Talk:Fuel cell vehicle

Merge proposal

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

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

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Also, if you think a reference is out of date, please suggest a more recent reference to a WP:Reliable source that would cover the subject matter in that part of the article.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

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

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

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 . 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, 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. 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).” . 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 , 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

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

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.”

Meanwhile, Honda’s own analysis of the Honda FCX Clarity evaluates a Tank-Wheels efficiency of 60%. 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.”

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

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?

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.”

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

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)

Why is Applications politicized?

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

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

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)