Jump to content

Talk:Fuel cell: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Power storage (10 articles) Configured as topic=Technology
→‎Fuel cell: new section
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 58: Line 58:


[[User:Klinfran|Klinfran]] ([[User talk:Klinfran|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 17:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[[User:Klinfran|Klinfran]] ([[User talk:Klinfran|talk]]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 17:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Fuel cell ==

What I can conclude from the entire reading from Wikipedia about fuel cell?? [[Special:Contributions/61.5.151.51|61.5.151.51]] ([[User talk:61.5.151.51|talk]]) 17:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:46, 10 May 2022


Update article

this article can be update by fr.wikipedia version.

O2-

In the article, there are some reactions using O2-, where in aqueous solutions I would expect OH-. Maybe this is just a short-cut, where everyone knows how it works, though I believe here it would be nice not to take such short cuts. Gah4 (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Various bus experiments

Hi, @Ssilvers:. That seems like a lot of information to delete. If you think it's too much detail for the main fuel cell article, I wonder whether moving it to a separate article on, say, "fuel cell bus experiments" might be appropriate. PRRfan (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I deleted was ancient information about projects that were discontinued by 2005. There already is a separate article about it, Fuel Cell Bus Club. I added instead, current information from the NREL. I can't imagine why you would delete. Also, I can't understand why you would delete the word "commentators", which gives at least some color to the extremely vague "some". Also, why substitute "said" for the literally correct "stated", since they stated it in writing, rather than verbally. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The newer info from NREL is, of course, welcome; "commentators" adds no useful distinction; and "said" is shorter, less stuffy, and no less accurate than "stated", which of course is also used for verbal statements. But to my main point here, if all that info is at Fuel Cell Bus Club, then I have no objection to removing it. PRRfan (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication of PEMFC material

I was looking into PEM fuel cells and noticed that there is a large description on PEMFCs both at Proton-exchange membrane fuel cell and here. I'm new to editing Wikipedia but happy to help: how does the community feel this would be best resolved? Richardcw (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article should basically contain a section that is a good summary of the other article, and at the top of the section, there should be a cross-reference that would look like this: {{main article|Proton-exchange membrane fuel cell}} Also, if there is anything good in the PEMFC section of this article that is missing from the other article, it should be copied there. For more information, see WP:SUMMARY. Happy editing, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020

Was the Pike prediction correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.129 (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

criticism

That page only lists criticisms about fuel cells vehicles. If it must be an opinion page, then arguments in favor of hydrogen must be listed.Let me just suggest some before you jump on yelling it has none.

1) Fast charging. While at the system level, the specific energy might still be comparable to a BEV, increasing the speed of charging for BEV will only lead to heavier electrical architectures or higher losses compared to the current state, when it's not a real problem for fuel cells (there are problems though, but you can charge a tank in 15 minutes, and increasing the load doesn't increase by much the charging time and the losses). A 100kWh model S charging on a 300kW experience losses of about 30% making hydrogen less disadvantaged than with a slow charging, hence why it is envisioned for trucks.

2) light tanks. Most of the weight is in the fuel cell itself and the surrounding system, there are weight gains to be made, and been made constantly.

3) In case of "blue hydrogen". Taking away most of the carbon of the natural gas, which would have been ejected in any cases if the methane was burned. In case that burned methane is used to produce electricity, a turbine is also inefficient.

4) Heat can be used in the cab while it's taken on the battery for a BEV, so in cold climates, the efficiency advantage of BEV decreases and their range too, while it's not for fuel cell vehicles.

Among the criticisms, one could add the complexity of the system.

Klinfran (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

Fuel cell

What I can conclude from the entire reading from Wikipedia about fuel cell?? 61.5.151.51 (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]