the US anywhere but Los Angeles; they just closed down the only one in Wash. DC.), and you are misreading or misusing the DOE's materials. The 59% efficiency rating that they claim is only during 1/4 power. The efficiency at full power is as the more specific ref in the article already notes. I have reorganized this slightly to make it clearer. You think the government Fuel Cell program "accomplishments" page is "unbiased"? They are trying to avoid having their funding slashed. [Later: See also this]. As I noted above, Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, believes that Hydrogen is not viable for transportation in the next couple of decades. See the Energy Dept. budget. We must make sure that this article reflects reality, rather than the hopes of hydrogen proponents. The quote used from the WP:Reliable source cited does not assume electrolysis. It plainly concludes that "the energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds [including natural gas], 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". You can choose to not believe this source, but you may not remove it from the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI[edit]

Note that User:Connordfc, User:Briannabesch, User:LhamillFC and User:Pfchea are related accounts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful when editing with a conflict of interest. Please read this guideline carefully: WP:COI. One must not give the impression of suppressing arguments contrary to his or her position. See WP:Neutral. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Efficiency Amendment Proposal to Address Ssilvers concerns[edit]

Using the existing source provided by User:Ssilvers (^ Eberle, Ulrich; von Helmolt, Rittmar (2010-05-14)."Sustainable transportation based on electric vehicle concepts: a brief overview". Royal Society of Chemistry. Retrieved 2010-06-08.) which addresses efficiencies of FCEVs and BEVs equally, I propose the following amendment to the efficiency section.

“Some studies dismiss the efficiency of Fuel Cell Vehicles, citing the overall efficiency of wells to wheels of fuel cell electric vehicles to be less than battery electric vehicles. “The 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.” http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

Meanwhile, Honda’s own analysis of the Honda FCX Clarity evaluates a Tank-Wheels efficiency of 60%.http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/fuel-cell-comparison.aspx Additionally, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Well-to-Wheels analysis estimated that fuel cell electric vehicles using hydrogen produced from natural gas would result in emissions of less than half the CO2 per mile of internal combustion engine vehicles and have 25% less emissions than hybrid vehicles.[12] Other studies such as one conducted by the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2010 concluded that the debate between FCEVs and BEVs was not a question of either/or since each technology addressed different areas of the vehicles market. The RSC determined FCEV design was optimal for longer-range applications where 700 Bar hydrogen tanks provided a driving range of 500km, with a 125kg weight penalty, a 3-5 minute refueling time, and price premium of $3,000 in high volume production. Meanwhile, BEV’s were not optimal for long range but short range, as Li-ion batteries weighing one metric ton would be required for 500km range, and cost $50,000 in high volume production. The study deemed BEV’s as a technology designed primarily for small urban vehicles with ranges less than 150km to keep recharge hours down, and to ensure affordability.http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2010/EE/c001674h”

Best regards, Pfchea (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that the refs above do not contain the bibliographic info required by WP:CITE. Please give author name, title of article, date of article, publisher name and access date. As far as the prose, studies don't "dismiss" efficiency, they measure it. Note that "Honda's own analysis" of its product is the least reliable analysis, because of Honda's conflict of interest. Independent studies are best, as they do not suffer from the conflict of interest inherent in studies by a manufacturer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Citations have been addressed. And the reason I chose the manufacturer's study was because on the electric car page, there are several citations linking to Tesla's own studies concerning their roadster. In light of your request, I shall search for a non manufacturer based study.-- Pfchea (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the ref info. The electric car article (and all technical articles) should seek to use independent research, where available, for the reasons mentioned above. It would be super if you are able to find peer-reviewed, independent recent research. Of course, to the extent that we do use industry-sponsored sources, we must say so. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism edits - BMW Hydrogen 7 Elimination[edit]

The BMW Hydrogen 7 is not a fuel cell powered vehicle but a hybrid technology demonstration of an internal combustion engine. Check out the WP page under the 'use of hydrogen technology' section to read that its a reconfigured ICE. As a result I propose that this section under criticism to make the page more relevant and correct.Pfchea (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I have deleted the info about the BMW Hydrogen 7. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism Edits: Is Washington Post Article Encyclopaedic Quality?[edit]

The hydrogen vehicle page contains many of the same criticism quotes. In the Talk:hydrogen vehicle various users brought the Washington Post article into question on the grounds of encyclopaedic quality.

"Rhetorical questions do not seem encyclopedic. No doubt design engineers have their reasons for having produced stored hydrogen prototype vehicles. The quote from the Washington Post makes it seem that the stored hydrogen concept is absurd and neglects to acknowledge the fact that that electric batteries have their own limitations. While the article in the Post may be more balanced, the quote itself is unbalanced and contributes no substantial factual content."

I present the same question to the users and editors of this page. Should Wikipedia pages include well respected, neutral news sources if the source poses rhetorical questions that present no substantial factual content?

I propose we mark for edit/deletion.

And I propose we incorporate a newer article from a respectable, neutral source such as these Wired News articles.

“On a cost basis per car, range and performance, fuel-cell vehicles can have an advantage over battery vehicles,” said Jay Whitacre, a professor of materials science and engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “On a system basis, infrastructure, battery cars win.”

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/05/toyota-50000-fuel-cell-vehicle/ http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/03/hydrogen/

Pfchea (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Washington Post is a WP:Reliable source, and the question that the paper asked is of central interest with respect to this article. Please do not delete correctly sourced material from this encyclopedia. I note that you have a WP:Conflict of Interest with respect to this article, so please be very careful to follow the WP:COI rules. What you and your colleagues should do, before anything else, is fill out the references that you or your colleagues have added to the article by adding all available author names, article titles, publication dates, publisher names, page numbers and access dates. Let me know if you need more help with how to do this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete references[edit]

User:Pfchea, User:Connordfc, User:LhamillFC, and User:Briannabesch, thank you for the additions that you made to this entry last week. Please fill out the incomplete references that you have added to this entry with author names, article titles, publisher names, publication dates and, where available, page numbers. I have left notes on some of your talk pages about how to do this, and the relevant guideline is WP:CITE. Please let me know if you need more assistance. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources that were included in the previous edits were completed as per your guidelines and WP:CITE.Pfchea (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I will review these later and make any clean-ups to the format, but at a quick glance, it looks like you did a good job. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I have finished cleaning up the cites. Thank you very much for working to fill out the information in them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources; typos; grammatical errors[edit]

As commented on Talk:Fuel_cell#market_refs, additional info is not a reason to remove references as they are added confirming to Help:Citations quick reference, so maybe Ssilvers can restore the ref [1] ? Mion (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not removed sources for that reason; I removed them because the assertions you made were not supported by the sources you cited. This article doesn't say anything about drop-in replacements. Also there were numerous misspellings, typos, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The ref was an example of a drop in replacement in practice, i added an additional ref for it. Cheers Mion (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is Applications politicized?[edit]

User:Ssilvers moved the following text from criticism to applications.

"In 2003 US President George Bush proposed the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (HFI), which was later implemented by legislation through the 2005 Energy Policy Act and the 2006 Advanced Energy Initiative. These aimed at further developing hydrogen fuel cells and infrastructure technologies with the goal of producing commercial fuel cell vehicles. By 2008, the U.S. had contributed 1 billion dollars to this project.[18] In May 2009, however, the Obama Administration announced plans to "cut off funds" for the development of fuel cell vehicles, concluding that other vehicle technologies will lead to quicker reduction in emissions in a shorter time. Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy, asserted that hydrogen vehicles "will not be practical over the next 10 to 20 years".[19] The National Hydrogen Association and the U.S. Fuel Cell Council criticized this decision.[20] Congress reversed the funding cuts in its appropriations bill for 2010,[21] but the Department of Energy plans to decrease funding for Fuel Cell Vehicle development by 41% in its 2012 budget.[22]"

This seems to be out of place, given this was a relevant criticism, and not a type of application. User:Ssilvers could you explain why placed it in this section?

I think the follow could be part of a "recent history" subsection:

"In 2003 US President George Bush proposed the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (HFI), which was later implemented by legislation through the 2005 Energy Policy Act and the 2006 Advanced Energy Initiative. These aimed at further developing hydrogen fuel cells and infrastructure technologies with the goal of producing commercial fuel cell vehicles. By 2008, the U.S. had contributed 1 billion dollars to this project.[18] In May 2009, however, the Obama Administration announced plans to "cut off funds" for the development of fuel cell vehicles, concluding that other vehicle technologies will lead to quicker reduction in emissions in a shorter time. Congress reversed the funding cuts in its appropriations bill for 2010,[21] but the Department of Energy plans to decrease funding for Fuel Cell Vehicle development by 41% in its 2012 budget.[22]"

(Also we need to check the 41% cut to 2012 budget as the House Appropriations Committee approved a smaller than 41% reduction)

The statement made by Secretary Chu and return criticism from NHA and USFCC needs to be placed in the criticism section not applications. "Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy, asserted that hydrogen vehicles "will not be practical over the next 10 to 20 years".[19] The National Hydrogen Association and the U.S. Fuel Cell Council criticized this decision.[20]" -- Pfchea (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason that I put it where it is, is because it is only about cars, rather than other vehicles, but I don't mind you moving it around as you suggest, as long as you don't lose any of the text. If you do so, the words "this decision" above should be changed to "the Secretary's position". By the way, you should try not to use such argumentative edit summarys and discussion headings, such as "bias" and "politicized". Please see this important guideline: WP:AGF. We are all working together here to improve the article. The reason why this encyclopedia has succeeded and has such a huge readership is partly because of this guideline, which requires editors to assume that other editors are trying to help them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Just shifted the sections around to be more relevant to their subsections. There were no eliminations per what you agreed to. The usage of the term 'politicized' was due to your edits concerning political actions and terms, not necessarily a negative issue.Pfchea (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Better to say, for example. "proposal to move statements about policy to section on 'Criticism'". Or, "changed paragraph to try to achieve more neutral tone". Just a suggestion that helps with collaboration. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Good progress; next steps[edit]

The information in this article has improved in the past two weeks, and the referencing is better. Well done, Pfchea and colleagues! I'd say that the next step is to fill out the introductory section per WP:LEAD. This guideline basically says that Lead section should give an overview of the whole article - a two or three paragraph summary of what the article's main points are. You don't need to repeat refs in the lead if it simply summarizes info that is referenced below. Also, the Applications section needs a summary of the other vehicle applications that are listed in the Fuel Cell article, such as forklifts, airplanes, boats, etc. Perhaps two or three paragraphs summarizing that, together with the best references from the Fuel Cell article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL! I see that you copied over the whole Applications section from the Fuel Cell article, which is fine (in fact, better). So, what needs to be done is to create a two or three (or four) paragraph summary of this long section, which will then replace the vehicle applications sections in the Fuel cell article, pursuant to this guideline WP:Summary style. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Efficiency and cost" section calculation[edit]

The section states:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimated that the cost of a fuel cell for an automobile in 2002 was approximately $275/kw, which translated into each vehicle costing more than 1 million dollars.

Given that 1 HP equals about 0.75 kW, a 150 HP cell outputs about 112.5 kW, which yields a cost of about $30,100. I cant't see how that would make the automobile cost more than $1M. Please someone correct or clarify this. 89.190.197.130 (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The $1 million figure is widely available. See, for example, this: "Critics say the car, early iterations of which cost more than a million dollars each to build, shows the technology is too expensive." Nevertheless, I have removed the million dollar figure, as it does not represent a realistic production price. In November 2011, Toyota indicated that to bring a fuel cell vehicle to market today (which they do not plan to do) would require a retail price of about 100,000 Euros (about $138,000) per unit. However, Toyota is still saying that it hopes to get the price down to $50,000 for a commercial launch by 2015, as the article says. See this and this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

CO2 emissions per mile/km[edit]

The reference to the well to wheel CO2 emissions is not adequate. The 25% CO2 emissions advantage is due to natural gas. See here:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/images/facts/fotw686.gif

Natural gas hybrid has a lower CO2 emission per mile than a fuel cell hybrid operating on reformed natural gas... in other words uses less natural gas per mile.

Can we include the EERE graph above in the article to clarify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siphon06 (talkcontribs) 14:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/,
    Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Merge the Hydrogen Vehicle article into the Fuel Cell Vehicle Article[edit]

The two articles are nearly identical. Seems like the community would be better served by a merge of the Hydrogen vehicle and the Fuel cell vehicle pages.

I would also suggest peeling out the section on Hydrogen_vehicle#Hydrogen included in the Hydrogen vehicle page and merge that section with the full Hydrogen page. It does not make sense to me to include such a large portion of this article on Hydrogen when there is a separate article on the subject. Connstable (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral. I agree that there is a lot of repetition between the two articles and there may be a way to merge the sections about FCVs that take up most of the article [note Greglocock's caveat below], but I would *not* delete the section on Hydrogen, although it could be streamlined to include only the important points that one needs to understand with respect to hydrogen's use in vehicles. You should alert the people who have been most active in editing this article over the past year, and solicit their input before doing the merger. I see that your account is new. Did you edit here under a previous username? The proposal you are making indicates that you are an experienced Wikipedia user. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I am very inexperienced with editing wikipedia, though I have been lurking since highschool and very interested in the process. I just googled how to merge two articles and followed the guidelines listed. Connstable (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

oppose. there is a very stupid example of a hydrogen fuelled vehicle that is not an FCV - a BMW proto that burnt hydrogen in an IC engine. There may be other examples, that is merely the most ludicrous. Greglocock (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A possible compromise - Maybe much of the information about FCVs in the Hydrogen vehicle article could be merged into the Fuel cell vehicle article, and a short *summary* of that information could be retained under a cross-reference to the Fuel cell vehicles article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I would like to add that the BMW hydrogen ICE prototype is discussed on the Hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle page. Since there is already a page on hydrogen ICEs, it seems silly that we have a fuel cell vehicle page (focused on fuel cell vehicles) and a hydrogen vehicle page (also almost solely focused on fuel cell vehicles). Connstable (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Connstable, look at WP:SUMMARY. What I think that guideline suggests that we should do, since we have articles on both FCV and HICEV, is to 1) merge any useful info from this Hydrogen vehicle article into those two more specific articles, then 2) significantly shorten both discussions in this article to leave an efficient summary of each, headed by cross-reference templates pointing to the others. If you look into #1, to make sure that any useful info from this article is contained in the others, I could try to execute #2. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. This seems like an unneccessary split since we have the two more encompassing articles.
In terms of what to merge, I would suggest moving the Hydrogen_vehicle#Vehicles section to the Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle page, putting it right after the History section, and removing the few mentions of fuel cell electric vehicles.
The sections on internal combustion vehicle and fuel cell are already covered in the other respective pages and likely can be deleted.
I don't think it is strictly necessary to include the full subsection on hydrogen on either page since there already exists separate pages for Hydrogen, Hydrogen production, Hydrogen storage, Hydrogen infrastructure, and Hydrogen highway. Maybe just keep the short introductory section and add it to both the hydrogen ICE and fuel cell vehicle articles directing to all of the other separate articles for more information?
I would suggest merging the Hydrogen_vehicle#Official_support with the Fuel_cell_vehicle#USA_programs section, and obviously the Hydrogen_vehicle#Criticism with the Fuel_cell_vehicle#Criticism section.
Thoughts? Connstable (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)