• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fuel cell buses, why not homes or businesses?

L

lefty louie

Banned
Joined
Dec 5, 2017
Messages
2,435
Reaction score
357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
As above, they have fuel cell buses in operation, they even have cars on a small scale, the problem they say is safety. So why don't we have fuel cell homes or businesses?
 
lefty louie said:
As above, they have fuel cell buses in operation, they even have cars on a small scale, the problem they say is safety. So why don't we have fuel cell homes or businesses?
Click to expand...

Because of the cost of making hydrogen.. and honestly, fuel cells are still on the expensive side. I hope that with some of the new catalysts for lowing the energy requirements for electrolysis, and the solid state fuel cells that are currently being developed, that fuel cells for cars and homes will be economical.
 
It costs a lot of money, like others pointed out.
 
In Sweden we will have a new trial with an off the grid house in Skellefteå, that will get power and heat only from solar power. That the house will have batteries for short term storage and produce and use hydrogen for long time storage for the dark and cold winters. There Skellefteå is as far north as southern Alaska. That creating and using hydrogen can be one of the future alternatives for storing energy.

https://translate.google.se/transla...s-anpassat-for-kallt-klimat-909484&edit-text=
 
Bergslagstroll said:
In Sweden we will have a new trial with an off the grid house in Skellefteå, that will get power and heat only from solar power. That the house will have batteries for short term storage and produce and use hydrogen for long time storage for the dark and cold winters. There Skellefteå is as far north as southern Alaska. That creating and using hydrogen can be one of the future alternatives for storing energy.

https://translate.google.se/transla...s-anpassat-for-kallt-klimat-909484&edit-text=
Click to expand...

The hydrogen production and the fuel cell technology is getting close to being economical.. and a trial house like that will help with designs for when it is. There are designs, and then there is being able to make it in the economy of scale. But ,making those houses is important for later on.
 
lefty louie said:
As above, they have fuel cell buses in operation, they even have cars on a small scale, the problem they say is safety. So why don't we have fuel cell homes or businesses?
Click to expand...

If you are referring to hydrogen fuel cells, yes safety is the issue, they should not even be used in buses to be truthfull.

The problem is hydrogen is extremely unstable unless contained properly. under contained conditions hydrogen is fine, however in lets say a collission if that fuel cell ruptures, it can be a massive bang, and something as big as a bus with a full fuel cell could damage quite a few buildings on a block.

It is a good idea just that the safety issue has not been worked out, building human proof storage for them may takes decades, and putting them in houses can be just as unsafe.
 
beerftw said:
If you are referring to hydrogen fuel cells, yes safety is the issue, they should not even be used in buses to be truthfull.

The problem is hydrogen is extremely unstable unless contained properly. under contained conditions hydrogen is fine, however in lets say a collission if that fuel cell ruptures, it can be a massive bang, and something as big as a bus with a full fuel cell could damage quite a few buildings on a block.

It is a good idea just that the safety issue has not been worked out, building human proof storage for them may takes decades, and putting them in houses can be just as unsafe.
Click to expand...

Well, if you compare that to gasoline, the same thing can happen there. (and no, it wouldn't cause a few buildings either).

Plus, with fuel cells, the hydrogen would go straight up into the air, while in cars, it sits on the ground and burns. So, it's as safe or safer than gasoline.

It does present some challenges, since leaks easy, and can ignite at a low temperature.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, if you compare that to gasoline, the same thing can happen there. (and no, it wouldn't cause a few buildings either).

Plus, with fuel cells, the hydrogen would go straight up into the air, while in cars, it sits on the ground and burns. So, it's as safe or safer than gasoline.

It does present some challenges, since leaks easy, and can ignite at a low temperature.
Click to expand...

It is definately not as safe as gasoline, I knew someone who decided to run an internal combustion engine off it, it ran great until one day he fired it up and shortly after it went bang and the cylinder head shot through the hood of the car. He swore off using it after that and ran into others who tried the same thing, with similiar results.

Sealed it is stable, but exposed to the atmosphere it can be as unpredictable as nitro glycerine. The great challenge besides making it cheaply and carbon neutral at the same time is making the storage strong enough to contain it under what normal people would expect in day to day conditions. hydrogen bonds to other molecules which leads to its extreme volatility and unpredictability, hydrogen and ocygen bonding make water, but hydrogen and other molecules can prove to be volatile.
 
lefty louie said:
As above, they have fuel cell buses in operation, they even have cars on a small scale, the problem they say is safety. So why don't we have fuel cell homes or businesses?
Click to expand...

It's coming, give it time, as the market settles out.
 
Fenton Lum said:
There it is, right there, and the corporate state bought up the "information" grid once Clinton deregulated the FCC. You will hear of what the corpoate state decides you shall hear about.
Click to expand...

You keep talking about "Clinton deregulating the FCC", which is as disingenuous as called the PPACA "Obamacare".
Obama wanted a public option, DENIED. Obama wanted single payer, DENIED. Obama wanted a ton of things which were all DENIED.
What we GOT was modeled after The Heritage Foundation blueprint, plus a proof of concept in RomneyCare.
That IS what the Affordable Care Act IS.

With FCC deregulation, we're talking about something Newt Gingrich cooked up.
It was introduced BY Republicans, it was rammed through Congress BY Republicans and finally Clinton had to sign it because had he not signed it, they would have rammed through another version and done a veto override.

But you calling it the "Clinton deregulation" is a total smear.
Ronald Reagan began the push to deregulate the FCC starting with killing The Fairness Doctrine, and the juggernaut continued all through the Reagan era, culminating in the 1994 Republican takeover and the 1996 Republican bill.

I don't know what your agenda is, or actually, I DO....and it's showing.
Why not just own up to the fact that you're really a closeted conservative and you want to make liberals look bad any way you can?
Because your constant drum beat of how "both parties are the same" is nonsense.
 
lefty louie said:
As above, they have fuel cell buses in operation, they even have cars on a small scale, the problem they say is safety. So why don't we have fuel cell homes or businesses?
Click to expand...

Not cost effective.

Cities will spout off how clean their transportation is, but in reality, the power sill is forcing more coal or natural gas burning somewhere to produce that hydrogen.

At 10 cents a kWh, it costs $4.40 to produce enough hydrogen equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline.That doesn't include the costs of maintaining the equipment, profits, and everything else. In the end, hydrogen is probably over $8/gal equivalent to use.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
In Sweden we will have a new trial with an off the grid house in Skellefteå, that will get power and heat only from solar power. That the house will have batteries for short term storage and produce and use hydrogen for long time storage for the dark and cold winters. There Skellefteå is as far north as southern Alaska. That creating and using hydrogen can be one of the future alternatives for storing energy.

https://translate.google.se/transla...s-anpassat-for-kallt-klimat-909484&edit-text=
Click to expand...

I believe this is what is needed for individual homes. I have advocated the same. Having enough extra solar power that the cost is irrelevant channeling the excess power to make hydrogen.

I hope this test house goes well. I suspect it will, though the initial cost is out of reach of most families.
 


:popcorn2:
 
I wonder how long Jack's car lasted, and what range he had.
 
lefty louie said:
As above, they have fuel cell buses in operation, they even have cars on a small scale, the problem they say is safety. So why don't we have fuel cell homes or businesses?
Click to expand...
On top of some of the other points made, there is fuel transport issues too. It’s the same reason the only homes which have fuel-burning generators tend to be very remote or isolated ones. Vehicles can be taken to petrol stations of depots to be refuelled. For buildings, fuel would need delivering to them and electricity is easier to transfer in bulk than the equivalent raw fuel in solid, liquid or gas form (I know we have domestic gas piping but the scale is much lower than would be required for power generation and even that poses significant safety issues).

It’s basically not necessary when there are better options for renewable domestic power generation.
 
RAMOSS said:
The hydrogen production and the fuel cell technology is getting close to being economical.. and a trial house like that will help with designs for when it is. There are designs, and then there is being able to make it in the economy of scale. But ,making those houses is important for later on.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can just look at renewable energy like solar and wind power. That you today see a drastic decrease in cost and increase in investments thanks to that you have had individuals, countries and companies that was willing to lead the way.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ble-energy-costs-leads-to-record-global-boost

https://www.iea.org/publications/renewables2017/
 
Lord of Planar said:
I believe this is what is needed for individual homes. I have advocated the same. Having enough extra solar power that the cost is irrelevant channeling the excess power to make hydrogen.

I hope this test house goes well. I suspect it will, though the initial cost is out of reach of most families.
Click to expand...

Yes, the cost can maybe be high in the beginning still an interesting that it's extreme experiment, that Skellefteå is not only far north in the world but also for being Sweden. Also, that typical Sweden houses often doesn't use electricity for heating instead it's common with district heating.

District heating

So, a “normal” house will need a much smaller system with a lower cost. An idea could also be if the system for the house wasn’t off the grid but instead sold electricity when the demand was high and used electricity than the price was low. That you could have an automatic system that kept control of both short and long-term trends for electricity prices. That at least it could be a good idea for businesses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom