backtop

Print 33 comment(s) - last by pixelslave.. on Feb 6 at 4:07 PM

DRDO-Reva fuel cell electric car prototype - Courtesy Hindu Business Line
Hydrogen fuel cell technology is being heavily researched by scientists and researchers around the world, including India

The possibility that drivers in India will be driving around in cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells is much closer, according to a group of Indian defense scientists and car engineers.  A new electric hybrid vehicle, developed by the Indian Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and Reva Electric Car Company, will have an initial range of 120 kilometers and is capable of speeds near 65 kilometers per hour. 

DRDO in many ways is essentially an Indian version of the US DARPA program.  The DRDO has been working on fuel cell research for over a decade, and Reva ECC has had experience with electric cars for about as long.  The partnership between the two companies to share technology is a major breakthrough for an Indian hydrogen economy.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Hmm.
By Pythias on 2/3/2006 4:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe last time I checked. However.... What energy source are we going to use to separate the hydrogen from water ot gather it from the atmosphere?




RE: Hmm.
By saratoga on 2/3/2006 4:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely, we'll use oil to generate the hydrogen gas, or else power the fuel cells directly with gasoline or natural gas. Which is why talk of fuel cells as an alternative energy source is misguided. They're not an energy source. They're a replacement for the internal combuston engine, but one that will ultimately still burn (well oxidize anyway) the same fuels.



RE: Hmm.
By masteraleph on 2/3/2006 4:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, within the US in particular, coal is a more likely sources than oil. There's tons and tons and tons of it under US soil, and it's relatively cheap.


RE: Hmm.
By Shining Arcanine on 2/5/2006 12:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with coal is that it is a dirty fuel. Burning coal to make hydrogen will release millions of tons of uranium and other radioactive elements into the atmosphere, on top of the millions already being released.


RE: Hmm.
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/5/2006 1:36:24 PM , Rating: 3
I live in Illinois... a third of the entire state sits on top of coal. Needless to say, coal is a hot topic in Illinois.

As part of a graduate level industrial mathematics course, a topic I had was to determine the cost of building a fleet of nuclear power plant versus building a fleet of zero emission coal plant in Illinois. Surprisingly, ZEC is still way more cost effective due to the fact that coal is ridiculously incredibly cheap --- it also doesn't help that nuclear facilities are always one of a kind powerplants that always take a few billion to get started either.

You're right though, typical coal powerplants burn more uranium into the air than if we just decided to dump nuclear refuge into the air when we are done with it. There are a lot of studies that say an estimated 1000 people per year die from emissions specifically from coal powerplants IN CHICAGO each year.

Kristopher


RE: Hmm.
By Pythias on 2/3/2006 4:25:24 PM , Rating: 2
Thats kind of what I was thinking. Maybe if we used geothermal/wind/photo as the source used to extract hydrogen?

And whatever happened to ethanol?


RE: Hmm.
By saratoga on 2/3/2006 4:44:23 PM , Rating: 1
Ethanol ended up as a good way to subsidize corn production, at least in the US. IIRC brazil actually exports some ethanol thats reasonablely competitive with gasoline (though from sugar and not corn since corn is a poor source).

Theres still some interest in biodesel as a fuel source too. Evidently its more effcient to produce (or at least its hoped that it will be) then ethanol. I'm hopeing for this. Some sort of biological process (maybe in alge) seems like the only way solar is ever going to be a viable large scale energy sourece. Though I haven't followed the situation too closely.


RE: Hmm.
By ZmaxDP on 2/3/2006 7:09:05 PM , Rating: 3
SOlar is actually quite close to being viable. Most experts estimate that in the next 5-10 years it will become more economically efficient (read cheaper) than fossil fuels.

New solar panels are approaching 20% efficiency. A home retrofitted with approximately 15 thousand dollars in solar panels and all the associated electrical changes can be fully self sufficient. This sounds like a lot of money of course! However, the cost you can write off your taxes - which gives you back roughly 30% of that. In addition, most cities and states have additional incentives. As an example, in Austin, TX you could get a complete solar array which would balance a typical homes energy bill (balance = no net payment over the course of the year) for under $5000. Given utility bills over $1000 a year you will have paid for the system completely in 5 years. Get energy efficient appliances (high effeciency refridgerator, washer/dryer, dishwasher, and stove/oven, tankless hot water heater) and you can get a smaller array and have it pay for itself in less time - $3000 and 3 years for the array, plus whatever the cost of the new appliances. This is particularly attractive if you're building a new home as you'd have to get appliances anyway. Not so hot for a retrofit.

The key figure is the average time an american family spends in their home before a move. Currently this is around 3 years. Once the system can pay for itself in that time frame, you have a setup that is cheaper than fossil fuels.

Point being, we're quite close to that point already. Maybe a year or two. Then you have to factor in market saturation and PR (so people don't say things like "what if it hails" and dismiss the idea completely - the answer is insurance just like when it hails and ruins your roof btw...). Hence the 5 - 10 year estimate. Solar is VERY close to making it for homes and small businesses. It is not likely to make it on the power plant level. And cars are difficult because of storage issues. It is more reasonable to assume you'll charge some kind of battery with energy from your solar cells.

If you want to see some examples, go to: www.utsolard.org

There are links to the Department of Energy and National Renewable Energy Lab's Solar Decathlon page. There were 20 homes operating on the National Mall for 3 weeks AND charging electric vehicles, all while making meals, washing three loads of clothes, and producing hot water. Even more suggestive of how close we are is that it rained for two straight weeks during the competition and the homes still operated. (So don't say "what if it get's cloudy?")

Go Solar!!!


RE: Hmm.
By Shining Arcanine on 2/5/2006 12:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with ethanol is that it costs more to produce than it costs to sell. The reason the ethanol companies have not went bankrupt is because they are being government subsided.


RE: Hmm.
By clubok on 2/3/2006 11:29:26 PM , Rating: 3
Corn-based ethanol actually requires 29% more fossil fuel to produce than it saves, at least according to one study. Take a look at http://www.slate.com/id/2122961/ for more info on this.

I believe that hydrogen will make renewable energy sources like geothermal, wind, and solar more economical. Here's why:

One of the big problems that these sources have is that, unlike nuclear or fossil fuel generators, they cannot ramp production up or down to meet demand. For example, on a hot, still day, the windmills might be sitting idle while everybody is cranking up their air conditioning. If the wind picks up in the evening, then energy production will increase just as demand is decreasing.

Having a good way to store energy changes all this. Windmills could convert their extra energy into hydrogen. This could either be sold to filling stations, or used to help meet demand during peak usage times.


RE: Hmm.
By Shining Arcanine on 2/5/2006 12:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
What about nuclear power? There is a ton of extra capacity going to waste at night time. We could use the excess energy at night to generate the hydrogen, and since it would have been otherwise wasted, it could be written off as free energy.


RE: Hmm.
By stephenbrooks on 2/4/2006 5:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
--[However.... What energy source are we going to use to separate the hydrogen from water ot gather it from the atmosphere?]--

Which atmosphere? Jupiter's is made mostly of hydrogen :)


What about the infrastructure?
By Lord Zado on 2/3/2006 10:53:09 AM , Rating: 2
Even if they manage to build a car in the near future, can the country really afford to retrofit all gas pumps with equipment for hydrogen?




RE: What about the infrastructure?
By Maven on 2/3/06, Rating: 0
RE: What about the infrastructure?
By Griswold on 2/3/2006 1:48:30 PM , Rating: 2
No, a fuel cell is not a battery that is charged by a power outlet..

From wikipedia about fuel cells:

In the archetypal example of a hydrogen/oxygen proton-exchange membrane (or "polymer electrolyte") fuel cell (PEMFC), a proton-conducting polymer membrane separates the anode and cathode sides. Each side has an electrode, typically carbon paper coated with platinum catalyst.

On the anode side, hydrogen diffuses to the anode catalyst where it dissociates into protons and electrons. The protons are conducted through the membrane to the cathode, but the electrons are forced to travel in an external circuit (supplying power) because the membrane is electrically insulating.

On the cathode catalyst, oxygen molecules react with the electrons (which have travelled through the external circuit) and protons to form water.


By saratoga on 2/3/2006 4:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
A fuel cell can function as battery in that it converts chemical energy to electrical energy without first converting to heat. In fact, since the fuel cell reaction is reverseable, you can even charge a fuel cell (well charge some fuel cells, obviously putting current into a fuel cell not designed for it could destroy the unit).

Look through the Wikipedia artical you linked. While it correctly notes that fuel cells work differently then traditional electrochemical cells, it notes that one application of fuel cells will likely be as a replacement for very large lead acid batteries in applications where excess electrical energy needs to be stored, and then released later.

Also, you may be interested in the Wikipedia discussion about the nature of batteries and fuel cells as it discusses this in detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fuel_cell


RE: What about the infrastructure?
By wolfff on 2/4/2006 6:26:53 AM , Rating: 2
About 10 years ago, all Public Transport was converted from Diesel to CNG. Well they retrofitted half the Petrol Pumps, or Gas stations as they're called in the US, with CNG. So converting to Hydrogen should not be a problem. What is a problem is the company itself, Reva. I mean their electric car has been for sale here for about 4 yrs, maybe more. And in the 2hrs. of driving that I do everyday in Delhi, I remember seeing only 1 since its launch. Im all for what these guys are doing, but Im not sure any1 would like to buy a Reva, after all it looks like somthing Bugs Bunny would drive. But once we have the technology, more and more companies would hop in, only then could it be a real alternative to a regular Diesel/Petrol car.

P.S. If slurpies is a flavored drink made with Crushed Ice, then yea, its available almost everywhere in India, its called slush here. First time im coming across that term.


Heh
By stephenbrooks on 2/3/2006 2:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
Would be funny if India went ahead with this and left America and Europe in the dust. We've done a lot of talking but not much action so far it seems.




RE: Heh
By MScrip on 2/3/2006 3:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, India does have all of our tech support... maybe they will get the first working fuel cell deployment!

Then we can call them when our fuel cell car gets a BSOD!


RE: Heh
By ksherman on 2/3/2006 4:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
lmao...


RE: Heh
By APKasten on 2/4/2006 2:05:08 AM , Rating: 2
Though I agree its somewhat sad that the US would be behind India on this, it makes much more sense for India to pursue this technology. Their population density and the shear number of people living there make it critical for them to cut down on emisions as they continue to grow or face serious consequences. That and they probably see that petrol or natural gas is a limited resource which will become more and more expensive as India and China become more mobile and begin to take their share out of the world's oil reserves.


Maybe
By DigitalFreak on 2/3/2006 11:05:18 AM , Rating: 1
it will run on Slurpies!




RE: Maybe
By Connoisseur on 2/3/2006 11:08:57 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I don't believe they even have slurpees in India... well I haven't been there in 5 years so it could've changed. In either case, this vehicle looks like it was bred purely for city driving. With that in mind, they'd only have to retrofit the pumps within the major cities initially.
It's sad that even India is further along in alternative fuel technology rollout than the U.S. Should be a wakeup call to us here in the states, but I don't think anyone's listening.


RE: Maybe
By UlricT on 2/3/2006 11:47:58 AM , Rating: 2
Lol there have been slurpies for at least 10 yrsin India... or slushes as I think they are called. Anyways, Indian cities have been surprising agile in retrofitting the gas pumps to use LNG for all the public transportation (Delhi). I do not think doing it again would be a problem.


RE: Maybe
By masteraleph on 2/3/2006 1:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. Not only does it look that way, but the specs (short range and relatively slow maximum speed) suggest that city driving is going to be the preferred use.


DRDO
By raildogg on 2/3/2006 11:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
Is this the same DRDO that spent 20 plus years building an Indian main battle tank? If I'm not mistaken, that tank is still not in service. I hope the DRDO comes through on this though. It's a highly ambitious project and I wish India well. It is our friend.




RE: DRDO
By icered on 2/4/2006 12:59:28 AM , Rating: 3
I think the Indian MBT (Arjun) is already in production and a few of them were inducted into the Army years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun
http://www.drdo.com/products/mbt.htm

It seems the Indian version of the fuel cell battery runs on methanol which is widely available in the country and subsidised by the government(=cheap).


Go solar!
By Pythias on 2/3/2006 11:26:38 PM , Rating: 3
Wow. thanks for the heads up and the link, zmax. This would also solve the problem plugging in to seperate the hydrogen from water. What do you guys think.

On a side note. Good for India. I think its great that they're researchin gways of implementing this technology and I hope more countries follow suit.




usa europoe
By mxzrider2 on 2/3/2006 10:45:39 PM , Rating: 2
for hte person who said that their arent hydogen cars in europe and usa ( and japan) they are wrong. the global five plus honda (maybe nissan) have hydrogen cars. they just arent very safe and cant go very far. hell gm has an 1995 s-10 that uses hydrogen power. problem is right now its hard to get hydrogen for the cars in ( from a pump design for the cars) as they are only avail from the testing sites. also the fuel cell articale fro wikipedia doesnt apply ot cars as they arent charged by electricty.




I want one
By ted61 on 2/3/2006 11:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't care about the politics involved in who builds it first. I want one. My landlord might get a little upset about the ethenol tank in the back yard but it would be a great work car.

I will not have to worry about my son wanting to borrow the thing either.




That car looks familiar
By 9nails on 2/4/2006 3:05:46 AM , Rating: 2
Didn't I see that car in the Adams Family movies? Cousin It was driving it IIRC.

I know Hydrogen will be extracted from Oil initially... And I know that there is some promise in Corn to Hydrogen refinement. But I feel that Corn will be costly to extract the hydrogen from. And I see that storage will continue to be a problem. So I'm not as excited by hydrogen technology as I am with the discovery of better/practical ways to generate and store electricity. I actually think Oceanic Current holds a solid future in Energy production. A hydrogen/renewable electricity hybrid would capture my interest. Especially if it could easily sustain travel at 65 Mph/105 Kph with ranges equal to or greater than fossil fuel auto's (400 Miles/643 KM.)

Speaking of electricity, where is this new battery that Toshiba hyped last year? The one that was supposed to charge to 80% capacity in 1 minute and totally revolutionize the Li-Ion battery market?




Solar
By pixelslave on 2/6/2006 4:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
I've made the decision that my next house will be entirely powered by solar. That's said, with solar panel going down in price, I do have one worry -- if every, I mean, every house in the US is equipped with solar panels, I wonder if it would have any effect on our environment. I meant, looking down from the sky, wouldn't the US become one big reflective surface? What's the implication of that?




By shortylickens on 2/3/2006 7:29:26 PM , Rating: 1
I'd be more impressed if they figured out birth control.




"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki