User talk:Pfchea

Welcome

Hello, Pfchea, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. Here are a few important links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:CITE
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Manual of Style and Writing better articles
• Editing by consensus – working well with other Wikipedians

If you'd like some help with editing, you can sign up at the new users log or ask me on my discussion (talk) page. If you need other help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, post a question at the Help Desk, or ask me.

Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. It is always wise to read the most recent entries at the bottom of the talk page of an existing article before making major changes to it. Before I make a major change to an article, I often make a proposal on the talk page to see if anyone minds.

Again, welcome! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Dear Pfchea, I welcome your expertise in updating these articles. To achieve neutrality, you need to present the criticisms of the use of hydrogen fuel cells in transportation, as well as the aspirations of the fuel cell industry for which you are lobbyists. I was concerned that in the editing by some of the people on your team, sources were misused, and referenced information was deleted without discussion, which actually decreased the neutrality of the articles. I urge you to take care that your renewed editing follows our guideline WP:Conflicts of interest. I also note that the references that were added by some of you are missing crucial information. All references need (in addition to the url) the title of the article referenced, author name, publisher name, date and access date. See WP:CITE. I am happy to help with editing and referencing questions. At the top of this page, I have left you a number of very links that will help you if you review them. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued assistance in adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. The account was locked out before I could go and sufficiently edit the references given in our edits. As for neutrality, we strive to inform the public of the recent developments of fuel cells and hydrogen, and at the same time will be searching for contrasting arguments for parallel technologies such as battery electric vehicles, solar energy, and gas turbines. Given your extensive editing, one concern we had was how to properly cite government sources that are webpaged, and do not necessarily have a link to a specific individual. It was assumed that the citation would merely mention the program, and division of government as well as date accessed and url. Thanks. Pfchea (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You will see that I expanded your cite to the Fuel Cell Technology Program. It looks like this now: <ref name=Accomplishments>[http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/accomplishments.html "Accomplishments and Progress"]. Fuel Cell Technology Program, U.S. Dept. of Energy, June 24, 2011</ref> Then, in subsequent uses of the same cite, since we gave it a "ref name", we can just use the short form with a / at the end, like this: <ref name=Accomplishments/> Basically, give as much of the bibliographic information as exists. Government pages usually will not have an "author name", so you can skip that. If there is a "page number" from a book or long article, that should be included too. Let me know if you have further questions. Note that any info from the Dept. of Energy should also point out that the Secretary of Energy believes that hydrogen fuel cells are not likely to be commercialized in the next couple of decades. As to your observations above, from a "real world" perspective, while hydrogen fuel cells and other technologies are under *development* for transportation, the only technologies that actually exist for automobiles for commercial sale are ICEs, hybrids, PHEVs and BEVs. So it should not be implied that hydrogen is "better" than an existing techology, because you cannot buy a hydrogen FC car. The most you can say is that it has certain advantages and disadvantages over existing technologies. The well-known disadvantages are that 1. You have to make hydrogen (this requires using either a lot of electricity or polluting natural gas); 2. You have to get the hydrogen to a fueling station (there are currently no fueling stations that make hydrogen - it is expensively brought there in polluting trucks.); 3. Hydrogen fueling stations are extremely expensive; 4. You have to store the hydrogen at high pressure; 5. There are few fueling stations, and the government is showing no signs of building a lot more any time soon. Other countries have "plans" to build them but have not actually begun to do so on any scale; 6. The technology is still very expensive. Toyota has said that they hope to have a car by 2015 at a price point of $50,000, but that is only their projection. We cannot be sure that they can deliver this. See WP:CRYSTAL. Indeed, many argue that hydrogen fuel cells will never be commercialized because the infrastructure will never be built. Also, it is important to keep in mind, for the fuel cell article, that cars are the largest commercial market. Things like boats/bicycles/motocycles/planes, etc. are of interest, but the big item for the economy is cars. To make these articles "neutral", they really should treat cars as the key market and discuss the other applications at less length. However, I would put forklifts closer to the top, since they are actually being commercialized now. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

SSilvers,

Thank you for your assistance correcting the links and explaining proper citation methods. I will follow your advice as I continue to help expand pages. However, I do have some concerns with the statements you drafted, as many are factually inaccurate and place an emphasis on opinion.

First, it’s difficult to place Secretary Chu’s opinion as a representation of an entire government institution. The Secretary can change at the whim of the administration or election. A more neutral tone to quote from him would be his recent press statement concerning the installation of fuel cells at US military bases, he stated fuel cells “help reduce fossil fuel use and improve energy reliability at military installations across the country.” But mainly, his opinion is in conflict with one of Wikipedia’s 5 pillars, WP:NPOV, with regards to the impartial tone in a heated dispute. Secretary Chu’s comments should not be given greater weight than raw data from Department of Energy studies. The data collected has no bias and is open for comparison.

I’d also like to address your six disadvantages, which I believe are a common misperception for those not in the fuel cell or hydrogen industries. The information provided is based on what exists, unless otherwise noted.

"You have to make hydrogen (this requires using either a lot of electricity or polluting natural gas)"

Hydrogen can be mass-produced from a range of sources, with 95% of hydrogen in the USA produced via steam-methane thermal reforming (worldwide its 48%). This method does not “pollute” natural gas, it uses heat and pressure to generate hydrogen. The process has a loss of energy of about 30%, the process is about 70% efficient. While electrolysis does require significant power needs, it is not the common method.

"Hydrogen fueling stations are extremely expensive"

The cost of fueling stations is competitive with retrofitting or building a petrol station. Below is a price comparison listing for two forms of hydrogen production, on site hydrolysis, and centralized distribution compared to a traditional gasoline station.

• Sun hydro offers on site hydrolysis
  • $2-3 million for a station
  • $100-200k for home station
• Air products offers centralized distribution
  • $1 million
• Traditional Gasoline Station:
  • Reed Construction
  • $500K-$2.2million for a station in CA
  • Most stations don’t advertise price above $2 million

"You have to get the hydrogen to a fueling station (there are currently no fueling stations that make hydrogen - it is expensively brought there in polluting trucks.)"

On site production of hydrogen exists across the US in CA, CO, FL, MI, VT, TX, and globally in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain and China. Although certainly fewer hydrogen stations exist than petrol, it’s factually incorrect to state there are none with onsite production. The advantage of these stations is that efficiencies are kept high as the fueling stations are taping into existing natural gas infrastructure. Another method, as you stated above is centralized production and delivery, which does serve the majority of today’s hydrogen demand for industrial sectors. This method utilizes the same delivery methods as petroleum infrastructure today, delivery by truck and limited pipeline infrastructure. Implementation of this method does emit carbon, as you stated, but the vehicles that run on the hydrogen do not emit any GHGs. Centralized production of hydrogen is also relatively affordable, with costs generally around $2 million dollars per fueling station. This is competitive with the construction of a new petrol station ($1-2 million). These examples are the most numerous as industrial hydrogenated food production, fertilizer, space programs and synthetic hydrocarbons already use this method. Renewable production sites exist too. There are a number of stations that currently utilize renewable solar and wind energy to produce carbon free hydrogen. Excellent examples are Honda’s Torrance, CA station, the world’s first solar powered hydrogen production station, Hickam AFB’s solar production station in Honolulu, HI for aircraft vehicles, and several stations in Spain and Germany.

The following information is for reference, and not intended to be placed within the pages as it falls under WP:CRYSTAL. In terms of widespread infrastructure, the initial investment does not need to be exceptionally costly. The National Research Council estimated that creating the infrastructure to supply fuel for 10 million FCEVs through 2025 would cost the government only $8 billion over 16 years. This is significantly cheaper than the $160 billion we are expected to spend annually on gasoline infrastructure in the next 25 years. A McKinsey report estimated that the annual cost of creating BEV and PHEVs infrastructure in Europe would be five times that of hydrogen infrastructure; demonstrating that hydrogen may actually be our cheapest option.

"You have to store the hydrogen at high pressure"

I don’t understand how this is a disadvantage. Safety of the tanks has been established through thorough testing methods by the NHTSA; these are the same methods used to crash test existing petroleum and BEV cars. Safety of hydrogen tanks was also demonstrated to be preferred over petroleum tanks due to the ease and speed of gas dissipation during rupture. A comparative demonstration of ignited gasoline and hydrogen tanks showed hydrogen tanks to burn shorter and at lower temperatures. Honda, General Motors, Toyota, Daimler, Hyundai and other major auto makers have made a decision to proceed to commercialization of FCEVs using tanks that store pressurized hydrogen gas. The issue of storage has been settled by the marketplace, at least for the first generations of cars. These tanks provide enough hydrogen to attain the kind of vehicle ranges — 250 to 400 miles — American consumers have come to expect, compared to 73 miles for the best affordable battery electric vehicle (the tesla roadster gets 245 miles per charge but is out of production and is limited to people who can afford a $100,000 vehicle). FCEV models coming to market report even better range. NREL monitored a test of Toyota’s FCEV, and validated a 431-mile range under normal driving conditions. NREL monitors about 150 FCEVs and reports average refueling time of a little more than four minutes. This technology has allowed the DOE to evaluate real-world performance of over 155 FCEVs and accumulate over 131,000 operating hours and more than 3 million miles , a testament to the durability of the technology . Onboard storage has exceeded expectations and continues to improve as more research is done, and hydrogen storage codes and standards are established and improved.

"There are few fueling stations, and the government is showing no signs of building a lot more any time soon. Other countries have "plans" to build them but have not actually begun to do so on any scale"

True, there are no clear signs from the US government for building new stations, however, this has spurred private investors and companies to take initiatives. There are several examples of infrastructure development currently in the US. First, the automobile manufacturers have decided to invest their own money in infrastructure, seen by Honda and GM’s funding for Shell stations in Torrance, CA and White Plains, NY. Second, private hydrogen producers such as SunHydro and ProtonOnsite have decided to partner with Automotive Oil Change Association to bring hydrogen fueling to many of the 15,000 locations of AOCA oil change and quick lube centers. At this point, the question of stations and infrastructure is likely to be determined by the market and not government.

"The technology is still very expensive. Toyota has said that they hope to have a car by 2015 at a price point of $50,000, but that is only their projection. We cannot be sure that they can deliver this."

It seems pointless to debate the issue of price of FCEVs, as we both obviously feel strongly either way, but I will say that the cost of FCEVs has dropped 82% since 2002. The price point of $50,000 is not necessarily expensive in the context of alternative fueled vehicles. You cited the Chevrolet Volt as being “less” costly, which is true. However, the Volt is listed on Chevrolet’s website at $40,280, before incentives. Fuel cell vehicles qualify for similar alternative vehicle incentives of about $8k, which would reduce the price to ~$43,000 the same as a Toyota Highlander Hybrid.

Just to wrap-up your other comments here are a few more things to consider. True, no commercial fuel cell automobiles are on sale, but a number of company’s are leasing them to the public for a limited time. These vehicles are being demonstrated and will be ready for market in the near-term. Additionally, there are plenty of other fuel cell applications that I believe will make a strong impact on the economy. In terms of transportation, a number of buses are currently deployed, such as by AC transit in Oakland, CA or the Metro Buses in Tokyo, Japan. Other applications such as boats and bicycles are not in high demand, but planes are. The US DOD views fuel cell UAV’s as an emerging market and has a wide range of them in service or in testing phases of R&D (these planes are of the portable size, not Global Hawk size). Finally, forklifts are certainly the top of the mobile fuel cell and hydrogen energy markets, but the industry leader remains stationary fuel cells. These fuel cells are being adopted en mass by leading fortune 500 companies such as Google, Wal-Mart, Whole Foods, and AT&T. A recent example was a deal by FuelCell Energy to install over 70MW of power from stationary fuel cells, that’s enough to power an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Certainly fuel cell vehicles get the biggest buzz, but the other applications of fuel cells, particularly fuel cell forklifts, stationary power generation, back-up power, portable power units, and other modes of transportation are valid emerging markets. The ‘fuel cell’ page should not just focus on the one application that gets the most buzz, but to truly be neutral should cover the wide range of applications within the fuel cell family.

I hope these comments help you place fuel cells in a more current perspective. If you have any further questions I’d be happy to answer them.

Best regards, Pfchea (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you misunderstood me. The page should give the most ink to what is most important to an encyclopedia reader - the most emphasis should be given to what has been given the most attention in WP:Reliable sources. I agree with you that the applications section should be divided between stationary and mobile applications. Yes, the stationary applications can go first. But with respect to the mobile applications, I was merely suggesting that we should start with cars and buses, since that is the most important market for mobile applications; then we should talk about forklifts, since they are now available commercially; then we should talk about the other vehicle products under development. As for the rest of what you wrote, an encyclopedia may not advocate a position; it must merely present a balanced summary of the facts as they exist historically and today, in 2011. We can and should discuss the development of FCs for cars, and the progress of that development today in 2011, but we must be very clear that they are not available commercially. We should and do report that several car companies are projecting that they will have commercial models available in 2015. We cannot deny that in 2011, the Secretary of Energy and his agency wish to cut the funding for fuel cell vehicles and that he still thinks it will take four miracles to commercialize FC cars. That's his opinion, and he runs the agency, so his opinion is of interest to encyclopedia readers. Obama has endorsed Chu's budget request. We do not state that Chu is correct about FC cars, but we must acknowledge that this is his opinion, and any reliance on DOE data regarding cars must be considered in that context so long as Chu is the Secretary. The DOE's position on stationary fuel cells is a separate matter, of course. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way,I am only interested in the quality of articles in this encylopedia. I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 5 years, so I have lots of experience in how to organize articles and use sources in this encyclopedia. I have made over 75,000 edits here, and I have been largely responsible for 8 WP:Featured Articles and 23 WP:Good Articles. I have been the principal author of hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and I have been an Online Ambassador. I agree with you that this article could use much improvement. For an example of some examples of higher quality articles about technologies, see, for example: Atomic line filter and Shale oil extraction. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles and Hydrogen Energy Do Not Require 4 Miracles

Misconception #1: Fuel Cell Electric vehicles (FCEV’s) are too expensive

Miracle #1: Studies by the Department of Energy and MIT conclude that fuel cell electric vehicles in commercial production will be affordable and will be cheaper than battery-based alternatives.

Even with today’s design and high costs of materials, fuel cells systems are approaching the cost of an advanced hybrid systems. , Customers who buy a battery-based car will also need a special home charging station that can cost $900 to $2,000. A 2010 detailed analysis by the highly respected McKinsey & Company concluded that FCEVs will cost less than either battery electric vehicles (BEVs) or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) by 2030.

Misconception #2: Breakthroughs are needed in hydrogen storage

Miracle #2: Hundreds of fuel cell vehicles are performing just fine on today’s hydrogen tanks, with safe and fast refills, competitive range and creature comforts consumers expect.

The Department of Energy monitored the real-world performance of 152 fuel cell vehicles which have safely accumulated over 114,000 hours of operation and 2.87 million miles. Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are getting more than 300-miles per tank, and nearly 60% energy efficiency. The Honda Clarity achieved EPA certified fuel economy of 60 mpg and 250 mile range. The newest Toyota and the Kia Borrego are regularly achieving a range of 340-370 miles, and the Toyota has achieved a 431 mile range in tests monitored by two National Laboratory engineers. Fueling takes a few minutes, compared to hours for battery charging. Batteries, even advanced lithium-ion batteries, take up much more space than compressed hydrogen tanks for the same range. Fuel cell vehicles can power cars people want to buy; experience and simple physics suggest battery vehicles will remain shorter ranged vehicles. The McKinsey report concluded that 50% of cars in the EU were too big or traveled too far to be practical for BEVs, and therefore FCEVs, which have demonstrated that they can power larger vehicles for longer ranges with fast refueling, would be required to meet the EU goal of cutting greenhouse gases to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Misconception #3: It is inefficient to make hydrogen from natural gas

Miracle 3: Hydrogen from natural gas is clean, energy efficient and low carbon, and opens the door to renewable and other low carbon sources.

Using natural gas to make hydrogen and then using the hydrogen in a fuel cell vehicle reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at least 50% compared to a gasoline vehicle. (Actually, hydrogen is made from a 50-50 mix of natural gas and water, so one could argue today’s hydrogen is 50% renewable already!) The DOE compared “well-to-wheel” emissions of GHGs from various pathways and concluded that fuel cells are one of the cleanest vehicle technologies. The cleanest FCEV’s are the cleanest of all vehicles. Using hydrogen from biomass emit 60% fewer GHGs than a PHEV running on cellulosic ethanol. Improving vehicle efficiency, using advanced biofuels, and deploying hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can all reduce petroleum use and carbon emissions. The National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences) recommended this ‘portfolio’ approach.

Misconception #4: Building a hydrogen fueling infrastructure is too difficult and costly

Miracle #4: Hydrogen is available nationwide today and is cost competitive with gasoline on a pennies-per-mile basis. Getting hydrogen to American drivers as the FCEVs enter the marketplace will cost a small fraction of the cost of maintaining today’s gasoline infrastructure.

Maintaining our existing global gasoline supply system over the next 25 years is estimated to cost more than $160 billion annually. The National Research Council estimated that supplying fuel for 10 million FCVs through 2025 would cost the government about $8 billion over 16 years in partnership with fuel providers. At that point commercial sales would finance new vehicle stations as demand increases. The U.S. government is investing $3 billion in battery research and infrastructure this year alone. The McKinsey report estimated that installing an electrical infrastructure for the EU would cost FIVE TIMES more than the cost of installing a hydrogen infrastructure for the entire EU.

With no improvement in today’s technology to make hydrogen, it can cost the equivalent of $3 to $6 per gallon of gasoline at the pump, not including taxes, from a variety of sources including natural gas, water (using electricity from wind), biomass and coal. The Honda Clarity is over twice as efficient as competing mid-size cars like the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry and Chevrolet Malibu (60 mpg v. 25 mpg in EPA tests). That means the consumer will pay less per mile with the fuel cell vehicle, even today.

Note to readers, these are strong points to consider when thinking about alternative fuel vehicles R&D and commercial examples. This is not intended to be a WP page edit. I'm happy to answer any questions!

Pfchea (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)