Talk:Fuel cell

Military Applications for Fuel Cells Section

There has been a great deal of research and development in the area of fuel cell applications for the military. I would like to add a section in the "applications" section specifically devoted to military use. It would read:

Recent Pike Research findings have shown that there will be an expanding market for fuel cells with some of the worlds most demanding customers, military users.[1] U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineer- ing Research Lab (ERDC/CERL) has used and developed advanced fuel cell technology since the early 1990's, including installing at least 300 stationary power fuel cell instillations through the DOD Fuel Cell Project. [2] The 2005 EDRC Tech Report on the Project reached a number of findings about fuel cell performance. Its main findings showed that achieving 90 percent reliability is feasible, that back-up power is a viable application for PEM fuel cells, and that thermal recovery has been found to improve overall system efficiency. [3]

The military has also been able to create a fuel cell that can run on their standard issue military logistic fuel, JP-8, and can be used to power anything from a refrigerator to a tank or large truck. [4] The fuel cells are not only quieter than diesel generators, they are more efficient and produce fewer emissions. A JP-8 powered fuel cell has been a long standing military goal, but fuels with high sulfur content like JP-8 and diesel can "poison" the catalysts used in fuel cells. [5] To combat sulfur poisoning, researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) added a module that removes the sulfur, but cost concerns still remain before commercial uses are feasible.

The Pike Research report cited replacing batteries for portable electronics as the greatest opportunity for fuel cells because their energy density and decreased weight. [6] Jadoo fuel cells has replaced the 80 pounds of heavy batteries that soldiers in the U.S. Army's Special Operations Command with a 24-pound fuel cell, shaving over two-thirds of the weight. [7] Adaptive Materials Inc. has also shipped SOFC's that are ten times lighter than batteries to the U.S. Army for use in the battlefield by soldiers. [8]

Global Defense industry leader Lockheed Martin has also teamed with Adaptive Materials to update their Stalker Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) to be powered by fuel cells. [9] The new Stalker eXtreme Endurance (XE) UAS that quadruples the systems endurance without impacting its mobility or payload capabilities. [10] Benfchea (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read all this, but your first sentence is not good, because it is speculating about the future. We should not be focusing on predictions about the future. Again, see WP:CRYSTAL. We should focus on what is being delivered today. If it isn't being delivered yet to paying customers, it is premature to discuss it. We can add new information next year, or in 5 years, or whenever deliveries actually start. Just to spot-check what you wrote above, I read the article on Jadoo. You said that their cells have replaced military packs. In fact, however, the article says that "Jadoo will be replacing the batteries". This means that it has not done so yet. Please be very careful about how you use these sources. Predictions and marketing talk are cheap. We should not be using press releases and websites from manufacturers, as they have a conflict of interest in pushing their company. See WP:RS. Also, please make sure that if you add any information to the article, you give full information in your references (to the extent available), including author name, title of article, date, publisher name and page number. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

SSilvers, I do not follow your logic, and I am skeptical about whether you actually read the entire article or searched the context properly. In the case of Jadoo, they have received a military contract to replace the batteries with lighter fuel cell packs. Therefore, the article correctly reads "the will be replacing", and by your standards, the services are being delivered to paying customers. In regards to future speculation and using press releases as sources, let me highlight something you said last week.

"As for your message above, please do not delete references to news articles. The quotes from Secretary Stephen Chu and the others that you mention are extremely relevant here. We can, and really must, point out the opinions of the people like the Secretary of the Dept of Energy and the CEO of GM that are are critical of this technology. I disagree with your understanding of the word "asserted". Nevertheless, I have changed it to "stated", if you prefer that. Please see WP:NEUTRAL. and WP:Reliable sources, which discusses that we can certainly use quotes from major newspaper articles to show that this is what the person said. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)"

If this is your criteria, then the Jadoo piece is absolutely reputable and verifiable as the source is the National Institute of Health. The only reference to a company website on my post was to Lockheed Martin. If you would like, I would gladly supply a source for this news from one of the many other sources available. I do not however agree that this piece of information is biased by the fact that it is a press release from the company. The previous model Stalker UAV has been in use by the US Special Operations for months if not years in numerous roles with multiple mission functions. Lockheed Martin is clearly interested in debuting their new product, as they are currently trying to expand the market for it outside of Special Operations, but that does not mean they are bias in promoting fuel cell technology. They used the technology to increase the endurance/weight ratio of the product. Here is another article that could be used in place of my previous citation [11]. As I believe I have addressed your concerns adequately, I will be posting this section this afternoon. I will properly cite all resources before posting the proposed information. Benfchea (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Be careful not to cite any press releases or publications by manufacturers. If an article simply reports what a manufacturer told the paper, then you need to say "A spokesman from Lockheed, the manufacturer of the product, told The New York Times that ..." Do not say that something has been replaced, when, in fact, there is merely a contract to buy some units; or state how many units have been delivered, as compared with the number of units currently existing of old technology, to give context for your examples. There is a big difference between reporting what the Nobel Prize-winning Secretary of Energy said about fuel cells, and reporting what a spokesman for a manufacturer says about their goals for their product or research. If you are scrupulously careful in your use of sources, you will be able to make some good changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Automobiles

For whoever edited the quotes I added from the NREL article, I would have appreciated if you would have informed me of any changes you planned to make. I asked for feedback before posting but no one replied. In terms of the changes you made, they misstate facts and severely detracts from the importance of the research. The NREL Engineer does not just test FCEV's, he is involved in testing all EV technology. Also, the most important quote I added was deleted. Im open to discussing what should be there with anyone who has concerns, but if no one presents them I am going to replace the incorrect information that is there with the proper text I placed there before. Benfchea (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you were not able to see the final version of what I posted in its short lifespan, this is what I edited the Automobile section to say.

Although there are currently no Fuel cell vehicles available for commercial sale, 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.[56] As of June 2011 demonstration FCEVs had driven more than 4,800,000 km (3,000,000 mi), with more than 27,000 refuelings.[57] Demonstration fuel cell vehicles have been produced with "a driving range of more than 400 km (250 mi) between refueling".[58] They can be refueled in less than 5 minutes.[59] EERE’s Fuel Cell Technology Program claims that, as of 2011, fuel cells achieved 53–59% efficiency at ¼ power and 42–53% vehicle efficiency at full power,[60] and a durability of over 120,000 km (75,000 mi) with less than 10% degradation, double that achieved in 2006.[58] In a Well-to-Wheels simulation analysis, that "did not address the economics and market constraints", General Motors and its partners estimated that per mile traveled, a fuel cell electric vehicle running on compressed gaseous hydrogen produced from natural gas could use about 40% less energy and emit 45% less greenhouse gasses than an internal combustion vehicle.[61]

Some experts believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[62][63] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[64][65] Researchers at the Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) however, are currently testing many hydrogen powered and electric plug-in vehicles and say "DOE wants people to see that these vehicles are not just drawings on some designer's table, These technologies are practical, real and getting out into the marketplace. We have displayed all of these vehicles at public events this summer to help consumers see how all of these technologies can meet the needs of today's drivers." [66] NREL Senior Engineer Keith Wipke sees the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles potentially appealing to consumers whose needs cannot fully be met by battery electric cars, but who want a low carbon footprint. "One of the key things about the impact of hydrogen technology is that these are full-function vehicles with no limitations on range or refueling rate so they are a direct replacement for any vehicle. For instance, if you drive a full sized SUV and pull a boat up into the mountains, you can do that with this technology and you can't with current battery-only vehicles, which are more geared toward city driving." [67]

Even though NREL/DOE testing has shown promise, some in the industry still have their doubts. 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."[68] 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."[69] Furthermore, the study found: "Natural gas reforming is not a sustainable solution".[69] "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."[70][38][9] Despite this, several major car manufacturers have announced plans to introduce a production model of a fuel cell car in 2015. Toyota has stated that it plans to introduce such a vehicle at a price of around US$50,000.[71] In June 2011, Mercedes-Benz announced that they would move the scheduled production date of their fuel cell car from 2015 up to 2014, asserting that "The product is ready for the market technically. ... The issue is infrastructure."[72]

In 2003 US President George Bush proposed the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (HFI). This 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.[73] The Obama Administration has sought to reduce funding for the development of fuel cell vehicles, concluding that other vehicle technologies will lead to quicker reduction in emissions in a shorter time.[74] Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy, stated that hydrogen vehicles "will not be practical over the next 10 to 20 years".[75] He told MIT's Technology Review that he is skeptical about hydrogen's use in transportation because of four problems: "the way we get hydrogen primarily is from reforming [natural] gas. ... You're giving away some of the energy content of natural gas. ... [For] transportation, we don't have a good storage mechanism yet. ... The fuel cells aren't there yet, and the distribution infrastructure isn't there yet. ... In order to get significant deployment, you need four significant technological breakthroughs.[76] Critics disagree. Mary Nichols, Chairwoman of California's Air Resources Board, said: "Secretary Chu has firmly set his mind against hydrogen as a passenger-car fuel. Frankly, his explanations don’t make sense to me. They are not based on the facts as we know them."[77]

If anyone has a problem with these changes, or has any suggestions, please let me know before I restore the section to what I've posted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benfchea (talk • contribs) 16:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for editing of content that references unreliable sources or misrepresents where referenced information is coming from

Reference 63: “Review: Hell and Hydrogen” [12] The source itself is good. However, there is no direct mention of economic feasibility in comparison to other technologies. And many of the quotes from the book the author is reviewing would be questionable today. It would be more beneficial if the views were represented in the article in the exact (quoted or properly paraphrased, not completely summed into one misleading conclusion) way they are found in the review, or preferably, in the primary source Hell and Hydrogen”.

Reference 64: “Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a fraud” Dvice TV. White, Charlie. This article is from DVice TV, a “lifestyle blog” [13] as described by its parent company Syfy. Also in the same press release, “Syfy is a media destination for imagination-based entertainment”.

The article itself is not a credible nor verifiable source of information. It provides 0 references other than two links within the text. One links to a DVice article “self-referencing/citing” and the other links to an article from CNET (reputable in my eyes) but misstates/overstates what the underlying article actually says.

This is an opinion piece on a “lifestyle blog” on a website whos name is Science Fiction and who describes themselves as providing imagination based entertainment. Any content from this source should be removed unless someone can provide verifiable evidence to back up the claims.

Reference 65/66: “Hydrogen Cars Won’t Make a Difference for 40 Years” Squatrigila, Charlie. “Hydrogen cars may be a long time coming” Boyd, Robert S. Both of these stories are based on quotes from Joseph Romm, author of Hell and Hydrogen, just like references 63 and 64. To properly cite this material under WP:Verifiability it should be noted that the information posted in the article citing these sources comes from one particular individual, Joseph Romm. The wording “some experts” is completely ambiguous and does not do properly identify the underlying source.

Additionally, it was not properly noted that Joe Romm is a consistent critic of hydrogen. Such a bias was mentioned by Robert Boyd, the author of reference 66. Here is the quote “Asked when he thinks hydrogen cars will be broadly available, Romm, the hydrogen skeptic, replied: "Not in our lifetime, and very possibly never.” The editor who included this information should have properly mentioned who was providing the information.

There are two issues in all 4 of these references. One is that many paragraphs of news articles (all revolving around the same book), were summarized into one blanket sentence without actually presenting any context or background information. The second issue is that there is no reason to cite excerpts from the same source as four separate sources. The different news publishers are not the “experts” on fuel cell technology, the single source they drew their information from is. Benfchea (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add new messages at the bottom, rather than in the middle of talk pages. This is the Wikipedia norm, since it is easier to find talk page messages if they are at the bottom.

The long tendentious quote added by User:Benfchea from the press release that was cut is not encyclopaedic and does not lend balance to the article. I am not aware of any published evidence that fuel cell cars are "getting out into the marketplace". None of these cars, I believe, are available for commercial purchase, and the second paragraph of the Automobiles section raises ample doubt that they will be in the marketplace at any time in the near future.

The most important part of the second quote was retained. A change could be made to describe the engineer as testing EVs generally, rather than FCEVs, but I question whether that would be helpful or informative to the reader.

Please note that your employment with the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association raises a WP:Conflict of Interest with Wikipedia’s policy of scrupulous neutrality with respect to this article, and so you should be very careful indeed about reverting text that has been revised by other editors. Tim riley (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley. In addition, I believe that nearly every change proposed by User:Benfchea is intended to promote a non-neutral point of view that fuel cell cars are ready for market, when clearly they are not. I disagree with making the changes suggested above. Also the scope of the changes suggested above make it difficult to deal with the proposals. I suggest, as I have suggested before, that we deal with proposals one at a time in very small chunks so that we can agree on discreet issues before changes are made. Please see WP:Consensus. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I posted at the bottom of the previous automobiles page because it was directly following upon what I had previously added. In response to your suggestions that I am editing this article with a non neutral point of view, I think that my discussions on the talk pages clearly show that that is untrue. Before posting the information I put it up for debate on the talk page and got no responses. I also made sure to keep what was there in tact so that I did not diminish any other perspectives. I have also suggested removing multiple "pro" fuel cell pieces of information that I have found to be incorrect or unhelpful to the purpose of this article.

SSilvers, I think it was entirely inappropriate, a violation of WP policy, and a complete contradiction to everything you have stated in relation to this page to remove the information I posted. You have shot down nearly every proposal I have made to update this article, while making 0 content additions of your own. You are not the final editor of this page, and your conduct is combating the encyclopedia building process. I do not have a conflict of interest in this matter, I have an interest in this matter. That is why I have consistently sought out new information from reputable sources to add to what is there. Every proposal I have made has been in the spirit of providing a better source of information to the readers. The number one theme behind the proposals I have made is that this is a scientific topic and we should be using scientific information, not blog stories or news articles that are simply reviewing books.

To Tim Riley and SSilvers, I regret that you have gotten the wrong impression of my intentions here. That being said, I have sought out collaboration and discussion many times. In regards to the NREL piece, the more important quote was the one that was deleted. If you are looking for published evidence that these cars are getting into the marketplace, this was it. The quote came from National Renewable Energy Laboratory (A Department of Energy Lab) Vehicle Systems Engineer who tests electric plug in, hybrid, hydrogen and other types of vehicles for the DOE. He said that these vehicles "are practical, real and getting out into the marketplace." That is published evidence, and people interested in this topic should know that a government scientist who deals with this technology thinks so.

As far as the quotes from Sec. Chu I have brought up are concerned, none of us has any right to doubt his expertise. However, as Sec. of Energy, his current job is political in nature, so he is not necessarily speaking from a scientific perspective. If you look at his biography on DOE.gov, or at this facebook page, you will find that the very first line of information about him is "As United States Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu is charged with helping implement President Obama's ambitious agenda to invest in clean energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, address the global climate crisis, and create millions of new jobs". I am not suggesting we delete the quote from him, but as editors we should alert the public to the fact that he has a political agenda to pursue. As far as I know, Sec. Chu has not resented any scientific findings on this technology, where as the NREL engineer works with it every day. In terms of "published evidence" I think we should lean towards the views of scientists over political appointees, but there is room for both.

It was in that light that I suggested removing all of the quotes a week or two ago because they are farrrrr too speculative and political. This included the quote by Mary Nichols, which was probably the worst in my mind. WP suggests that on scientific topics, the best references are peer reviewed articles and journals. It was my goal to move towards providing information from those types of sources, rather than speculative news articles. That is the reason why I suggested removing the 4 nearly identical sources that all reference Joseph Romm. It is critically important to the audience of this article to provide a neutral perspective, which through my editing experience and my interactions with both of you seems to mean giving critics and proponents of technology equal representation. However, under WP policy, we should be identifying who those people are. I read all of the references thoroughly yesterday and I saw 2 issues that I stated yesterday. The sentence that references them does not really represent what the sources are saying, and that those four references are really all speaking the views of one expert/person. I think that they should be scrapped and in their place should be one reference to the book "Hell and Hydrogen". At least one of the two news articles did contain some other interviews so those may continue to be valuable.

It may seem like I have a conflict of interest because I am consistently looking to add to this page, but the fact is that I am not cherrypicking facts to support a view. I run across news articles, publications, and even quotes from Sec. Chu himself every day that are relevant to this page. I feel that if I am going to be involved in editing this page I should not make waste of new relevant information, especially when it comes from a source as reputable and verifiable as our National Renewable Energy Lab. I would love for you to seek out some published research on this topic and present it to be added. Since I have been involved in this editing process you have not done so.

With all of that said, I am going to reinsert the section I added a few days ago. I will go back and make sure that I am very clear about who is saying the quotes and what their perspective is. I am doing this for two reasons. First, because I wholeheartedly believe it is appropriate in the context of this topic. Secondly, because I think it was inappropriate for it to be removed in the first place. SSilvers you have said many times that editors should not remove information, and have even said "please do not remove it" as if it was a personal favor to you. I am thoroughly perplexed as to why you would then go and edit something, including deleting an important part of it, without consulting the talk page beforehand. In the future, please be more involved in "encyclopedia building", rather than editing the work of others. Information about doing so can be found [14] there. Benfchea (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

COI and NPOV

Apropos of the above, I urge our recently-joined colleague to familiarise him/herself with Wikipedia's philosophy. Benfchea is manifestly passionate in favour of the technology, and who shall gainsay him/her, but it is absolutely vital to Wikipedia's modus operandi, not to say credibility, that we present all sides of any case, and do not overstate personal (or professional) interests. It is a sober fact that contributors who persist in pushing a particular line or peddling an interest group's party line will sooner or later be found out by Wikipedia's administrators and be blocked from further editing. Verb. sap. Tim riley (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, as lawyers say, by "our recently-joined colleague", above, I refer to User:Benfchea, rather than User:Ssilvers, whose longstanding prominence as a Wikicolleague and discourager of POV-pushers is known to me and countless other Wikipedians. Tim riley (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is little reason for me to respond to the above criticism. Your position is clearly defined, and your alliance has been duly noted. I am removing myself from these discussions until the proper steps have been taken to resolve this matter. Benfchea (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made two suggestions above, Benfchea, but you ignored them. Nevertheless, I'll repeat them here: First, we will make more progress if you begin with parts of this article not related to automobiles, since that is the most contentious issue and where you and your employer have the biggest WP:COI. I am hoping that, as we deal with those, you will learn more about WP:NPOV and the use of sources here on Wikipedia, so that when we get back to automobiles, we can have a more collegial discussion about it. Second, if you make smaller proposals about editing particular sentences or references, one at a time, it will be easier for us to discuss each one more specifically and try to reach a consensus. You are not helping by responding with legalistic arguments and posturing - focus on the content. We are happy to discuss with you how the article might be improved. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed myself from this discussion for the past few weeks to let the dust settle from our previous communications in the hopes that some of the tension would be removed from the discussion. As I resume editing on WP, I would like to say a few things in my own defense regarding the previous allegations. At no point have I set out to push any particular viewpoint on this page, nor have I acted with the purpose of promoting any particular technology. My sole purpose has been to provide the readers of this page with more accurate, scientific research based, and up-to-date information about the subject than what is currently offered. I believe that my record on these talk pages speaks for itself in that regard. My suggestions have and will continue to be based on the most recent and reliable information available to us.

Additionally, I clearly defined my ties to the FCHEA before starting to edit this page, and have taken all the steps necessary to assure that I have not been guilty of COI or NPOV violations. These include providing ample time for my suggestion on talk pages to be responded to before posting anything to the actual page, and citing examples of unreliable or improperly referenced sources that have been used to support both sides of this debate. In regards to the automobile section, it is in no way true that "that is the most contentious issue and where you and your employer have the biggest WP:COI", nor is it the case that I have presented "legalistic arguments" of focused on anything other than content, except for where my suggestions have been met with those types of responses.

I will resume my editing of this page with the hopes that all users will work together to improve this page. Benfchea (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

COI NPOV SSilvers and Tim Riley

In addition to my defense against the unfounded allegations against my character, goals, and legitimacy as an editor of this page, I would like to note how the actions of other users on this page has not lived up to the policies and guidelines often cited in their allegations against other editors.

As long standing editors of WP, user:SSilvers and user:Tim Riley should be well aware of the policy against "biting the newcomers" or citing their own, or one-another's editorial "expertise" as backing for their arguments. You have consistently attempted to attack my reputation by labeling me as a newcomer, including referencing me as “our recently-joined colleague", and suggesting that I familiarize myself with WP policies before moving forward. You have also threatened numerous times that my behavior "will sooner or later be found out by Wikipedia's administrators and be blocked from further editing." I would like to point out that all actions taken by myself and my colleagues have remained under the conditions set forth by the Wikipedia administrators when we joined Wikipedia and resolved the sock-puppet accusations.

I would also like to cite some of the examples where the mentioned users have contradicted their own arguments or violated the very policies they often cite in their responses. Time and again I have been told to focus on encyclopedia and consensus building as well as discussing content rather than posturing or pursuing legalistic arguments, but I believe it is obvious that Ssilvers, and lately Tim Riley, have worked against these ideals themselves. The very nature of many of your arguments however, is legalistic and has the clearly defined goal of representing yourselves as the authority on these matters. You have cited WP guidelines in almost every response, using legal tactics to diminish the validity of other editor’s suggestions. In regard to content, it has been clear that you favor that status-quo over improving the page with more up to date information. Neither of you have presented new sources of reliable information, nor new content that adds value to the page. You have however, been very interested in monitoring what new information does make it into the article. Similarly, you have based your responses and arguments on WP policy rather than evaluating suggestions on their own merit. I do not believe that these activities have been conducive to the encyclopedia-building environment and I urge you both to alter those behaviors in the future.

Another issue I would like to raise is the conflict of interest that has been referenced many times on WP between user:SSilvers and author, Joe Romm. As I have mentioned before, Joe Romm is the author of numerous books criticizing the hydrogen as an energy source, and is particularly critical of FCEV's. SSilvers has openly admitted his relationship with Romm on many other pages, and has been accused of having a COI on this subject before on the Joseph Romm’s WP page. It seems to me that the automobiles section is actually the area where SSilvers has the greatest COI, as Romm is a large supporter of other forms of EV's like hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and battery electric vehicles. SSilvers has made accusations against those who have provided information about FCEV's as far back as 2009 on the Battery Electric Vehicle Talk Page, long before FCHEA or I were ever involved in editing this page. "Would someone please look at the Hydrogen vehicle article? The comparison with BEVs is being destroyed by a hydrogen POV pusher. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)". SSilvers, I urge you to please be careful that you have not fallen victim to the very ills you claim to crusade against.

I hope that the mentioned users recognize that they may have acted inappropriately on these issues, and return to this page with a more collaborative attitude. Both of these users have a long established record of providing excellent editing contributions to WP in the areas of theatre and the arts, and I do not wish to diminish or dispute those accomplishments. I would however like to suggest that they refrain from pushing a particular point of view or boxing in the discussion on this page to particular areas while refusing to allow improvements to others. I would also urge them to seek out the most up to date and credible information on this topic, especially those sources whose peer-reviewed scientific approach is most appropriate for this page. I look forward to continuing to improve this page and put the issues of the past behind us. Benfchea (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

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, [15] 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 .

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