Talk:Fuel cell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Update article[edit]

this article can be update by fr.wikipedia version.

Duplication of PEMFC material[edit]

I was looking into PEM fuel cells and noticed that there is a large description on PEMFCs both at Proton-exchange membrane fuel cell and here. I'm new to editing Wikipedia but happy to help: how does the community feel this would be best resolved? Richardcw (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article should basically contain a section that is a good summary of the other article, and at the top of the section, there should be a cross-reference that would look like this: {{main article|Proton-exchange membrane fuel cell}} Also, if there is anything good in the PEMFC section of this article that is missing from the other article, it should be copied there. For more information, see WP:SUMMARY. Happy editing, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Was the Pike prediction correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


That page only lists criticisms about fuel cells vehicles. If it must be an opinion page, then arguments in favor of hydrogen must be listed.Let me just suggest some before you jump on yelling it has none.

1) Fast charging. While at the system level, the specific energy might still be comparable to a BEV, increasing the speed of charging for BEV will only lead to heavier electrical architectures or higher losses compared to the current state, when it's not a real problem for fuel cells (there are problems though, but you can charge a tank in 15 minutes, and increasing the load doesn't increase by much the charging time and the losses). A 100kWh model S charging on a 300kW experience losses of about 30% making hydrogen less disadvantaged than with a slow charging, hence why it is envisioned for trucks.

2) light tanks. Most of the weight is in the fuel cell itself and the surrounding system, there are weight gains to be made, and been made constantly.

3) In case of "blue hydrogen". Taking away most of the carbon of the natural gas, which would have been ejected in any cases if the methane was burned. In case that burned methane is used to produce electricity, a turbine is also inefficient.

4) Heat can be used in the cab while it's taken on the battery for a BEV, so in cold climates, the efficiency advantage of BEV decreases and their range too, while it's not for fuel cell vehicles.

Among the criticisms, one could add the complexity of the system.

Klinfran (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

Fuel cell[edit]

What I can conclude from the entire reading from Wikipedia about fuel cell?? (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for the article itself, this is not the place to ask for a summary. See WP:NOTFORUM Graystormmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 19:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@Ssilvers: As I explained in the edit summary, I removed the citation in question (along with the referenced claim) for reasons of WP:REFSPAM and WP:COI. Restoring the citation without restoring the referenced text, as was done here, seems unproductive to me. IpseCustos (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ref appears to verify the information preceding it about batteries, which is not referenced elsewhere in the article. It is from a reputable scientific journal. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean this statement?
in a battery the chemical energy usually comes from substances that are commonly already present in the battery
That a battery is self-contained but a fuel cell isn't (necessarily) seems to me to be a matter of definition. I also don't see how that paper helps, to be honest... IpseCustos (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an encyclopedia that requires references. If you have a better reference, we can use that, but do not delete references that verify otherwise unreferenced text. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't. I removed the reference along with the text it verified, and left the statement above, which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the reference. So, I'm puzzled still. IpseCustos (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You obviously have something against this ref. I have no dog in this race, other than to make sure that the statement has a ref. If you can provide a better ref for the proposition that most batteries make the energy from substances that are contained within the battery, then feel free to substitute it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try again. The statement doesn't match the ref. The ref doesn't verify the statement. The statement and all of the statements in the ref are unrelated. This is not the ref we are looking for for this statement.
I do have something against this ref (REFSPAM, COI, FRINGE), but that's beside the point.
I'm going to remove the ref, which belongs to a statement that is no longer there. Feel free to replace it with {{cn}}, or a better ref, or remove the entire statement. IpseCustos (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]