Talk:Fuel cell/Archive 2

message: Currently this section of the article only talks about "proton exchange" fuel cells, and doesn't mention "oxygen ion exchange" fuel cells. Does anyone object to me adding a description of how these work? Any suggestions on how best to format it? I suggest having 2 subsections, to describe each type separately. I can also upload a diagram of such a fuel cell, to complement the picture of the PEM cell already there. Logicman1966 (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand the Fuel Cell Design section ? 

message: This section gives the impression it was only set up so the high school band and Ballard systems could be mentioned. If there has to be a trivia section, it needs a list of unbiased bullet pointed sentences, until then I think its best I remove it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.18.239 (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: Recently the video file :Image:ATA hydrogen fuel cell demo.ogg was added to the article. I personally several issues associated with this edit, which I will outline. These are by no means in order of importance.
# Size: Firstly the filesize is excessive. It is only just under the WP maximum upload limit (100MB). The amount of information in the video is certainly not proportional to this filesize. Ogg-Theora is not the most efficient codec around, but nor is it that inefficient. Currently the video provides <20 seconds of video/audio interleave per 10MB, which is quite excessive. This is probably due to overly high quality levels in the video encoding, though I haven't delved into the make up
# Quality: Having looked at the video, and this may be an issue with my player (vlc under debian lenny, x86) the audio diaogue is barely perceptable between the man and the woman. I have no idea what the man is saying, and can maybe make out a US accent; although i cannot be sure. Furthermore the camera work is not really isolating the subject matter (see next point), nor does the applciation show off the workings nor application of fuel cells (a truly interesting class of device).
# Subject: The video does not really provide the observer (and I only watched the first third of the video) with any idea of what it is about. If this were not already in the context of fuel cells, I am only partially convinced I would have worked out what it was showing. 
# Rich media: Rich media needs to be accessible to the average user, on 256k ADSL, this would take a *very* long time to view, and really doesn't add that much to the article. This is a bit of a rehash of the other points.
User A1 (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate on any problems RE the subject? Towards the end of the video it becomes quite clear how waste is produced w/ conversion of energy. I should have the size pared back somewhat, to around 50mb, once I get to know the encoding program a little better. This is actually one of my first video uploads; I'll reupload tomorrow if you're willing to add the video w/ reduced frame rate. Ottre 16:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: Someone wrote that it would be reduced to $30/kWh.  If you read the reference closely, that's not what it actually says.  I'll correct this, but I thought I'd note it here too.
I don't know when the above was written, but on a similar note, I was unable to find a point where the US DoE had stated that the cost had dropped to $73/kWe. At the end of April 2009, they were expecting the price to drop to $400/kWe. --Grunkhead (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  $30/kWh 

message: perhaps the hydropak can be mentioned. If it was to be refillable, it would be a perfect device  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.171.164 (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydropak 

message: None of the information in this table is cited, which I would have thought was against Wikipedia policy?  I have added a cost for PEMFC cells and mentioned my source the edit summary, but didn't put it in the main table as it would have been the only one.  Would someone with the free time like to collect some citable data - or would all the references clutter up the table? Wogone (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in table of fuel cell types 

message: "batteries store electrical energy chemically and hence represent a thermodynamically closed system."  This is a bit misleading as when you go to use the battery it is now an open system, unless you include the circuit it powers, in which case the battery and circuit together can be approximated to a closed system.
Maybe I'm wrong and or it's not such a big deal but I found it a bit confusing.  TFJamMan (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batteries are thermodynamically closed systems? 

message: There is mention in this article that researches from Monash university created cheap plastic catalyst
which performs not worse than Platinum.Levels of currents comparable to Platinum had been obtained.
I still didn't hear that somebody stop to use expensive Platinum in fuel cell production.A hoax? Stanley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.228.58 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many things we dont hear, but the article states" Monash University, Melbourne uses PEDOT instead of platinum", not "which performs not worse than Platinum" and if you have a lower current density you only have to increase the surface area, More important is lifetime. Mion (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, i did, and at the bottom it says, patents are pending,The avarage time from a lab invention to mass production is 5 years, if you google on "pedot cathode" there is some interesting reading . Mion (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To make the set complete : Electrically conducting cation-exchange polymer powders: synthesis, characterization and applications in pem fuel cells and supercapacitorsHigh rates of oxygen reduction over a vapor phase–polymerized PEDOT electrode, DOI is at the top. Mion (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you are also interested in  and . Mion (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or a liquid cathode . Mion (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A cheap plastic catalyst hoax? 

message: According to http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/v1ldW1s20060524145809.ppt, efficiency is 40-60% rather than 50%  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.178.120 (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  efficiency 40-60% 

message: I was wandering if it would be alright to put observations that I have noticed while working on fuel cells myself with the DOE at Stark State College of Technology?  I have noticed that in some of our fuel cells that we are seeing an increased amount of moisture on the anode side of our fuel cells under test that have a hydrogen source with a purity of 99.99995% purity. I believe that we are seeing O2 crossover from the cathode side of the fuel cell to the anode side at which point it reacts with the hydrogen already present on the anode side to produce H2O. Any input on this matter would be appreciated as I am still fairly new to editing on Wikipedia and can use all the help that I can get.
andrew e0 2000 (talk) 3:55, 1 July 2009 (EST)
I am also new to wikipedia and like you have experience with fuel cells. I would suggest that the information you want to add is very specific and perhaps doesn't belong on this article. You might want to consider posting this question on the discussion page for the article on the type of fuel cell your experiments concern (presumably PEMFC if you are using pure hydrogen?)
Campcounselor (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  O2 Crossover 

message: So that editors can better watch over this concern I have placed links at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to both Talk:Solid oxide fuel cell and to this talk page. -84user (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view/Noticeboard 

message: It seems that iron/sulpher aswell as stainless steel? is used as a replacement for platinum in fuel cells. However, it seems to me that these are no longer true (inorganic) fuel cells. As inorganic fuel cells could have benefits in some cases (the bacteria may be fragile in some environments, ...) perhaps that this article needs to foresee 2 articles:
* Inorganic fuel cell
* Organic fuel cell -->ie Microbial fuel cell
Also, I already added the iron sulpher-alternative in the text at this page, yet I haven't yet implemented the stainless steel idea (see http://www.physorg.com/news154630043.html ) I'm not completely sure how this latter works, both methods need to be clarified better in the wikipedia articles, and perhaps schematics can be made. 
Finally, I'm hoping that perhaps the articles I made earlier; notably
*Alternative ICE fuel generator
*ICE fuel conversion
*Comparison_of_alternative_ICE_fuels
can be reimplemented again into wikipedia, possibly altered or reorganised to comply better with Wikipedia. These are relative to the fuel cell article as the "alternative ICE fuel generator included eg hydrogen generators (generating hydrogen for use in fuel cells).~The articles are still available at Appropedia (http://www.appropedia.org/).
KVDP (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron/stainless steel replacing platinum 

message: I vote to change the intro to
A fuel cell is an electrochemical cell that produces electricity from a replenishable fuel tank. The electricity is generated trough the reaction, triggered in the presence of an electrolyte, between the fuel (on the anode side) and an oxidant (on the cathode side). The reactants flow into the cell, and the reaction products flow out of it, while the electrolyte remains within it. Fuel cells can operate virtually continuously as long as the necessary flows are maintained.
Fuel cells are different from conventional electrochemical cell batteries in that they consume reactant from an external source, which must be replenished[1]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.90.148 (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good change. I don't think it's correct to call any kind of battery a closed thermodynamic system. Hmoulding (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the definition of a thermodynamically closed system one where the boundaries do not allow passage of mass, but does allow passage of energy? A battery is a pretty good approximation of this and a fuel cell is not. Are you sure you are not thinking of an isolated system? User A1 (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition change 

message: Aren't the "batteries" made by Mehran Keshe also fuel cells ? -->http://keshefoundation.com/powercells/
add in article
91.182.45.110 (talk) 08:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methane-CO2-fuel cells 

message: "It is also important to take losses due to fuel production, transportation, and storage into account. Fuel cell vehicles running on compressed hydrogen may have a power-plant-to-wheel efficiency of 22% if the hydrogen is stored as high-pressure gas, and 17% if it is stored as liquid hydrogen.[29] In addition to the production losses, over 70% of US' electricity used for hydrogen production comes from thermal power, which only has an efficiency of 33% to 48%, resulting in a net increase in carbon dioxide production by using hydrogen in vehicles[citation needed]. However, more than 90% of all hydrogen is produced by steam methane reforming.[30]"
This passage uses several inconclusive points as evidence as drawbacks for the technology. "...hydrogen 'may' have a power-to-plant...", the information states numeric values that are not really given a true definition or contrast with current power-trains. An 'as high as xx% and as low as xx%" statement should be used to prevent non-neutral ambiguity.
A citation is critical for the power grid origin for hydrogen production and does not state the efficiency of hydrogen production, only the efficiency of electricity production. This to say, if a 100,000 tonnes of hydrogen gas are produced for every  KW/h consumed, the environmental impact swing in favor of Hydrogen. If only 1 Tonne of hydrogen is produced for every MW/h consumed then it is extremely inefficient.
On these grounds I am removing the section for lack of neutrality and requesting a fact check. I will post findings here, so lets get this article straightened out.
Daniellis89 (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of "In Practice" section. 

message: when talking about solid oxide fuel cells the example used with methanol is actually proton exchange membrane fuel cell. I have come to this conclusion because the description suggests that after methanol is catalytically broken up the H+ produced transfers to react with oxygen to create water. 
Solid oxide fuel cells do not do this. They transfer O2- ions from the oxygen side to react with methanol, as it says both in this article and the main SOFC article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell
I would correct myself, but I don't know an appropriate example to replace this glaring error with and I don't want to cause any similar errors.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bassmansam (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SOFC contradiction 

message: I found a lot of out-dated information in this section that I am going to update. 
Power Section- The fuel cell market has expanded a lot in the last few years, and I am updated and expanding the information in this section to reflect these developments. Stationary fuel cells have also been used by many different companies in addition to Stuart Island, so I will add in more examples. 
Combined Heat and Power- Information is out of date and there are few citations (many are broken or now re-directed), I am updating information and including more recent sources. 
Hydrogen transportation and refueling- This title isn't very clear, I will change to Fuel Cell Transportation Vehicles and Hydrogen Refiling, 
Land Vehicles- As there are many different types of fuel cell land vehicles I will change title to Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) as this is the name the industry generally refers to when talking about cars. Most of the information in this section is not relevant to FCEVs and is out of date. I will take out old information and update the section with recent numbers from the Department of Energy. (DOE) There have also been a lot more FCEVs developed in the last few years, I will add more recent developments from major auto manufacturers. 
Aircraft, Boats and Submarines- I will add to these section to include more recent developments
Fuel Cell Forklifts- One of the major Fuel Cell applications is Forklifts for the material handling industry, I will create a section that talks about forklifts.
Fueling Stations- A lot of this information is out of date with broken links, I will update and include more up-to-date sources. 
Market Structure- I will take this section out of applications and combine it with Fuel Cell Economics as that seems to make more seance. 
Briannabesch (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applications Section 

message: There are several pieces of information in this section of the Fuel Cell Wikipedia page that I found to be either out of date, not cited, or wrong. I would like to change these facts on the page.
Currently on Wikipedia: "In 2002, typical fuel cell systems cost US$1000 per kilowatt of electric power output."
Correct statement: "In 2002 projected improvements in performance and operation on hydrogen led to an estimate of approximately $100/kW for the system cost"
Source: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/tiax_cost_analysis_pres.pdf
Currently on Wikipedia: "In 2008 UTC Power has 400 kW stationary fuel cells for $1,000,000 per 400 kW installed costs"
Correction: UTC does not list their prices, and there are many different payment options, tax incentives, etc. so I don't think we should include a price on the Wikipedia page. It is misleading.
Currently on Wikipedia: "The production costs of the PEM (proton exchange membrane). The Nafion membrane currently costs $566/m²"
Correction: In 2005, NREL studies showed that with the average cost of Nafion at $80/lb, a Nafion membrane would cost about $23/m^2. The high end of membrane cost is about $27/m^2.
Source: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/39104.pdf
LhamillFC (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells 

message: I have blocked , , and  as confirmed socks of .  Keegan (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: After discussion by email I have unblocked the accounts.  They are individuals working from the same place.  They are conditionally unblocked that they follow WP:COI and refrain from discussing changes to fuel cell related articles with each other and use the talk page process to work with other editors.  WP:AGF.  Keegan (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socking in this discussion 

message: User:Pfchea, User:Connordfc, User:LhamillFC, and User:Briannabesch, thank you for the additions that you made to this entry last week.  Please fill out the incomplete references that you have added to this entry with author names, article titles, publisher names, publication dates and, where available, page numbers.  I have left notes on some of your talk pages about how to do this, and the relevant guideline is WP:CITE.  Please let me know if you need more assistance.  Thanks!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for notice user:Ssilvers.  We are actively working to properly cite any sources we have linked on this page.  After reviewing the References section, I found that most of the citations on the page are simply links, not just those included by my colleagues.  In addition, there is not much conformity between the References, it seems pretty haphazard for the most part, and some of them are actually dead links.  As an additional project, we will work to edit all of the citations on this page so that they are consistent, and active.  Thanks for bringing this matter to our attention. Connordfc (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you have made good progress.  I will check later and clean up any remaining formatting issues.  I note that the author name should always go first, with the author's last name.  Here is the basic format:  Twain, Mark. [url A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court]. Publisher name, date, page number, ISBN#, access date.  Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I'v almost the rest of the page with all the info I could find.  Ssilvers If you wouldn't mind clarifying your comments about defining terms in the chart I proposed inserting under the efficiency section I would appreciate it. BBfchea (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You guys have done excellent work cleaning up this aricle. May I recomend using  and  for formatting references. It guarrentees consistency. WP:wikicite makes life easier for you too. Cheers.  Stepho  talk  23:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, Brianna.  Good work.  See above re the chart.  BTW, I moved the bus and forklift discussions a bit higher, right under cars.  As for ref style, I like book template, but personally, I think the cite web template just makes the refs harder to work with.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete references 

message: The Efficiency section is a pure copy paste from another source and may be a product of original research, suggest complete rewrite to conform to wikipedia standards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniellis89 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 180.149.16.211 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  What terms exactly are you thinking of? I'd be happy to do this, but it feels redundant to re-define the types of fuel cell because I found them pretty well defined in the "types of fuel cell" section, and the rest seems pretty self explanatory. I was thinking people would know the term "electrolyte" and "Aqueous", and most of electrolytes are elements and therefore can't really be "defined". Let me know what you found unclear and I would be happy to define it. BBfchea (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Briana.  Yes, you should include a glossary under the chart showing all the terms used in the chart so that readers do not have to look back and forth to other sections.  Most encyclopedia readers have no background at all about fuel cells, and so they need to be able to easily understand the terms used in the chart; they may not realize that these terms are discussed in other sections and not know where to look.  Our readers certainly do not know what "electrolyte" and "Aqueous" mean.  They are just people who are curious about what a fuel cell is.  As I said, you should write as if you are explaining this to a high school science class on the first day of school. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, I think I got everything that could potentially be confusing in the glossary now- let me know if you see terms I missed. I just considered most of these terms general chemistry, or in some cases every day life, terms so didn't really see the need to define them here, but hopefully the glossary I created will be helpful to those who have absolutely no background in science. I used Merriam-Webster online dictionary definitions for ones not found in the DOE EERE Fuel Cell Technologies program glossary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannabesch (talk • contribs) 13:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficiency Section 

message: This is a great section, but there are certain areas that need more explanation.
Currently on Wikipedia: "A major disadvantage of the SOFC, as a result of the high heat, is that it 'places considerable constraints on the materials which can be used for interconnections'."
The source for this fact is out of date... There is much research being conducted on SOFCs that are dealing with these problems, so a source from 2010 (11 years ago) does not seem like it should be included.
Currently on Wikipedia: "Another disadvantage of running the cell at such a high temperature is that other unwanted reactions may occur inside the fuel cell. It is common for carbon dust (graphite) to build up on the anode, preventing the fuel from reaching the catalyst."
Again... there is much research being done on SOFCs including research that addresses this problem. I think that this information: "The anode or fuel side electrode typically is composed of a cermet-containing YSZ and Ni metal. The Ni metal acts as a catalyst for the oxidation of the fuel. Among the problems faced with a Ni cermet anode is Ni metal coarsening (sintering) during use, as well as the buildup of carbon deposits on the surface (coking) during internal reforming of the fuel. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have shown that the use of copper (Cu)-based cermets dramatically reduces coking and loss of performance during service due to coking." should be included
Source: http://www.ceramicindustry.com/Articles/Feature_Article/10637442bbac7010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____
Currently on Wikipedia: "Much research is currently being done to find alternatives to YSZ that will carry ions at a lower temperature."
There is also research being done to reduce the temperature while still using YSZ.
Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775308002243
LhamillFC (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that you should update the research in this section, as long as you provide a balanced discussion, noting where there is any disagreement in the major sources.  Old statements that are no longer true can be replaced by current information, unless they provide some useful historical information.  The fact that a reference is old does not *necessarily* mean that it is useless.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SOFC 

message: This section explains a fundamental aspect of how MCFCs work. I think it makes it seem like a problem that needs to be sorted out "somehow". The DOE has a good explanation of this, and I think it should replace what is currently on Wikipedia.
"Because the electrolyte loses carbonate in the oxidation reaction, the carbonate must be replenished through some means. This is often performed by recirculating the carbon dioxide from the oxidation products into the cathode where it reacts with the incoming air and reforms carbonate."
DOE explanation: "At the anode, hydrogen reacts with the carbonate ions to produce water, carbon dioxide, and electrons. The electrons travel through an external circuit creating electricity and return to the cathode. There, oxygen from the air and carbon dioxide recycled from the anode react with the electrons to form carbonate ions that replenish the electrolyte and provide ionic conduction through the electrolyte, completing the circuit."
Source: http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/fuelcells/fuelcells_moltencarb.html
LhamillFC (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you translate any of this high temperature section into English so that a non-technical person can at least understand the nature of what is being discussed?  Otherwise, 99% of readers will simply skip the section.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the DOE definition I included at the beginning of the section?LhamillFC (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because this is something that you added.  But in general, if you can translate any of the technical stuff to plainer English, it would be a major improvement to the article.   For guidance, see  #7 and #8 here.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MCFC 

message: So I am trying to tackle the information that is written in the efficiency section. The current sections of "Theory" and "In Practice" I found difficult to understand, out of date, not well referenced and occasionally factually wrong. I attempted to re-write the Theory section, keeping in as best I could the information that was cited (and the links weren't dead) and making it sound more accessible. This is what I came up with- let me know what you think! 
::There are many different ways to measure efficiencies. Any time you convert energy from one form to another you lose some of the energy. An energy efficiency value represents the ratio between useful output energy and total input energy or what percentage of the total energy put in the system that is retained though the energy conversion. In the case of fuel cells, useful output energy is measured in electrical energy produced by the system. Input energy refers to the total energy stored in the fuel. Fuel cells are generally between 40-60% energy efficient.  "Comparison of Fuel Cell Technologies". Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Fuel Cell Technologies Program. February 2011.   This is significantly higher than some other forms of energy generation. For example, the typical internal combustion engine of a car is only about 25% energy efficient.  "Fuel Economy: Where The Energy Goes". Department of Energy Energy Effciency and Renewable Energy www.fueleconomy.gov. August 03 2011. Accessed August 3nd 2011.  In combined heat and power (CHP) systems, the heat produced by the fuel cell is captured and put to use, increasing the efficiency of the system to 85-90%. 
::As there will be losses when converting one form of energy into another, it is possible to calculate the theoretical maximum efficiency of any type of power generation. While these values are rarely reached in practice, this can be a useful exercise to compare different types of power generation. Under typical operating conditions the maximum theoretical amount of energy efficiency of a fuel cell is 83% (not including any gains from captured waste heat, as is done in heat and power co-generation).  "Fuel Cell Efficiency". World Energy Council. 2011  This is significantly more than a combustion engine, which has a maximum theoretical efficiency of 58%. "Fuel Cell Efficiency". World Energy Council. 2011  While these efficiencies are not usually approached in real life, but high temperature fuel cells (solid oxide fuel cells or molten carbonate fuel cells) can be combined with gas turbines to approach this theoretical limit. The gas turbine captures heat from the fuel cell and turns it into mechanical energy that increases the fuel cell’s operational efficiency. This solution increases total efficiency to an "ultrahigh" level of 70%. Milewski, J., Miller, A., Badyda, K. "The Control Strategy for High Temperature Fuel Cell Hybrid Systems". The Online Journal on Electronics and Electrical Engineering (OJEEE). Vol. (2)- No. (4). Pg331. 
I'll be working on the "in practice" section next BBfchea (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (To clarify I mean just the 30% number, not the whole quote)BBfchea (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Good.  I made some minor edits and filled in some refs more.  The NASA article concludes on p. 5, 35% to 50%.  Also, the study was done with pure oxygen rather than air.  I have clarified.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see,  I was searching for 30% in the article which is why I didn't look at the 35%. After further looking though I found that the article also says "The average cell voltage of the fuel cell throughout the discharge cycle was 0.80 V which, compared to the 1.48 V thermo neutral point, leads to an operating efficiency of 54 percent." If its alright I would like to change the 30-50% to 35-55%. I know its a small thing, but since we have the correct info it seems like it should be changed. -- BBfchea (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should make too much of this study, because they used pure oxygen instead of air, and this section is supposed to be about practical results.  This was not the "conclusion", so the reporter must have thought that the 54% reading was anomalous.  I think it would be cherry-picking, since it's not mentioned in the conclusion, so I'd suggest that we not change it and stick with what they reported in the conclusion.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficiency: theory section - Proposed Overhaul 

message: I agree that the high temperature section is not organized very well, too technical and sometimes even false (see "SOFC contradiction" above). I have rewritten the SOFC section and will post it here for comments.
:Solid oxide fuel cells use a solid material, most commonly a ceramic material called yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ), as the electrolyte. Because SOFCs are made entirely of solid materials, they are not limited to the flat plane configuration of other types of fuel cells and are often designed as rolled tubes. They require high operating temperatures (800-1000 degrees Celsius), and can be run on a variety of fuels including natural gas."Types of Fuel Cells". “Department of Energy EERE website, Retrieved on: 2011-08-04.
:SOFCs are unique in that negatively charged oxygen ions travel from the cathode (negative side of the fuel cell) to the anode (positive side of the fuel cell) as opposed to positively charged hydrogen ions travelling from the anode to the cathode, as is the case in all other types of fuel cells. Oxygen gas (O2) is fed through the cathode where the molecule reacts with electrons to create oxygen ions (O-2). The oxygen ions then travel through the electrolyte to react with hydrogen gas (H2) at the anode. The reaction at the anode produces electricity and water as by-products. Carbon dioxide (CO2) may also be a by-product depending on the fuel, but the carbon emissions from an SOFC system are much less than those from a fossil fuel combustion plantStambouli, A. Boudghene. "Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs): a review of an environmentally clean and efficient source of energy". “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 6, Issue 5, Pages 433-455, October 2002.. The chemical reactions for the SOFC system are found below>"Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC)". “FCTec website, Retrieved on: 2011-08-04.:
 
:Anode Reaction:                     2H2 + 2O–2 => 2H2O + 4e–
:Cathode Reaction:                   O2 + 4 e– => 2O–2
:Overall Cell Reaction:             2H2 + O2 => 2H2O
 
:SOFC systems are fuel-flexible, meaning they can run on fuels other than pure hydrogen gas. However, since hydrogen gas is necessary for the reactions listed above, the fuel of choice must contain hydrogen atoms. In order for the fuel cell to operate, the fuel must be reformed to produce pure hydrogen gas. SOFCs are capable of internally reforming light hydrocarbons such as methane (natural gas), propane, and butane. Heavier hydrocarbons including gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and biofuels can serve as fuels in a SOFC, but an external reformer is required.
:Certain challenges exist in SOFC systems due to their high operating temperatures. One such challenge is the potential for carbon dust to build up on the anode, which slows down the internal reforming process. Research addressing this “carbon coking” issue at the University of Pennsylvania has shown that the use of copper-based cermet (heat-resistant materials made of ceramic and metal) dramatically reduces coking and loss of performance during service due to coking.Hill, Michael. "Ceramic Energy: Material Trends in SOFC Systems". “Ceramic Industry, September 1, 2005.
:Another challenge posed by the high operating temperature is slow start up time for SOFC systems, making SOFCs not ideal for mobile applications. The high operating temperature is largely due to the physical properties of the YSZ electrolyte. As temperature decreases, so does the ionic conductivity of YSZ. Therefore, to obtain optimum performance of the fuel cell, a high operating temperature is required.
:Ceres Power, UK SOFC fuel cell manufacturer, discovered a way to reduce the operating temperature of their SOFC system to 500-600 degrees Celsius. They replaced the commonly used YSZ electrolyte with a CGO (cerium gadolinium oxide) electrolyte. The lower operating temperature allows them to use stainless steel instead of ceramic as the cell substrate, which reduces cost and start up time of the system."The Ceres Cell". “Ceres Power website, Retrieved on: 2011-08-04.
:Although there is the disadvantage of slow start up time, a high operating temperature does provide advantages as well. The high temperature removes the need for a precious metal catalyst like platinum, thereby reducing cost. Additionally, waste heat from SOFC systems may be captured and reused, increasing the overall efficiency to 80%-85%."Types of Fuel Cells". “Department of Energy EERE website, Retrieved on: 2011-08-04.
LhamillFC (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SOFC proposal 

message: As I did with the SOFC section, I have rewritten the MCFC section to make it more comprehensive. I plan to write a section on each type of fuel cell using the same structure as I did with the SOFC and MCFC section. My hope is to create uniformity and make it easier for people to pick out specific information about fuel cells and compare information among the different types of fuel cells. Below is my MCFC draft - edits are welcome before I post it on the page.
:Molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs) are similar to solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs), in that they require a high operating temperature (650 degrees Celsius). The difference between the two types of fuel cell is found in the electrolyte. MCFCs use lithium potassium carbonate salt as an electrolyte, and at high temperatures, this salt melts into a molten state that allows for the movement of charge (in this case, negative carbonate ions) within the cell.“Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Technology”. “U.S. Department of Energy”, Retrieved on 2011-08-09.
 
:Like SOFCs, MCFCs are capable of internally reforming fuel in the anode, eliminating the need for an external reformer. MCFC-compatible fuels include natural gas, biogas and gas produced from coal. Once the fuel is reformed into a hydrogen-rich gas, hydrogen reacts with carbonate ions from the electrolyte to produce water, carbon dioxide and electrons. The electrons travel through an external circuit creating electricity and return to the cathode. There, oxygen from the air and carbon dioxide recycled from the anode react with the electrons to form carbonate ions that replenish the electrolyte, completing the circuit.“Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Technology”. “U.S. Department of Energy”, Retrieved on 2011-08-09. The chemical reactions for an MCFC system can be expressed as follows:“Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFC)”. “FCTec”, Retrieved on 2011-08-09.
:Anode Reaction: CO3-2 + H2 => H2O + CO2 + 2e-
:Cathode Reaction: CO2 + ½O2 + 2e- => CO3-2
:Overall Cell Reaction: H2 + ½O2 => H2O
:As with SOFCs, there is the issue of slow start up time that comes with high operating temperature. This makes MCFC systems not suitable for mobile applications, and this technology will most likely be used for stationary purposes.
:The main challenge of current MCFC technology is their short life span, which is a result of the high operating temperature and corrosive electrolyte. These factors accelerate the degradation of MFCF components, decreasing the durability and cell life. Researchers are addressing this problem by exploring corrosion-resistant materials for components as well as fuel cell designs that increase cell life without decreasing performance.“Types of Fuel Cells”. “U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy”, Retrieved on 2011-08-09.
 
:Although there is the issue of cell degradation, MCFCs hold several advantages over other fuel cell technologies. One advantage is their resistance to impurities. They are not prone to “carbon coking”, which refers to reduced performance through the build-up of carbon slowing down the internal reforming process. Because there is not the problem of carbon coking, carbon-rich fuels like gases made from coal are compatible with the system. The Department of Energy (DOE) claims that coal, itself, might even be a fuel option in the future, assuming the system can be made resistant to impurities such as sulfur and particulates that result from converting coal into hydrogen.“Types of Fuel Cells”. “U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy”, Retrieved on 2011-08-09.
:MCFCs are also much more efficient than other kinds of fuel cells. They can reach a fuel-to-electricity efficiency of 50%, considerably higher than the 37-42% efficiency of a phosphoric acid fuel cell plant. Efficiencies can be as high as 65% when the fuel cell is paired with a turbine and 85% when heat is captured and used in a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system.“Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell Technology”. “U.S. Department of Energy”, Retrieved on 2011-08-09.
:FuelCell Energy, a Connecticut-based fuel cell manufacturer, develops MCFC technology and sells their products on a global scale. Their MCFC products range from 300kW to 2.8MW systems that all achieve 47% electrical efficiency and utilize CHP technology to obtain higher overall efficiencies. One product, the DFC-ERG, is combined with a gas turbine and achieves an electrical efficiency of 65%.“Products”. “FuelCell Energy”, Retrieved on 2011-08-09. 
LhamillFC (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  I made some minor changes to simplify and to coordinate the section with the SOFC section (you don't need to repeat links that are given in the prev. section).  Please check what I did and see if you have any questions.  --  Ssilvers (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your feedback. I looked at the edits you made, and noticed a few grammatical errors so I fixed them. Also, in the sentence starting "The main disadvantage of MCFC technology..." I changed the word disadvantage back to challenge. I think the "disadvantage" this sentence is referring to is really more of a challenge, since it is just a matter of finding the best materials to use to make the cell more durable. It is not a permanent disadvantage of the systems. The word challenge indicates that this is an area where researchers are actively working to overcome this challenge. -- LhamillFC (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MCFC Proposal 

message: This talk page now makes me smile.  This is the sort of collaboration that Wikipedia is built upon.  Keegan (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a note 

message: Hello all I am User:Benfchea.  I am new to WP so please excuse, and feel free to comment/correct any formatting errors I may make as I get used to the site.  That being said, I hope to provide reputable, verifiable contributions to this topic and others related to fuel cells and hydrogen.  In reference to the discussion on fuel cell vehicles, I think that the conversation has slightly veered off course.  As a general encyclopedia, the aim should be to provide an unbiased, comprehensive overview of the topic, not a public debate.  As a first step towards resolution, I propose that all personal quotes that are not taken from scientific research be removed.  This would include the quote by Secretary Chu, the rebutal by Mary Nichols and the quote from the GM CEO.  While these are absolutely very important and powerful individuals, the quotes contain opinion, not fact.  We can certainly discuss some of the ideas contained in the quotes, ie. issues with infrastructure, cost, and deployment, but I do not believe that the quotes themselves should be used.  Of particular problem is the work "asserted" preceeding Secretary Chu's quote.  Asserted is a word that conveys conviction and authority, and is too aggressive to be used in such a context.  Not to mention, we are quoting a POLITICAL appointee, which is dubious.  The quote by the GM CEO is also incredibly weak and misleading.  The first half of the quote from the actual article states that they have made great advancements in the technology in the last 2 years alone, so what is there really does not provide the proper conext, not to mention a quote that contains "I dont know" is not particularly reputable.  I have to go for today, but Ill be back tomorrow to provide some ideas about how we could alter this section to be more beneficial to the readers. Benfchea (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Ben.  Please put new messages at the bottom so they don't get lost.  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)
replies: text: May I add a word to reinforce Ssilvers's message about neutrality. Wikipedia must absolutely not be guilty of pushing a point of view. Properly-cited references to relevant material should not be deleted, whatever one's private views of the content. Tim riley (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Where a technology has received criticism by important and relevant people, their views should be included in order to achieve neutrality, balance and perspective.  See Wikipedia:Criticism.  As I suggested on your talk page, I think we will be better off first working on the sections other than "Automobiles", and coming back to this later.  We can certainly discuss the best way to do this.  By the way, as I suggested to one of your colleagues, it will be very helpful to you, in learning about editing Wikipedia, to work on some articles that are not related to your organization.  For example, an article about a hobby of yours, or about some literature or history that interests you.  I think you will find it fun as well as a good way to broaden your Wikipedia experience.  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user; further steps in article