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 buses 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.-- (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 (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 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).” DOE Fuel Cell Technologies Program Accomplishments and Progress, 6/24/2011, 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)


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.”

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[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.”

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. (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:

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 necessarily 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:

    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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Fuel cell vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Does an FCV need a battery?[edit]

The first sentence of the article contains the phrase "in combination with a battery"? Is this an intrinsic property of all fuel cell vehicles or is the battery merely there in extant production instances for regenerative braking and quicker takeoff? If the latter would anyone mind if I reworded it accordingly? (I'd have been bold and simply edited without asking were the subject matter not so obviously controversial.) Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that, practically speaking, all the FC automobiles have batteries. Can anyone confirm? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
You're addressing a different question. I'm asking what is an FCV, not what properties the few existing models today have in common. It is perfectly possible to propel a vehicle using only a fuel cell and no traction battery. According to the present article, if someone built such an object it would not be a fuel cell vehicle. Do we want to be making that claim on Wikipedia? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it's the same question, because if all of the manufacturers feel that they need to include a battery, and you can only find the product with a battery, then it is true to say that a fuel cell vehicle is a hybrid that uses a fuel cell in combination with a battery. It's not just a few existing models: there have been dozens of demonstration models. I am not an engineer working on FCVs, but *if* it is a practical necessity for commercialization, then it would be misleading not to say so. So, I was asking, above, if someone with more technical knowledge can confirm for us whether, practically speaking, a battery really is required at this point. Even if so, however, I acknowledge that there may be a better way to write it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Traction batteries add significantly to both the cost and weight of a vehicle, otherwise all cars today would be hybrids because of their much better fuel economy. Today's fuel cell stacks are still on a steep learning curve and their cost dwarfs that of a traction battery, which can therefore be included with little noticeable impact on cost (though some on weight). If and when fuel cell stacks can priced like commodity ICEs, FCVs may well mimic the ICEV market by splitting into the FCV counterpart of hybrid and nonhybrid, with the latter weighing less as well as appealing to more price-sensitive buyers. With this possibility in mind Wikipedia could certainly say that all FCVs on the market today have traction batteries, but it should not go further by saying that a traction battery is a necessary component of an FCV, since it adds significant weight and cost in return for nothing but regenerative braking and short infrequent bursts of power on demand. (There is of course the 12 volt battery common to all commercial cars today, but presumably that's not what's being referred to here.) Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not dispute any of that, except to note that batteries are getting cheaper, more powerful and lighter at the same time as fuel cells are getting cheaper, so they are both moving targets. So, per WP:CRYSTAL, if you are going to make an "if and when" argument, you need to have solid sources to verify each fact asserted. But you don't need to prove all that in order to revise the first sentence: you just need to show that there are some fuel cell vehicles that do not need a battery as part of the drive train. What about forklift FCVs? Do they need batteries? If you can find a source that says no, then we can add it in the Forklift section and then add a word like "sometimes" to the first sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The reaction time of fuel cells is too slow for driving cars and trucks and forklifts without some other energy storage device, whether thst is flywheels or batteries or a clockwork spring or supercaps or a weight on a string. At a trivial level FCVs have batteries to start their electronics. However there is no inherent reason why an FCV must have a battery by definition. It just happens that batteries are the best current solution, grins.Greglocock (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Greg is exactly right. I'll edit accordingly. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
That's fine, as long as you make it clear that, so far, batteries are always used, and so long as you cite a WP:RS; otherwise you are just replacing one uncited assertion with another. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
That's odd. How does merely deleting an uncited assertion constitute replacing it with another? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Sentences 4 and 5[edit]

Having just now questioned sentence 1 of the article and partially fixed sentence 3, I'm now looking at sentences 4 and 5, "Various lobbying efforts have resulted in this vehicle type being classified as a zero-emissions vehicle. Depending on the process, however, producing the hydrogen used in the vehicle creates pollutants greatly in excess of conventional fossil fuels."

  1. "Various lobbying efforts" reads like a vague accusation that good governance has been corrupted by commercial interests acting against the public's interest. Who lobbied whom? And are there any reliable sources supporting this claim of lobbying?
  2. Wikipedia defines a zero-emission vehicle as "a vehicle that emits no tailpipe pollutants from the onboard source of power.[2][3]". If that definition is wrong, this article is the wrong place to fix it, the fix should be made instead in the ZEV article.
  3. Is steam reformation of methane intrinsically polluting, and if so why? If it is merely polluting because some hydrogen manufacturers today dump their pollutants into the environment and refuse to pay to clean it up, why should the bad behavior of some hydrogen manufacturers be deemed a property of fuel-cell vehicles?
  4. This sort of transfer of fault from the fuel vendor to the vehicle type seems peculiar to this article. Its counterpart articles Battery electric vehicle and Internal combustion engine don't seem as eager to transfer the faults of their respective fuel vendors to their respective vehicle types. Is that because electric utilities and oil refineries run clean operations, or is something else going on here?
  5. The claim "creates pollutants greatly in excess of conventional fossil fuels" is easily seen from the criticism section to have been cherry-picked from an impressively extensive anti-FCV literature, because whenever there are conflicting accounts the article invariably picks the one less favorable to FCVs without offering any justification for preferring it. While an extensive literature on a controversial subject makes it easy to cherry-pick, it doesn't make it true, any more than does the extensive climate denial literature.
  6. It is true that there were no retail hydrogen stations anywhere in the US two years ago, and any article written more than two years ago would therefore be justified in extrapolating the past century of that situation to the next one. However there are now 20 retail stations in reliable operation in California, and Sacramento has authorized the California Energy Commission to fund an additional 80 over the next five years. However reliable the pre-2014 sources in this article might have been before 2014, this quite sudden development has turned all the nay-saying ones (of which the article has a great many) into Unreliable Sources, just as the Wright brothers' development made the many pre-1903 sources arguing against heavier-than-air flight, including those by the world's top aeronautical engineers of their time, an Unreliable Source for any post-1903 article.
  7. It is also true that fuel cells have only 2/3 the efficiency of batteries at normal temperatures (although freezing temperatures greatly narrow that gap because that 30% of inefficiency keeps the fuel cell warm), and that the fuel infrastructure is still in its infancy. These drawbacks, only the first of which is intrinsic to the technology, are partially offset by a drive-train one-third the weight of that of a BEV with comparable range, and a 20× faster fueling time. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If you have newer reliable sources with updated information, please cite them. I do not agree, however, that 2016 for FCVs is like 1903 for aircraft; your analogy overstates your case significantly. Lots of engineers in large and small companies and governments around the world have been working intensively on FCVs for several decades, and there have been working, drivable FCVs for a couple of decades. The technology is gradually improving, just like the technology for BEVs and even ICEs. So, go ahead and add high-quality, updated information citing the most high-quality sources. If it specifically supersedes older information, great. But all information from several years ago is not automatically to be disregarded. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of gas stations in the US, so 20 publicly available fueling stations is plainly inadequate, even in California; and every time governments and private groups have projected the number of future stations, they have grossly overestimated the number (I updated the number with a new source). There are 14,000 electric charging stations, and they cost a small fraction of what new hydrogen charging stations cost. Moreover, you can charge your BEV in your own garage overnight or at your workplace during the day, so the charging time is only relevant to some users. If I had to predict the future, I'd guess that they will stop building hydrogen fueling stations when they see how few FCVs are being sold. But we don't have to predict the future: in fact, we should be very careful about doing so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Point three- yes it is intrinsically messy. If you were in the uk in the sixties you will have noticed the gasworks, where they made coalgas. The chemical process for hydrogen synthesis from methane is closely related, and even if you can cope with the organics and sulphides, you are still releasing co2 into the atmosphere. If you can solve the latter then why not do the same for electricity generating stations and cut out the ridiculous middle man. Greglocock (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

First, what is your basis for claiming that the coalgas process is intrinsically messy? Do you have a Reliable Source for that?
Second, why do you call the middle man "ridiculous" when (s)he's providing an energy source that is considerably more mobile than electricity? At 70 °F the owner of a Mirai (EPA range of 312 miles) can fill up from empty in 5 minutes (that's 3744 mph, an order of magnitude faster than a supercharger can recharge a Tesla or a CHAdeMO a Leaf), the drive train up to but excluding the motor weighs 400 lbs instead of 1200 lbs for a Tesla S 90D (EPA range of 294 miles), and the car costs less than half as much: $499/mo lease for the Mirai instead of $1,138/mo for the S 90D (figures excluding state and local taxes). With those numbers your term "ridiculous" seems more appropriate for the concept of a 312-mile-range BEV, especially given that no such thing has been commercialized to date. (Yes some BEV owners can charge at work during the day but why spend so much for so much range when for a third of the price you could get a BEV that's well suited to that sort of commuter use? BEV's for short range travel have made excellent sense for decades before anyone tried to make a 250-mile range BEV.) Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hydrogen generation is inefficient. Hydrogen storage is inefficient. Hydrogen transport is inefficient. Any magical process you use to clean up co2 during the generation stage could be applied to conventional powerstations. Personally I regard the hydrogen car as a nasty little scam by the OEMs. Greglocock (talk) 07:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget to include Japan, Germany, California, the Colorado-based National Renewable Energy Laboratory, etc. as participants in this "nasty little scam". Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Absent any other objections to my points 1-3, does anyone have any objection to my simplifying sentences 4 and 5 to the following more neutral statement? "Fuel cell vehicles are classified as zero emission vehicles (ZEVs)." When it has been RS'd that 'All fuel cell vehicles marketed to date include a traction battery of the kind used in gasoline-powered hybrids' I'll add that too. Absent any RS supporting "in combination with a battery" as either a defining or necessary characteristic of an FCV I propose to delete that now. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with parts of those changes and disagree with others. For one thing, it is not helpful to create a defined term, like ZEV that is not used again subsequently. I revised the opening paragraph to incorporate some of your ideas and also to be consistent with what Greglocock wrote above. Can we compromise on that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that helped a little. However the article still has an overwhelmingly negative tone. Examples:
  1. Your edit to the first paragraph finds it necessary not only to point out negative aspects of the technology but a sentence later to repeat them. Would deleting "and centralizes pollutants entirely at the site of hydrogen production where it is typically derived from reformed natural gas" remove anything essential that isn't said in the next sentence and elsewhere in the article?
  2. Instead of presenting the past year's rapid growth of infrastructure in several countries as a positive development you immediately dismiss its significance with the non sequitur, "Critics doubt whether hydrogen will be efficient or cost-effective for automobiles, as compared with other zero emission technologies, such as the battery electric vehicle," with the implication that these factors make hydrogen pointless as a fuel. Is there even one such "critic" who is not merely parroting the arguments Joe Romm made in 2004?
  3. The article needs to make up its mind whether it is treating only zero-emission fuel cell vehicles, as implied in the lead, or all fuel cell vehicles. For example the ethanol-based Nissan FCV described in the article is not a zero-emission vehicle as it emits about the same amount of CO2 as a CNG vehicle. The tone of that section however suggests that it is an improvement on hydrogen-based FCVs and says nothing about its CO2 emissions.
  4. All of the drawbacks of the technology are presented as intrinsic, leaving the reader with the sense that they are all impossible to overcome. Nothing is said about the many efforts worldwide to address those drawbacks.
  5. None of the principal benefits of the technology are mentioned. The reader who was not already familiar with those benefits would infer that no serious market for so pointless a technology could exist, and that therefore not only the OEMs but also Japan, Germany, California, the Colorado-based National Renewable Energy Laboratory, etc. must, as Greglocock inferred, be involved in some mysterious global scam, if only we could figure out what it was.
With regard to my item 5, people like you and Greglocock who don't understand the point of a technology shouldn't be editing an article on it with the primary goal of proving it is as pointless as compressed air engines for cars. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, VP:

  • No. 1 above is not true. Hydrogen cars concentrate pollutants at the site of production, but more pollution is caused by the compression, transportation and storage of the hydrogen. Hydrogen is delivered by truck to most of the hydrogen filling stations currently. I've tweaked the Lead to clarify.
  • No. 2: A very small number of stations were built in the past year. Just by way of comparison, thousands of electric charging stations were installed in the US last year, while only a dozen or so hydrogen stations were completed in the US. Your comment indicates that you are too impatient. Give it a few years, and let's see if there really is rapid growth of a publicly-available hydrogen fueling infrastructure. Recent critics continue to *confirm* that hydrogen's commercially competitive uses in vehicles continue to be very limited. Some car companies have recently abandoned their plans to produce hydrogen vehicles, concluding that they are not cost-effective, and they are not green. The few that are currently producing them are delivering a very small number for sale and lease at highly subsidized prices while giving away free hydrogen. If the critics are wrong, this will become obvious within the next few years.
  • No. 3: The article is about all fuel-cell vehicles, not just ZEVs. However, the stuff about Nissan's potential ethanol vehicle was way overwritten, since it is only a potential future application by one company and will not be commercialized until 2020 at the earliest, if at all. I've streamlined the Ethanol stuff and removed it from the Lead, where it was inappropriate per WP:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT.
  • No. 4: I agree that more could be said about the most important ongoing global development efforts, although we do note that several car companies continue to work on new models. We do mention development many times in the article, some of which are in the Cost section. I suggest that you add current, referenced information about the most significant ongoing development efforts and, perhaps, make the Cost section into a "Development and cost reduction" section, adding WP:RSs to support all new material.
  • No 5: We mention the idea that the vehicle is intended to reduce tailpipe emissions. We do explain its benefits in refrigerated warehouse forklifts. Also, I disagree with the last thing you say above. People can edit the articles on coal, or nuclear energy, for example, who are critical of those technologies. Everyone has to cite WP:RSs to verify all the facts noted, and the article should be balanced and give appropriate weight to the facts about the topic based on what the WP:RSs say. If you have found recent WP:RSs that contain important facts about fuel cell vehicles, please add them to the article! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

In the future, if you present more numbered lists, please use real numbers, rather than the # sign, to make sure that when someone replies to you, the numbers can't change and create confusion. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Re numbering, will do.
Thank you for taking care of item 1.
On number 2, may I suggest what seems to me a more appropriate metric for a fueling infrastructure than merely total station count. Consider instead the ratio of vehicles served to number of stations. The US has 253M vehicles served by 168,000 gas stations, so 1,500 vehicles per station. In April 2016 the California DMV reported 331 FCVs served by about 15 stations, so 22 vehicles per station. I don't know about you but to me that paints a very different picture.
On the basis of production projections by several FCV manufacturers and funding committed by 2013 California Assembly Bill 8 (qv), page 4 of the 2016 California Air Resources Board report at expects 13,500 FCVs registered with the DMV in 2019 and 43,600 in 2022, with more corroborative detail on these numbers on page 25 and nearby. Page 12 projects 66 stations in 2019 and 90 in 2022. The above ratio of 22 vehicles per station in April 2016 therefore increases to 205 in 2019 and 484 in 2022.
Not a good sign for FCVs, each station is getting more and more vehicles. I guess you're right. If that ratio keeps doubling every three years eventually FCVs won't have enough stations per vehicle. They're clearly doomed.
Re number 3 (ethanol fuel cells), many thanks for taking care of this.
On number 4, let me look into this some more. I believe there's a lot of data out there on this.
Re number 5, if as you say the only point of fuel cell vehicles other than forklifts is to reduce tailpipe emissions, then given (a) the many negatives of FCVs, (b) the fact that BEVs already meet that requirement (and furthermore with no negatives at all according to the Battery electric vehicle article), and (c) no other positives at all for FCVs according to you, then why would anyone in their right mind buy an FCV in preference to a BEV? Are you and Greglocock claiming that Hyundai, Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, etc. have identified a market comprised solely of people out of their minds who blindly buy ZEVs at random, and that Germany, Japan, California, etc. are rushing to meet the needs of that highly implausible market by ramping up towards a hundred stations in each of Japan and California? That's certainly how the article reads at present. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


Here's the scam. Various organizations research hydrogen cars. No problem. Various commercial organizations use government money to research hydrogen cars. Problem, it is blue sky research being represented as almost implementation ready. In reality i suspect we'll see practical nuclear fusion plants before the many problems with hydrogen cars are solved. It's a scam, not a conspiracy. Same sort of thing as PNGV. Greglocock (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That assessment is as far out of touch with the reality of fuel cell vehicles as climate deniers are with the reality of climate change.
The current (2013) assessment of the International Panel on Climate Change contradicts the climate deniers. Its current (July 2016) California counterpart for FCV deniers is the Annual Evaluation of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel Station Network Development, which describes a very different world from what you imagine to be the case. Its current (March 2016) Japanese counterpart is the report of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry giving Japan's plans for hydrogen and fuel cells, with rapid growth similar to that planned by California: 40,000 hydrogen-powered cars on Japan's roads by 2020 with plans for a 20-fold expansion to 800,000 by 2030.
These are not pie-in-the-sky plans, they're based on the very realistic plans of car companies in Japan, Korea, and Germany, who have enough experience with FCVs by now to know what they're talking about. Neither Japan nor California are known for making long-range plans based on nonexistent technology. Your projections on the other hand are based on nonexistent knowledge of the state of the art of FCVs. The article claims that "Critics doubt whether hydrogen will be efficient or cost-effective for automobiles, as compared with other zero emission technologies" which is just as true as "Critics doubt whether the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is harmful." Same thing except written by an FCV denier as opposed to a climate denier. Editorial bias of that kind violates WP:NPV.
If FCVs really had the problems you're conjuring up here no one in their right mind would buy one. I know a lot of FCV owners each of whom has driven thousands of miles on California roads, collectively well over a million miles. I can assure that they are not the idiots you seem to be implying they are for preferring an FCV over a BEV. There is a general consensus among them that if you wanted to pick an energy source mechanism for a car with as much range as today's FCVs, batteries would be an incredibly dumb idea. A battery in place of a hydrogen fuel tank would double the cost of the car, add more than seven hundred pounds to its weight, take ages to recharge, worry the driver that using more than half the full range would shorten battery life, and suffer reduced efficiency in cold weather as well as experiencing the additional load of the cabin heater. FCVs have none of these six drawbacks of long-range BEvs; furthermore no BEV manufacturer today has any proposal for overcoming even one of them. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
You are obviously an idiot. I'll bear that in mind when considering your contributions. Greglocock (talk)
May I assume that's your strongest argument? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
An idiots assumptions are of no interest to me. Assume what you want. Greglocock (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a talk page, not an insult page. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

CARB is nothing like IPCC. The CARB report is based on projections given to it by companies in the industry, not on peer-reviewed studies or other objective data. The CARB "report" is a fantasy. As to the other things you say above, we'll have to agree to disagree. But, as I have said multiple times above, if you have WP:Reliable sources for information about fuel cell vehicles, by all means, please update the article, as long as the updates satisfy our content policies and guidelines, including WP:CRYSTAL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

How does your WP:CRYSTAL concern apply to the ongoing and rapid deployment of hydrogen infrastructure by the governments of Germany, Japan, and California? The basis for the last is the 2013 California Assembly Bill 8 which has allocated $20M a year for a 100-station hydrogen infrastructure and has thus far spent the first year's worth, enough to support the current fleet of several hundred FCV owners. Far from being the "fantasy" you call it, the California ARB report is a requirement by the California government for ARB to report annually on progress in both how the AB-8 money has been spent to date and how and when ARB expects to spend the remainder. A thorough reading of the 85-page report and the 39 references cited in it should be compelling evidence that this is not a fantasy but real.
If you're not interested in reading these government-mandated reports may I suggest that you're not really interested in the truth but only in perpetuating your fantasy that FCVs aren't yet ready for deployment and have many obstacles to overcome before they can become a reality.
This is a complete fantasy on your part: there are hundreds of FCVs in regular use around Japan and California whose owners are unaware of any of those alleged obstacles. Believe it or not they drive like any other electric car and there is nothing about them that their owners would consider needs fixing besides minor annoyances unrelated to their motive power. They are as ready as they'll ever be.
You apparently also don't believe there are any advantages to FCVs over BEVs since you say that their only benefit is one that BEVs already have, namely no tail-pipe emissions. I pointed out that there are at least six significant advantages of FCVs over a 300-mile-range BEV, which apparently you don't believe. In your mind the world will be a better place when every car is a BEV, but at least half of those six drawbacks of BEVs are going to be a major obstacle to your vision. Obviously you know nothing about FCVs other than the drawbacks Joe Romm pointed out in 2004. Were you to drive an FCV a couple of thousand miles around California you'd be in a far better position to make informed edits to this article instead of merely regurgitating uninformed poppycock from the anti-FCV echo chambers so heavily cited in this article.
As long as you and Greglocock continue to insist that there is no objective data in any of the documentation of progress towards the hydrogen highways of Germany, Japan, and California, that all documentation of the status quo that is not peer-reviewed is "fantasy", and that FCVs have no advantages over BEVs, there is no point trying to edit this article as it would only lead to a prolonged edit war in which you continue to pontificate on a subject you're clearly ignorant about. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The CARB report may be fine with respect to things that have already happened. I only object to its projections and estimates. The main problem with your long statements above is that hydrogen cars are not green (at least not unless someone builds fueling stations that make hydrogen from renewable energy, but few, if any, of the public hydrogen stations do so). If you're not getting a green car, you can get an ICE car with equivalent performance of a Mirai much cheaper. But if you want a green car, your best options are a Prius, a Volt, a Leaf, one of the Ford or BMW EVs, or the new Bolts and Teslas that are coming out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about Germany or Japan but in California the grid is currently 22% 26.6% renewables (google for "FINAL 12302015 Section 913_6 Report.pdf", see page 5) and targeting 33% by 2020. Hydrogen sold in California is already at 33%. Both are increasing but it looks like it will be a while before the grid catches up to the hydrogen vendors, if ever. Until then FCVs will be greener than BEVs, at least in California.
Solar PV that's on the grid doesn't change this because it reduces overall carbon emissions by an amount that is independent of whether the the planet's EV's are all BEV's or all FCV's or anywhere in between. The only case where BEVs are greener than FCVs is when they can be charged during the day using solar PV that's off the grid, which FCVs can't use.
Meanwhile in regions with hydrogen infrastructure FCVs have the six advantages over long-range BEVs (range greater than 250 miles) that I mentioned above. Outside such regions the question does not come up because FCVs aren't sold there. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your suggested options for long-range low-emission vehicles, namely "Prius, a Volt, a Leaf, one of the Ford or BMW EVs, or the new Bolts and Teslas that are coming out.", on a long trip the Prius (even the future plug-in Prius Prime) and the Volt are just ordinary gasoline cars, though the Prius does get good mileage. None of the others have the range of any current FCV and should only be considered by those for whom their shorter range is sufficient or who don't mind long recharge times on longer trips. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. No, wrong: When hydrogen is made by electrolysis, it uses 4x the amount of energy per mile as BEVs. So hydrogen cars are just not green. And, again, since the car is not green, and not cheaper or better than an ICE, then as Greglocock so starkly put it, it's a scam. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. No, wrong. Who said anything about electrolysis? This seems to be part of your fantasy.
When you speak of electrolysis it would appear that you know nothing about how hydrogen is manufactured in California. This simply reinforces my earlier point that your anti-FCV pro-BEV bias is based on ignorance about both FCVs and hydrogen production. All you're doing is echoing Joe Romm's 2004 complaints about FCVs, you have no experience whatsoever with either driving FCVs or refuelling them. If you knew anything about the subject you'd understand that the well-to-wheels emissions of FCVs are far less than that of ICEs.
Calling a technology a "scam", and your opponents "idiots", are egregious violations of WP:NPV. Apparently you're unable to contradict the points made against your clearly biased support of BEVs. Either come up with good arguments to the contrary or give up. If your strongest argument is to call your opponents idiots and their technology a scam then you don't really have any argument at all. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't call anybody any names. NPV is our policy for articles, not talk pages. You asked questions, and I tried to answer your questions. If you're just going to be unpleasant and repetitive, I'm going to stop reading your long rants. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Quite right about NPV, I should have said WP:CIVILITY (but you haven't answered my detailed objections of WP:NPV for the article, merely dismissing them as one long "rant"). You are also right that the tone has become unpleasant, which would appear to have been inherited from the selection of title for this section (not my idea). It is easy to get me off on the wrong foot when I'm called an "idiot" (not by you), the subject matter I'm trying to defend (thus far unsuccessfully) a "scam" (by both of you), and my complaints a "rant" (by you). I'll try to do better by not responding in kind.
I'm also sure you're offended when I say that you appear to be ignorant about certain things, for which my apologies. A less offensive epithet might be "inexperienced"---have you ever driven an FCV? I have thousands of miles of experience doing so (I no longer drive an ICEV and no BEV to date has come near meeting my needs), as do many other FCV drivers I know, experiences which are wildly at odds with how FCV opponents appear to picture FCVs in their mind.
You are also right about FCVs being less efficient than BEVs. The Tesla S 90D with its 90 kWh (324 MJ) battery and EPA range of 294 miles consumes 324/294 = 1.1 MJ/mile assuming 100% efficient charging. The Mirai with its 5 kg (5*120 = 600 MJ) tank and EPA range of 312 miles consumes 600/312 = 1.8 MJ/mile. High temperature electrolysis is only 64% efficient and so the Tesla wold convert electricity to miles 1.8/1.1/.64 = 2.56 times as efficiently if the Mirai were to use that source of hydrogen. Cold climates narrow this gap by impacting BEVs much more than FCVs but it remains a significant gap. For this reason hydrogen from the vendor I use is produced entirely by steam reforming of a mix of fossil fuels and biofuels. The latter is classified as a renewable by both the state and the electric utilities when aiming to reach California's mandated 33% renewable electricity by 2020, a race in which hydrogen is currently ahead. Better for production of both electricity and hydrogen would be carbon capture but that would be a much bigger change.
Meanwhile I've previously listed six advantages of FCVs over long-range BEVs (which excludes a number of BEVs you listed above that are just fine for commuters but unsuitable for longer trips). Since neither you nor Greglocock have contradicted any of them, and since the article currently says nothing about benefits of FCVs, I'll try to be more constructive and write a section on that subject.
Again my apologies for my tone and length of my protests---the latter is the result of my trying to be clear as to my reasons, but perhaps brevity trumps clarity in this case. We all have the same goal: to make Wikipedia more informative and accurate. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fuel cell vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)