Talk:Fuel cell/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

More on Fuel Cell Vehicle

Hi, BB. I think this is worse than what is there now. This now adds in even more numerical stuff, with mathematical symbols, that is irrelevant to readers of a general encyclopedia. It also confuses the issues between cars and other vehicles. The way that the Pike research estimates are used is highly misleading. See what Tim riley said above and read WP:CRYSTAL - predictions are not very useful. In 2003, President Bush and GM said that there would be hundreds of thousands of FC cars on the road by 2010. Now, GM's CEO says that he thinks there will not be any commercial production until "2020 plus". Plus, Pike talks about things other than cars. My advice is that if you want to replace information, try to do it in plain English that readers with no science or math background can understand, and try to stick to what is actually known from real-world testing, not just predictions about what might happen if and when there is volume production of hydrogen cars. Very importantly: make sure that you note what is for cars and what is for something else. See the Meyers article that is cited for a good explanation. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. So I'm assuming your ok with all of the other points I addressed earlier in that post (the CO2, Fueling Stations that produce hydrogen on site and the quote from Mary Nichols and the Bossel study). After looking up the WP:CRYSTAL I had decided that since Pike was a reputable source that talked about the "arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur," it would be ok to put in, especially to go alongside "Experts believe that it would take at least 20 years for manufacturers to achieve profitable production" to make sure both viewpoints of fast and slow development were represented- but took it out given the issues you raised. I also worked to streamline the section with all of these edits.

I don't think that mentioning how much energy the car uses per mile or how much green house gas it emits is to technical- if people are confused they can clink to the Wikipedia link to BTU they will see it is an energy unit, not a 'mathematical symbol'. These numbers add weight to some of the things that fuel cell vehicles do and are therefore quite important to the page. I have tried to clarify this sentence to make it more understandable, but many Wikipedia articles state some basic math, numbers and science terms (e.g. the featured articles on Acetic acid, the Big Bang and Cell Nucleus) These terms shouldn't be excessive but I believe a middle schooler could undrestand "emitted 250 grams per mile of greenhouse gasses"

No, I do not agree that a significant number of fueling stations are actually producing H2 on site. Some of them say that they will do so in the future, but when? One or two actually say that they already do so, but they only produce enough H2 to fuel a handful of cars per day. I suggest that you do not delete referenced information from this section, unless you set forth here the exact language that you want to delete so we can discuss it. As I said, whatever you add, please try to phrase it in plain English. Do not assume that I agree with anything you have said, unless I say so explicitly, because you are writing too much to respond to. If you feel that an addition should be made, make it, and then other editors will respond to it. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just trying to be thorough, and comply with WP:Conflict of Interest guidelines. I don't believe I'm deleting anything I haven't thoroughly discussed here, although a few things are re-organized for clarity. Thanks for clarifying my proposal- I want to replace the current Automobile section with the one below- if there are not other edits in the next 24 hours I'll post this :)

BBfchea (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

BB proposal: Although there are currently no Fuel cell vehicles available for commercial sale, over 20 FCEVs prototypes and demonstration cars have been released since 2009. As of June 2011 demonstration FCEVs had driven more than 4,800,000 km (3,000,000 mi), with more than 27,000 refuelings. Automobiles such as the Honda FCX Clarity, Toyota FCHV-adv, and Mercedes-Benz F-Cell are all pre-commercial examples of fuel cell electric vehicles. Still, some experts believe that it would take at least 20 years for manufacturers to achieve profitable production. In July 2011, the Chairman and CEO of General Motors, Daniel Akerson, stated that while the cost of hydrogen fuel cell cars is decreasing: "The car is still too expensive and probably won't be practical until the 2020-plus period, I don't know." Additionally, many major car manufacturers have announced plans to introduce a production model of a fuel cell car in 2014-2015. Toyota has stated that it plans to introduce such a vehicle at a price of around US$50,000. In June 2011, Mercedes-Benz announced that they would move the scheduled production date of their fuel cell car from 2015 up to 2014: Dr. Dieter Zetsche, chairman of the board of management of Daimler and head of Mercedes-Benz Cars stated "The product is ready for the market technically," but noted that the remaining issue is infrastructure, which partners needed to take the lead on.

Fuel cell electric vehicles have been produced with "a driving range of more than 400 km (250 mi) between refueling". They can be refueled in less than 5 minutes. EERE’s Fuel Cell Technology Program claims that, as of 2011, fuel cells achieved 53-59% efficiency at ¼ power and 42-53% vehicle efficiency at full power, and a durability of over 120,000 km (75,000 mi) with less than 10% degradation, double that achieved in 2006. In a Well-to-Wheels analysis, it was found that, per mile traveled, a fuel cell electric vehicle running on compressed gaseous hydrogen produced from natural gas used about 40% less energy and emit 45% less green house gasses then an internal combustion vehicle. Well-to-Wheel the Fuel Cell Vehicle on average used approximately 4,000 British Thermal Units (BTUs) of energy per mile it drove, and emitted approximately 250 grams/mile of green house gas emissions, while a conventional car used approximately 6,500 BTU/mile and emitted approximately 550 grams/mile of green house emissions when taking all the energy needed to make the car run, well-to-wheels.

Still, challenges remain before fuel cell cars can become economically competitive with other technologies. Analysis cite the lack of an extensive hydrogen infrastructure in the U.S. as an ongoing challenge to Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle commercialization. In 2006, a study for the IEEE showed that renewable hydrogen produced via electrolysis of water using renewable electricity or reformed from biomass found: "Only about 25% of the power generated from wind, water, or sun is converted to practical use." Fuel cell vehicles running on renewable created hydrogen produce almost no CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2003 US President George Bush proposed the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (HFI). This aimed at further developing hydrogen fuel cells and infrastructure technologies with the goal of producing commercial fuel cell vehicles. By 2008, the U.S. had contributed 1 billion dollars to this project. The Obama Administration has sought to reduce funding for the development of fuel cell vehicles, concluding that other vehicle technologies will lead to quicker reduction in emissions in a shorter time. Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy, asserted that hydrogen vehicles "will not be practical over the next 10 to 20 years". He told MIT's Technology Review that he is skeptical about hydrogen's use in transportation because of four problems: "the way we get hydrogen primarily is from reforming [natural] gas. ... You're giving away some of the energy content of natural gas. ... [For] transportation, we don't have a good storage mechanism yet. ... The fuel cells aren't there yet, and the distribution infrastructure isn't there yet. ... In order to get significant deployment, you need four significant technological breakthroughs. However, others disagree with Secretay Chu's opinions- Mary Nichols, Chairwomen of California's Air Resources Board stated "Secretary Chu has firmly set his mind against hydrogen as a passenger-car fuel...Frankly, his explanations don’t make sense to me. They are not based on the facts as we know them.” BBfchea (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The section that I inserted was changed so that speculations about when fuel cell vehicles will become commercial and challenges the technology faces were listed before a description of what the current state of the technology is- without and discussion on this page. I am changing this order back as most articles first talk about what a technology is and can do, and then address challenges of the future. I am also no longer affiliated with the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association. Briannabesch (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am also removing a quote ( "The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use.") which I discusses at length above, showing that the quote is not representative of the study it is talking about. This quote was reinserted with no discussion on this page. Furthermore the second two citations placed by the quote do not contain the quote. Briannabesch (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the order as suggested above. However, the quote was discussed and, having read the study carefully, I disagree. I have restored the quote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to give you all a chance to look over some new information from a recent NREL study on FCEV's before I add it to the page. I would insert it either right before or right after the quote by Daniel Akerson in the 2nd paragraph, or amend the first sentence to say "Some experts believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[62][63] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable,[64][65] but recent research by the NREL may point to a brighter outlook."

The specific information I would like to include would be a number of quotes by NREL engineers about the technology. They provide some very important details about when this technology will be available commercially, as well as how it stacks up to other EV's. Here is what I would post.

NREL researchers testing hydrogen powered and electric plug-in vehicles have said ""DOE wants people to see that these vehicles are not just drawings on some designer's table, These technologies are practical, real and getting out into the marketplace. We have displayed all of these vehicles at public events this summer to help consumers see how all of these technologies can meet the needs of today's drivers." [1] (Note: A reference to the date of this study, AUgust 17, 2011 would be included).

Another piece to add before the Daniel Akerson Quote would be: NREL Senior Engineer Keith Wipke sees the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles potentially appealing to consumers whose needs cannot fully be met by battery electric cars, but who want a low carbon footprint. "One of the key things about the impact of hydrogen technology is that these are full-function vehicles with no limitations on range or refueling rate so they are a direct replacement for any vehicle. For instance, if you drive a full sized SUV and pull a boat up into the mountains, you can do that with this technology and you can't with current battery-only vehicles, which are more geared toward city driving." http://www.nrel.gov/features/20110816_vehicles.html]

Then I would preface the Akerson quote by saying, "Even though NREL/DOE testing has shown promise, some in the industry still have their doubts. In July 2011...."

If you see anything in the NREL piece you think is also worth posting, let me know. It is a very good source of real trail experience for FCEV's and EV's in general. Benfchea (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Next steps

Cleaning up the markets and economics section. This section is currently a grab bag of facts, figures and statements that I dont believe does a very good job of characterizing the market for fuel cells or the economic factors behind market trends. Problem number 1, the number about fuel cell market growth in paragraph one do not add up. From what I can tell looking at all of the resources in this section this quote from MarketsandMarkets.com is the issue, "There were 140,000 fuel cell stacks shipped globally in 2010, up from 11 thousand shipments in 2007, and in 2010 worldwide fuel cell shipments had an annual growth rate of 115%.[110]". The Pike Research "Fuel Cells Annual Report 2011" states the growth rate between 2008 and 2010 was roughly 27% (Section 1.2). Then states that by the end of 2010 stationary fuel cells accounted for 50% of fuel cell shipments (Section 1.2.1). Another Pike Research report "Stationary Fuel Cells" [2] released 2q 2011 (sorry I am unsure if this article has been used or not on this page) gives data for stationary fuel cell shipments in 2009 and 2010 of roughly 6,000 then roughly 9,000 units. Another source, the [3] article cites a PriceWaterhouseCoopers estimate of roughly 24,000 shipments in 2009, a 41% increase over 2008. In conclusion, the data from the marketstomarkets.com article seems to be the outlier. I will look for a better data source (maybe doe?) for this information but it seems like the number of shipments for 2009 is somewhere in the 20-25k range, making it very unlikely the 2010 number is 140,000.

Next issue with this section is really organization. I think the first thing that needs to be addressed is where this section should go and what it should cover. It could be anything from just some reputable data on fuel cell sales and growth rates to a comprehensive analysis of all of the supply and demand side factors influencing fuel cell development. I think that at the very least there needs to be 1) reputable data on sales/industry growth that should likely address the difference between the uses (ie stationary power generation, transportation uses, portable fuel cells). 2) A discussion of the industries finances including profitability or lack thereof, investment by PE and VC, grants from DOE, and tax incentives for producers and/or end users from Federal, State, and Local govts. From there I could see the section expanding to include many other topics (supply chain factors, marketing and branding needs, efficiency and price competitiveness with other technologies etc.), but I think alot of these issues have been noted in other sections so Im not sure how beneficial it may be to rehash them all again. Looking forward to hearing everyones input on how to make this section more interesting and reliable. Benfchea (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianna rewrote this section. Before she started, there was not much about markets in the article, but there was a rather rambling "economics" section. See this version, which is how the article looked before she started editing. Personally, I think the less said about markets the better, since most segments of the FC market are not commercialized yet. I would simply say something like, "most fuel cell markets are still in the pre-commercial phase, while the forklift segment has entered commercial production. In this segment, [and then give 2009 and 2010 figures for forklifts]." Very short and sweet. I agree that, to the extend there is any discussion, it needs to distinguish between the stationary market, forklifts, cars and other market segments. As you suggest, it may be better to touch upon these issues in the various other parts of the article where these segments are discussed. In general, it's certainly better to talk about actual sales and shipments than to talk about investments or forecasts. See WP:CRYSTAL. What I usually say to people about the encyclopedia is: what information will be of most interest to readers looking back at this in 10 years? That's the information to focus on. Let's not get bogged down in details. I suggest cutting this section down to one or two paragraphs and revisiting it in a few years, when more fuel cell segments have been commercialized. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a fair suggestion. I think in the short term this section would be better off with less information than more. I will draft up something that addresses each of the separate markets you mentioned in one or two sentences each, either providing hard numbers or stating that the markets are not commercially developed. I think that while the platinum/precious metals piece is important to mention as a barrier to reducing costs, what is written there is far too technical/numerical. Probably same with the next paragraph as well. When I come up with something better and more focused I will post it on the discussion page. Benfchea (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Military Applications for Fuel Cells Section

There has been a great deal of research and development in the area of fuel cell applications for the military. I would like to add a section in the "applications" section specifically devoted to military use. It would read:

Recent Pike Research findings have shown that there will be an expanding market for fuel cells with some of the worlds most demanding customers, military users.[4] U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineer- ing Research Lab (ERDC/CERL) has used and developed advanced fuel cell technology since the early 1990's, including installing at least 300 stationary power fuel cell instillations through the DOD Fuel Cell Project. [5] The 2005 EDRC Tech Report on the Project reached a number of findings about fuel cell performance. Its main findings showed that achieving 90 percent reliability is feasible, that back-up power is a viable application for PEM fuel cells, and that thermal recovery has been found to improve overall system efficiency. [6]

The military has also been able to create a fuel cell that can run on their standard issue military logistic fuel, JP-8, and can be used to power anything from a refrigerator to a tank or large truck. [7] The fuel cells are not only quieter than diesel generators, they are more efficient and produce fewer emissions. A JP-8 powered fuel cell has been a long standing military goal, but fuels with high sulfur content like JP-8 and diesel can "poison" the catalysts used in fuel cells. [8] To combat sulfur poisoning, researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) added a module that removes the sulfur, but cost concerns still remain before commercial uses are feasible.

The Pike Research report cited replacing batteries for portable electronics as the greatest opportunity for fuel cells because their energy density and decreased weight. [9] Jadoo fuel cells has replaced the 80 pounds of heavy batteries that soldiers in the U.S. Army's Special Operations Command with a 24-pound fuel cell, shaving over two-thirds of the weight. [10] Adaptive Materials Inc. has also shipped SOFC's that are ten times lighter than batteries to the U.S. Army for use in the battlefield by soldiers. [11]

Global Defense industry leader Lockheed Martin has also teamed with Adaptive Materials to update their Stalker Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) to be powered by fuel cells. [12] The new Stalker eXtreme Endurance (XE) UAS that quadruples the systems endurance without impacting its mobility or payload capabilities. [13] Benfchea (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read all this, but your first sentence is not good, because it is speculating about the future. We should not be focusing on predictions about the future. Again, see WP:CRYSTAL. We should focus on what is being delivered today. If it isn't being delivered yet to paying customers, it is premature to discuss it. We can add new information next year, or in 5 years, or whenever deliveries actually start. Just to spot-check what you wrote above, I read the article on Jadoo. You said that their cells have replaced military packs. In fact, however, the article says that "Jadoo will be replacing the batteries". This means that it has not done so yet. Please be very careful about how you use these sources. Predictions and marketing talk are cheap. We should not be using press releases and websites from manufacturers, as they have a conflict of interest in pushing their company. See WP:RS. Also, please make sure that if you add any information to the article, you give full information in your references (to the extent available), including author name, title of article, date, publisher name and page number. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

SSilvers, I do not follow your logic, and I am skeptical about whether you actually read the entire article or searched the context properly. In the case of Jadoo, they have received a military contract to replace the batteries with lighter fuel cell packs. Therefore, the article correctly reads "the will be replacing", and by your standards, the services are being delivered to paying customers. In regards to future speculation and using press releases as sources, let me highlight something you said last week.

"As for your message above, please do not delete references to news articles. The quotes from Secretary Stephen Chu and the others that you mention are extremely relevant here. We can, and really must, point out the opinions of the people like the Secretary of the Dept of Energy and the CEO of GM that are are critical of this technology. I disagree with your understanding of the word "asserted". Nevertheless, I have changed it to "stated", if you prefer that. Please see WP:NEUTRAL. and WP:Reliable sources, which discusses that we can certainly use quotes from major newspaper articles to show that this is what the person said. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)"

If this is your criteria, then the Jadoo piece is absolutely reputable and verifiable as the source is the National Institute of Health. The only reference to a company website on my post was to Lockheed Martin. If you would like, I would gladly supply a source for this news from one of the many other sources available. I do not however agree that this piece of information is biased by the fact that it is a press release from the company. The previous model Stalker UAV has been in use by the US Special Operations for months if not years in numerous roles with multiple mission functions. Lockheed Martin is clearly interested in debuting their new product, as they are currently trying to expand the market for it outside of Special Operations, but that does not mean they are bias in promoting fuel cell technology. They used the technology to increase the endurance/weight ratio of the product. Here is another article that could be used in place of my previous citation [14]. As I believe I have addressed your concerns adequately, I will be posting this section this afternoon. I will properly cite all resources before posting the proposed information. Benfchea (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Be careful not to cite any press releases or publications by manufacturers. If an article simply reports what a manufacturer told the paper, then you need to say "A spokesman from Lockheed, the manufacturer of the product, told The New York Times that ..." Do not say that something has been replaced, when, in fact, there is merely a contract to buy some units; or state how many units have been delivered, as compared with the number of units currently existing of old technology, to give context for your examples. There is a big difference between reporting what the Nobel Prize-winning Secretary of Energy said about fuel cells, and reporting what a spokesman for a manufacturer says about their goals for their product or research. If you are scrupulously careful in your use of sources, you will be able to make some good changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Automobiles

For whoever edited the quotes I added from the NREL article, I would have appreciated if you would have informed me of any changes you planned to make. I asked for feedback before posting but no one replied. In terms of the changes you made, they misstate facts and severely detracts from the importance of the research. The NREL Engineer does not just test FCEV's, he is involved in testing all EV technology. Also, the most important quote I added was deleted. Im open to discussing what should be there with anyone who has concerns, but if no one presents them I am going to replace the incorrect information that is there with the proper text I placed there before. Benfchea (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you were not able to see the final version of what I posted in its short lifespan, this is what I edited the Automobile section to say.

Although there are currently no Fuel cell vehicles available for commercial sale, over 20 FCEVs prototypes and demonstration cars have been released since 2009. Demonstration models include the Honda FCX Clarity, Toyota FCHV-adv, and Mercedes-Benz F-Cell.[56] As of June 2011 demonstration FCEVs had driven more than 4,800,000 km (3,000,000 mi), with more than 27,000 refuelings.[57] Demonstration fuel cell vehicles have been produced with "a driving range of more than 400 km (250 mi) between refueling".[58] They can be refueled in less than 5 minutes.[59] EERE’s Fuel Cell Technology Program claims that, as of 2011, fuel cells achieved 53–59% efficiency at ¼ power and 42–53% vehicle efficiency at full power,[60] and a durability of over 120,000 km (75,000 mi) with less than 10% degradation, double that achieved in 2006.[58] In a Well-to-Wheels simulation analysis, that "did not address the economics and market constraints", General Motors and its partners estimated that per mile traveled, a fuel cell electric vehicle running on compressed gaseous hydrogen produced from natural gas could use about 40% less energy and emit 45% less greenhouse gasses than an internal combustion vehicle.[61]

Some experts believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[62][63] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[64][65] Researchers at the Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) however, are currently testing many hydrogen powered and electric plug-in vehicles and say "DOE wants people to see that these vehicles are not just drawings on some designer's table, These technologies are practical, real and getting out into the marketplace. We have displayed all of these vehicles at public events this summer to help consumers see how all of these technologies can meet the needs of today's drivers." [66] NREL Senior Engineer Keith Wipke sees the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles potentially appealing to consumers whose needs cannot fully be met by battery electric cars, but who want a low carbon footprint. "One of the key things about the impact of hydrogen technology is that these are full-function vehicles with no limitations on range or refueling rate so they are a direct replacement for any vehicle. For instance, if you drive a full sized SUV and pull a boat up into the mountains, you can do that with this technology and you can't with current battery-only vehicles, which are more geared toward city driving." [67]

Even though NREL/DOE testing has shown promise, some in the industry still have their doubts. In July 2011, the Chairman and CEO of General Motors, Daniel Akerson, stated that while the cost of hydrogen fuel cell cars is decreasing: "The car is still too expensive and probably won't be practical until the 2020-plus period, I don't know."[68] Analyses cite the lack of an extensive hydrogen infrastructure in the U.S. as an ongoing challenge to Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle commercialization. In 2006, a study for the IEEE showed that for hydrogen produced via electrolysis of water: "Only about 25% of the power generated from wind, water, or sun is converted to practical use." The study further noted that "Electricity obtained from hydrogen fuel cells appears to be four times as expensive as electricity drawn from the electrical transmission grid. ... Because of the high energy losses [hydrogen] cannot compete with electricity."[69] Furthermore, the study found: "Natural gas reforming is not a sustainable solution".[69] "The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use."[70][38][9] Despite this, several major car manufacturers have announced plans to introduce a production model of a fuel cell car in 2015. Toyota has stated that it plans to introduce such a vehicle at a price of around US$50,000.[71] In June 2011, Mercedes-Benz announced that they would move the scheduled production date of their fuel cell car from 2015 up to 2014, asserting that "The product is ready for the market technically. ... The issue is infrastructure."[72]

In 2003 US President George Bush proposed the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (HFI). This aimed at further developing hydrogen fuel cells and infrastructure technologies with the goal of producing commercial fuel cell vehicles. By 2008, the U.S. had contributed 1 billion dollars to this project.[73] The Obama Administration has sought to reduce funding for the development of fuel cell vehicles, concluding that other vehicle technologies will lead to quicker reduction in emissions in a shorter time.[74] Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy, stated that hydrogen vehicles "will not be practical over the next 10 to 20 years".[75] He told MIT's Technology Review that he is skeptical about hydrogen's use in transportation because of four problems: "the way we get hydrogen primarily is from reforming [natural] gas. ... You're giving away some of the energy content of natural gas. ... [For] transportation, we don't have a good storage mechanism yet. ... The fuel cells aren't there yet, and the distribution infrastructure isn't there yet. ... In order to get significant deployment, you need four significant technological breakthroughs.[76] Critics disagree. Mary Nichols, Chairwoman of California's Air Resources Board, said: "Secretary Chu has firmly set his mind against hydrogen as a passenger-car fuel. Frankly, his explanations don’t make sense to me. They are not based on the facts as we know them."[77]

If anyone has a problem with these changes, or has any suggestions, please let me know before I restore the section to what I've posted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benfchea (talk • contribs) 16:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for editing of content that references unreliable sources or misrepresents where referenced information is coming from

Reference 63: “Review: Hell and Hydrogen” [15] The source itself is good. However, there is no direct mention of economic feasibility in comparison to other technologies. And many of the quotes from the book the author is reviewing would be questionable today. It would be more beneficial if the views were represented in the article in the exact (quoted or properly paraphrased, not completely summed into one misleading conclusion) way they are found in the review, or preferably, in the primary source Hell and Hydrogen”.

Reference 64: “Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a fraud” Dvice TV. White, Charlie. This article is from DVice TV, a “lifestyle blog” [16] as described by its parent company Syfy. Also in the same press release, “Syfy is a media destination for imagination-based entertainment”.

The article itself is not a credible nor verifiable source of information. It provides 0 references other than two links within the text. One links to a DVice article “self-referencing/citing” and the other links to an article from CNET (reputable in my eyes) but misstates/overstates what the underlying article actually says.

This is an opinion piece on a “lifestyle blog” on a website whos name is Science Fiction and who describes themselves as providing imagination based entertainment. Any content from this source should be removed unless someone can provide verifiable evidence to back up the claims.

Reference 65/66: “Hydrogen Cars Won’t Make a Difference for 40 Years” Squatrigila, Charlie. “Hydrogen cars may be a long time coming” Boyd, Robert S. Both of these stories are based on quotes from Joseph Romm, author of Hell and Hydrogen, just like references 63 and 64. To properly cite this material under WP:Verifiability it should be noted that the information posted in the article citing these sources comes from one particular individual, Joseph Romm. The wording “some experts” is completely ambiguous and does not do properly identify the underlying source.

Additionally, it was not properly noted that Joe Romm is a consistent critic of hydrogen. Such a bias was mentioned by Robert Boyd, the author of reference 66. Here is the quote “Asked when he thinks hydrogen cars will be broadly available, Romm, the hydrogen skeptic, replied: "Not in our lifetime, and very possibly never.” The editor who included this information should have properly mentioned who was providing the information.

There are two issues in all 4 of these references. One is that many paragraphs of news articles (all revolving around the same book), were summarized into one blanket sentence without actually presenting any context or background information. The second issue is that there is no reason to cite excerpts from the same source as four separate sources. The different news publishers are not the “experts” on fuel cell technology, the single source they drew their information from is. Benfchea (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add new messages at the bottom, rather than in the middle of talk pages. This is the Wikipedia norm, since it is easier to find talk page messages if they are at the bottom.

The long tendentious quote added by User:Benfchea from the press release that was cut is not encyclopaedic and does not lend balance to the article. I am not aware of any published evidence that fuel cell cars are "getting out into the marketplace". None of these cars, I believe, are available for commercial purchase, and the second paragraph of the Automobiles section raises ample doubt that they will be in the marketplace at any time in the near future.

The most important part of the second quote was retained. A change could be made to describe the engineer as testing EVs generally, rather than FCEVs, but I question whether that would be helpful or informative to the reader.

Please note that your employment with the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association raises a WP:Conflict of Interest with Wikipedia’s policy of scrupulous neutrality with respect to this article, and so you should be very careful indeed about reverting text that has been revised by other editors. Tim riley (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tim riley. In addition, I believe that nearly every change proposed by User:Benfchea is intended to promote a non-neutral point of view that fuel cell cars are ready for market, when clearly they are not. I disagree with making the changes suggested above. Also the scope of the changes suggested above make it difficult to deal with the proposals. I suggest, as I have suggested before, that we deal with proposals one at a time in very small chunks so that we can agree on discreet issues before changes are made. Please see WP:Consensus. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I posted at the bottom of the previous automobiles page because it was directly following upon what I had previously added. In response to your suggestions that I am editing this article with a non neutral point of view, I think that my discussions on the talk pages clearly show that that is untrue. Before posting the information I put it up for debate on the talk page and got no responses. I also made sure to keep what was there in tact so that I did not diminish any other perspectives. I have also suggested removing multiple "pro" fuel cell pieces of information that I have found to be incorrect or unhelpful to the purpose of this article.

SSilvers, I think it was entirely inappropriate, a violation of WP policy, and a complete contradiction to everything you have stated in relation to this page to remove the information I posted. You have shot down nearly every proposal I have made to update this article, while making 0 content additions of your own. You are not the final editor of this page, and your conduct is combating the encyclopedia building process. I do not have a conflict of interest in this matter, I have an interest in this matter. That is why I have consistently sought out new information from reputable sources to add to what is there. Every proposal I have made has been in the spirit of providing a better source of information to the readers. The number one theme behind the proposals I have made is that this is a scientific topic and we should be using scientific information, not blog stories or news articles that are simply reviewing books.

To Tim Riley and SSilvers, I regret that you have gotten the wrong impression of my intentions here. That being said, I have sought out collaboration and discussion many times. In regards to the NREL piece, the more important quote was the one that was deleted. If you are looking for published evidence that these cars are getting into the marketplace, this was it. The quote came from National Renewable Energy Laboratory (A Department of Energy Lab) Vehicle Systems Engineer who tests electric plug in, hybrid, hydrogen and other types of vehicles for the DOE. He said that these vehicles "are practical, real and getting out into the marketplace." That is published evidence, and people interested in this topic should know that a government scientist who deals with this technology thinks so.

As far as the quotes from Sec. Chu I have brought up are concerned, none of us has any right to doubt his expertise. However, as Sec. of Energy, his current job is political in nature, so he is not necessarily speaking from a scientific perspective. If you look at his biography on DOE.gov, or at this facebook page, you will find that the very first line of information about him is "As United States Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu is charged with helping implement President Obama's ambitious agenda to invest in clean energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, address the global climate crisis, and create millions of new jobs". I am not suggesting we delete the quote from him, but as editors we should alert the public to the fact that he has a political agenda to pursue. As far as I know, Sec. Chu has not resented any scientific findings on this technology, where as the NREL engineer works with it every day. In terms of "published evidence" I think we should lean towards the views of scientists over political appointees, but there is room for both.

It was in that light that I suggested removing all of the quotes a week or two ago because they are farrrrr too speculative and political. This included the quote by Mary Nichols, which was probably the worst in my mind. WP suggests that on scientific topics, the best references are peer reviewed articles and journals. It was my goal to move towards providing information from those types of sources, rather than speculative news articles. That is the reason why I suggested removing the 4 nearly identical sources that all reference Joseph Romm. It is critically important to the audience of this article to provide a neutral perspective, which through my editing experience and my interactions with both of you seems to mean giving critics and proponents of technology equal representation. However, under WP policy, we should be identifying who those people are. I read all of the references thoroughly yesterday and I saw 2 issues that I stated yesterday. The sentence that references them does not really represent what the sources are saying, and that those four references are really all speaking the views of one expert/person. I think that they should be scrapped and in their place should be one reference to the book "Hell and Hydrogen". At least one of the two news articles did contain some other interviews so those may continue to be valuable.

It may seem like I have a conflict of interest because I am consistently looking to add to this page, but the fact is that I am not cherrypicking facts to support a view. I run across news articles, publications, and even quotes from Sec. Chu himself every day that are relevant to this page. I feel that if I am going to be involved in editing this page I should not make waste of new relevant information, especially when it comes from a source as reputable and verifiable as our National Renewable Energy Lab. I would love for you to seek out some published research on this topic and present it to be added. Since I have been involved in this editing process you have not done so.

With all of that said, I am going to reinsert the section I added a few days ago. I will go back and make sure that I am very clear about who is saying the quotes and what their perspective is. I am doing this for two reasons. First, because I wholeheartedly believe it is appropriate in the context of this topic. Secondly, because I think it was inappropriate for it to be removed in the first place. SSilvers you have said many times that editors should not remove information, and have even said "please do not remove it" as if it was a personal favor to you. I am thoroughly perplexed as to why you would then go and edit something, including deleting an important part of it, without consulting the talk page beforehand. In the future, please be more involved in "encyclopedia building", rather than editing the work of others. Information about doing so can be found [17] there. Benfchea (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

COI and NPOV

Apropos of the above, I urge our recently-joined colleague to familiarise him/herself with Wikipedia's philosophy. Benfchea is manifestly passionate in favour of the technology, and who shall gainsay him/her, but it is absolutely vital to Wikipedia's modus operandi, not to say credibility, that we present all sides of any case, and do not overstate personal (or professional) interests. It is a sober fact that contributors who persist in pushing a particular line or peddling an interest group's party line will sooner or later be found out by Wikipedia's administrators and be blocked from further editing. Verb. sap. Tim riley (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, as lawyers say, by "our recently-joined colleague", above, I refer to User:Benfchea, rather than User:Ssilvers, whose longstanding prominence as a Wikicolleague and discourager of POV-pushers is known to me and countless other Wikipedians. Tim riley (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is little reason for me to respond to the above criticism. Your position is clearly defined, and your alliance has been duly noted. I am removing myself from these discussions until the proper steps have been taken to resolve this matter. Benfchea (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made two suggestions above, Benfchea, but you ignored them. Nevertheless, I'll repeat them here: First, we will make more progress if you begin with parts of this article not related to automobiles, since that is the most contentious issue and where you and your employer have the biggest WP:COI. I am hoping that, as we deal with those, you will learn more about WP:NPOV and the use of sources here on Wikipedia, so that when we get back to automobiles, we can have a more collegial discussion about it. Second, if you make smaller proposals about editing particular sentences or references, one at a time, it will be easier for us to discuss each one more specifically and try to reach a consensus. You are not helping by responding with legalistic arguments and posturing - focus on the content. We are happy to discuss with you how the article might be improved. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed myself from this discussion for the past few weeks to let the dust settle from our previous communications in the hopes that some of the tension would be removed from the discussion. As I resume editing on WP, I would like to say a few things in my own defense regarding the previous allegations. At no point have I set out to push any particular viewpoint on this page, nor have I acted with the purpose of promoting any particular technology. My sole purpose has been to provide the readers of this page with more accurate, scientific research based, and up-to-date information about the subject than what is currently offered. I believe that my record on these talk pages speaks for itself in that regard. My suggestions have and will continue to be based on the most recent and reliable information available to us.

Additionally, I clearly defined my ties to the FCHEA before starting to edit this page, and have taken all the steps necessary to assure that I have not been guilty of COI or NPOV violations. These include providing ample time for my suggestion on talk pages to be responded to before posting anything to the actual page, and citing examples of unreliable or improperly referenced sources that have been used to support both sides of this debate. In regards to the automobile section, it is in no way true that "that is the most contentious issue and where you and your employer have the biggest WP:COI", nor is it the case that I have presented "legalistic arguments" of focused on anything other than content, except for where my suggestions have been met with those types of responses.

I will resume my editing of this page with the hopes that all users will work together to improve this page. Benfchea (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

COI NPOV SSilvers and Tim Riley

In addition to my defense against the unfounded allegations against my character, goals, and legitimacy as an editor of this page, I would like to note how the actions of other users on this page has not lived up to the policies and guidelines often cited in their allegations against other editors.

As long standing editors of WP, user:SSilvers and user:Tim Riley should be well aware of the policy against "biting the newcomers" or citing their own, or one-another's editorial "expertise" as backing for their arguments. You have consistently attempted to attack my reputation by labeling me as a newcomer, including referencing me as “our recently-joined colleague", and suggesting that I familiarize myself with WP policies before moving forward. You have also threatened numerous times that my behavior "will sooner or later be found out by Wikipedia's administrators and be blocked from further editing." I would like to point out that all actions taken by myself and my colleagues have remained under the conditions set forth by the Wikipedia administrators when we joined Wikipedia and resolved the sock-puppet accusations.

I would also like to cite some of the examples where the mentioned users have contradicted their own arguments or violated the very policies they often cite in their responses. Time and again I have been told to focus on encyclopedia and consensus building as well as discussing content rather than posturing or pursuing legalistic arguments, but I believe it is obvious that Ssilvers, and lately Tim Riley, have worked against these ideals themselves. The very nature of many of your arguments however, is legalistic and has the clearly defined goal of representing yourselves as the authority on these matters. You have cited WP guidelines in almost every response, using legal tactics to diminish the validity of other editor’s suggestions. In regard to content, it has been clear that you favor that status-quo over improving the page with more up to date information. Neither of you have presented new sources of reliable information, nor new content that adds value to the page. You have however, been very interested in monitoring what new information does make it into the article. Similarly, you have based your responses and arguments on WP policy rather than evaluating suggestions on their own merit. I do not believe that these activities have been conducive to the encyclopedia-building environment and I urge you both to alter those behaviors in the future.

Another issue I would like to raise is the conflict of interest that has been referenced many times on WP between user:SSilvers and author, Joe Romm. As I have mentioned before, Joe Romm is the author of numerous books criticizing the hydrogen as an energy source, and is particularly critical of FCEV's. SSilvers has openly admitted his relationship with Romm on many other pages, and has been accused of having a COI on this subject before on the Joseph Romm’s WP page. It seems to me that the automobiles section is actually the area where SSilvers has the greatest COI, as Romm is a large supporter of other forms of EV's like hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and battery electric vehicles. SSilvers has made accusations against those who have provided information about FCEV's as far back as 2009 on the Battery Electric Vehicle Talk Page, long before FCHEA or I were ever involved in editing this page. "Would someone please look at the Hydrogen vehicle article? The comparison with BEVs is being destroyed by a hydrogen POV pusher. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)". SSilvers, I urge you to please be careful that you have not fallen victim to the very ills you claim to crusade against.

I hope that the mentioned users recognize that they may have acted inappropriately on these issues, and return to this page with a more collaborative attitude. Both of these users have a long established record of providing excellent editing contributions to WP in the areas of theatre and the arts, and I do not wish to diminish or dispute those accomplishments. I would however like to suggest that they refrain from pushing a particular point of view or boxing in the discussion on this page to particular areas while refusing to allow improvements to others. I would also urge them to seek out the most up to date and credible information on this topic, especially those sources whose peer-reviewed scientific approach is most appropriate for this page. I look forward to continuing to improve this page and put the issues of the past behind us. Benfchea (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In practice section and section merge proposal

I just realized that the descriptions of PEM, MOFC and SOFC fuel cells are listed under the "design" section, while the section "Types of Fuel Cells" has the large charts and then goes directly into efficiency. I think it would be helpful to the readers to maybe just replace the title "design" with "types of fuel cells" since both sections are really discussing the same things and slightly reorganize the sections to make it all flow. Can user:SSilvers or someone else help me with that? I'm afraid that if I try to change any large scale formatting I might really botch it.

On another note, the "In Practice" section gets a little off topic in my opinion. First, the comparison to batteries doesn't really belong here. Fuel cells are not an energy storage device, they are a power generation device. Comparisons to batteries should be on the hydrogen page not the fuel cell page, or should take the form of a new "Fuels Cells and Hydrogen For Energy Storage" or "Comparisons to other technologies" section. The reference ["Batteries, Supercapacitors, and Fuel Cells: Scope". Science Reference Services. 20 August 2007. http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/tracer-bullets/batteriestb.html#scope. Retrieved 11 February 2009.] used to cite the comparison actually says that fuel cells are not the actually "store" of energy. It doesn't make sense to say "cannot" when that is not a fuel cells job in the first place. When we are discussing "in practice" efficiency, we need to be very specific about what that "practice" actually is, especially when relating it to other technologies. I think that we should distribute the "in practice" efficiency information into the sections on the respective uses to help the reader understand what these numbers actually mean. Putting in the quote "While a much cheaper lead-acid battery might return about 90%, the electrolyzer/fuel cell system can store indefinite quantities of hydrogen, and is therefore better suited for long-term storage" really doesn't explain what the batteries and fuel cell are being used to do. For example, for powering an Electric vehicle, [18] says that lead-acid batteries are actually expensive, heavy, and have limited range. It really doesn't represent either technology well to pull arbitrary numbers from sources to make comparisons. To give both technologies their due respect and recognize that the efficiency can vary widely depending on factors like fuel and applications, I think we should take the "in practice" out (not saying we should delete the information or sources) and refer to the in practice efficiency of the different applications. Benfchea (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

edits to automobile

Hi, I am proposing the following edits to the automobiles section of this page. I would like to add some more up to date information and remove a statement that no longer includes a reference.

If there are no objections, I will post these edits on February, 21, 2012. Please let me know your thoughts if you think there is a better way to update this section. Thank you!

The start of the first paragraph would read:

Although there are currently no Fuel cell vehicles available for commercial sale, a number of manufacturers have announced plans to sell fuel cell vehicles commercially by the middle of this decade including General Motors (2015), Honda (2015), Hyundai (2012), Mercedes-Benz (2014), Nissan (2016) and Toyota (2015) . Over 20 FCEVs prototypes and demonstration cars have been released since 2009. Demonstration models include the Honda FCX Clarity, Toyota FCHV-adv, and Mercedes-Benz F-Cell.[60] Both the Honda FCX Clarity and the Mercedes Benz F-Cell are presently available to be leased by consumers in a very limited number of markets .

The second paragraph could then have the last couple sentences removed so as to not repeat similar information. The quote from GM CEO in this paragraph should also be removed because there is no reference for it. I would also like to add more recent information on market research to support this section. The second paragraph would read:

There is some debate in regards to the viability of fuel cell vehicles and soon they will be commercialized. Some manufactures are hoping to sell fuel cell vehicles as early as 2012, while other critics feel that they will never be a reality. Experts who are skeptical of the vehicles believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[67][68] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[69][70] A 2012 KPMG Global Automotive Executive Survey found that auto executives believed fuel cell vehicles would have a consumer demand similar to that of hybrid electric vehicles, and greater that battery electric vehicles in 2025, and that fuel cell electric mobility would be the second most important trend in the industry over the next 15 years . Other analyses cite the lack of an extensive hydrogen infrastructure in the U.S. as an ongoing challenge to Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle commercialization. In 2006, a study for the IEEE showed that for hydrogen produced via electrolysis of water: "Only about 25% of the power generated from wind, water, or sun is converted to practical use." The study further noted that "Electricity obtained from hydrogen fuel cells appears to be four times as expensive as electricity drawn from the electrical transmission grid. ... Because of the high energy losses [hydrogen] cannot compete with electricity."[72] Furthermore, the study found: "Natural gas reforming is not a sustainable solution".[72] "The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use."[16][38][73]

65.216.180.19 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC) User:Awrfch February, 17, 2012.

I strongly object to this proposal. As I have proposed many times in the past, if you change one or two sentences at a time, then we can discuss whether the specific change works or not. For example, the Hyundai 2012 date is wrong. Here is the most up-to-date information about Hyundai, and they are saying 2015:[19] By making multiple changes at once you nearly guarantee that this is going to get contentious again. I have also suggested that if you have changes to sections other than the car section, I think you should start with those. Please remember to log in before you edit, and sign your talk page messages with four tildes, like this ~~~~, which automatically generates your username and datestamps your message. More info re: Hydrogen cars: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much for the feedback and also for the note on my own talk page, i really apprecaite your advice and willingness to collaborate. I actually only changed a few sentances, but included the whole paragraphs for context and to show that most of the content was unaltered. I would be more than happy to make the changes more incrementally. I have made small changes previously to the PEM section and the Power section and certainly do not intend to only ever edit the auto section or to make sweeping changes to it. I will certainly look at modifying other sections, however, I would still like to proceed with a few changes in this section and would be happy to make them only a sentance or two at a time and discuss them with you before making them.

First change

I would like to propose adding 2 short sentances to the second paragraph to make it clear that there are various opinions about deployment of fuel cell vehicles. The current version is this:

Some experts believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[67][68] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[69][70]

I would like to change it to this:

There is considerable debate in regards to the viability of fuel cell vehicles and how soon, if ever, they will be successfully commercialized. A number of manufactures are planning to sell fuel cell vehicles commercially by the middle of this decade , while other critics feel that they will never become a reality. Experts who are skeptical of the vehicles believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[67][68] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[69][70]

Awrfch (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, good. Please be patient with me, because I am mostly away from the computer for the next few days. "Viability" is not a helpful word choice. The question is not whether you CAN build a car, but whether you can build one that will be economically competitive with other technologies on a commercial scale; and, even if you can build them at a competitive price, whether hydrogen storage and distribution systems will ever be built; and whether it makes sense to use energy to produce hydrogen, instead of storing that energy directly in batteries. Plus, in Wikipedia, you should not put more than two (or at most 3) citations in a row. Choose the best two. So, maybe something like this would be closer:

Experts debate whether fuel cell cars will become economically competitive with other technologies.[27], [28], [29] [AWRFCH, I assume you are suggesting moving the following sentence up from lower in the paragraph?] Several car manufacturers have announced that they are planning to sell fuel cell vehicles commercially by the middle of this decade.[75] For example, Toyota has stated that it plans to introduce such a vehicle in 2015 at a price of around US$50,000.[74] Experts who are skeptical of the vehicles, however, believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[67][68] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[69][70] -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, there is no rush do this. I think changing the word viable is a good idea. I was hoping to have the first sentance be neutral and introduce the fact that there are those who beleive the cars will be competitive in the near future and others who feel they never will, and then have the arguments presented for each side presented in the paragraph, similarly to how they already are. For this reason I think that no references are needed for the first sentance if it simply states that there is debate, and the reasons for debate are explained and well referenced in the paragraph. If you do want to include references for that first sentances, i propose having 2 references, 1 supporting each side. I would not like to move that sentance about Toyota up, ultimately I would like to add the names of the other manufactureres that have announced plans for selling the cars along with Toyota, but that can easily go near the end of the paragraph where that sentence already exists.

In that case here is my next suggestion for the opening sentences. I have slightly changed the first sentance so that 2 of the first 3 sentences do not start with the same word.

When, if ever, fuel cell cars will become economically competitive with other technologies is very much up for debate. Several car manufacturers have announced that they are planning to sell fuel cell vehicles commercially by the middle of this decade,[75]while other critics feel that they will never become a reality. [30] Experts who are skeptical of the vehicles believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[67][68] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[69][70]

Awrfch (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll be back home on Saturday with a better internet connection, and I'll review this and respond then. Thanks for your patience! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm back and ready to get to work.  :-) Unfortunately, phrases like "very much" and "up for debate" are not encyclopedic. See WP:Weasel Either there is a debate among experts or there isn't. And your second sentence is just repeating the sentence that is later in the paragraph. We can't say it twice. I would either leave the sentence the way it is now or go with something like this:

Experts debate whether fuel cell cars will become economically competitive with other technologies.(this says there is a debate) Some of the experts believe that fuel cell cars will never become economically competitive with other technologies[67][68] or that it will take decades for them to become profitable.[69][70] -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice on the word use, you're right about that. My intention was to have the first sentence introduce the potential for fuel cell cars to be economically competitive, as well as that reasons why they may not. At this point, we are far from having a sentence that accomplishes that. I think the sentence that you last suggested, which is based off of my initial recommendation, does almost nothing to enhance or change the paragraph in any way, i feel like we should just leave it as it is. It is not a problem that needs to be fixed and we have not been able to come up with a constructive way to improve it, in my opinion. Let me know if you think otherwise, or we can just leave it and move on. Awrfch (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

seems to be error

In the opening paragraph, it says that cells are placed in parallel in order to increase voltage. However, cells would have to be stacked in series to increase voltage. I have never edit a page before, so I will leave the correction to someone else.

-Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.99.172.6 (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Second change

I would like for somebody to find a source for this sentence or else we should remove it:

In July 2011, the Chairman and CEO of General Motors, Daniel Akerson, stated that while the cost of hydrogen fuel cell cars is decreasing: "The car is still too expensive and probably won't be practical until the 2020-plus period, I don't know."[71]

The source is a broken link and I have not been able to find another source for it anywhere.Awrfch (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I updated the link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Awrfch (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Third Change

Ssilvers: Regarding your notes on the main page about the list of other applications. There is definitely some repetition. I think that applications should have their own sub heading or else be on that list. In that case I think that it would make sense to leave distributed generation on the list, but to remove electric and hybrid vehicles from the list, since they already have their own section. I also agree that removing forklifts was a good idea. Awrfch (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I agree: I think the Power section, higher up, ought to discuss the various stationary fuel cell applications more clearly, giving each commercialized technology a paragraph's summary, or just a sentence or two if the particular application is not yet commericalized but is being developed. I think that Distributed Generation, for example, should be described under "Power", summarizing the material in the Distributed Generation article. There may also be some useful material in the Fuel cell applications article and other articles already on Wikipedia. Would you like to take a crack at expanding the descriptions of the stationary applications a bit up there? As for hybrid vehicles, we have not really described any hybrid vehicles using a fuel cell and either a battery or an ICE, but I think it's premature to do so, and we can come back to that when manufacturers have something more specific in the pipeline. I would leave it in the list for now, just as a place holder. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Fourth change

I would also like to add this sentence to the end of the second paragraph in the automobiles section:

Other manufacturers planning to sell fuel cell electric vehicles commercially by 2016 or earlier include General Motors (2015), Honda (2015 in Japan), Hyundai (2015) and Nissan (2016). Let me know what you think, thanks. Awrfch (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This should go further down in the same paragraph, after this sentence: "Toyota has stated that it plans to introduce such a vehicle at a price of around US$50,000.[74]" I have no problem with mentioning GM, Honda and Nissan, but I do not see an announcement from Hyundai that they have specific plans to commercialize a fuel cell vehicle in 2013. The url above does not say so - in fact, it says they're coming out with a battery car. I cleaned up your references above - it this works for you, feel free to insert it under the Toyota mention, which is the only one that gives an actual price target. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning for it to be the last sentence in that paragraph. I certainly did misread that Hyundai page, sorry about that. I believe they are planning for 2015, which makes more sense, and that is backed up by a number or sources. So I have revised that sentence to include that. Awrfch (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is fine, and you did a good job formatting it. I fixed a couple of minor referencing issues for you: punctuation always goes before the ref tag, rather than afterwards; and you should include the actual publication date of the article if it is available. Feel free to add this. For what it is worth, I think the sentence is redundant. We already say that "several of the major manufacturers" are planning to introduce the vehicles in 2015, and so listing them just creates a bunch of moving targets, where we will have to update this statement every time any one of the manufacturers changes their projected roll-out date. Better to just leave it at "several", and then if a bunch of them change the date, we can just adjust the date once, rather than having to do it every time one manufacturer changes. But, like I said, it is acceptable, so go ahead to put it in if you like. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for fixing the errors. Awrfch (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuel cell costs

Now "Proton exchange membrane fuel cell Polymer membrane (ionomer) 100 !100 W – 500 kW 125 !50–120 (Nafion) 125–220 (PBI) 60% !50–70% 40% !30–50% Commercial / Research 30–35 "

The cost above is totally wrong coz PEM FC doesn't cost 30-35 usd/W - now it cost 49 usd/kW for 80 kW units in mass production. ( 500 000 units/year) So i would like to change above 30 000 - 35 000 usd/kW to true 50-100 usd /kW cost for this kind of FC. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.101.124 (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, added.Mion (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

ALD reducing costs

Perhaps this can be mentioned. ALD is used to reduce costs of bioalcohol fuel cells by 60% Perhaps mention in article

BTW: do butanol powered fuel cells exist, I only read about methanol and ethanol fuel cells 91.182.142.202 (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Help adding some info regarding MCFCs

Regarding the paragraphs describing the advantages of MCFCs and Fuelcell Energy's work to commercialize them. I would like to clarify one item and add two items, but I am new to Wikipedia and could use some help doing it properly.

1) The 47% electrical efficiency claimed by Fuelcell Energy is net AC; It takes into account DC-AC conversion losses and parasitic loads.

2) MCFCs have enough waste heat to reform more hydrocarbon fuel into hydrogen than they can consume. Fuelcell Energy has a demonstration of this operating in an Orange County, California waste treatment plant where one of their fuel cells is running on sewage derived Anaerobic Digester Gas to produce 250kW of electricity and sufficient hydrogen to fuel 25-50 fuel cell vehicles per day. (This has been reported in numerous news venues. Here is the link to U.S. Department of Energy's announcement of the installation commissioning: http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-applauds-world-s-first-fuel-cell-and-hydrogen-energy-station-orange )

3) Instead of recycling the CO2 from the anode to the cathode, Fuelcell Energy has proposed (and the U.S. DOE has funded a demonstration, http://energy.gov/articles/department-energy-announces-41-million-investment-carbon-capture-development ) using the cathode reaction to remove CO2 from conventional coal power plant's exhaust stream. The concentrated CO2 coming off the anode could then be sold or sequestered. --Dag in va (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Fuel Cell waste products

In the third paragraph of the summary, it says, "In addition to electricity, fuel cells produce water, heat and, depending on the fuel source, very small amounts of nitrogen dioxide and other emissions."

There exist such things as direct carbon fuel cells. These produce carbon monoxide, not water, as a waste product.

In addition, there are several types of fuel cells which use hydrocarbons directly; these produce both water and carbon dioxide waste.

The table comparing fuel cells includes zinc-air batteries... these produce zinc oxide waste, and produce neither water nor carbon dioxide.

What document indicates that fuel cells produce nitrogen dioxide?

Goldbb (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's a really great question. You sound so science-y. Are you, like, a professor or a scientist? Um, anyways, where do you find that summary?

99.8.5.34 (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Cost reduction

Cost reduction over a ramp-up period of about 20 years is needed in order for PEM fuel cells to compete with current market technologies, including gasoline internal combustion engines.ref name=Meyers1>Meyers, Jeremy P. "Getting Back Into Gear: Fuel Cell Development After the Hype". The Electrochemical Society Interface, Winter 2008, pp. 36–39, accessed 7 August 2011/ref

I think the whole reference is outdated, 5 years have passed, next to that it contained no proper arguments why. so i removed it. Mion (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Meyers' article is well-researched, with rigorous sourcing. I don't think we can ignore it in the cost discussion, until we can replace it with more recent peer-reviewed research (or real-world data) that covers the same points about commercialization and profitability of the technology in automobiles. Once fuel cell cars are introduced, we should have newer real-world cost data. BTW, the DOE estimates that are currently cited all assume high-volume production of 500,000 units. Once fuel cell vehicles are introduced commercially, volume will not be anything like 500,000 units for many years (if ever), so the government's estimates are purely hypothetical. I clarified this and replaced a clearer statement about what Meyers is saying, noting that his article was written in 2008. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The 500,000 are not only automotive fuel cells, the technology is shared in stationary FC and such which prob hit 100,000 units in 2015 already, that article is outdated as Meyers failed to take that into account.Mion (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

see [31].Mion (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the US government source (its footnote 1) says that the hypothetical costs are based on the manufacture of 500,000 fuel cell cars per year. So when the cars are actually sold in show rooms, we'll see the sticker price and the number of units sold, and then new and more reliable estimates may become available. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

yes, they made a hugh mistake in vision on the market until 2012, i'm glad the market is correcting it as we see a turn around in 2013 in the USA.Mion (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Daimler states that a mass market is only 100,000 ""the term ‘mass-market’, Truckenbrodt said this equated to volumes of 100,000 vehicles over the product lifecycle"""[32]

Lets first go from 2012 to 2013 for the Doe report[33], new measure values where introduced, there we see that the 500,000 figure is produced by Strategic Analysis, Inc, the presentation:[34], an impressive break down of costs of a PEMFC, which could be in any system, different production numbers are mentioned including the 100,000.Mion (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

[left] Agreed. I put in the 2013 DOE estimates. We need to be clear that actual commercial production of automotive fuel cells has not yet begun. Please see WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. ... Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." George W. Bush projected that you would be driving a hydrogen car today, but you're not. Schwartzenegger said there would be a hydrogen highway from LA to Canada by 2010, but there is not. Every single projection about hydrogen cars has proved to be a disappointment. Once we have some actual sales figures and sale prices, there will be encyclopedic information to write about, and all of these silly projections can go away. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. both Bush and Schwartzenegger are politians, their main job is to enable options and make people enthousiast, in fact they made a good research network, and as usual in Nation politics, the time line is less important. And i am not so sure that actual commercial production of automotive fuel cells has not begun as the Daimler plant in Canada produced its first automated automotive fuel cell[35] and a few Asians are in the same stage, as for the factual numbers, follow the news. Mion (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuel cell demonstration

i would like to know was the crude fuel cell discovered by grove alone ? And in second edition of book " Fuel Cell Systems Explained " it is mentioned that in 1939 the first fuel cell was demonstrated by lawyer and william grove. it is bit confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.78.177.180 (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, wow, wow, aren't we talking about stuff on the net? Books are a no no. 99.8.5.34 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Any type of reference we have whether it be books or the internet should be used on Wikipedia. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I added new citations pointing to the original fuel cell scientific articles from 1838, and from this info it is hard to definitively say who invented the fuel cell first - Grove or Schönbein. I can only find rough overlap based on the dates of their letters to the journal. I welcome comments and the addition of any other scholarly documents others can find to substantiate the timing of both scientists' experiments. Timtempleton (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Great job, Tim. I moved the refs out of the WP:LEAD section, as they belong in the main text below, and I replaced the two refs that you deleted, concerning Grove's later publications. Did you mean to delete them? If so, why? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the delayed response. I removed references that were to books and not to the actual pdf files. I thought that limiting references to easily verifiable online sources strengthened the articles. Any chance you can scan and upload the pages you reference?Timtempleton (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:RELY and WP:VERIFY, many books are considered reliable sources. There is no requirement that every reference be online; please read the Wikipedia policies more carefully. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Tim, actually book and paper references are superior to online refs, if the bibliographic information is complete, as they cannot go dead. Adding a url to these, of course is even better, but whether it is online or not is not important, as long the source cited was published in by a reputable publisher. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Books are not better at all, as they are "fixed" in time and dont get updated (they outdate quickly), a lot of people update online refs all the time and sometimes update the new information in the article too, but if you go for your favorite book, maybe upload your front[36] and back too for better book promotion. so both are ok, as long as the source is valid.Mion (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

market refs

needs to be updated in time .Mion (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Is there a cite or not? Why did you delete the old cite? Should we just delete the information about deliveries? -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

need some time to work on it for proper reference for double checking, growth numbers are not to far off, but yearly shipments is quested.Mion (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

When you add cites, please add all the required information, including author name, publication and publisher information, dates and, if available, page numbers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

when you feel the added refs need additional info from the article, feel free to add them yourself, its not a reason to remove proper refs. see Help:Citations quick reference - footnotes , Mion (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

and tell me, what was your reason to remove the second reference too ? i reverted that edit, as i dont agree with it.Mion (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The reference I removed did not support the text that you added. Also, I had fixed many spelling errors and typos. Please correct errors, don't add them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

[left] Feel free to add the drop-in info with a proper reference, but don't revert to the version with all the typos and other errors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/,

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Introduction clarity

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure "Hydrogen produced from the steam methane reforming of natural gas" (2nd para.) doesn't make any sense. I don't know what it should be, but maybe it could be reworded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smileperegrine (talk • contribs) 07:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)