Great Questions, man! For fuel cells, the goal is to extract hydrogen, then, "Stip" an electron from this hydrogen by passing it through a membrane while combining it with O2 to make water (the chemical reaction is what pushes the hydrogen through the membrane)- the free electrons = electric current.
There are several pathways for this - some using hydrocarbons (petroleum) for the hydrogen source, but these still have emissions (though as noted by ProtegeMaster, the efficiency of energy potential of fuel v. output is much better than internal combustion). Hydrocarbons are indeed a more stable fuel than pure hydrogen, BUT....
The pure hydrogen pathway allows for less emissions (though water vapor IS a greenhouse gas, too), but then we must extract the hydrogen..
This can be done via chemical reactions which cost energy, but also can be done via solar energy athough not as efficiently, (but who cares since it is solar-powered).
Yes, for pure hydrogen, then, fuel delivery and stability of on-board tanks are concerns. But then again, fuel stability is an issue with liquid gasoline, too - i.e. Ford Pinto, Crown Victoria, etc.
This is an engineering issue, which likely could be resolved if money and research resources were directed towards this goal as opposed to making wonderfully exothermic devices (bombs) which only waste energy on all accounts.
Hydrogen IS ecologically sound - it rapidily bonds to form water (or explodes - yee-haw!). Neither scenario is toxic, though explosions are never kind to those in the immediate area!
Further, maybe the on-board fuel could be managed in a solid phase - though I certainly am no chemist!
The use of hydrogen has long been explored, from the days of the Hindenberg (oops) to use of hydrogen peroxide for V2 rockets in WW2. Thus it's manufacture, storage and delivery are relatively well-understood, it is just a matter of effort and desire to make this a reality.

 

NOw if memory serves isn't one of thebiggest problems with nuclear energy that it contaminates and make the water radioactive that is used in the process.
What is the potential a fuel cell may have a similar issue?

NUKE!

Hopefully that wil get Nukes attention to inform me on this one.
It seams like anytime ions are messed with it not a good thing.

The thing thats always had my attention was ethanol.
Can everyday cars run on it will little adjustment or does it require a specific engine?
Fuel cells and the like are fine but are unlikely to be popular in any short term becuase already produced and bought cars can't use them.

Still seems like the first step has to a cleaner buring fuel that can be used in any cars without power or reliablity loss.

 

Dude, IONS are good!! (mostly) - Unstable ISOTOPES are the evil ones since they decompose and release radiation (keep in mind there are many STABLE isotopes such as O18, and O17 which you breathe everday along with O16).
So Fuel Cells deal with hydrogen IONS - these are harmless, all we did was steal an electron from H atom!
Nuclear energy, is another issue - and involves the nuclear forces that bond Neutrons and Protons of the atom's nucleus. Quick Chem. 1 review - elements are defined by the # of Protons. Protons (P) + Neutrons (N) = Atomic Mass. Atomic Mass can Vary for an element due to different #'s of N and these are the various isotopes for a particular element. Ex) O16 has 8 P and 8 N; O18 has 8 P & 10 N.

Hydrogen Fuel cells are dealing only with the elctro-static nature of elements, creating ions - and stealing electrons to create an electric cuurent! There Are NO nuclear issues at all behind this!

 

Actauly steling an electron is very much a nuclear issue. I know the chem stuff so worry about me fallowing to a higher level. Ions have to remated with something otherwise they are fairly stable. however Hydrogen isn't stable without an electron nore are a hole lot of other ions.

Whats the actual chemical reaction equation here?
Another question what size does a fuel cell have to be to generate the same horespower as a combustion engine?
Obviously engine size varries so I supose a percentage would be most appropriate.

 

When you dissolve salt in water, you're making two ions! Na+ and Cl- why? B/c these atoms already lost their electrons (and no nuclear release either). Turns out, electrons love to hang out in pairs, and better yet, these pairs get together in various shells that are most delighted when either completely full if possible, but if not, then completely empty (i.e valence states). Electrons are NOT Involved in nuclear matters - they are the basis of electricity, since so many elements lose electrons and the environment is chock full of them (lightning!)
The chemical reaction for hydrogen fuel cells is 2H + O = H2O, but the whole aspect of this is that the hydrogen is forced through a semi-porous membrane that is only the diameter of the Hydrogen Nucleus (H is #1 on the Periodic Table), so therefore, to bond with the O2, which it wants to do, the H must lose its e-, to b/c an H+. The flow of e- from this reaction provides the electric current.
I am not sure what size the cells must be (I am not an engineer), but I do know they will be small enough for cars. the power the car actually achieves is dependent upon how well the electric motor performs, and I think that issue has already been addressed...

 

I familair with the forming of water and electrons and all that fun. My questios is based on that There is a bigger chemical reaction needed then just H + 02 unless that sall that is in the fuel cell. I have a feeling 1 its not pure hydrogen at all but a chemical process producing it then a reaction with another chemical forming yes water but there is always a left over substance. What is it? I realize Sodium and clorine are ionized when salt is mixxed into a water solution and remain harmell but this is not so for all reactions. If the the waste product is ionized thenit will combine with other compounds to stabalize. It is that reaction and that waste that is of importance to me as it is the unknown peice.

 

The bonding of H to O is the concept behind fuel cells. Due to the issue of pure hydrogen being uncommon and highly reactive, some designs use hydrocarbons as a fuel. But as ProtegeMaster said, the fuel cell design, even using fossil fuels, harvests potential chemical energy more efficiently than internal combustion, which loses energy in the forms of heat, friction etc. The hydrocarbon fuel cell model still releases Co and CO2, but, b/c of better efficiency, less pollutants are emitted.
However, the other scenario is the hydrogen fuel cell, using only pure hydrogen, which emits no pollutants other than water vapor. The issues here are supply and delivery.
I suppose this will indeed be a H2O+ molecule because of electron loss, but that ought not be a problem. Most problem elements are cations (postively charged), and thus would not bond with it anyway. Sulfur already mixes with water to form H2SO4, so that shouldn't be any different.
Perhaps with an increase in positively charged water, we could expect a sceanrio of increased rainfall but with less lightning discharges...
In terms of output at the wheel, you ought to check the link on p1 or 2 of this thread that highlights the potential power of an electric car - it seems to be quite impressive!

 

Still not quite what I am looking for. Its the chemicals that are needed to be broken down to supply the cell I am Interest in and there reaction can only be shown by the chemical equation they create. There must be alot more then just 02 and hydrogen involved here.

 

http://www.fuelcells.org/fcfaqs.htm#government

You may like this site, see Bush isn't a complete *******.

 

It seems to me, then, you are seeking a means to justify oil. What you are looking for is a way to discredit fuel cell technology, or am I misinterpreting you? As I said ealier, solar photo-dissociation of water produces free hydrogen - no nasty chemicals involved at all! (and yes, there are numerous other means by which to isolate hydrogen, chemically)
You had earlier dissed hybrids b/c of the batteries - and this is exactly what Bush et al convey. The point being is that hybrids are still much better, environmentally, than internal combustion, though the battery issue would require a committment from the manufacturers to actually reclaim and recycle/dispose of the components.
I would prefer the fuel cell, but, until the infrastructure is in place, hybrid vehicles (in which some models produce their electricity from the friction generated in the brakes) are what is currently available on the market.
Check the web, and I think you'll see that even the US Military has a keen interest in hybrids and fuel cells - producing an efficient, quiet, and low-thermal image power plant would prove quite valuable in combat...

 

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid556.php

Something else to note. This table contains fuel cell effeciency as compared to operating temp and electrlyte and fuel seems not to many are actualy that much better then Combustion when it comes to effeciency also the most effecien require veery high temperatures. How are they supposed to acheive that temp in a car?
No amount of store electricity can sustain that temp and move a car to be 70% effiecient. the Only ones that can requires pure Hydrogen and Oxygen so some how oxygen must be totaly filtered to get near the 70% effeciency. I have no ide how this would be done without another potential dangerous and poluuting chemical reactions.

 

Quite the opposite.

I simply won't accept anything at face value I have to know every peice of it before I take it as is. I have begun some reasearch already into this. The pros and cons of Combustion of gasoline are well known. Being that everything has a con. I wish to find it for fuel cells. Obviously many envirnmentalist wouldn't like the extra productionof plastics needed for this but then they always have something to bitch about, F-em. The use of Oxygen I don't like as that is our fuel. Also I hope to find a cell utilizing nitrogen not oxygen as it is a much larger part of the autmosphere and not required for our reporation.

The Governemnt Uses many fuel cell technologies, they should, they invented half the stuff and founded the half to be created.

 

Oh, now you want to SAVE oxygen!!! Duh, what do you think your car is currently using? And remember, the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine means you're using much more O2 now for transportation than you actually need to. And you think an operating T of 180 F is too high, too...
You ought to peruse the RMI site a little further - it gives you more details than I can, as I am only adept at theory rather than technical reality.
1) And exactly, what are the "pros" of internal combustion, that you referred to?
2) Most environmentalists I have contact with understand the need for plastics and would much rather dedicate petroleum to this end rather than burning it into oblivion. Duh and Duh!!!
3) How in the **** would nitrogen work in a fuel cell? If you combine it with hydrogen, you'll get ammonia (NH3) and this isn't exactly friendly. It also forms HNO3, nitric acid. jesus, here's a limitless source of energy which produces only water, and YOU want to improve it.
Go ahead, make my day.

 

First chill, I am trying to learn something here not argue With you.
The Largest pro for internal combustions is it high power out put potential for relitelvy little expense. After all thats what it all comes down to.

I realize any car uses O2 and fuel cells as designed can't use hydrogen. However if the theorey of splittin a molucule up to recombine with another is sound then May be, I am thinking future here, Someday We can find a combination that utilizes Nitrogen instead.

Second, chill, your too upidy. I am very interest in this stuff. Also I very much appreciate your time in teaching me here. But i can and tend to be a pain in the *** with questions.

 

yes, i agree with you here (j/k)
And, i thought you'd enjoy the "go ahead and make my day" quote. (seeing as we had our "gun battle" recently)
I've been looking over the RMI site - i suggest you do as well - it is much more precise than my understanding of fuel cells .
Further, ProtegeMaster had a link on p1 of this thread that shows VERY high power output from an electric car! Ferrari impressive!!! Go look at that, please. keep in mind, that that car is purely electric and needs recharging - think of an electric motor like that one only with an on-board fuel source. Wow!
And according to the RMI data YOU provided, the efficiency of internal combustion is 15 - 20 % at best, so the 50 % or better realized by fuel cells does indeed kick ***.
Sooner or later, this will be all of our futures