Archives

Hydrogen is at best a long-term solution. (http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2008/05/hydrogen)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Honda_FCX_-_FCV.jpgChuck Squatriglia - Wired - May 12, 2008

President Bush, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the big automakers agree on this much: They love hydrogen-powered fuel cell technology and its promise of a zero-emission, petroleum-free future.

Unfortunately, experts say it will be 40 years or more before hydrogen has any meaningful impact on gasoline consumption or global warming, and we can't afford to wait that long. In the meantime, fuel cells are diverting resources from more immediate solutions.

"As a climate strategy, it's not very good," said Dr. Joseph Romm, executive director of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions and author of The Hype About Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate. "We don't have the time."

Climate experts and alternative-fuel researchers, including some hydrogen proponents, agree that hydrogen is at best a long-term solution. In the short and medium term, however, other technologies offer far greater benefit at far less cost: Cleaner internal combustion engines, hybrids and plug-in hybrids.

Some worry that these near-term solutions are being short-changed. But hydrogen advocates counter that the answer isn't cutting hydrogen funding, but increasing funding for research into a wide variety of alternatives to oil.

"The few million we're spending to change our energy policy is like sending one platoon to Normandy," said Paul Williamson, director of the Hydrogen and Alternative Energy Research and Development program at the University of Montana. "It's just not going to happen."

To some extent, politicians and policymakers recognize that hydrogen remains a long way off, which is one reason the California Air Resources Board has told automakers to build 58,000 plug-in hybrids by 2014. And automakers are building cleaner gasoline and diesel engines while developing hybrids.

But the emphasis remains squarely on hydrogen…http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2008/05/hydrogen

Joseph Romm's book, The Hype about Hydrogen, should have ended the debate on Hydrogen. It's an energy carrier and if you use electricity to hydrolyze water you use 4 times as much energy storing electricity as hydrogen than if you just stored it in a lead-acid battery. So the fuel would be very expensive. It would be true even if you got the hydrogen from reformed natural gas, a fossil fuel, which defeats part of the purpose of the fuel cell powered car to reduce emissions of particulates and CO2. The other thing which Joseph Romm pointed out in Who Killed the Electric Car is that no known material to man can store enough hydrogen on board the car to give people the driving distances they are used to driving with gas powered cars.

Its interesting they mentioned this being like the manhattan project. If it were, we would be dumping in a huge amount of the GNP into the effort, along with large percentage of the best minds from multiple disciplines. And then we could probably have a cost effective hydrogen car and all the necessary fueling points in a matter of a few years.

You can have it in 20 years for X a year, or you can have it next year for 1000x. Take your pick.

To me, hydrogen isn't a good choice for a primary fuel-source. If it comes from electrolyzed water (one of the major sources) and then burned in a fuel-cell, it's still rather inefficient. Even if you can get extremely efficient electrolysis (i.e. >90% efficiency as suggested in some recent articles), you're still looking at maybe 35-40% thermodynamic efficiency in the fuel-cell itself (for a total plug-to-wheels efficiency of around 30-35%). Compare that to the near 90% efficiency of electric motors, and even if you have typical charge efficiencies (66% for NiMH and 99.9% for Li-ion per Wikipedia), you're still looking at 60-90% plug-to-wheel efficiency, 2-3x that of an Fuel-cell. That's the kind of quantum leap that hydrogen as yet can't provide unless someone can make a near 90% efficient fuel cell (and who knows if that's even possible).

Hydrogen would make an excellent range extender/backup fuel if it can be cheaply, cleanly, and efficiently produced. However, as a primary fuel, I don't think it's the way to go.

I think hydrogen fueled cars were just trying to solve the problem with electric cars not being able to be refueled instantly like our gasoline cars. People are just too impatient to wait the hours it takes to recharge. One day I hope we have spare batteries or be able to exhange batteries at stations to alleviate that dilemma. Batteries would have to be be cheaper, smaller, and have a lot more capacity so that's just a dream.

Another concern was the range. If they wanted to travel across the country, I think people could get by with just flying and renting a car. But it's just not what people are want to do.

For the average commuter electric cars are fine. 80% of Americans commute 40 miles or less per day round trip. This puts driving range well within an electric car's capabilities. If you need additonal range you can have your wife's car be the gas car or you can rent a gas car. Preferably a Prius, Yaris or Honda Hybrid is the rental of choice.

And contrary to popular belief, pluging in is very convenient. You plug in your car at night and in the morning your vehicle is fully charged up. You do not have to wait in line at the gas station. If you're like me you have to fill up at night after work when you might be tired and would rather turn in. It's also safer from a personal safety point of view since you don't have to worry about being held up at a gas station which can occur from time to time.

In my opinion this whole hype on Hydrogen is just more stall, orchestrated by the auto/oil cartel. They are obsessed with getting as much profit out of the old technology as they can, you know. That is why the auto/oil cartel has, thru their special interest groups and lobbying, kept European high MPG vehicles out. That is why the Volt is scheduled to come out in 2010, no 2011, no, 2012 and it will cost $20,000.00, no $40,000.00, no $100,000.00.
The answer is so simple. They (the big .03 and their buds, the oil industry) simply want us as a captive audience for as long as possible.

The wars that result do not bother the big .00003 much. Our countries dollar going downhill does not bother them. Our economies downward spiral does not bother them. Our dependence on foreign oil, the ecological warning signs, none of this seems to sway them from their psychopathic idea that what they think is good for the big .000003 is also what we as Americans better get used to, like it or not!

And our "honorable" elected officials?? Well paid off. Blinders on.

Everything is fine.

What they are doing to this country is criminal.

Here are my observations as to the "Hydrogen / EV" issue:

~The hype on Hydrogen makes it sound like we are doing something to reduce our dependence on oil, when it is just a distraction. Even if it did go somewhere, they would find a way to get the energy produce it from petroleum to keep profits rolling in.

~EV will destroy the ROI that the petroleum industry has built. The petroleum industry cannot monopolize on something that is owned by another industry: Electrical Power Utilities


~Scott

Its interesting they mentioned this being like the manhattan project. If it were, we would be dumping in a huge amount of the GNP into the effort, along with large percentage of the best minds from multiple disciplines. And then we could probably have a cost effective hydrogen car and all the necessary fueling points in a matter of a few years.

You can have it in 20 years for X a year, or you can have it next year for 1000x. Take your pick.

That reminds me of the old quote: "9 women can't make a baby in a month..."

@pdk
I agree it will be a good range extender, but the way to go is plugin electric for most commuters.

@Radio_tec

Obviously as you say plugins work fine when you're home and commuting back and forth to work. The problem comes in when you want to go farther than the 40-60 miles, round trip. Your solution of a gas car, completely ignores the environmental, and national security issues we have today, even a gas hybrid is not good enough.

The issue with the gas/electric hybrid plugin or not, is that it requires an combustion engine and a electric motor, and it stores 2 fuel sources, gasoline, and electricity in batteries. You also have a lot of mechanical bits and pieces that go with a combustion. So when commuting you're carrying around all of this extra weight you really don't need.

Obviously simply burning hydrogen like in the BMW H7 is not the best way to do things either, but it is still a large step beyond anything gasoline.

By going with a fuel cell instead, you completly remove the combustion engine, possibly saving a fair amount of weight. You save a lot of complexity. You eliminate a lot of moving parts. You still can have the flexibility of a plugin car, by using the lithium batteries to run the car as a commuter during the week, then you can fill up with hydrogen, and run it like a gas hybrid, only you're using hydrogen instead of gas.

This link begins to unravel many of the myths that Romm created.
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/the-hype-against-hydrogen-setting-the-record-straight-on-six-hydrogen-myths-perpetuated-by-joseph-romm/

The fact that the fcx clarity has some of the same technology as the hch debunks some of what Romm has to say.

The advances in the last 7 years at honda, plus advances for other manufactures are huge, in comparison to even whats happened with hybrid and certainly well beyond gasoline advances. The only issues at this point is cost, which is a chicken and egg problem. If there were more fuel stations more vehicles could be produced. Like everything else prototypes and small production runs cost a lot more money than mass produced items. Its not as complicated as Romm trys to make it.

@Robert Lastick

I completely disagree.

@Maflagulator

If they're going to find a way to get energy from petroleum for hydrogen, then they will do the same for plugins, but at the same time it will still end up being a cleaner process than burning gasoline in the engine of a car.

Any argument used against hydrogen production, other than efficiency, and water usage, can also be used against plugin vehicles.

Almost any way you produce the electricity for hydrogen or plugins ev, the end result is cleaner than burning gas or ethanol in the cars.

The real distraction is the argument against, not for.

@pdk


This link begins to unravel many of the myths that Romm created.
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/the-hype-against-hydrogen-setting-the-record-straight-on-six-hydrogen-myths-perpetuated-by-joseph-romm/




Oh, sure stuff like this:

On September 15, 2006, GM announced that they could begin selling fuel cell vehicles as early as 2011. GM reportedly had spent $1 billion up to that point on fuel cell vehicles and planned on spending about $1 billion more on them by 2010.
On September 17, 2006, GM announced a program called “Project Driveway” where 100 customers will drive fuel cell vehicles in California, New York, and Washington D.C. beginning in the fall of 2007.
On November 8, 2006, GM announced that fuel cell cars will cost the same as gasoline-powered cars once they reach a production volume of 1 million units. This is one out of every nine of the vehicles that GM produces every year. The company is aiming to produce a fuel cell system that will cost $50/kW by 2010.
GM recently announced that “it is moving more than 500 fuel cell engineers and experts from advanced development laboratories to engineering functions aimed at preparing the fuel cell for commercial sale.”

Anyone really believe GM will be selling fuel cell vehicles in the next two decades?

The problems we have are now. Fuel cell vehicles are decades in the future, if they ever show up. The latest I heard about them, besides being extremely expensive, is that the fuel cells don't last very long, maybe 4 or 5 years, and have to be replaced.

Fuel cell research is fine and dandy, but we need solutions now, and fuel cell vehicles aren't it.

Sorry.

Harry

@Earthling

4 or 5 years, sounds just like the arguments a few years ago, against hybrid vehicles.

The problem is we had to spend for now 10 years ago, now we need to spend money on 10 years from now, before we get to 10 years from now, and are still stuck with gasoline and even higher prices, or ethanol and famine.

@Earthling

4 or 5 years, sounds just like the arguments a few years ago, against hybrid vehicles.

The problem is we had to spend for now 10 years ago, now we need to spend money on 10 years from now, before we get to 10 years from now, and are still stuck with gasoline and even higher prices, or ethanol and famine.

Very true, Koreberg. Making these cars requires long lead times. And what, pray tell, were the big .3 doing then. They were doing then exactly what they are doing now. They are ignoring the situation that they new existed and they ignored it for their profit, and the windfall profits of their cohorts in crime, the oil industry.

Earthling is right. "The problems we have are now". What has GM to offer us? What have Ford or Chrysler done to get us high MPG vehicles that they now make? Nothing. America can thank Toyota and Honda and other off-shore manufacturers for saving our bacon. Fortunately for us they, unlike the big .001/3, are not as invested in greed. :flag:

When the plug in hybrid comes out it will save us from starting the ICE for a short trip. That will be MONUMENTAL relief for us. Will they figure a way of keeping those from us?????

Sorry, Koreberg, but GM, Ford and Chrysler have all etched their direction in stone over the last few decades. There is not much left to say. Their motives are crystal clear.
:(

The thing that gets me is that with hybrids the big unknown was battery chemistry -- but we had promising leads. With hydrogen the big unknown is how to generate the stuff economically -- and we have no hopeful leads for this. The cheapest method still has us tied to fossil fuels. We end up putting more energy in than what we get out (okay if we have a cheap enough method to produce it I suppose), fragile mechanisms to use it (the above mentioned fuel cell issues), and real issues storing the stuff once it is made. We've had fuel cells for how long now? Without substantial improvement in longevity? And we've been producing hydrogen for how long now?

There is too much blind, "Oh, we'll figure out something to make it work" going on here. Too many eggs in one very fragile basket. I like the idea but without even a hint of how it could be made to work on a large scale in a robust fashion, I just can't see the worth.

EVs with range extenders are doable NOW. They aren't ideal, but they are at least pretty close and we have prototype tech that should bring it up to very practical levels in the near future. There is a clear path here and it doesn't rely upon a lot hand waving. If the fuel cell and hydrogen production nut ever gets cracked satisfactorily that's great! Tack it onto the EVs as the range extender and replace what was used up to that point.

Maybe I'm just too dense but I really can't wrap my head around this "Hydrogen or nothing!" path.

The one reason I would rather see electric over hydrogen, is I don't want to stop at "gas" stations any more (or very rarely). True, you could have hydrogen generator at home and there would be some benifits over electricity (rapid refill if you already have enought hydrogen generated). But do I don't really like storing petrol in or around my house, why would I want to store hydrogen? Besides, high voltage refill systems could allow a car to fill almost as fast.