Hymer's new WATT fuel cell system

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Maui Sunset

Millions of internal combustion engines are made each year
every one of those engines is threatened by a fuel cell
which has no moving parts
makes no noise
produces no toxic fumes
generates silent electricity to run electric motors in the wheels

that's probably why startup companies are targets for destruction
by the combustion engine companies

Electric cars are the perfect match for a fuel cell

I have no doubt that if fuel cell technology matured to the point of being practical for autos, then nefarious acts would be committed by the automakers. But they are a ways away from that. Maybe the RV/boat market might serve as a less-dangerous back door to deployment.

I literally have no opinion as to how likely fuel cells are to prove practical (although I am hoping.) I do know that Elon is not a fan. He calls them "fool cells".

[booster]

If they are making outrageous claims about power generation, AC run time, battery recovery time etc, that violate the laws of physics, they should fit right in as a partner for Roadtrek.

[Maui Sunset]

Originally Posted by davedutah

Those guys, and their literature, are pretty loose with the facts. There were a lot of imprecise claims made in that video. On the web page, the unit produces 500W, but "Hybrid" 1150W. Elsewhere it says 1000W. Doesn't do much to clarify what the Hybrid 1150 means, though I assume it is acting as a charge controller for the solar panels and combining that in. No explanation for the difference between 1000 and 1150W is stated.

In the video, they talk about how it can raise the battery levels while running the a/c all night. There are a LOT of variables going into such a claim, and I'm very suspicious of it. My single, small a/c consumes 1400W while running. At night there is going to be no additional "hybrid" solar input. Assuming a 50% compressor cycle, 500W is still not going to raise the battery level (but will slow the depletion rate). With even larger and multiple a/c units, what they are saying does not come close to adding up.

It seems like an innovative product, but I hate to see such vague and exaggerated claims that could ultimately lead to dismayed purchasers.

Fuel cell models have been around for 30+ years
hook up a propane bottle and watch it turn a small fan
you'll find them in many middle-school science fairs

I'm guessing that a minimum of 1,000 watts, one Kilowatt,
is required to mean anything to an RV

but maybe it's designed to run a Fantastic Fan - all 90 watts

[davedutah]

Originally Posted by Maui Sunset

that's probably why startup companies are targets for destruction
by the combustion engine companies

I have never understood that logic. Their goal is to sell cars, not just engines. If the fuel cells are better, they could put one of those in the car and outsell their competitors and make LOTS of money.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by davedutah

I have never understood that logic. Their goal is to sell cars, not just engines. If the fuel cells are better, they could put one of those in the car and outsell their competitors and make LOTS of money.

Successful businesses are ALWAYS very conservative. Among other motivations, they are desperate to protect their sunk costs. Plus, they want to keep doing what they already know how to do.

Read "The Innovator's Dilemma".

[Maui Sunset]

Originally Posted by davedutah

I have never understood that logic. Their goal is to sell cars, not just engines. If the fuel cells are better, they could put one of those in the car and outsell their competitors and make LOTS of money.

My son is an Industrial Engineer - he consults at GM for supply chain and just-in-sequence production lines.

More than likely the engines are made by another company somewhere on earth and arrive just in time to be inserted in the car - within 1 minute

that company builds nothing but engines - and a fuel cell is competition
that they will go after

[SiennaGuy]

Can someone do the math? If I'm understanding this, it puts out the heat equivalent of six people inside an RV. In the summertime, it seems like would be heating up the cabin generating enough energy to cool the cabin. How much energy will be left after that?

[Maui Sunset]

Originally Posted by SiennaGuy

Can someone do the math? If I'm understanding this, it puts out the heat equivalent of six people inside an RV. In the summertime, it seems like would be heating up the cabin generating enough energy to cool the cabin. How much energy will be left after that?

As compared to a propane generator?

[booster]

Originally Posted by Maui Sunset

I'm guessing that a minimum of 1,000 watts, one Kilowatt, is required to mean anything to an RV, but maybe it's designed to run a Fantastic Fan - all 90 watts

I think you are missing the point of fuel cell design for RV use, at least current RV use.


The goal is to have the fuel cell be able to run silently in the background and produce enough total energy to cover the average use over time. The batteries absorb the high usage times and recharge in the lower usage times. A 120 watt fuel cell could easily take care of most us as it would give 240ah per day. It would be a very, very, very rare occurrence for us to use 100ah in a day, and we have a compressor frig and run the microwave off the inverter.


It seems like many of these discussions of power sources, be it batteries, linear generators, solar, engine charging, whatever quickly drift to running an air conditioner all night and day, which is really not how the background running, low output, charging is intended to work.



Fuel cells for most of us would be like having solar that can run all the time, not just when the sun shines. Solar usually doesn't have the capacity to run anything very big at any given time, but it can store up enough energy in the batteries do cover higher output loads for as long as most of us need them.


We would be happy as clams with a 100 watt fuel cell. The 500 would be way overkill for us, so it would be throttled nearly all the time, likely losing a lot of efficiency.

[SiennaGuy]

Originally Posted by Maui Sunset

As compared to a propane generator?

Yes. What happens in the lab isn't what happens in the real world. In the real world, a fuel cell mounted behind the back seat inside an RV means that it has to cool its exhaust heat, as well as the heat present because of the summer season. What ever is left goes to charge batteries, run fans, appliances, AC, etc. That's the real world case. A propane generator isn't mounted inside an RV, and while it may generate heat, it's outside the RV.

Also, I seem to remember RoadTrek promising all sorts of output from their previous fuel cells, so I'm VERY skeptical of their claims about the new ones.

[markopolo]

Purchase price per watt

Generator: 30 cents (not an Onan)
Solar: $2.00 (not MPPT)
Propane Fuel cell: maybe $30.00 if the pricing mentioned on Air Forums was accurate.

If, on a purchase price per watt basis, a recreational use generator can cost 1/100th of a propane fuel cell then you'd have to expect that internal combustion engine generators are going to be around for long time.

If propane fuel cells can last 10 to 20 years with little maintenance expense and get down to a purchase price per watt point that is close to solar then wide spread adoption might occur. With solar you don't have to additionally purchase fuel or expect to have to do much maintenance.


Edit: math correction after coffee kicked in

[davedutah]

Originally Posted by markopolo

Purchase price per watt
...
Propane Fuel cell: maybe $300.00 or possibly more if the pricing mentioned on Air Forums was accurate.
...

I can't find the price on "Air Forums" that you refer to, but $300/W X 500W = $30,000.

That's about how much a Volta system costs that includes a 10,000 W battery bank, underhood generator, 3000W inverter/charger, DC voltage converter, and gauges.

Hopefully they were referring to the cost of a complete system, and not just the generator. Still, I think I'd prefer the Volta system, since I'd probably drive some every day or two. The Watt system might be preferrable for trailers that are left in the boondocks for several days, however.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by booster

I think you are missing the point of fuel cell design for RV use, at least current RV use.

The goal is to have the fuel cell be able to run silently in the background and produce enough total energy to cover the average use over time. The batteries absorb the high usage times and recharge in the lower usage times. A 120 watt fuel cell could easily take care of most us as it would give 240ah per day. It would be a very, very, very rare occurrence for us to use 100ah in a day, and we have a compressor frig and run the microwave off the inverter.

It seems like many of these discussions of power sources, be it batteries, linear generators, solar, engine charging, whatever quickly drift to running an air conditioner all night and day, which is really not how the background running, low output, charging is intended to work.

Fuel cells for most of us would be like having solar that can run all the time, not just when the sun shines. Solar usually doesn't have the capacity to run anything very big at any given time, but it can store up enough energy in the batteries do cover higher output loads for as long as most of us need them.

We would be happy as clams with a 100 watt fuel cell. The 500 would be way overkill for us, so it would be throttled nearly all the time, likely losing a lot of efficiency.

I see it a bit differently. Although I agree with the "running all the time in the background" mode, 500 watts is enough to also make a material contribution to the A/C run time, since the battery will be drawn down at a much lower rate if the fuel cell is contributing. The two models are not mutually-exclusive.

Originally Posted by SiennaGuy

Yes. What happens in the lab isn't what happens in the real world. In the real world, a fuel cell mounted behind the back seat inside an RV means that it has to cool its exhaust heat, as well as the heat present because of the summer season. What ever is left goes to charge batteries, run fans, appliances, AC, etc. That's the real world case. A propane generator isn't mounted inside an RV, and while it may generate heat, it's outside the RV.

Also, I seem to remember RoadTrek promising all sorts of output from their previous fuel cells, so I'm VERY skeptical of their claims about the new ones.

1) I agree that mounting the fuel cell inside the living space is crazy. If I got one of these things, I would certainly mount it underneath in place of my Onan. I would create an enclosure if necessary. My guess is that that picture of the unit stuck in the back of the van is a beauty shot intended to highlight the unit. If not, then is is just half-a**ed.

2) The promises are not coming from RT, they are coming from the manufacturer. Maybe they will prove to be more credible.

Originally Posted by markopolo

Purchase price per watt

Generator: 30 cents (not an Onan)
Solar: $2.00 (not MPPT)
Propane Fuel cell: maybe $30.00 if the pricing mentioned on Air Forums was accurate.

If, on a purchase price per watt basis, a recreational use generator can cost 1/100th of a propane fuel cell then you'd have to expect that internal combustion engine generators are going to be around for long time.

If propane fuel cells can last 10 to 20 years with little maintenance expense and get down to a purchase price per watt point that is close to solar then wide spread adoption might occur. With solar you don't have to additionally purchase fuel or expect to have to do much maintenance.

Yes, this technology is certainly in the early-adopter stage. Within reason, I don't think that the cost/watt is particularly relevant. I am excited about it because if it works out it will permit me to do things I can't do with solar or with my Onan.

[booster]

Originally Posted by avanti

I see it a bit differently. Although I agree with the "running all the time in the background" mode, 500 watts is enough to also make a material contribution to the A/C run time, since the battery will be drawn down at a much lower rate if the fuel cell is contributing. The two models are not mutually-exclusive.

My point wasn't that 500 watts wasn't significant, as it is.



The point was in response to a comment made that at least 1KW was needed to be of any use in an RV, which is really only true, IMO, if you want to be running continuous AC or some other very large load.



This is nearly the same discussion of if a generator is needed or not in an RV and mostly is determined by the need for lots of AC time. If you need a lot of AC, you would need at least 1KW of fuel cell, I think.



If you don't need a lot of AC, the size of the fuel cell needed would drop drastically, and 50-100 watts would be enough for most folks.



I do think that if they are going to be going with higher outputs, it may not be very practical with propane, though, considering the extra effort to find and get filled when compared to van fuel. All this may not get very far if you don't have room for a big propane tank, complicating the covering of AC use of the fuel cell.


Those that would use the fuel cell without the big loads would be able to by fairly easily on the normal 30-40# tanks in class b's. Add a little solar to preserve propane and you would really have a slick setup.


I think, at least for a smaller unit, I would like to see it on the roof so the heat and fumes are not as much of an issue. Inside air could still be ducted to it if needed to warm it, or it could have separate heat.

[avanti]

Hmmm.
But for cost, I bet if I were starting from scratch, I could fit two of these guys plus twice the propane, at least if I gave up most of my big battery. Probably not practical for now, but if we had a constant 1KW available, that would be a different way of thinking about the situation. As you say, they no doubt will be doing a bigger one eventually. Sure seems like a more attractive future than these wacky huge batteries we all carry around. Hope it works out.

Originally Posted by booster

I think, at least for a smaller unit, I would like to see it on the roof so the heat and fumes are not as much of an issue. Inside air could still be ducted to it if needed to warm it, or it could have separate heat.

Not a very good form factor for the roof. I wonder if they could do a long, low version. I think underneath will be OK. There aren't really any "fumes", at least not in the obnoxious sense.

[GeorgeRa]

It seems as if hunger for small and silent power plants is high, very high and extrapolating a discussion about this possible answer in this new embodiment of a fuel cell is running high. It is high tech, it is bleeding edge high tech, and based on the gimmicky sale information, in my view, it is still a dream of a new King,

…while….

500-1000W ICE power plant, not portable, with electric start, water cooled, with decent intake and exhaust mufflers, with good sound insulation is technically very feasible but it seems as its low tech kills it while we waiting for a King.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

It seems as if hunger for small and silent power plants is high, very high and extrapolating a discussion about this possible answer in this new embodiment of a fuel cell is running high. It is high tech, it is bleeding edge high tech, and based on the gimmicky sale information, in my view, it is still a dream of a new King,

…while….

500-1000W ICE power plant, not portable, with electric start, water cooled, with decent intake and exhaust mufflers, with good sound insulation is technically very feasible but it seems as its low tech kills it while we waiting for a King.

Well, could be. I would be happy either way. I honestly have no dog in this race.

I do have to say, though, that this is a rare case in which I don't find your analysis compelling. Fuel cells have been around for a very long time. It is true that ICE technology is much more commercially mature. But, the particular hypothetical engine you describe would, I think, end up being just as high-tech as a fuel cell, albeit in different ways. (I could be wrong, though). And, if it DID succeed, a mature fuel cell would pretty likely be a simpler device than any ICE.

If one wanted to put money on fuel cells as the winner, I can see two fairly compelling arguments:
1) Your quiet little engine is (as far as I know) hypothetical except in the lab. But, we have an existence proof of the fuel cell. We will soon be able to buy one. This proves nothing, but it is evidence.
2) Rational or not, I believe that it would be very hard to attract R&D money for ANY ICE engine in this day and age. And, bringing such a product to market would cost a LOT of money.

I know I am coming across as a True Believer, but I am not. This product may succeed and it may fail. I am content to wait and see. But I am just not seeing the reasons for your strong skepticism.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by avanti

Well, could be. I would be happy either way. I honestly have no dog in this race.

I do have to say, though, that this is a rare case in which I don't find your analysis compelling. Fuel cells have been around for a very long time. It is true that ICE technology is much more commercially mature. But, the particular hypothetical engine you describe would, I think, end up being just as high-tech as a fuel cell, albeit in different ways. (I could be wrong, though). And, if it DID succeed, a mature fuel cell would pretty likely be a simpler device than any ICE.

If one wanted to put money on fuel cells as the winner, I can see two fairly compelling arguments:
1) Your quiet little engine is (as far as I know) hypothetical except in the lab. But, we have an existence proof of the fuel cell. We will soon be able to buy one. This proves nothing, but it is evidence.
2) Rational or not, I believe that it would be very hard to attract R&D money for ANY ICE engine in this day and age. And, bringing such a product to market would cost a LOT of money.

I know I am coming across as a True Believer, but I am not. This product may succeed and it may fail. I am content to wait and see. But I am just not seeing the reasons for your strong skepticism.

We can debate this forever, time will tell how successful will WATT be in the market. The fuel cell technology is indeed proven with caveat of using hydrogen as fuel. Even cars were produced powered by hydrogen. Hydrogen based cars a limited not by fuel cells but by the none existing hydrogen distribution.

Hydrocarbon based fuel cell are not based on a proven technology, unless hydrocarbon fuel is reformed to hydrogen and CO2 in an earlier process. WATT does reforming to hydrogen in situ, and this in situ process with multiple sources of LPG is my main concern, my personal red flag. RV LPG contains from 1-5% of propelene C3H6 with double C=C bond which requires double energy to split, what will this variable content do during in situ reforming - I don’t know.

I agree that getting R&D funds to develop ICE quiet low power generator is next to zero, unfortunately. Personally, I don’t see technological difficulties with this type development, engineering ingenuity in deploying needed functions, good packaging, likely much easier than solid oxide fuel reforming with fuel cell, but, I hope I am wrong and WATT will kill the RV generators market. My confidence is also marred by Hymer NA market penetration.

[Maui Sunset]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

We can debate this forever, time will tell how successful will WATT be in the market. The fuel cell technology is indeed proven with caveat of using hydrogen as fuel. Even cars were produced powered by hydrogen. Hydrogen based cars a limited not by fuel cells but by the none existing hydrogen distribution.

Hydrocarbon based fuel cell are not based on a proven technology, unless hydrocarbon fuel is reformed to hydrogen and CO2 in an earlier process. WATT does reforming to hydrogen in situ, and this in situ process with multiple sources of LPG is my main concern, my personal red flag. RV LPG contains from 1-5% of propelene C3H6 with double C=C bond which requires double energy to split, what will this variable content do during in situ reforming - I don’t know.

I agree that getting R&D funds to develop ICE quiet low power generator is next to zero, unfortunately. Personally, I don’t see technological difficulties with this type development, engineering ingenuity in deploying needed functions, good packaging, likely much easier than solid oxide fuel reforming with fuel cell, but, I hope I am wrong and WATT will kill the RV generators market. My confidence is also marred by Hymer NA market penetration.

And let's not forget, the company bringing this to market
Hymer/RoadTrek has THE highest risk exposure in the RV market
they back everything, every light bulb, every Lithium battery, and now
every fuel cell by a 100% parts and labor warranty for 6 long years

That to me tells me that they are 100% confident in being the leader in fuel cell technology in the RV industry

Heck they probably will move this technology into the small portable generator market where running a generator at 2 AM won't have your neighbors calling the police.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by Maui Sunset

And let's not forget, the company bringing this to market
Hymer/RoadTrek has THE highest risk exposure in the RV market
they back everything, every light bulb, every Lithium battery, and now
every fuel cell by a 100% parts and labor warranty for 6 long years

That to me tells me that they are 100% confident in being the leader in fuel cell technology in the RV industry

Heck they probably will move this technology into the small portable generator market where running a generator at 2 AM won't have your neighbors calling the police.

If I read this correctly you believe that WATT will be as successful as Roadtrek is based on 100% parts and labor warranty with 100% confident in being a leader in fuel cell, love your 100% confidence. Do you own a Roadtrek van?