Slashdot Log In
Fuel-Cell Car Racing Series Aims To Spur Green Motoring
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Aug 26, 2008 08:01 AM
from the li-ion-batteries-of-course dept.
from the li-ion-batteries-of-course dept.
Anonymous Cow writes "The world's first international fuel-cell powered motor racing series kicked off in Rotterdam over the weekend. The organisers hope that 'Formula Zero,' like Formula 1, can become a forum for competing technology as much as anything else, helping green consumer cars to become better."
Related Stories
Submission: Fuel cell car racing series aims to green motoring by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Science: Rocket Racing League Flights With Armadillo Engine 73 comments
Toren Altair mentions that the Rocket Racing League has video and pictures available from their recent flight tests of new Armadillo Aerospace liquid oxygen-alcohol engines. "Founded in 2005 by two-time Indianapolis 500 winning team partner Granger Whitelaw and X PRIZE Chairman and CEO Peter H. Diamandis, MD, the Rocket Racing League (RRL) is a new entertainment sports league that combines the exhilaration of racing with the power of rocket engines. To be held at venues across the country, the Rocket Racing League will feature multiple races pitting up to 10 Rocket Racers going head to head in a 4-lap, multiple elimination heat format on a 5-mile 'Formula One'-like closed circuit raceway in the sky."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Not pompous enough (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not pompous enough (Score:4, Insightful)
or until they actually drive a electric sports car. I think they'll change their minds then :)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
or until they actually drive a electric sports car. I think they'll change their minds then :)
Whoosh splutter... 0-60 in 3 seconds, and then the battery goes flat.
Yeah. Great. Tell you what, I'll stick with my conventional petrol-engined car that gets 32mpg and can travel for 500 miles on a tank that takes a minute to fill. Come and talk to me when you've got the range and ease of "refuelling" of existing vehicles.
just wondering..at what point... (Score:2, Insightful)
...would the gallon of gas have to reach before you'd reconsider something other than that? $10 a gallon, $15? And how about rationing (which I remember occurring before), if it ever got that that, say you could only get a few gallons a week due to some expanded mideast war disrupting huge amounts of the global supply? The reason I ask is I see this sort of sentiment a lot, the 500 mile range drawback, but I am wondering how often people actually drive that sort of distance on a regular basis, say at least
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You answered your own question from a point of ignorance. You can't understand why USians are crying about petrol at $5 per US gallon because I don't think you understand what it is like to live here. #1, most of the US population does not live within metropolitan areas well served by public transportation. Most of us *can't* put the car in the garage because it is easier or quicker on the train. The trains don't exist. Moving from the suburbs/country to the city is not easy. It is much easier to whine ab
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the UK has a well-developed mass transit system, small towns with a variety of stores close together, and walkable cities.
The US has residential suburbs a couple miles from the supermarket which is a couple miles from downtown which is a couple miles from Walmart. You can consider us well ahead of the curve once Star Trek transporters become the normal mode of travel.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
not likely. The US is existing in its current form by the grace of cheap fuel more so than any other country. It has one of the lowest prices of fuel in the world, but at the same time the average standard of living is substantially behind the rest of the developed world.
In the long run that is an unsustainable model.
If you will not be prepared to move closer to where your work is (or generate work closer to you) then the third alternative is to be unemployed, which will quickly break the system.
I really do
Re: (Score:2)
oh, they'll come and talk to you alright, but first they have to do this bit called development. And since this is 'news for nerds' and not 'topgear' I think it has its place here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.teslamotors.com/ [teslamotors.com]
0-60 mph 2.9 seconds
256 mpg equivalent
220 miles per charge
less than 2 cents/mile
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't help but note they carefully avoid answering how long it actually takes to refill the batteries beyond 'over night'. That's not going to help much if I find the battery's low when I want to be at home for dinner and find the battery's a bit low.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember when cordless drill batteries took an hour or two for a full charge? Maybe not, but I do. Now you can get chargers that do a full charge in less than 15 minutes.
Typically technology has to start gaining some popularity before there's going to be these types of improvements made.
Sure, it'll take an overnight charge for now, but that will improve with time. I'd guess they can probably get it down to an hour or two within the next couple years. That's still not so short that you can just stop at a cha
Re: (Score:2)
At some point, they will be good enough to compete in regular Formula One race. THAT would really raise awareness. OTOH, to really promote competing technology, the race should include all vehicle designs with zero on-street emission. That would include electric, flywheel or whatever.
Re: (Score:3)
How about when all Formula one cars get full hybrid powertrains (mechanical regenerative breaking) in 2013? Or how about when BMW and Honda implement hybridisation in 2009, 4 years before the deadline, giving head to head competition between hybrid and conventional drivelines?
Here's something for you to chew on - people already are taking green technology seriously. Less so in the US than other places, but even that said the majority of the 1,000,000 Priuses sold so far are in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem, I think, isn't that people aren't taking these green vehicles seriously, it's that they're doing it just because they're frugal and that's the wrong reason if you ask me. Buying an expensive car just because it's frugal doesn't equate to buying an expensive car because it helps the environment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Very true. It's been said that a Prius is delivered with the carbon-emissions equivalent of 20,000 miles already on the clock, due the the extremely high technology and manufacturing costs.
Assuming it uses 2/3 of the fuel, this 'debt' is only paid off once 40k miles are on the clock. And at 50-60k, you'll need to replace the batteries, at a cost of around $10,000 (and who knows how many carbon-miles that's equivalent to).
So yes, the Prius isn't the green saviour people maybe think it is. But it is being tak
Re:Not pompous enough (Score:5, Funny)
Or until Jeremy Clarkson uses one to ride over a delicate ecosystem.
Parent
Re:Not pompous enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, diesel engines have already won Le Mans three years in a row (only been allowed for three years) despite having a smaller fuel tank than the gasoline cars, yet the public opinion is that diesel engines are useless for any kind of fast car and especially race cars.
So no, winning Le Mans in a "green" car is hardly going to change the image.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Go take a ride in one of bmw's top of the line turbo d's, it'll make you cry. A friend of mine has one and I've *never* ever been in a car that had more torque, a shorter 0-100 time or top speed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They do have all the torque if you look at the PEAK figure, however the curve tends to be worse and they often don't rev as high. Therefore you usually get bugger all torque at lower revs, then when you hit the boost you get a huge surge of the twisty stuff, then you've hit the limiter. All within a narrow rev band. Cue lots of changing gear.
I drive a diesel ('06 VW Golf TDI) and I am pleased with it's performance. At 45mpg average, it out performs pretty much every other compact car on the market off the line.
As for the Torque curve, it's perfect for road use. I mean, honestly, how often does anyone see 5k RPMs when driving on the street? The 1.9l TDI pulls strong from 1800 to 4000 RPMs, which is well above what any normal driver is going to be doing and is just fine for spirited driving. Sure, I'd love to cruise around in a Lotus, but running
Uh, racing ain't going to sell it. (Score:2)
These are stunts, nothing more than to attract some advertising dollars. You would be lucky to even hear about it on page 2 of the sports section.
People will take green technology seriously under two events.
1. Non-green sources skyrocket in price
2. Its unobtrusive.
More of the latter than anything else. The way you get people to go green is to make it a non-event. You just quietly swap out the technology.
Zero Emissions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted, the cars themselves should produce nothing but water, but how do we produce the hydrogen? Does that not require energy? I simply don't believe that all of the hydrogen plants are powered by nuclear or hydroelectric energy.
I am not against these ideas at all, but let's not get carried away. I've no doubt that fuel cells are much cleaner than internal combustion, but provide the real facts, please.
Re:Zero Emissions? (Score:4, Interesting)
My sources may be wrong, but I've read that producing green cars is more wasteful than they end up saving. For now at least, but if we ignore this issue improvement will never be made.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Someone got mod-points on a bad hair day and has gone all over this thread with the troll-mod; there is no way the gp, who asked a well worked, polite and very important question, is trolling.
Please, moderators - "troll" is for posts like "OMGZERS L00zers tihs is teh craps ur all so dum sheeple." Not for "Interesting technology, but how much impact will it really have?"
Re:Zero Emissions? (Score:5, Interesting)
The other big carbon cost is of course the production of the hydrogen, which is generally AFAIK done using electrolysis, powered by whatever power plants happen to be around, most of them high emission plants. Changing this is not so directly tied to producing the fuel cell cars, but once this issue is fixed, fuel cell (or whatever) cars will approach much more closely to zero emissions.
In short, the carbon footprint of producing the cars and the fuel is in part a separate issue. Fixing the cars themselves will probably come first, and the rest will follow.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Does it really matter? You have a point in that carbon must be generated somewhere because at some point there's a coal or gas plant feeding energy into the national grid, which may be used to create a fuel cell, but that energy is going to be produced regardless as to what it's used for.
At least this technology can ultimately replace a lot of devices that produce a lot of carbon, narrowing down the areas you have to target in order to solve the (supposedly) looming energy crisis.
Imagine 10 or 20 years down
Parent has a point: Troll or not. (Score:3, Insightful)
We all know the BS about ethanol and how it takes more energy (all oil) to just to grow the corn than you get fr
Re:Zero Emissions? (Score:5, Informative)
Most commercially viable fuel cells contain a first stage catalyst which break down a hydro-carbon fuel (petrol or similar) to produce hydrogen and CO2. Obviously for racing, the extra weight of the first stage is avoided by loading up on pre-prepared hydrogen.
The difference in emissions is from the efficiency of the whole system - somewhere under 35% for a conventional IC engine drivetrain, and around 85% upwards for a hydrocarbon/fuel cell drivetrain. Meaning far more than twice the power delivered carbon emissions created.
Longer term, it is easy to replace the first stage with out-of-car hydrogen generation, if and when clean hydrogen becomes cheap and easy to transport. The second stage (the actual fuel cell) remains unchanged.
As with all technologies, it is an incremental process. However, a >50% cut in emissions is a breakthrough - once cells become viable, stable and maintenance free for long term use (still a number of years off), they will be everywhere. In the mean time, the electric drivetrain components are already being implemented, and constantly improved, in full electric cars and hybrid electric vehicles.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, methanol is increasingly being used in portable as well as automotive technologies as a fuel. Methanol reformers are by now a well-understood technology, and methanol has much less CO2 emission (to energy) than conventional fuel.
Most importantly, methanol can be generated from biomass, hence creating a zero-emission cycle.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
None of the existing fuel cell vehicle prototypes work this way.
This idea, properly called on-board reforming, was floated as a way to get around the problem of lack of fueling infrastructure. Unfortunately reformers are fussy, high temperature devices that are not good at load-following.
Your efficiency numbers are way off too. IC engine vehicles are about 15% efficient and fuel cell vehicles are about 40~50% efficient on a well-to-wheels basis.
One of the problems is that hydrogen has a very low energy de
Re:Zero Emissions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted, the cars themselves should produce nothing but water, but how do we produce the hydrogen? Does that not require energy? I simply don't believe that all of the hydrogen plants are powered by nuclear or hydroelectric energy.
Well here is the deal:
1. Even if you have to use a coal power plant to produce the hydrogen, its extremely more efficient than using petroleum in terms of releasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
2. And speaking of, this also means we don't have to rely on foreign oil.
As a small time investor, one of the odd things I've noticed is that currently the Brazilian economy is booming. Most Brazilian stocks are going through the roof. Now it could be that the US and China just aren't doing as good as they used to, but it also dawned on my that Brazil has almost ceased the need to import energy from foreign sources due to its aggressive ethanol campaign.
Now, IMO ethanol isn't the solution for the US, but anything that reduces the need to pay foreign sources for energy simply keeps the money in the US rather than someone overseas.
Can't be a bad thing.
Parent
The old is new again (Score:5, Interesting)
From 1982 to about 1990, the Group C prototypes ran with regulations that basically allowed any engine as long as the fuel consumption didn't exceed ~60 l/100 km. Then the FIA fucked up and changed the rules to mandate F1-style engines, ending the series' popularity.
There were a few races that ended in drama as the leading competitor ran out of fuel, but on the whole it was rather successful, with wildly disparate cars running very close races. You saw 7-litre naturally aspirated V12s, 5-litre turbocharged V8s, 3-litre turbocharged flat-6s and Wankel engines.
It'd be interesting to see a revival of this idea. More interesting than a fuel cell-only class, I'd wager.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Currently, motorsports is mostly about driver ability. NASCAR, the most popular form of motorsports in the U.S.A., regulates the cars so heavily it would be simpler to just provide cars like IROC did. [wikipedia.org] Le Mans is probably the most technologically challenging. We have seen some breakthroughs recently with the R10. [wikipedia.org] But it's s
Um...yeah. (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong: most hobbies, including mine, are a waste of energy. Rather, I / someone gets enjoyment in return for the energy expenditure...but in the end, little / no actual work is done.
Even if a NASCAR race can be done with 1 gallon of gas...in the end, 1 gallon is gone, and all the cars are where they started.
Re: (Score:2)
If your theoretical NASCAR race competitors really manage to get 100 cars round a track on 1 gallon, then I'd sure think that was one gallon well used when the same technology gets into my next Matiz.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and a bunch of people had a hell of a time.
You're making no point here at all. YOU came from dust and will someday be dust again and ultimately will have gone nowhere and, in the end, lots and lots of gallons of gas are gone.
but could they carry gas anyway? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm ok with them using fuel cells just so long as they also include some manner of flammable liquid in the vehicle so that they keep the wrecks interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Would a small, but very high pressure, tank of hydrogen add the required spice?
Might only go off in 2% of crashes, but boy, you'd better duck when it does ;)
F-Zero eh? (Score:2, Funny)
Today it's fuel cells, tomorrow it becomes hovercars, then next thing we know we're racing down a magnetic track against aliens and clones of ourselves.
The future is now!
F ... Zero? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Definitely would help image (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure that six tiny fuel-cell powered go-karts going around a 500 meter track is going to help the image of alternatively-powered vehicles.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure the ipod will ever catch on. No wireless, less storage than a nomad - lame.
While I'm at it, I'm sure that man will never fly. That's the realm of angels and birds.
Oh, hold on, you mean those bicycle mechanics were actually on to something?
It's odd that on a place like Slashdot, it's seen as cool to by cynical, and cynical is seen as non-critically putting down anything that hasn't been out and about for 5+ years. Who would have thought 10 years ago that Formula 1 would be leading the way in dev
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whoa, troll? Didn't see that one coming! It was meant to be a serious point - uncritically destroying every new technology is no better than hand waving beliefs in "technology will solve all our problems."
The first flight was hardly in a useful plane, yet 15 years of development later, we had large, multi passenger transport planes. Just a point.
Re:Definitely would help image (Score:4, Insightful)
Did I say that fuel cell was a dead technology that won't go anywhere?
No. Quite the contrary - I think it is a very promising technology that has great potential.
However, the GP I was replying to said that maybe this will help the "image" of alternatively-fueled vehicles. And frankly, a bunch of tiny go-karts doesn't have much hope of beefing-up the wimpy image of the Insight, Prius, etc.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
oh, it's manly allright, it just doesn't go very far :)
On Taco's iPod comment (Score:5, Interesting)
"I'm not sure the ipod will ever catch on. No wireless, less storage than a nomad - lame."
Taco's statement has become somewhat infamous, but I have to defend him on this one. He was essentially right (and these words are being typed on a Mac). Simplicity and elegance in function are virtues... lack of meaningful features are not. As such, I've never owned an iPod, as I think it's ridiculous not to put a simple FM receiver and a built in Mic for quick voice recording in modern MP3 players.
When compared to their competitors... Creative's players, Sandisk's Sansa players... hell, even the Zune in some cases... the iPod simply isn't a very good value, unless being part of the crowd appeals more to you than price and features.
Parent
Re:Definitely would help image (Score:5, Informative)
Fuel cells are not "a good thing". They're an incredibly expensive boondoggle that's been leaching money from electric vehicles. Let's compare and contrast FCVs with BEVs that use modern automotive li-ions (phosphates, stabilized spinels, titanates, etc).
They're roughly a third the efficiency of EVs. Even if you use cleantech to create the hydrogen, you're still talking three times the coastline covered in wind turbines, three times the desert land covered in solar, three times the rivers dammed for hydro, etc -- not good. Even if your electrolysis was near lossless, as a couple techs in the lab are proposing to do, they're still nearly twice as wasteful as EVs. Even hydrogen from natural gas reformation compared to EVs powered by natural gas power plants is *still* significantly more wasteful for fuel cells ((25% efficiency versus 35% [sciencedirect.com]).
Hydrogen is expensive; electricity is dirt cheap. Hydrogen is fundamentally always going to be more expensive because it's such a PITA to handle -- leaks through practically anything, embrittles metals, is corrosive, etc -- and not to mention, poses safety and environmental risks.
Safety? Autmotive li-ions can be abused to heck and back without starting a fire -- discharged to 0V, overcharged, punctured, etc; the electrolyte is generally flammable, but no moreso than gasoline. Hydrogen is an incredibly combustible substance -- burns in almost any fuel air mixture, very vigorously, with a very pale blue, hard to see flame; rapidly evolves deflagrations into detonations in atmospheric conditions; pools under overhangs; can be ignited with less than a tenth the ignition energy of gasoline; enters pipes and tubes and follows them to their destinations, pooling there; etc. Liquid hydrogen is even worse; it acts like a high explosive. Check out NASA's safety guidelines [64.233.167.104] for dealing with hydrogen to get an idea of how much of a pain it is to handle.
Fuel cells are ridiculously expensive. Here, go shopping [fuelcellstore.com]. A good chunk of that price is due to the price of platinum, one of the rarest elements on the planet, although things like Nafion membranes don't help the price, either. Getting fuel cells for $10/W would be an outstanding price. Your average car will need ~10kW to maintain highway speeds, and more for accel/decel, so you're looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars. Automotive li-ions, except for the titanates, are usually a little over $0.50/Wh in bulk, and are projected to significantly decline with mass production, since they're not raw materials costs limited. A couple tens of kilowatts (a couple hours of driving at highway speeds) means $10-20k currently, and significantly less in the near future. And to top it all off, the batteries last longer, too. Nafion membranes tend to wear out over time in fuel cells, giving them around five years or so in typical FCV usage (some techs are proposed to raise that). And there are other components to break, too -- fuel cells have moving parts (compressors, pumps, etc), support parts (heaters, etc), and so on. Automotive li-ions will generally last for thousands to even tens of thousands (in the case of the titanates) of cycles. We're talking decades. To give an idea of how durable they are, the Volt is going to come with a 10 year warranty on its battery pack, and all of the other upcoming EV/PHEV makers are similarly talking about very long warranties. They should last the life of the car.
As for range, it's roughly a draw. 200-250 miles is a typical range for a FCV that costs hundreds of thous
Parent
Re:Definitely would help image (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you do not deserve your 'insightful' one bit. Development platforms for a new technology do not have to be related in shape or function to the end product.
The length of the road on which they function has nothing to do with the length that they could be going to on real roads.
These are just abstractions, and in fact simplify the development process considerably. Think about how much more costly this would be if all these experimental vehicles had to conform to regular road standards and had to take a full complement of passengers.
Parent
Re:Definitely would help image (Score:5, Insightful)
cars that look like the prius don't help this.
So if people can see electric cars with real performance that would even surpass the petrol counterpart it should make people more likely to change.
Just a tought, but maybe the major car makers WANT this? It seems to me that they produce ugly,slow cars that won't appeal to the masses with a reason. After all, electric cars need much, MUCH less maintenance and spare parts than a petrol car ... Lets hope the smaller manufacturers see the gap in the market.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, cause the Prius' looks are clearly stopping every single one from being sold the day it comes into the dealer. Clearly, the Prius looks longingly at the turnaround time for truck inventory [gminsidenews.com].
Re: (Score:2)
the tgv that did 574Kph (357 mph) did use an electric motor.