Forget the hydrogen economy, go methanol!

[Air-Hybrid]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The fuel cell alone still costs more than most cars don't they?

Compare and contrast; other efforts to replace a century-old technology, the CRT, met with some success ~ in time:
"In 1997, Philips introduced a 42-inch (107 cm) display, with 852x480 resolution. It was the only plasma to be displayed to the retail public in 4 Sears locations in the US. The price was US$14,999 and included in-home installation."

...This thread was never supposed to indicate that we can expect 'fuel-cell car' sales to take off tomorrow; there's still quite a way to go before they begin to catch on.
What it is saying (or was having a go at predicting) is that, as one of the techs that may eventually replace the IC engine, the FC-engined cars a couple of decades from now will be far more likely to use a 'fuel tank' holding methanol than one containing [adsorbed] hydrogen.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Air-Hybrid

This thread was never supposed to indicate that we can expect 'fuel-cell car' sales to take off tomorrow; there's still quite a way to go before they begin to catch on.
What it is saying (or was having a go at predicting) is that, as one of the techs that may eventually replace the IC engine, the FC-engined cars a couple of decades from now will be far more likely to use a 'fuel tank' holding methanol than one containing [adsorbed] hydrogen.

The methanol-to-hydrogen converter is also not cheap, but considering the high energy expense to stock pure hydrogen with safety it would still eventually remain as a middle-to-long term viable alternative

[Air-Hybrid]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

The methanol-to-hydrogen converter is also not cheap

Just for the record, this cell doesn't require a converter unit. The cell itself is inherently converting 'methanol-to-hydrogen' at the interface of the fuel-cell itself. ~ If this process can fulfil expectations by having efficiencies close to that of a straight H2 fuel cell then there will never be enough of an economic (or environmental) motive to warrant the expense of creating a hydrogen infrastructure anyway.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Air-Hybrid

Just for the record, this cell doesn't require a converter unit. The cell itself is inherently converting 'methanol-to-hydrogen' at the interface of the fuel-cell itself. ~ If this process can fulfil expectations by having efficiencies close to that of a straight H2 fuel cell then there will never be enough of an economic (or environmental) motive to warrant the expense of creating a hydrogen infrastructure anyway.

If it could also use CNG or LNG, that would be even more cost-effective, since many of the hydrogen is converted from Natural Gas

[Air-Hybrid]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

If it could also use CNG or LNG, that would be even more cost-effective, since many of the hydrogen is converted from Natural Gas

I don't know enough about the chemistry to say if a NatGas (well, methane) fuel-cell could be designed along the same lines as this one, but so far fuel cells (apart from hydrogen fuelled cells) have only found uses in static applications (or for relatively low-power tasks like those they're looking at for laptops).
I think it gets more challenging anyway with increasing molecular complexity, so for heavy duty power like road vehicles, it seems (presently) that all but hydrogen and this new methanol process are too bulky and too inefficient for cars, etc. ~ LPG would definitely be out, as it is a mixture of HC gases (a propane and butane mix); but butane alone would be better than methanol if a cell like the one described could work with it as it can be liquefied at lowish pressures and has a high energy density. ~ it's a huge 'if' though!

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Fuel-cells seem to be still so far away from economic viability, at least for the next decade.

[Air-Hybrid]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Fuel-cells seem to be still so far away from economic viability, at least for the next decade.

Yep.

Originally Posted by Air-Hybrid

[I'm predicting that competitive ] F.C. 'engined' cars, a couple of decades, from now will be far more likely to use a 'fuel tank' holding methanol than one containing [adsorbed] hydrogen.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Fuel-cells seem to be still so far away from economic viability, at least for the next decade.

Agreed. The future is still a battle between battery chemistry and fuel cells.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by UFO

The future is still a battle between battery chemistry and fuel cells.

Meanwhile, as far as internal combustion engines go, I'd still keep the Diesels as a primary choice. Believe me, before becoming a dieselhead I used to be favorable to fuel-cells and 10 years ago I even used to think they would be economically-viable in 2015.

[oil pan 4]

I dont think fuel cells will be able to power a on road vehicle with satisfactory performance with out batteries or capacitors.
A fuel cell powering the vehicle all by its self would have to be so big and expensive I don't see how it would be workable.

One thing I don't understand is why people have range worries. Get a charge trailer for longer trips.