Are Fuel Cell Cars Coming?

When an article is drawn from another article or study, there are generally either a lot of comparing and or contrasting going on. This is because the articles are used as evidence or support to the new articles claim. This conclusion can be drawn in almost all articles that have a source that pertains to similar information, the author used the previous study to base their article around as evidence. But sometimes the author even uses similar language and claims as the author in the study. By comparing two sources, being an article and study, it can be found that they can be different articles based around the same sources just for a different audience.

The study being used is the “Comparative Assessment of Fuel Cell Cars” and the article that was based of the study is “hybrid cars now, fuel cell cars later”. One obvious difference between the two is that one is a study, and one is a simplified article based on the study. The article almost seems “dumbed down” assuming the audience is for the majority not scientists nor people of common knowledge of science. “Our results are in reasonably good agreement with those of more detailed studies but do not require elaborate simulation models.” (Deutch 1). This gives evidence that in the article, the same results are shown in the study, just without the complicated graphs and visuals. The audience seems to be aimed to the general public that is interested in the future of hydrogen cars but do not have any knowledge on them. Some examples of this in the article would be going into detail on the use of hydrogen cars and mainly the background of them and how it can be an improvement to society. The article lacks most of the actual data presented in the study. The article also has a diagram with pictures that look to be from a cartoon to give a reference to what these vehicles would look like, and their efficiency comparisons. The study is also peer reviewed while the article isn’t. This is most likely because the study is being published on experimented data that can be useful to other studies or scientists. The article looks like a simple summary of the study that just goes over the basis of what the study is attempting to find.

Both the article and study come to the same conclusion throughout the study. “The comparison illustrates why a valid comparison of future technologies for passenger cars must be based on life-cycle analysis for the total system, which includes assessment of fuel and vehicle manufacture and distribution in addition to assessment of vehicle performance on the road.” (Wiess 17). This message in the study is basically saying that hydrogen cars will come with development of automobiles, as well as the future of the world.  These conclusions are that current hybrid cars are very efficient and aren’t too high in cost with all factors considered. These factors being the price range for these vehicles, which can range based on model and manufacture, as well as their efficiency, which also varies. The efficiencies vary because of the manufacturer as well. This is because some companies make their vehicles with better technology and more efficient motors that can regenerate energy through braking systems. These braking systems allow power to be produced from the brakes that recharges the battery while not being a full electric car. So, in the few moments the car is running on the gas engine, the battery is regenerating power to be used again. This is the main claim in both the article and the study, that hybrid cars are nearly the best we have and most efficient, compared to gas powered and full electric cars. Electric cars can be considered efficient, but the energy used to charge is from burning coal in power plants, so when that factor is introduced, they don’t seem as efficient. Although hybrid cars are using gasoline, the engine is also charging the battery through internal combustion and the brakes are charging it as well. So, by just driving the car you are charging the battery. But also, both were talking about hydrogen cars and how efficient they are. But there are very few models produced currently. In this current moment in time, they are not as efficient mainly because the price of the fuel, but later down the road the prices should go down and fuel cell cars will be the most efficient based on current studies. This is because compared to gasoline, a gallon of hydrogen fuel is much more efficient then a gallon of gasoline. Also, hydrogen fuel cell cars are a lot more efficient than electric cars as you don’t have to wait around for your car to charge for as much as a half the day, it’s as easy as pumping up your gasoline car. Also, it wouldn’t be much of a change for most people, as most all people hate change, and very simple things like pumping gas in their car in the morning can mess up their schedule.

The sources used in the article and the study were also very similar. Most all the sources used pertained to hydrogen cars and hybrid cars, as well as the comparisons in efficiency between the two. For example, in the article nearly all the sources were about efficiency of gasoline, hybrid, electric, and fuel cell cars. This is to gain information on these very different cars to make a claim on which one is best, and which will be used in the future. This is the same for sources in the study, which were used to gain background knowledge on these different types of cars to conduct a study on which is most efficient. In the article there were simplified images to go along with the efficiencies of the different cars. The images were just cartoon pictures of what the stereotypical version of each car would be. For example, there were three pictures, a model T (obviously gasoline), a Prius (most common hybrid car), and a futuristic looking car (being the hydrogen car). The article even labeled each picture just in case the audience had absolutely no knowledge on the topic.  Both the study and the article ended up claiming fuel cell cars are and will be the most efficient in the future, using different articles with similar claims as support.

Both the study and the article have its strengths and weaknesses. Some of the strengths in the study are that it goes into depth and detail about the background information for the study before going into the study. But some of the weaknesses would be that some of the words are more than common knowledge as well as abbreviations that don’t make much sense. Also, the data is easily read by most people that have ran studies before but for some, it could be very hard to read and understand the data being presented. In the article, some of the strengths would be that it was almost “dumbed” down so even people with no knowledge on these cars and technology could read and understand what is going on. But that could also be a weakness because although it is professional, it couldn’t be presented to actual scientists. Some of the visual images in the article also look like they are used in kids’ books, which is slightly unprofessional, but could be useful depending on the audience.

With comparing articles and studies, it is important that at least the study is peer reviewed. This is because you don’t want to write a comparison on the two when all of the information is incorrect or based on opinion. Also, if the study is not peer reviewed, then the sources could be unreliable and make it hard to find and compare sources based on the study. Peer reviewing is a lengthy process as reviewers in a similar field must go over the entire study to ensure its validity. So the study is peer reviewed and the article is not, this allows the article to be not as sophisticated as the study, and easier to read for most.

Overall, both the study and the article presented very similar information, but in two similar but different ways. One obvious difference would be the study is meant to be read by scientists while the article is meant for the general public. This is shown through language, images, and wording throughout both. But after reading both, they come to the same conclusion just in different ways. After comparing both texts, the authors based their writing around the same topic using very similar sources to present their findings, which were the same just for different audiences.

 

Sources Cited

Weiss, Malcolm A, et al. “Comparative Assessment of Fuel Cell Cars.” Energy.mit.edu, MIT LFEE 2003-001 RP, Feb. 2003, https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2003/02/MIT-LFEE-03-001-RP.pdf.

Demirdöven, Nurettin, and John Deutch. “Hybrid Cars Now, Fuel Cell Cars Later.” Science (New York, N.Y.), U.S. National Library of Medicine, 13 Aug. 2004, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15310893.

HR: Both sources listed above, Hunter Maul