| |
VK2AAB > FUEL 23.08.09 02:18l 33 Lines 1443 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 4986_VK2AAB
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re:Fuel Cell Busses
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<HB9EAS<OE9XPI<OE7XLR<OE5XBL<OE6XPE<DB0RES<IK2XDE<
PY1AYH<PY1AYH<CX2SA<VK2DOT<VK2TGB<VK2IO<VK2AAB
Sent: 090822/2328Z @:VK2AAB.#SYD.NSW.AUS.OC #:4986 [SYDNEY] FBB7.00i $:4986_VK2
From: VK2AAB@VK2AAB.#SYD.NSW.AUS.OC
To : FUEL@WW
Hello Ray & Bob,
The reason that hydrogen systems use fuel cells and do not
use the internal combustion engine is the inefficiency of said IC engine.
The fuel cell and electric motor delivers significantly more power to the
wheels than the IC engine burning the same amount of hydrogen.
Other than the lifetime of fuel cells the following are the reasons I have
seen given for hydrogen not being a goer;
1. The storage is bulky.
2. It leaks, even through the walls of the tanks. 10% per day suggested.
3. The cost of equipping the distribution system.
4. If the hydrogen source is electrolisus the ERoEI is very poor.
5. If the hydrogen source is hydrocarbons the CO2 emmission is very high.
6. 5 defeats the purpose of the excercise.
7. Parking garages need to be specially designed for hydrogen cars.
8. Five times as many delivery tankers required to deliver the fuel.
9. The whole current boot area of a car would be needed for the fuel tank.
10. Cost, reliabilty and lifetime of fuel cells.
These are just a selection of the reasons I have read for the whole idea
being dropped. I am no expert myself but the above is repeatedly given as the
reasons hydrogen fuel is not a goer for general use.
Bob, I have asked my son's father-in-law what he knows about the Perth trial.
BTW do you know who is the manufacturer of the Perth busses ?
73 Barry VK2AAB
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
