"The newly-designed fuel cell module is roughly 40 per cent smaller, yet generates 30 per cent greater power, along with a 16 per cent reduction in consumption when compared to the previous F-Cell A-Class. "
These huge improvements show MB has some outstanding engineering capability.
At 2.9 l/100km and 0 emissions; we all should have one and hopefully we aren't blown away by the price.
Only zero emissions from the exhaust (not counting water vapor, but the government will tax that if everyone drives fuelcell). Hydrogen is usually created by electrolyse (sp?) and that requires electricity, quite some electricity. The hydrogen has to be made in centralised factories that are near to (preferably nuclear) powerplants and then shipped to fueling stations.
Hydrogen gas is very dangerous since it's highly explosive....
I am not saying that it isn't an alternative to petrol, because I think it is. But when considering one has to take all aspects into consideration....
For day to day traffic electrical cars can also be an alternative. The battery could be filled during the night and there already is a mechanism for distributing electricity.
Lifecycle analysis needs to come with all this gee-whiz technology. If everyone in BC drove a fuel cell car, we'd need 6 nukes nearby. The nearest nuclear plant is in southern Washington State, as it stands now. The nearest one in Canada is in eastern Ontario.
I don't think the car is fueled by Hydrogen directly. I think the fuel cell takes gasoline or diesel (the article mentions that the fuel cell B runs on diesel) and "cracks" it into Hydrogen using a "reformer" technology. The Hydrogen that is created is then chemically combined with oxygen to generate electricity...which power the electric motor. This method isn't as efficient (or clean) as using pure hydrogen but it doesn't require you to setup a network of hydrogen gas stations.
Did I get this correct?
EDIT: I did some more research on this. I think the Mercedes fuel cell actually does use a Hydrogen tank vs. the "reformer" technology.
Jordan.
Last edited by jkalpin : 03-19-2008 at 09:10 PM.
Reason: Added more info
Right, it uses a tank and so the H2 has to come from somewhere, namely, electric power stations. BC is already tapped out, even with the Site C dam we'll be importing power, without electric cars and H2-powered cars, hence the comment about nuke plants being needed.
Maybe when it's introduced, they should call it the B-Class "Hindenburg Edition" ...... will it go over like a Lead Zeppelin?
The on-board reformer idea seems safer, but then you're burning fossil fuels, so what's the advantage? There is a law of diminishing returns.
Sacramento Metro Fire District has one of Daimlers F-Cell (A-Class) cars in use. I got the chance to talk to the Battalion Chief about it and he gave me some info pamphlets which lead me to doing a little research on my own. Little did I know that there are several hydrogen fueling stations not to far from me and so many F-Cells in use.
The California Fuel Cell Partnership has a website that has some fairly good info.
Whatever way we fuel our cars (Petrol, Diesel, Hydrogen or Electric) it still comes down to mainly either Fossil fuels or Nuclear power (Hydro electric or Wind if your very lucky) to supply them in the end.
If you go down the electric route in the car you have to store it in heavy, expensive and not very long lasting batteries plus lengthy charging times & a relatively short driving range. I know we have 6 mobility devices using them at present. And using electric cars doesn't solve the problem only shifts the problem to the Power generating stations.
Lets hope the day comes soon when the H can easily be taken out of H2O, there's plenty of that about and I can at present see that as our only real salvation.
On the safety side I reckon that if someone had 'just' invented the petrol engine we would all be saying that we wouldn't fancy driving around with 13 gallons of a highly volatile fuel on board.
...... will it go over like a Lead Zeppelin?
Linear Mode
