“Honda’s striking, amazing hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle may be the most expensive, advanced and impractical car ever built.”
So writes Dan Neil, the L. A. Times car guy in “Honda FCX Clarity: Beauty for beauty’s sake” (see here, vehicle details here).
You will never buy a hydrogen car. And I say that mostly because I know that in the unlikely event a major car company actually ever tries to sell you one, you are just way too smart to bite or even nibble. And I say that not because you read ClimateProgress, but because you are breathing at all. Hydrogen cars are simply too impractical.
It is time for President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu to drastically scale back the federal hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle program, to a small basic research program focused on long-term breakthroughs in hydrogen storage, fuel cells, and renewable hydrogen. This could free up some $1 billion in Obama’s first term alone for more important R&D and more urgent deployment efforts (see here).
The hydrogen emperor has no clothes. This isn’t news overseas (see here). Nor is it news that the Honda FCX is a lemon, tangible proof of the futility of pursuing the commercialization of hydrogen cars (see here).
But it is a big deal to see the car guy of the L.A. Times—in the home state of many of the last remaining hydrogen diehards, the state that had until recently seriously entertained building a “hydrogen highway”—dismantle the vehicle in his review, so I’ll reprint it below:
I’ve driven lots of cars. I’ve wallowed like a Russian oligarch pig in the gorgeous mud of a $1.6-million Bugatti Veyron. I’ve spit tailpipe fire across the midnight Mojave at the wheel of a Lamborghini. I’ve brushed gape-mouthed peasants aside with the chrome cowcatcher grille of a Rolls Royce Phantom.
Yet I have never driven a car half as advanced, as futuristic, as blind-with-science as the Honda FCX Clarity hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle.
Nor one so expensive. More on that in a moment.
But first, let’s get this out of the way: Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won’t work in cars. It’s a tragic cul-de-sac in the search for sustainable mobility, being used to game the California Air Resources Board’s rules requiring carmakers to build zero-emission vehicles. Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars.
Face it: Fuel-cell technology has been eclipsed by vastly cheaper, here-now advances in batteries and plug-in electric vehicles. To knit together even the barest network of H2 refueling stations would cost billions. And, in any case, the fuel itself, whether produced by cracking natural gas or hydrolyzing water (consult your freshman chemistry texts), represents a horrible energy return on investment.
Some illustrative math: It takes about 60 kilowatt-hours of electricity to gin a kilogram of hydrogen from water. The FCX Clarity’s tank holds about 4 kilograms of H2 and that gives it a range of about 270 miles on 240 kWhs.
The all-electric Tesla Roadster has a 53-kWh lithium-ion battery and a range of 220 miles. So the Tesla’s per-mile costs in electricity are roughly one-quarter what they are in the FCX Clarity.
Should hydrogen partisans care to debate these questions—and go down like Zeros over the Mariana Islands—I’ll meet you on the field on honor. Calculators at dawn.
If any other company but Honda trotted this thing out, I’d barf with skepticism. But Honda is dead earnest about hydrogen, and it is only its relentless, year-after-year improvement in this technology, and the extraordinary treasure Honda throws at it, that makes me think that the company knows something I don’t—well, that and the army of PhDs at its command.
Yet as I see it, there are only two reasons to build the car. First, major manufacturers must begin complying with California’s mandate that each sell 7,500 zero-emission vehicles between 2012 and 2014. Fuel-cell vehicles get extra points in meeting this quota.
Of the 200 FCX Claritys Honda intends to build, it will lease almost all of them in Southern California. (Interested customers can apply for a lease online at www.fcx.honda.com.)
The carmaker won’t say what the program cost for the vehicle is, but I estimate about $400 million, which pencils out to $2 million per vehicle. That makes my four-door test car the most valuable automobile I’ve ever driven by a margin of about one whole Ferrari 430.
The second reason Honda might have had for building the FCX Clarity: Nothing invested in this project goes to waste. The car’s state-of-the-art fuel cell can be amortized in Honda’s portable power generation division (the company makes awesome generators). And since a fuel-cell vehicle is essentially an electric vehicle with a hydrogen heart, all the technology—the glossy aerodynamics; the powerful, quiet and compact 100 kW (134 hp) electric motor; the new space-saving coaxial gearbox—can be rolled into future electric and plug-in electric projects.
Perhaps obscured by questions of practicality and cost is the fact—and it is a fact—that the FCX Clarity is the most beautiful car to ever wear the big H on the nose. It’s just gorgeous, a big garnet-red teardrop falling from the cheek of the future, a sweet stanza of robot-written poetry.
The reason the FCX Clarity could take such a compelling shape is that it didn’t have to be molded around the big, immovable lumps of a conventional sedan. There’s no gas engine up front, so the cabin could extend dramatically forward like a mid-engine car. The large and steeply raked windshield falls away from the driver, and the roof-supporting A-pillars are exceptionally thin. The result is a wonderful cab-forward view, a panorama you won’t see anywhere else but on the back of a motorcycle.
Likewise, with the small fuel cell stack (about the size of a desktop PC) situated between the front seats, and the lithium-ion battery and hydrogen tank stuffed over the rear axle, the car’s cabin has room to stretch out. The FCX Clarity is huge on the inside, like Lincoln-Town-Car huge, and the trunk is a spacious 11 cubic feet. The whole is encapsulated in singlet of wind-swept modernism.
To underscore the car’s eco-friendly mission, Honda uses petroleum-free resins and bio-based fabrics to construct the interior, and it really is wonderful stuff. Rich textures abound, including a tasteful wainscoting of walnut on the dash and doors. God only knows what all this costs. When I think about all the tooling used to build a mere 200 cars, I feel faint.
The other bewitching thing about the FCX Clarity is the instrument panel. The 3-D display centers on an animated ball. When you are driving efficiently, with gradual acceleration and long coast-downs to recharge the battery, the ball is small and blue and happy. When you start horsing around, the ball gets big and yellow and angry, as if to say: You’re wasting hydrogen, stupid. Do you even know what hydrogen costs?
How does the FCX Clarity drive? Exactly as you’d expect an electric Honda Accord to: eerily smooth, flawless in operation, confident and lively. The whack-bang of an internal-combustion engine, with the myriad second-order vibrations and gear whine, is supplanted by the ghostly murmurings of distant electrons, and so the gestalt of the car is serene, even tranquilizing.
Behold, the grand and lovely futility of the FCX Clarity. It’s hard to scold something so wonderful, so I won’t. Just bring me one that I can plug in.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Comments
View as Flat
mwright1 Posted 7:30 am
18 Feb 2009
Chasing Hydrogen fueling is almost akin to chasing nuclear fusion -- NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
listen to Beyond Zero Radio
http://podcast.beyondzeroemissions.org/
Permalink
Nickz Posted 8:29 am
18 Feb 2009
Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:33 am
18 Feb 2009
Not bad.
That's more than Solar gets in 70 years....
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:11 am
18 Feb 2009
Those who degrade it hydrogen want money wasting battery cars plugged in 8 hours a night, where most of the energy will end up disappated as heat.
Guess we'll have to build more coal plants to accomodate Joe Romm.
He earns himself: 1 Loon Feather.
"If you ask me, I think it's just another ball of hydrogen!" -- Captain Fraddock, S1E11
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:23 am
18 Feb 2009
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Steven T Posted 2:23 pm
18 Feb 2009
Secondly, I get that hydrogen fuel cells on cars represent a dead end, but why wouldn't they be a good idea for stationary uses, e.g., neighborhood-level electricity generation? In other words, just because this technology isn't useful for one particular application, does that mean it has no other prospects?
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:38 pm
18 Feb 2009
I suspect that Honda's strategy was to develop electric car components and systems using hydrogen-vehicle research subsidies and have them on tap for fleet conversion to all-electric or plug-in vehicles. Toss the fuel cell and the hydrogen tanks and install larger batteries and you have an electric sedan. Throw in a small Honda generator and you have a plug-in hybrid. Off the shelf, every bit of it.
The nasty bit from Honda's point of view is that they will sell fewer vehicles. The only thing that could make a Honda more reliable would be to give them electric drive trains. That makes cars more of a long term investment as components would become swap-able. It was best to get all the bits right and wait until they were forced to make the shift.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
patrickS Posted 1:59 am
19 Feb 2009
To shed some light on those issues, here's the letter to the editor (and Dan Niels) of the LA Times that was sent last Friday from the National Hydrogen Association. I hope everyone reading this can recognize that there's more than one side to these issues and there are solid, fundamental reasons that support developing hydrogen vehicles.
Dear Editor,
Dan Niel's Feb. 13 piece "Honda FCX Clarity: Beauty for beauty's sake" is a beautiful, eloquent yarn with some absolutely dead-wrong conclusions about hydrogen technologies.
Let's start with the conclusion that "hydrogen fuel cell technology won't work in cars," citing battery technology as more capable, which is one of the most egregious. The comparison of the family-sized FCX Clarity to the 2-seater Tesla roadster is frought with bad assumptions. I'm strapped with my calculator, but let's go straight to the punchline: vehicles like the Tesla can never survive as multi-purpose cars even if you scaled them up. A battery vehicle cannot carry a family for 300 miles on one tank/charge. But Hydrogen can. Today.
If you built one, even the most advanced batteries would be twice as heavy and take up twice as much space as a hydrogen system would--a non starter for designing cars.
How about infrastructure? You bring up those costs, too. The National Research Council, backed up by a recent study by the National Hydrogen Association, estimates that the investment needed to subsidize the expansion of the hydrogen infrastructure AND subsidize the initially higher cost of hydrogen vehicles will be less than the cost of one blueberry muffin a year for every American for 15 years--or $48 billion over the next 15 years. Incidentally, this is also less than incentives currently provided for the development of other alternative fuels and a fraction of the $87 billion needed to maintain our existing gasoline infrastructure for just one year. Oh and how much would it cost to expand the electricity infrastructure so that every kid-less adult in America (you can't carry kids if you drive a Tesla) can come home and plug in their roadster and turn on the A/C, TV and lights? That part is conveniently left out.
Then there's the emissions. The electricity coming from the national mix with 52% coal would produce more emissions than if the Clarity's hydrogen was made from natural gas. Plus there's the refueling time--minutes for hydrogen cars, hours for batteries.
I must applaud Mr. Neil for claiming to give Honda the benefit of the doubt, albeit at the end of his criticisms. After all, Honda's not alone, since almost all the world's major automakers have hydrogen programs. The industry might not do a perfect job of communicating how incredible hydrogen technology is, but you can trust that there are a lot of smart people making hydrogen technologies better and cheaper every day and we're doing it because we know that the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is the only vehicle that can simultaneously reduce greenhouse gases to over 80% below 1990 levels, reduce oil consumption (eliminating oil imports by 2060) and reduce societal costs by up to $600 billion/year by the end of the century.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Serfass
President
National Hydrogen Association
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:33 am
19 Feb 2009
the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is the only vehicle that can simultaneously reduce greenhouse gases to over 80% below 1990 levels, reduce oil consumption (eliminating oil imports by 2060) and reduce societal costs by up to $600 billion/year by the end of the century.
The old false dilemna again? It isn't either the Tesla or the FCX. Plugin hybrids can elimnate that 80% of oil consumption or even more, much more quickly without the infrastructure cost of hydrogen fueling stations. How do you buy insurance for a gas pump operated by the public with 1200 psi hydrogen?
How do you afford and rely on multiple level electronic chip based emergency cut off systems with static electricity at the pump and lightning storm surge on the grid?
Obviuosly battery technology and ultralight carbon fiber car building technology already exists to make plugin hybrids practical and affordable right now.
If some sort of low pressure high density nano tech storage and/or very efficient direct sunlight to hydrogen energy conversion (making H from natural gas, why not just compress the natural gas?) and inexpensive fuel cell breakthroughs come along then maybe a fuel cell could replace the battery and backup generator in an ultralight plugin hybrid design. But until then hydrogen is not ready for mass production.
The capital deffered from plugin hybrid production will be badly misspent.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:27 am
19 Feb 2009
Well that one is false.
1. Batteries are more than capable, the only question is economics, and economies of scale.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png
http://greyfalcon.net/batterycost.png
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
2. Where's that hydrogen vehicle which family's can buy "Today"? It doesn't exist.
And as the article mentioned, the Clarity would run a "Family" about $2 million dollars each.
3. As was mentioned previously, with plugin hybrids, you hardly need any battery range at all anyways, to get the maximum benefit, for the minimum cost.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7
$48 billion over the next 15 years. Incidentally, this is also less than incentives currently provided for the development of other alternative fuels
Ethanol and BioDiesel, I think we can all agree is a bad solution. But that doesn't make Hydrogen a good solution either.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/9/13714/29599
It's still also dramatically higher than what battery technology gets.
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/news_afct_investment.html
http://www.energy.gov/news/5523.htm
(Or solar, geothermal)
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png
Then there's the emissions. The electricity coming from the national mix with 52% coal would produce more emissions than if the Clarity's hydrogen was made from natural gas.
Well that's a dishonest comparison.
If the electricity came from natural gas, and the hydrogen came from natural gas, then hydrogen would be behind.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars3.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
If the electricity came 100% exclusively from old inefficient coal electricity, and the hydrogen came from California grid electricity, then hydrogen would be behind. (~Hybrid versus Worse than Gasoline)
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3.png
About the only reasonable comparison where Hydrogen ever comes out ahead is Coal Electricity, versus Gasified Coal. (36% versus 45%)
(Which is a pretty horrible argument to make in the first place)
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2
But most importantly There Is No Good Path For Hydrogen From Renewable Electricity.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Nickz Posted 7:19 am
19 Feb 2009
Obviously, plug-ins like the Chevy Volt are far more practical than EV's like the Tesla (at the moment), but for what it's worth the Tesla could be scaled up prett well.
The Volt, a 4 person car, uses about the same energy per mile as the Tesla. If you were to build in 900 lbs of batteries, like the Tesla, you'd only lose a few % points of efficiency (regenerative braking almost eliminates the old trade-off between weight and MPG). You'd lose more in acceleration, but you'd still have 0-60 in 10 seconds, which isn't bad.
Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/
Permalink
Nickz Posted 7:35 am
19 Feb 2009
The Zap X, for instance, isn't due out till 2010.
Phoenix says "Phoenix Motorcars' first electric vehicle program is scheduled to launch on Maui during the first quarter of 2009. " per http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/news-and-events/releases/ ...
The Miles Highway Speed Sedan is an electric car with room for four people. The range is 160 km and top speed is 128 km / h. The car will come on the market in 2010 and $ 40,000 costs. per http://www.energieportal.nl/Newsflash/Newsflash/Miles-Hig ... translated by Google.
Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/
Permalink
patrickS Posted 7:38 am
19 Feb 2009
Here are some counter-points:
-For a 300 mile range vehicle, even using the best batteries (lithium-ion), your battery system would be both twice the weight and twice the volume of the hydrogen fuel cell system that gets you the same range. Slide 62: http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/webinar/archives/23oct ...
-The emissions of battery vehicles, using a national grid mix are actually the opposite of what you say--BEVs emit MORE compared to hydrogen vehicles using natural gas. Slides 40 and 64: http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/webinar/archives/23oct ...
-You're forgetting that there are infrastructure costs with gasoline plug-ins too. Slide 47: http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/webinar/archives/23oct ...
Like I said in my first post, there are two sides to this story. Not just one. I'm actually supportive of a variety of alternative vehicles (inclusing BEVs). They have their place for certain uses.
HOWEVER, the common opinion on this blog that they are the one and only solution and that hydrogen is a waste of time is just dead-wrong and it's sad these opinions keep finding an audience.
Let's get real and do the things that will make actual progress: support alternative vehicles as a group and let the market decide when they hit the showrooms (keeping in mind that different vehicles will hit the showrooms at different times).
Permalink
JJPRO Posted 8:48 am
19 Feb 2009
The Rand Corporation, the countries of Japan, Germany, Iceland, and others, the World Resources Institute, the Rocky Mountain Institute, etc. all look upon hydrogen as favorable or the ultimate energy end game. Renewable energy, with hydrogen and electricity as the energy carriers is the gold standard in clean-energy economies. And, yes, batteries have a role to play as well.
People also are not looking at generation potential. By that I mean, hydrogen has many different feedstocks and can act as an energy commodity where others just can't compete. Hydrogen has many different uses. Hydrogen combines electricity with forms of energy use that we are accustomed to. Hydrogen is a storage medium that lets us use energy where and when we need that energy, in transportation and in stationary applications. Batteries are just a storage medium for electricity, just like hydrogen. But it is easier to trasport BTUs in the form of hydrogen than in heavy batteries. Even Dan Neil admits that batteries won't be playing a role in the heavy duty sector, but he sees hydrogen fuel cells as a viable alternative.
Give hydrogen a fair shake, it deserves it.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:04 am
19 Feb 2009
The ultra-lightweight stature of the 1/X also helps contribute to a fuel efficiency target that would double that of the Prius and allow the 1/X to operate with an ultra-small hybrid powertrain located under the rear seat. The system combines a home rechargeable plug-in hybrid unit with a small 500cc 0.5-liter flexible-fuel engine that is 1/4th of the total weight of the Prius powertrain. The hybrid plug-in concept is designed to accommodate a lithium-ion battery that would be rechargeable at home. The result is a vehicle with the possibility of traveling over 600 miles on a small four-gallon tank of fuel and achieving the acceleration performance that is equivalent to the Prius.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Nickz Posted 9:11 am
19 Feb 2009
Why not? The first Tesla was a 2-seater because their target market was luxury sport-car enthusiasts. The EV-1 was a 2-seater, but the Volt, which is based largely on the EV-1, is a 4-seater. The evolution wasn't hard, which we see from the fact that the Chevy Volt will go from vapor-ware in January of 2007 to production in 2010, which is very fast for a conventional vehicle, let alone a new drive-train. They couldn't have done it without building on the EV-1.
"For a 300 mile range vehicle, even using the best batteries (lithium-ion), your battery system would be both twice the weight and twice the volume of the hydrogen fuel cell system that gets you the same range."
That's silly. The Tesla's batteries weigh 900 pounds, which is only 500 more than the Volt. As I asked before, why would an extra 400 lbs of battery make a difference?
"there are infrastructure costs with gasoline plug-ins too"
Not until 2025, according to your chart. Anyway, it's very hard to believe that hydrogen infrastructure is anywhere as cheap as adding more power outlets.
Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/
Permalink
Nickz Posted 9:44 am
19 Feb 2009
Because...they have. The Volt's battery is likely to cost about $4,000, which is more than cheap enough.
The Volt's battery will at least last 10 years/150K miles - actually, it's highly likely to last 20years/250K, just like the Prius appears to be on track to do.
Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:59 am
19 Feb 2009
It's easy to draw the lines.
The "ecologists" such as those at Grist support hydrids, plugins and batteries.
Why? Because that's how their bread is buttered. The only green they care about has a picture of Ben Franklin on the front. They promote battery technology and expensive esoteric metals because it drives up costs and lets us get soaked by the power companies.
Free thinking independent people who want to move into the 21st century know that hydrogen is the real and only answer.
Town of Hempstead opens hydrogen fuel station
http://www.tqcblog.com/archive/2007/10/25/creating-a-cust ...
Will New York Be the Next Hydrogen State?
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-d ...
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars From Honda, GM and BMW
http://mpelembe.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2009/2/8/4085 ...
Golden Loon Award Countdown
Joe Romm - 1 Loon Feather
James Hansen - 3 Loon Feathers
Permalink
katakanadian Posted 4:52 pm
19 Feb 2009
Most North Americans could get around very well in a battery car with the very occasional rental of a higher range vehicle. People would come to view that as perfectly natural just like most of us don't buy multiple homes just because we want to go on vacation for a couple of weeks.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:20 pm
19 Feb 2009
These vehicles, like most EV's are more reliable than fuel driven vehicles. They are driven daily with no problems and satisfy 90% of the driving needs of their owners. Should they need to drive out of range of a battery charger they simply rent a gasoline powered vehicle. Just like everybody does when they fly to another city or their daily driver is in the shop. (which these rarely are). At least in Northern California where many of these vehicles are they are usually powered by hydroelectric, solar or wind power making them a bit more efficient than a HEV running off fossil-fueled, reformer hydrogen (in a leaky, leaky tank. Don't park near the water heater)
I recently asked the local driver of one of these cars what he would need to drive down the freeway indefinitely. The answer was a 10 kilowatt generator. Now this might sound tricky to a hydrogen booster but a 10-15 kilowatt generator, with emission controls and gas tank would fit on an itty-bitty trailer. Something you could push around with one hand. That's just not rocket science; that's a flat easy solution to an over-hyped non-problem.
Besides, as the BBC points out, people are making BEVs and PHEVs for sale. No amount of money is going to get me a hydrogen electric vehicle that I can use this year. Not even with my non-pay for the shill work I don't do; (e-mail me if you're willing to pay. please?) I bicycle.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Nickz Posted 4:11 am
20 Feb 2009
You're describing the Chevy Volt, except that the Volt will be much better. It's really not a big deal to slap a generator into an EV, and get an Extended Range EV (EREV).
The Volt will be pricey to begin with because it's new, that's all. Eventually it will get much cheaper.
The Volt will eliminate 90% of fuel consumption, compared to the average vehicle on the road today. That's good enough.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Renewables's obstacles aren't technical, they're social: 20% of the workforce might be obsolete... http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/
Permalink
H24U2 Posted 4:54 pm
20 Feb 2009
It is the next logical step in advanced electric vehicles. They meet all of the operational parameters of the consumer. They are refuelable in minutes, not hours. They have a comparable range with conventional vehicles; 300 miles - 400 miles, instead of 50 - 100 miles. The fuel is compatible with Internal Combustion Engines (ICEVs), which makes it an easy transition to the EVs. It can be generated on-site rather than centrally generated at refineries, eliminating; toxic polluting refineries, distribution by semi tractor trailers, as well as eliminating energy security problems and interruptions due to terrorism or storms or natural disaster. It is sustainable and can be produced by renewable energy 35+ times more plentiful per acre on barren land rather than biofuels on fertile farm land in competition with food production, creating food shortages and starvation. It is safer than fossil fuels and batteries (remember the melt down of the MAC Books that burned through the tables and floor at a conference reported in the news a year or so ago using lithium ion batteries, imagine that happening in an automobile accident with a larger battery pack - imagine the hole in the pavement that would leave after an accident). It is non-toxic even if released into the environment, unlike batteries and fossil fuels, both of which are some of the worst and most toxic offenders of any industry. The systems last longer than batteries - 20 years, and can't be burned out when you accelerate too fast, costing $10k - $20k to replace, which results in a governor being required to prevent over acceleration. It is doable within the current infrastructure, which there is no place in this country that it does not exist. It is deployable today, infrastructure and all, ready for prime time. FCEVs are 2x as efficient as hybrids and 3x as efficient as ICEVs. Is it perfect? Nothing is. There are no easy solutions or silver bullets, and no one of credible knowledge or experience in the field claims it is. Of course the first 100 or so vehicles will be expensive. The first couple hundred vehicles of the Ford production line at the turn of the 20th century were very expensive as well. It was when the economies of scale went into the hundreds of thousands is when those vehicles became affordable, and so it will be with FCEVs as well. The claim the presence of platinum and palladium will prevent that is ridiculous, especially since there is no more platinum and palladium in an FCEV than there is in a catalytic converter. Yes it will probably be a few thousand more than conventional vehicles, until then they will be leased at about the same cost as other vehicles. Hydrogen is the best available sustainable clean renewable alternative, and will last centuries without any major changes, and is transitional to the most forward thinking solutions like fusion power which will need hydrogen to work 100+ years from now.
So what's the problem? THESE ARE ELECTRIC VEHICLES DAMN IT! The state of the art and the best of all options. What are you guys bugging about? This is the next logical step in technology advancement!
I have worked for the last 20 years in the field. I have no vested interest in any technology or company. I consult on the best renewable energy fuel technologies. I came to these conclusions after 20 years of researching the field and actually getting my hands dirty putting systems on the ground and in operation. I can speak from authority as can many of the folks that have commented in favor of hydrogen on this site. Mr. Romm and Mr. Neil can't make that claim. They just sit back and rail against any alternative or anything new that is even the slightest variation from their narrow minded perception and keeps looking for the boogie man behind anything that looks like a solution that does not fit into their extremely limited knowledge base.
Renewable hydrogen came out of the environmental movement, has been the ideal system supported by every environmental scientist without a vested interest in something else. You find this being taught in almost every university and college and independent lab across the country and the world. The auto companies world wide have chosen this path because it is the most viable alternative. They did try to sell BEVs, they had them on the showroom floors, they advertised it in all of the media, and they could not sell them except to Ed Begley and a few extremely committed environmentalists. Honorable efforts by the committed for sure, but not enough. You need to appeal to the general public. You can't change people's habits. IT WILL TAKE GENERATIONS TO DO THAT AND WE DO NOT HAVE THE TIME! If we wait till we have everything perfect before we put it out in the market and use it, we would all still be using adding machines and typewriters rather than computers.
I say to the Tessler people and their supporters, try taking out the batteries and put in fuel cells. It really is as simple as that. That's the difference. I'd be glad to provide you with some contacts and manufacturers that would be glad to help you. They seem to have significant engineering expertise; they could work with Dr. Peter Lehman of the Shatz Energy Center at Humboldt University. He has done significant R&D on Fuel Cells. Do it before your vehicles become obsolete and you are out of business.
Get over yourselves. All of the auto manufacturers are going in that direction, even the oil companies admit that the Renewable Sustainable Hydrogen Economy is the next stage and the ultimate in clean fuels. They just want to delay it another 20 - 40 years so they can soak us dry of any future we can have. YOU ARE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THEIR HANDS! Or maybe you're just turned off from it because you heard the word "Hydrogen" come out of George Bushsh_ts mouth. He did more harm to hydrogen than anything else could have. Doesn't that make any of you wonder why? What you are forgetting (or don't know) is that a couple of days after that State of the Union address at a press conference at the DOE when explaining the details of his "Lack of Vision" is that he was talking about fossil fuel and "nuculer" generated hydrogen, not renewable-sustainable hydrogen. Something that no one of any credibility, that does not have a vested interest in that method, is proposing. The answer is, that is what Bush wanted to do, turn the non-scientific activist environmental community off to hydrogen.
If not, then why did the Coalition for Clean Air, the Sierra Club, Citizens for a Better Environment, and Green Peace support the project I developed by writing letters of support for it when I was Executive Director of Clean Air Now, to the White House in 1994 for the World's First Commercially Permitted Solar Hydrogen Generating facility, fueling Station and a small fleet of vehicles converted to run on hydrogen, because it was clean, sustainable, viable, and the right approach from cradle to grave.
In 1992, I asked Bill Van Amburg, the then Executive Director at CalStart, the place where current BEVs - EV-1 were developed, "Why did you guys go with batteries rather than fuel cells?" the response was "Because the battery industry put up the money." That is the only reason that there is BEVs and not FCEVs. Batteries are designed to produce low energy trickle charges and trickle discharges, not fast high energy charge and discharges. The technology is inherently the wrong type of technology for that use. It is not meant, and never will be meant for vehicle powering. If it ever is, it will not be called a battery. It will be called a FUEL CELL.
It is coming no matter what any of you do, whether you like it or not. So get used to it and get over yourselves! There will never be BEVs in mass on the road, FCEVs and HICEVs, yes. BEVs, never! Not by any of the OEMs. Get used to it.
Paul Staples
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 109';l[21]=' 111';l[22]=' 99';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 110';l[25]=' 101';l[26]=' 103';l[27]=' 121';l[28]=' 104';l[29]=' 64';l[30]=' 117';l[31]=' 52';l[32]=' 50';l[33]=' 104';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:02 pm
20 Feb 2009
I noticed that facility looked kind of pricey. Could those be built at every gas station? What would that cost? How long would it take?
Because BYD in China and Audi in Germany have mass produced affordable plugin hybrids right now. They charge at regular outlets and use regular gas. And would cut fuel consumption by over 80%.
So would it be ok with you if we go with these until you get the hydrogen energy economy going? Once you mass produce the infrastructure and fuel cells you could install them in our plugin hybrids as a substitue for the backup generator and batteries.
The batteries and generators could be recycled.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:03 am
21 Feb 2009
Nice story in the WA Post about the consequences of carhead:
http://is.gd/kn3l
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 5:24 am
21 Feb 2009
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
H24U2 Posted 5:24 am
21 Feb 2009
Now, as far as hybrids (plug ins, BEVs, etc.), and other technologies, if it helps get us off of fossil fuels, I'm with you and their supporters. No problem. I have never bashed other technologies just because they did not support my vision. However, I will not sit by and watch others, (especially those who don't know what they are talking about) assault a long term sustainable solution, just because they have a vested interest, or a psychological or emotional connection to an obsolete technology. I will not support any solution that does not extract us from petroleum or fossil fuels, and biofuels are fossil fuels, they just don't have to be dug up to access. That is the main difference from petroleum, and it is destructive to our civilization even more than petroleum, for the obvious reasons.
I fought for hybrids (and plug-ins) as executive director of Clean Air Now, in order to get them rated as a SULEV, or PZEV. Hydrogen Hybrids are almost as efficient as fuel cells. I don't care if we go with Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) or Hybrids, plug-in Hydrids, or even HICEVs. I supported them before and I support them now. I just want to change our vulnerable, toxic, violent, bloody, and dangerous fuels and infrastructure, to a sustainable, renewable clean domestic peaceful fuel and infrastructure. We can't power semi tractor trucks with batteries, or our utilities, or our industries, or even a family vehicle up a steep hill or mountain for that matter. We are going to need a fuel to power our civilization. It is unavoidable.
Batteries will always have a place in our energy system, but to power our appliances - computers, cell phones, etc. We need a clean renewable sustainable fuel to provide the kind of torque and power supply that will run our civilization. If batteries are so great, then why don't solar and wind producers use them in energy transmission in order to provide load leveling? Because they don't work. They won't provide the kind of amperage (intensity of current) that the grid requires, and they can't be charged that way either. Hydrogen can, the systems need to be mass produced to get the price down before utilities will begin to use them, which is beginning to happen. There have been some demo projects to do just that. There is a wind generator in So. Cal that has done just that. I can't remember the company, even though the name is on the tip of my tong. I'll look into it to try to get the name.
Hydrogen is ready now. If we had started back in 1973 after the 1st oil embargo, we would be there now. Off of oil completely!
Anyway, I don't oppose short term, and intermediate technologies for long term solutions only. Of course we should deploy technologies that can make a difference now, just not abandon the ultimate solutions in favor of short term feel-good technologies now.
That is what people like Mr. Romm and Mr. Neil are proposing. And they don't even have the knowledge base to make that analysis.
Let's do everything we can! Now! We can't afford to wait until everything is perfect.
Paul Staples
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 109';l[21]=' 111';l[22]=' 99';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 110';l[25]=' 101';l[26]=' 103';l[27]=' 121';l[28]=' 104';l[29]=' 64';l[30]=' 117';l[31]=' 52';l[32]=' 50';l[33]=' 104';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
Russ Posted 5:30 am
21 Feb 2009
Something I read somewhere, I forget where (maybe Kunstler, sure sounds like him):
"A suburban house is really just a place with a driveway to park your car." The structure is merely an appendage.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:40 am
21 Feb 2009
Plugins are a power companies dream.
They have to be plugged in to the grid for hours every night. They are hundreds of pounds extra weight that cars have to carry around which eats up more electricity. They require the car to have a generator and an engine. They weight the same full or empty.
A simple efficient hydrogen tank fills up in seconds. It doesn't require two engines or an engine and a battery and a generator. It's fuel can be made offgrid...you don't have to run wires to a remote location you can just use sunlight and wind to creat lightweight hydrogen.
Plugins are the delight of centralized oppressive bureaucrats who want to regulate and rule the populace.
Hydrogen is the technology of the independent American, freely producing energy using farm like technologies and living the dream of the free market!
Golden Loon Award Countdown
Joe Romm - 2 Loon Feathers
James Hansen - 3 Loon Feathers
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:48 am
21 Feb 2009
But our means are shrinking rapidly. Immediate deployment of these existing plugin hybrids is necessary right now to gradually shrink oil demand and dependency.
A few years of plugin hybrid mass production would allow canadian and US oil to supply our needs. That would protect our economies.
A stable recovering economy would provide the means to go 100% plugin hybrid, and finally maybe even 100% fuel cell. As plugin hybrids use fuel cells intead of batteries and generators.
But hydrogen fuel cell technology needs R&D spending on mass production to bring cost down. Let an amount proportional to the feasibilty of mass adoption proceed. If indeed hydrogen is ready now as you claim, that research could prove it.
Space Shuttle hydrogen fueling technology won't be affordable or safe for public gas stations. The efficiency of solar to electrolyzer to compressor to high pressue onboard fuel tank to fuel cell to electric motor is problematic, and all those steps are expensive even with mass production.
This needs a lot of work before it is ready for the assembly line. Assembley lines are humming already with plugin hybrids that can do the job. Customs won't let them be sold here. But they will allow melamine laced baby food and lead painted toys. It's kind of a strange situation.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:57 am
21 Feb 2009
Number of hydrogen fuel cell cars currently roaming the United States: thousands.
Number of plugin hybrids: a few test cars.
There are no plugin hybrids available because all the news on batteries is false. They are unworkable.
Hydrogen cars are being leased in California. A Representative from New York, Massa, drove a fuel cell SUV (Chevvy Equinox) to the Inauguration.
Fuel cell cars are in production and exist.
Plugin hybrids do not.
Golden Loon Award Countdown
Joe Romm - 2 Loon Feathers
James Hansen - 3 Loon Feathers
Permalink
christophersj Posted 6:03 am
21 Feb 2009
Maybe there is a place for hydrogen there? Even with its inefficiencies. So lets just raise the price on them and get them carbon free ASAP.
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 7:04 am
21 Feb 2009
We are talking about powering cars. Using precious renewable electrical energy to make hydrogen that must then be pumped to remote fueling stations so cars can access it is just too inefficient and expensive to warrant investment. It wastes too much of that precious renewable energy. Look at Grey's chart, follow some of his links:
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/hydrogen1.gif
Hydrogen for cars might be feasible if fusion ever pans out but short of that it is not even close to being feasible.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
christophersj Posted 7:23 am
21 Feb 2009
I know, I just looked at that chart yesterday. I agree with you on passenger cars. Im consciously asking something different. And I'm showing balance by saying to the hydrogen advocates, "hey maybe if you look over there at those things with wings, maybe that would be more productive and logical market for you".
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 9:44 am
21 Feb 2009
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:00 pm
21 Feb 2009
Hybrid electric fuel cell/turbo fans could run on hydrogen or methane with many times the efficiency of conventional turbofan engines. And nano tech storage research of methane and hydrogen at low pressure are underway.
The methane could be burned for extra takeoff power, then while cruising hydrogen could be used excllusively in the fuel cell.
The beauty with this plan is that contrails, which are only generated at cruising altitude, would be only water vapor.
It all boils down to more pure research on nano tech and fuel cells and then mass production research on suitable fuel cells and storage tanks that can fit any vehicle. Meanwhile do vehicle research too. Combine the best fuel/battery system with the best carbon fiber vehicles, air, rail, or car as developments advance the different research areas.
A carbon fiber plugin hybrid could have a simple change of battery/fuel source, keeping the electric drive and everything else the same.
Here's a wacky idea to defeat planned obsolescence in the outward design mode. Keep the same boxy carbon fiber underbody and drivetrain and simply apply new foam plastic panels to the outside and inside of the car, making it "new" again.
Cars could routinely last for 20 years in good working condition and updated design. This could greatly reduce the portion of your income going to vehicle expenses. A penny or 60k save is 60k or a penny earned. Buy one car every 20 years instead of 4 or 5.
And with foam panels, that are quick and easy to replace, absorbing damage accidents and insurance would be far less costly.
Anyway, stop the bickering by deploying ultra-efficient transportation then add in the best systems to make or store the electricty to drive them as it emerges. There's a good federal policy. Science and consumers would still choose technology.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 2:41 pm
21 Feb 2009
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Duggles Posted 4:44 pm
21 Feb 2009
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:23 am
22 Feb 2009
Sure. Aside from the cars, and the infrastructure.
A few multi-million dollar test models doesn't really imply "ready".
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:37 am
22 Feb 2009
Bio,
I know, I just looked at that chart yesterday. I agree with you on passenger cars. Im consciously asking something different. And I'm showing balance by saying to the hydrogen advocates, "hey maybe if you look over there at those things with wings, maybe that would be more productive and logical market for you".
Well,
If they were going to go down that route, it'd probably be CNG, not Hydrogen. Better compression ratios, and the fuel needs a lot less processing.
Transcontinental travel is pretty high hanging fruit. Think it'd be better to focus on gasoline/diesel, coal fired power plants, deforestation, and agriculture policy before we even begin to think about air travel.
We could nearly as easily just make it run in liquefied coal, and then focus our attention on more pressing issues.
I'm a little surprised that no one has yet mentioned the Honda Civic GX, the passenger car that runs on compressed natural gas (CNG).
Well I've always kinda wondered how a CNG Hybrid would compare to the Clarity.
Considering they were pretty neck and neck before the Clarity added their regenerative braking.
That said, I wouldn't really paint CNG as the best route forward either.
Since almost all US reserves are in Shale.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/study-unconvent.h ...
And there's some pretty concerning climate issues with that.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/01/scientists-link.h ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 2:59 am
22 Feb 2009
Plug-in cars will use batteries for most travel. The motor will become an emergency system used only when you exceed battery range. This nullifies the range argument for hydrogen.
Batteries are recycled. This nullifies the pollution argument for hydrogen.
Making hydrogen from fossil fuels defeats the whole purpose of alternative cars. The energy will eventually have to come from renewable sources and hydrogen does not fit into this picture because it is too expensive to create and distribute it using renewable energy.
It is a dead end idea that has no chance in hell economically without massive government largess.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:05 am
22 Feb 2009
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/20087 ...
...a greener boast: "150+City MPG!"
Not exactly, it turns out. Not even close.
Try 51 miles per gallon, city and highway combined. Not counting the cost of the electricity.
Golden Loon Award Countdown
Joe Romm - 2 Loon Feathers
James Hansen - 3 Loon Feathers
amazingdrx - 1 Loon Feather
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:17 am
22 Feb 2009
I want to pick all of the fruit. High and low. And as long as we're kicking the hydrogen people out of the car world, lets get them into something that reduces CO2 somewhere.
So let air travel be expensive. So what? At least it could be CO2 free. Thats the priority, right?
I wonder what Richard Branson is coming up with the millions and millions of dollars he is putting into alternative jet fuel research?
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:33 am
22 Feb 2009
1.) what kind of batteries were in the Seattle cars?
2.) there are 2 very different reports on the Google plug-in hybrids and they dont match up:
Here is the low score the Seattle paper reported (on one of the individual test models)
http://www.google.org/recharge/dashboard/car?car=Garamba% ...
And here is the fleet average, which IS near 100 MPG mixed.
http://www.google.org/recharge/experiment/
Someone explain this.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 10:50 am
22 Feb 2009
Answer these six questions and it becomes obvious what the hydrogen vehicle program is; a smokescreen. That vast majority of hydrogen vehicles are wholly corporate owned testbeds that are produced to distract attention from battery electric vehicles. They are fueled at special facilities by trained technicians. You will never drive one without permission from a corporate representative.
Battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids are privately owned, fueled at home or wholly public facilities and generally maintained by their owners. There are several models available that you can test drive at dealers or you can cajole a ride from an BEV owner.
BEV's would destroy the structure of the current automobile market. The dependence of the car buyer on huge corporations would end as vehicles could be easily maintained with after-market parts. The car market would look a LOT more like the computer market. That's why there's the illogical push for hydrogen vehicles; it's not that these people can't do math.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 12:45 pm
22 Feb 2009
Drive it 450 miles in one day on one charge and you will get 51 mpg.
Drive it 44 miles in one day on one charge and you will get 150 mpg.
Drive it 31 miles in one day on one charge and you will get 1,488 mpg.
The average American drives their car 12,000 miles per year. That's about 33 miles per day. Some people have a driving regimen (traveling salesmen for example) who might actually get worse mileage in a plug-in. If I owned one of these I would visit a gas station once or twice a year.
So, in conclusion, this article is exactly what we have all come to expect from our lay media. If you want to learn something, read high quality blogs on the internet. The sooner newspapers go bankrupt the better IMHO.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
christophersj Posted 1:05 pm
22 Feb 2009
I didn't word my question well. I'm familiar with the 30 mile battery concept and everything that comes with that. Preaching to the choir.
Instead, I'm referring to the two different pieces of disagreeing data Google is providing about their fleet. Look at those two different pages.
One section says that the cars (they each have a different name) get only 50 -60 mpg. But the other link shows a ~100mpg average for the plug-in hybrid Prius. Thats a HUGE difference.
Those dont match. And the Seattle paper used the much smaller number as a citation.
What am I (and the Seattle Times, and all of their readers) missing from the Google info?
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 1:21 pm
22 Feb 2009
The lay media is largely written by idiots for idiots.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
H24U2 Posted 1:50 pm
22 Feb 2009
Now I certainly disagree and have pointed out where these Battery Advocates were wrong about hydrogen (They should not be on an environmental advocacy site, since that which the batteries are made of are some of the most toxic substances and manufacturing processes of any industry. They should be on a business advocacy site not an environmental site!). I may have even referred to some journalists and columnists as "not knowing what their talking about, or as not having the ability to speak on the subject with authority".
That is fair enough, since they hold themselves up as experts in the field and hold themselves up as a professionals who fairly, and with no ax to grind, investigated the issue and offers no conclusions, just reports the facts and let's the reader make their own conclusions. However I never slandered anyone by insulting them with insults and slander like calling them "shills". The definition of a "shill" is: "One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle." No one that I am aware of including myself, has ever been deceptive about our involvement. I have no investments in any technology or any company. I am a consultant and an advocate. I have developed projects and am developing more as we speak. I expect at sometime to actually make a decent living at it, but for now, I'll just have to do with consulting as work comes available, as it seems to be increasing these days, as ironic as that may seem in these times.
Also you are calling us "liars"! Show me were anything I have posted or claimed, is a lie. If I got something wrong, please show me where and I retract and correct it if you can prove it. None of us came to this conclusion on a whim, or because we are being paid to, or have an ax to grind against EVs. I am an advocate for EVs, always have. FCEVs are EVs. It's an EV with a different storage medium. It uses a Fuel Cell and hydrogen storage tanks, instead of batteries. Which weighs a fraction of the battery packs. It is able to process more power and torque than batteries. Now the question must be asked, why are you so attached to batteries and belligerent towards fuel cells? Are you and all of these rabid battery advocates shills for the battery manufacturers? That can be the only reason, because nothing else makes sense. I advocate hydrogen as a clean sustainable renewable fuel. This is true and un-debatable. I came to this conclusion because of years of investigation of all the alternatives. As most scientists engineers advocates, experts in energy, transportation and automobile development have concluded, that renewable/sustainable hydrogen fuel is the only true long term and intermediate term solution to our energy sustainability. Should we pursue hybrids and plug-in hybrids? Of course we should. They don't interfere or hold back the advancement of renewable/sustainable hydrogen. Hell, they enable them. It is true, I don't believe that batteries are a viable technology for energy storage for transportation, not because of it's efficiency, but because of it's inability to charge in a realistic operationally viable time, as well as it's lack of range. FCEVs, Hybrids and plug-in hybrids do not have those problems. Batteries are just the wrong technology for high energy density, high energy discharge, and fast fueling end uses as automobiles requires. Great for auxiliary uses, for small appliances, laptops, etc. But not for something that requires 50,000 - 100,000 watts to run. It is just the wrong technology.
So the question remains, are you a shill for one of the most toxic industries of all, Battery Manufacturers? Yes? No?
So, cool your tool fool, and tone down the insults and the slander.
Feel free to email me if you want to debate this off line. You can even call me, I am listed on my site.
Paul Staples
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 109';l[21]=' 111';l[22]=' 99';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 110';l[25]=' 101';l[26]=' 103';l[27]=' 121';l[28]=' 104';l[29]=' 64';l[30]=' 117';l[31]=' 52';l[32]=' 50';l[33]=' 104';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
H24U2 Posted 2:03 pm
22 Feb 2009
It took years of developing the EV by CalStart before you had anything approach commercial viability. Then it was deployed. That is the same for Hydrogen Vehicles as well.
Sounds like "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" again.
Mislead with non-sequters.
Paul Staples
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 109';l[21]=' 111';l[22]=' 99';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 110';l[25]=' 101';l[26]=' 103';l[27]=' 121';l[28]=' 104';l[29]=' 64';l[30]=' 117';l[31]=' 52';l[32]=' 50';l[33]=' 104';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:24 pm
22 Feb 2009
I'm convinced now that only a week's worth of actual driving available on uninterrupted video on the net can get the point across. Most people could scan the highlights, they would be convinced you could drive to work and so forth all week and even a few extra miles on a trip and still use 80% or less of the fuel you usually use.
Many skeptics would have to be restrained "Clockwork Orange" style in order to get it. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 2:33 pm
22 Feb 2009
The engineers and physicists who frequent this site have obviously concluded otherwise and unless you can come up with a link to the poll that backs up what you just said I'm going to assume you made it up.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
H24U2 Posted 3:07 pm
22 Feb 2009
As far as the other so called "scientists and engineers on this site". I have yet to hear anyone on this subject demonstrate enough knowledge of the facts that convinces me there are scientists or engineers posting on this site.
Paul Staples
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 109';l[21]=' 111';l[22]=' 99';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 110';l[25]=' 101';l[26]=' 103';l[27]=' 121';l[28]=' 104';l[29]=' 64';l[30]=' 117';l[31]=' 52';l[32]=' 50';l[33]=' 104';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:24 pm
22 Feb 2009
A 10kw fuel cell as backup for a 30 mile range plugin hybrid would be a lot more economical design.
That would be the way to use fuel cells now, either multi-fuel natural gas/gasoline solid oxide/cogeneration versions or the more difficult to fuel and store hydrogen in platinum fuel cells.
Fueling up would only be necessary a couple of times per month. That would help to cut down on necessary expensive hydrogen fueling stations.
Hydrogen production, storage, and fuel cell technology all need a lot of fundamental scientific breakthroughs, probably on the nano-tech front, before hyrogen is ready as a backup fuel. Batteries can already power up to 90% of car miles with plugin hybrid technology installed in ultralight carbon fiber vehicles.
Solid oxide natural gas fuel cells are almost ready and there is a new nano-tech methane storage media that stores natural gas at very high density at ambient temperature and low pressure. They could fill up overnight from your home compressor unit supplied by Honda.
Their multi-fuel function makes them excelent for longer trips, regular gas can be used.
These are readier than hydrogen technology may ever be for mass production. Boeing has a compact solid oxide fuel cell/turbine generator in development for airliner backup power and unmanned aerial vehicle power.
Before you impugn the scientific knowledge around here Paul, you ought to take a look on your site at the gas guzzlers converted to hydrogen. Do you really think burning hydrogen that way is any kind of a viable technology? I'm afraid you got caught calling the kettle black, hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:32 pm
22 Feb 2009
As far as the other so called "scientists and engineers on this site". I have yet to hear anyone on this subject demonstrate enough knowledge of the facts that convinces me there are scientists or engineers posting on this site.
Paul Staples
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 109';l[21]=' 111';l[22]=' 99';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 110';l[25]=' 101';l[26]=' 103';l[27]=' 121';l[28]=' 104';l[29]=' 64';l[30]=' 117';l[31]=' 52';l[32]=' 50';l[33]=' 104';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 3:17 am
23 Feb 2009
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 3:27 am
23 Feb 2009
Pangolin's tongue-in-cheek "shill" remark was in retaliation for JJPRO's comment:
People who bash hydrogen either haven't done their homework or are shills for some other industry
The quote "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" was popularized by Mark Twain to describe the common practice of preferential interpretation of statistical data. In the end all we have is the strength of our arguments.
It's interesting how people can get emotionally attached to ideas. You have your UFO enthusiast, biofuel enthusiast, biochar enthusiast, electric car enthusiast and the list could go on forever. It can be hard to parse out those people from the ones who make a profit off an idea, or both.
It is understandable that a person who has literally devoted their life to a specific fuel will continue to defend it regardless of evidence against it. Good luck convincing a religionist that they have picked the wrong religion.
I was once a big fan of hydrogen. Who wasn't? I changed my mind when I realized that the costs of creating and distributing hydrogen would nullify the benefits of burning it. Fuel cells were practically unheard of 30 years ago. We were all assuming fusion power would be here by now (and rotary engines for that matter). They are not, and two out of every three renewable energy sources can't be squandered making hydrogen for cars.
Debate is not to convince your partner. That's not possible. The idea is to convince the audience. Hopefully, debates like this will filter through to policy makers and we can start channeling some of our limited resources in more productive directions. To date our government has picked winners for us that have led to blind alleys. This is because they have been pandering to vested interests instead of listening to reasoned debate.
Everybody on this thread seems to agree that we must reduce our dependence on the internal combustion engine. I rarely see anyone arguing to burn hydrogen in one (just too inefficient). A biofuel enthusiast on the other hand would argue that biofuels are the only option because we a stuck with the internal combustion engine infrastructure.
We all seem to agree that electrification of transport is the right direction. The issue boils down to how to store the electricity.
The market will decide that if the government would just give it a level playing field and a set of "enforeced" rules to play by. The picking of winners by the government will only delay the day the real winner is declared by consumers (and greatly increase the cost).
The plug-in hybrid is certainly the closest to being feasible at today's level of technology. It has the same range as existing cars for when needed and the batteries are fully recyclable. The only thing standing in their way are battery costs and that is changing as I write.
I can see the day when there will be fewer gas stations with fewer pumps because there are fewer customers.
I ride a hybrid electric bike around Seattle. It gets me places much faster than a car. If needed, and it rarely is, I plug it in and an hour later the batteries are topped off for more riding. I don't usually do more than twenty miles at a pop.
Imagine the expense of trying to mount a fuel cell and high pressure hydrogen tank on this bike. Imagine the expense and effort required to recharge the tank. Extrapolate that to our cars.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:09 am
23 Feb 2009
Batteries can charge quite reasonably given the infrastructure for it.
Even faster than Hydrogen actually.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
Sure you need a high voltage charging station.
But then again, that's roughly equivalent to the prospect of having extremely high pressure hydrogen filling stations (10,000PSI or more).
as well as it's lack of range.
Batteries have plenty of range. The real argument there is simply cost
And considering Hydrogen vehicles cost millions of dollars, you kinda lose that argument.
Or a trivial argument about differences in weight. Which in turn has some effect on emissions.
However the inefficiency of adding an extra 200 pounds to a 2500 pound car,
is quite small compared to the inefficiency of storing electricity as hydrogen.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3.png
Now the question must be asked, why are you so attached to batteries and belligerent towards fuel cells?
Because Storing electricity as Hydrogen is is many times worse from a thermodynamic standpoint.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
And the only point where it has any advantage is if we were to vastly expand our use of fossil fuels.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2
The people who push for Hydrogen may not neccisarily be "shills".
However, they are certainly not concerned with the goal of reducing greenhouse emissions.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:13 am
23 Feb 2009
As such, we see it as an poorly spent opportunity cost, that could be put to far better use NOT being spent on hydrogen.
Saying we should "Do everything" is nice, however time and money are two things we are painfully short on. And asking us to waste both of them, we find that offensive.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:19 am
23 Feb 2009
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 10:38 am
23 Feb 2009
I'll keep my car, but in a new form. I love that you are trying an alternative way, though. Thats great.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:43 pm
23 Feb 2009
Ultimately, the efficiency advantage will always be with rail and bicycles. The car-killing cost is going to be pavement imho. I'm pretty alone on this one though.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:32 pm
23 Feb 2009
The 5% Project
Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:00 am
24 Feb 2009
The natural gas powered trucks will save only 4% of oil consumption. How much oil would railroad revival save?
I'm betting his hedge fund doesn't own a railroad roulette wheel, but it does own a natural gas and electricity casino.
Meanwhile Michigan pubs vote against stimulus. Crying about the auto industry and chapter 11, but absolutely refuse to push the automakers towards plugin hybrids, that would save a huge amount of oil.
Most of our oil comes from our best ally, Canada. So we could be off of oil from other parts of the world in a few years with a real plan for revived rail, renewable energy, and plugin hybrids, but our politicians owned by status quo industry and hedge funds want to go forward with bidness as usual.
Can Obama beat them, or will ge be coopted and join them? On oil war and official state kidnapping, torture, and murder he seems to have given in.
I'm betting he will give in on plugin hybrids, continuing the policy of blocking their import and bail out Detroit without insisting on plugin hybrid manufacturing here by the auto industry. I hope I'm wrong.
And could someone take over the job of encouraging wind and HVDC transmission from hedge fund Pickens? And please extend it into Canada si iur food neighbors have a reason to make an oil deal with US? I think the president might consider doing that through Secretary Chu?
Pickens is about as trustworthy as every other hedge fundy, even in prison they would keep manipulating our economy. Regulate hedge funds out of existence, period! No more casino capitalism. If these rat bastards want to gamble make them do it the old fashioned way, at an actual casino, not with our future.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:25 am
24 Feb 2009
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
turanga leela Posted 2:21 am
26 Feb 2009
One thing I don't know, though, that perhaps some of you do know, is whether or not a single fuel cell can handle multiple kinds of fuels?
As someone who is admittedly not an engineer, it does seem a little weird to me that people who live in glass houses (advocating technologies that are neither cheap nor commercial in the sense of widespread infrastructure) are throwing so many stones. I realize the tanking economy is scaring the hell out of all of us, i.e. where is the money for investment going to come from when we're in debt, but we can't allow that to waste our precious time fighting amongst ourselves.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:35 am
26 Feb 2009
I say we all of us back an efficient vehicle platform, a modular mass produced carbon fiber vehicle like the lovins Hypercar or the toyota 1/x 962 pound (Prius like performance) plugin hybrid concept car.
Just an electric car with a 30 to 60 mile battery range. Then we add each groups favorite backup power device to the basic car. Either a multi-fuel solid oxide fuel cell that runs on gasoline or biogas or a gyfrigen fuel cell.
Then consumers could choose their preffered technology be plugged in. At first that would be regular old fashioned gasoline powered geberators, maybe dual fuel so you could use compressed biogas or natural gas.
As fuel cells get cheaper and better they could take over. With a high ouput battery/electric motor the vehicle would have the performance needed, the backup power could be a quarter of the drive motor maxiumum power level.
As long as it maintained battery pack charge level.
Even a simple solution like an emergency zinc air battery that you can exchange and is recycled would be enough backup for suburban travel. You would hardly ever exceed your 30 mile range between charging.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Duggles Posted 6:36 am
26 Feb 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:03 pm
26 Feb 2009
If cars were made from it mass production economies of scale would bring the raw material cost down, Lovins gas already brought the mass production cost down with Fiber Forge carbon fiber part stamping technology.
The process would beat the energy and mining costs related to steel. It has the potential to be less expensive.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
H24U2 Posted 1:22 pm
08 Mar 2009
Yes I can. First, yes the Sec. of Energy is a political post; however, this is the first time I can remember that the one in that post is an actual scientist, other than a politician or an oil company industry professional, even going back to Clinton.
The Math you speak of is in the operational viability of batteries compared to hydrogen and fuel cells. The fact that from an operational perspective, electric vehicles are the right technology, batteries is inherently the wrong energy storage technology. Fuel cells are the right technology. It is true, economy of scale production of FCEVs (like BEVs) are projected by most experts and automobile manufacturers, when produced on the level that ICEVs, will be a little more expensive, estimated at around $30K - $35K for an average mid priced vehicle. However due to the lack of high heat generating moving parts, causing wear and tear, will cost much less in O&M over the life of the car. In other words, it will cost less to operate and maintain. The cost of the hydrogen will come with a mass production, on the multi-gigawatt level, photovoltaics (about $1.00 - $2.00/watt = about $0.03 - $0.04/kWh = resulting in under $2.00/gge - gallon of gasoline equivalent or KG).
When you talk of comparison of "Wind to Wheels" comparison of BEVs to FCEVs, you have to take into consideration the in-efficiency and inconvenience of the time it takes to recharge batteries (4 - 8 hours for batteries vs. 5 minutes for h2), and the loss of productivity involved, as well as the added weight of batteries over fuel cells (about 2x +). Also h2 fueling allows for the conversion of ICEVs (Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles), something that is not viable with batteries.
Those issues factored in makes the 2 technologies about a wash in the efficiency argument.
Math? A PEM (solid polymer electrolyte Proton Exchange Membrane) fuel cell electrolyzer fueling station producing h2 at 6,000 psi. (not 10,000 psi like someone over exaggerated before. Some may be proposing that, but that is the capacity of the tanks, not what most expect), is 85% efficient (check with the DOE or any of the PEM Electrolyzer manufacturers). Now batteries as storage are a little better, but not by much, certainly not worth the difference in lack of operational viability. As far as the cost of tanks? They are already cheaper than batteries and weigh about 80lbs for about 4 kg., (see Dynetec, Quantum Technologies, Lincoln Composites, etc. Get wholesale cost estimates, not one on costs.). As far as fuel cells, they will be no more expensive than BEVs when mass produced in those numbers. Also, the conversion of ICEVs will be about $4k - $6k each. Much less than the conversion to EV. Batteries have already met their maximum retail cost as they have already been mass produced. They don't last more than a few years before needing to be replaced, and if you over accelerate you'll burn them out on the spot, which is why BEVs need a governor to limit acceleration to avoid that problem. If that happens, then you may as well as purchase a new car, as the cost of battery replacement will be very costly. Cost? About $10k - $20k per vehicle, depending on the type of battery. FCs, lifespan? About 20 years, and no governor needed to limit acceleration. Odds are the FC will work long after the vehicle will not, which means buying a used FC will be a business in itself, then recycling it will be easy and not so toxic an industry as batteries.
Electric infrastructure will not be the way we go for fueling stations because all fueling will be done at home, eliminating the corner fueling station and the associated jobs and business as well. Great for economic development, right???
In the mean time, the burden on the residential infrastructure will be enormous. Forcing billions, no, potentially trillions, to be spent to upgrade to provide increased demand. This will also increase the use of coal and fossil fuels to provide off-peak power in the evenings due to the undependable intermittent features of wind, and the sun doesn't shine at night. Oh, you might need to store it when it is needed? Better find some kind of fuel that can be used, since batteries, ultra capacitors, and flywheels can not provide the kind of voltage and amperage that is required to put power back on the grid. Possibly for a small home, but not to the grid. Of course hydrogen and fuel cells can. Why, because that is a technology (the most efficient - up to 90% when used for stationary w/o compression, which is not needed except for fueling vehicles due to the need to achieve energy density due to space limitations, not a problem in stationary purposes) that is designed to provide the energy from a fuel, which is what is needed to provide the kind of power requirements of the grid. Something that batteries can not do.
Whereas, with the corner fueling station, because of the nature of a fueling station, no significant infrastructure conversion will be necessary because it is already connected to a higher voltage commercial grid, as opposed to a lower voltage/wattage residential grid. Will there need to be an upgrade of the commercial electric grid? Eventually yes, but that is needed whether we do h2 fueling stations or not. However any attempt to upgrade the residential grid to meet the increased energy demand due to widespread electric vehicle recharging will cost an enormous mount of money.
As far as electric fueling in parking lots? Vehicles take hours to recharge, much longer than any shopping excursion, unless you install a high voltage fast charge system. That kind of electric fast charging is dangerous and can cause battery overheating, at the very least lowering the lifespan of the battery, at worst causing an explosion. Batteries are meant for slow trickle charging and discharging. It is the nature of the technology, what it was designed for. FCs are designed for fast charging and discharging for industrial and commercial use. That is what it is made for. If they ever make a battery that can, it will be called a fuel cell. Why does that scare you so much? Are you overly invested in batteries? Have stock in Tesler?
There are no magic h2 tanks. Just what has been in use at NASA and the DOE for decades. All with a real path to commercialization. As far as I know, there are no magical super capacitors, flywheels or batteries in the making. Don't even go there with Lithium batteries. Those are the ideal expensive battery that is exactly what I talk about being dangerous and explosive when fast charged, as well as a short lifespan. Those are better and safer for small appliances that require low energy demands where the damage can be limited. Look up MAC melt downs in office a couple of years ago (or was it Toshiba? I can't remember).
This knowledge is not anecdotal. This is work I and my engineering team has conducted in real life applications. In other words, I have researched this by actually doing it, getting my hands dirty by putting equipment on the ground and cars on the road.
How many have you put on the ground and vehicles on the road? Hydrogen, that is. I get most of my knowledge from doing that and EVs from data generated by the industry and CalStart - the developers of the EV1. As I indicated in a previous response, I asked CalStart, "Why did you use batteries rather than fuel cells, when fuel cells are so much more superior a technology? The response was simply, "because the battery industry offered us the money!
I came to these conclusions after nearly 20 years of doing that, and realizing what the auto industry realized, as well as CalStart, the California Air Resources Board, most environmental groups, and most environmental engineers and scientist did years ago. That batteries are the wrong technology for the EV vehicle application, but fuel cells are.
I rest my case.
If you want more detailed info, call me or email me at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 109';l[21]=' 111';l[22]=' 99';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 110';l[25]=' 101';l[26]=' 103';l[27]=' 121';l[28]=' 104';l[29]=' 64';l[30]=' 117';l[31]=' 52';l[32]=' 50';l[33]=' 104';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
H24U2 Posted 1:39 pm
08 Mar 2009
Paul Staples
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 109';l[21]=' 111';l[22]=' 99';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 110';l[25]=' 101';l[26]=' 103';l[27]=' 121';l[28]=' 104';l[29]=' 64';l[30]=' 117';l[31]=' 52';l[32]=' 50';l[33]=' 104';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:02 pm
08 Mar 2009
How much gas does the Tesla burn?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:35 pm
08 Mar 2009
Dig the crazy copper-ceria anti-fouling anode on this solid oxide fuel cell, it runs on just about any fuel.
Boeing is working on a solid oxide fuel cell that works on jet fuel for backup power on airliners and as a power plant for unmanned aerial vehicles.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
H24U2 Posted 2:31 am
09 Apr 2009
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 10:13 pm
08 Mar 2009
You cant' do it can you?
You can't beat the claim the BEV's will get four to one mileage advantage over a FCEV powered by electrically produced hydrogen. Your claim of "trillions" of dollars in infrastructure costs for battery electric vehicles looks silly when most existing BEV conversions are charged with 120 volt extension cords. The outrageous claims of battery costs are belied by home hobbyists producing hundreds of BEVs for every FCEV produced by heavily funded corporate programs.
Nobody can even buy a fuel cell that could power a lawnmower while battery lawnmowers are relatively cheap. Lithium iron phosphate batteries power millions of hand tools and thousands of electric bicycles while fuel cells power what? Nothing your average wage-earner can buy.
I wrote a detailed rebuttal to your post but threw it out. Line by line correction of factoids, plattitudes and speculation doesn't affect the bottom line that fuel cells aren't available and the nearest hydrogen station for many people is several states away. Give it up guy; your parrot is dead.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 1:14 am
09 Mar 2009
Those are the ideal expensive battery that is exactly what I talk about being dangerous and explosive when fast charged, as well as a short lifespan. Those are better and safer for small appliances that require low energy demands where the damage can be limited. Look up MAC melt downs in office a couple of years ago (or was it Toshiba? I can't remember).
Been running my bike on them since June 05. Each cell is capapble of 100 amp bursts (twice that of an electric stove with all burners and oven on) or 30 amp continuous without damage. Still act like new, take less than an hour to charge.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
H24U2 Posted 1:35 am
09 Apr 2009
Permalink
H24U2 Posted 2:13 am
09 Apr 2009
Sorry about the delayed response, but I actually have a life to live, and need to work for a living.However it appears that you couldn’t rebut my post because there was no rebuttal. You instead resort to insults and plain ignorance, and lack of facts to support your and Romms argument. I am providing some math below. However, if you want more, you’ll have to pay for it. That is how I make a living. I will not give it away for free. And yes, I could do a backyard “hobbyist” conversion to hydrogen, there are many who have. Also many small colleges that have developed their own fuel cell in the classroom. However, if you want the vehicle to get certified and insured, you are going to spend a lot more getting it certified safe for the road. That is why these are done by large companies, or small ones with significant investment resources to do it. Shows how little you know about the auto industry. And who’s ass did you pull that four to one advantage of batteries over FCEVs out of???? What a bunch of crap that is. A point that has no validity. And if you take into consideration the externalities and operational issues, it’s about a wash. That’s okay, I do it herein.
It is true that you can’t buy fuel cells at your local grocery store like batteries. That is because fuel cells are not really for powering small appliances. That is what batteries are for. Why would anyone
try to enter that market. That is the battery market. Now if you want to power a lawnmower, or a miniature radio driven toy electric car, you would go to the grocery store and buy batteries. If you want to power a real life electric automobile, you use fuel cells. That is what the automobile companies are doing. That is what you will see in the showrooms and the corner gas station over the next decade. Get used to it.
Okay, so you want math. As though there is no economical argument for renewable hydrogen as a fuel. Do you really think there is no math behind the billions of dollars invested in developing the fuel cell and PEM and the associated technologies? This is no pipe dream. This has been work that has been in development for over 30 years. There are millions, hundreds of millions of operating hours on these technologies in some of the most extreme conditions possible, under life critical conditions (in otherwords, if it fails, peoples lives are in jeopardy). It is on the shuttle, our nuclear subs, gone to the moon, and in the international space station. It has been ready for primetime for decades. It’s been the API (American Petroleum Institute) that has spent millions fighting hydrogen for decades, and despite those hurdles thrown in the way, hydrogen, renewable/sustainable hydrogen, has managed to thrive and progress. Because the future can not be denied.
We can’t afford to keep changing our energy infrastructure every 20 years or so. It is just too expensive, and disruptive to the world economy. It would be nice to have a grocery store like selection in the transportation fuels and fueling, but that is unrealistic if we expect to have inexpensive energy and fuel, economies of scale won’t kick in if we were to try, resulting in a cornucopia of expensive alternatives. If we want the economies of scale for cheaper energy and fuels, we will likely have to choose one way of powering vehicles in order to maintain an energy standard of living that a modern economy requires to sustain prosperity. The last couple of years should be evidence of that. This whole financial crisis became critical as the energy prices rose so high, production was cut back as people cut back on spending, triggering this whole economic downturn. The financial crisis only after jobs started disappearing and mortgages started going unpaid, and that is when the whole derivatives market of packaged mortgage investments fell apart.
Some out there say, the price of fuel is just too low and we need energy to be more expensive in order to change our habits. As a society we do need to alter our habits, but that takes generations to happen, and time we do not have. Also, those that say that are usually much better off financially and don’t know what it is like to suffer economically. In other words, it is easy to say that if you are rich.
Anyway, I thought I could answer your challenge with a mature comprehensive answer so you would understand what is behind the answer. I thought such a conversation would give you enough to do the math yourself. I was wrong. You want a grade school math equation (as that is all it takes, not rocket science) spelled out for you? Then here it is:
Automobile Costs:
Price of average new economy class sedan approx. $25K to $30K.BEVs
Price of a production model electric 2 seater Tesla: $109K (Okay, that one is not fair. It only holds 2 people).
Price of proposed production economy model 5 seater Tesla sedan: $50K.
Range: 200-250mi. (very high, most are in the 100 - 200 mi. or less range). I am skeptical on their claims, it is probably closer to 150 – 200 maybe, but for argument sake I’ll accept their numbers, as I will also sometimes use auto co. numbers). Also there are performance restrictions on BEVs like a governor to prevent draining the batteries from acceleration. So you can’t just floor it and burn
rubber, as the governor will prevent that to avoid destroying the battery pack. Disconnect at your own peril.
Maintenance Costs: Battery life??? It varies and depends on the owner/operator and the type of battery. The best, no more than 5 years, most are less. If there is any fast charging (creates wear and tear, shortens life of the battery, and CAN cause melt down if overcharged or charged too fast, ALL BATTERIES WILL, even Lithium. That is the main drawback and why fuel cells are so attractive with life spans of 10 – 20 years. If the battery has been drained through over acceleration, or over extending usage (runs out of juice), again that will burn out batteries, requiring replacement.
Battery Cost: $10k - $20k.
Fueling Time: 4 – 8 hrs: Speaks for itself. Fast Charge anyone? Go ahead, yes you might be able to fast charge 50% in 15-20 min., and the rest when you get home. Do that regularly, and you will be spending $10k - $20k for new batteries in 2 or 3 years.
When a car is purchased, the buyer thinks about the way he/she expects to use it over its lifetime. If the buyer thinks that the car will be used occasionally for long-haul trips exceeding the battery driving range, then it is unlikely that the car will be purchased. That is what probably permanently confines the pure battery vehicle to the early adopter market, a market too small to economically support the capital investment in manufacturing facilities.
Cost of fuel: It depends on the source of the electricity. Without a requirement to purchase green energy, as a corner hydrogen fueling station would be, in order for the vehicles to be rated full ZEVs (Zero Emission Vehicle), the vehicles would not be a green energy vehicle. No such requirement would exist for home charging (impossible to enforce), so it will be fueled by coal power plants. Be that as it may, right now - much cheaper than H2 from renewables at current levels of deployment, about $1.00 - $2.00/ gge (gallon of gasoline equivalent). Although, that will not last, as demand increases for a finite resource, as coal is, the price will rise dramatically to above what we were paying just last summer - $4.00 - $5.00/gge +, while in the not-to-distant future, renewable hydrogen cost will be about the same or less than coal power is today through significant reductions in PV costs.
Cost of Fueling infrastructure: Very little on the initial purchase of the vehicle, just the cost of a 110v power cord. However, the cost of residential electrical infrastructure upgrades required to meet the 100 – 200% increase in power demand for the charging of the vehicles (if BEVs are the wave of the future like some propose), will cost billions if not trillions, since the residential electric distribution system is the largest and the most expensive overall, especially since at this time, there are no plans and currently, no need to upgrade that system as most of it is current, as opposed to the transmission system, (the system that brings the power to the distribution system), and commercial lines, which needs upgrading regularly and gets it, and will be again in the coming years anyway. Taking that into consideration, it would be hard to project the cost attributed to charging the vehicle, but I would guestimate that the cost of power to cover this increase power demand to the residential grid could attribute to a doubling the cost to charge the vehicle. So I would project $2.00 – $3.00/gge (indirectly at least, if not directly charged to the homeowner), not taking into consideration the increase in the cost of coal and other fossil fuels due to increased demand. Associates knowledgeable in the field tend to agree that this is an issue of concern. Fast charge? If ever used, due to wear and tear on expensive battery packs, it would have to be installed at commercial stations to avoid that cost increase, but then additional cost of replacing batteries early will end up probably costing more in the long run. Fast charge system only cost: About $150K - $200K.
In the case of the battery exchange scheme, in order to service over 200 vehicles/day and provide all of the different types of batteries to exchange, you would have to have a “Home Depot” size of a station just to keep that many battery packs in the different types in stock. Not to mention the toxic storage and reprocessing, all energy intensive, and unless the energy used is all clean and sustainable renewable, not so clean and green???
Efficiency: True, batteries are more efficient power in and power out, about 80 – 90% efficient. However, the loss of efficiency due to the additional weight of batteries, along with the long fueling time required, or the replacement of batteries, all can decrease that advantage to make the process, at best, a wash with FCEVs, if not give the advantage to FCEVs.
Hydrogen FCEVs
Price of proposed (by most auto manufacturers estimates) full scale production model of FCEVs economy class sedan approx: $30k – $35k.
Of course more expensive models with higher performance and creature comforts will be offered as well.
Range: 250 – 400 mi. Even more, depending on how much h2 is stored on-board and in what state, gaseous or liquid. Gaseous is preferred. No acceleration restrictions, if you drain the tank, you just refill in 5 min. and go. Performance is better as there is no governor and the vehicle is lighter than a BEV.
Maintenance costs: The same as an electric vehicle without the battery cost every few of years. Otherwise, less than a conventional ICEV, no oil, tune-ups, sparkplugs, antifreeze, etc.
Fueling time: 5 – 7 minutes.
Fuel Costs: Hydrogen (1 kg = 1.1 gallons of gasoline equivalent in energy - gge) generated from renewable sources on a small pilot deployment level (30 or less stations), cost will be about $4.00/kg (kilogram). Although as PV prices come down further (and they have reduced in cost significantly over the last 20 years), and it is projected to go down to $1.00 - $2.00/kW, the cost /kg., will cost less than gasoline was in the 1990s, about $1.00 - $2.00/gge or kg.
Efficiency: Hydrogen generation is 85% efficient grid to onboard storage. The efficiency of the Fuel Cell, depending on the manufacturer, and end use, ranges from 60% - 70%. However, whether BEVs are a little more efficient, a wash, or less efficient, efficiency is important, but sustainability is more important. So long as your energy source and your fuel feedstock are infinite, it really doesn’t matter if another technology is a little more efficient or not, so long as it is sustainable.
Hydrogen ICE vehicles -
Price: Same as conventional vehicles when produced on same level of gasoline vehicles approx: $25k - $30k. If produced on the level of NGVs - Natural Gas Vehicles, about $4k more (the same difference as NGVs).
Maintenance Cost: Significant reductions on engine wear (no carbon deposits), oil changes, tune ups, etc.
Fueling time: 5 – 7 minutes.
Fuel Costs: Same as FCEV, although cost/mile will be about 2x as much as a FCEV, which is 3x as efficient as most ICE-Vs, 2x as efficient as Hybrid EVs. HICEVs are 25% more efficient than regular gasoline ICE-Vs.
Efficiency: HICEVs (Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles) are about 22 – 25% efficient, about 25% more efficient than gasoline ICEVs.
Cost of Renewable Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure: PEM Electrolysis using required renewable generated electricity at all commercially permitted fueling stations (easy to do, enforce and verify, can require in license renewal process. Near impossible to do, verify or enforce at residential level.). On a small level of deployment (20-30), fueling 200 vehicles/day; about $800K per station for equipment, to $1.5 million for an expanded system (1,500 kg/day). When deployed in full commercialization stage, about $500K - $1M. This is much less than a gasoline fueling station w/underground storage with lining and all, not to mention petroleum infrastructure including; refineries, delivery trucks, etc. An upgrade of transmission lines and the commercial grid will be needed, but that is already needed anyway and will be conducted over the next few years.
Okay, let’s sum it up.
On one hand you have the BEV; that will cost about a 3rd more than the average vehicle, with ½ the range, that takes hours to recharge batteries that will need to be replaced every few years and will cost between $10K and $20k (for the battery replacement). With residential infrastructure upgrade costs that normally would not need to be done - costing in the $100s of billions to potentially trillions of dollars. Fuel costs ultimately 50% more ($2.00 - $3.00/gge. w/required infrastructure upgrades factored in.) than FCEVs will cost ($1.00 - $2.00/gge), just so that you can have the convenience to re-charge at home with a 110v cord, because you can’t re-charge at a corner gas station because it will take 4 – 8 hours to recharge. And if hooked up to the residential grid, will be coal generated, and have a high carbon content, not very green.
VS
An FCEV that, in full commercialization production, will cost about 8-10% more than a conventional vehicle, that fuels up in 5 min., with a range as good as (FCEV), or 60% (H2 ICEV) of a conventional vehicle, and a fuel cost in the short term no more than we were paying 1 year ago, and ultimately in full commercialization will cost $1.00 - $2.00/gge or kg. And it will be 100% renewable and carbon free! Very Green! Additionally hydrogen, renewable-sustainable hydrogen, is the only fuel that gets less expensive the more you use.
How does that add up? Sounds like it adds up to EVs are a great alternative transportation advancement over the ICE vehicle to implement, at least for light duty transportation, BATTERIES ARE AN INAPPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY TO POWER TRANSPORTATION, PERIOD! If transportation is going to be converted to electric transportation, unless it is light rail, it will be with fuel cells and renewable hydrogen as the fuel. That is what most experts’ project for the future. The thing is we have to get started now, if we are to make it to a sustainable clean renewable energy economy.
Should we deploy Plug-in Hybrids and regular hybrids? Of course we should. That only enhances the viability of hydrogen as its onboard fuel.
Now, an argument could be made that personal transportation is the problem. That individual freedom to travel is the problem. If this were Europe that might sell, since all of Europe could fit in the
Northeast. However this is the U.S.A., 3,000 mi. from coast to coast, 2,000 mi. from border to border. Spread out, distances between cities that is further than distances between countries in Europe and many other places on earth. Going across Texas is as far as traveling across Europe. Providing the kind of mass transit that would eliminate the need for individual transportation over a country as large as ours, would be cost prohibitive and will never happen outside the larger cities. Also, I don’t want to live where we can’t have individual transportation, and I feel confident that the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with me. And in order to make us all more sustainable as well as leave a low carbon footprint, be able to travel and operate in a manner we are comfortable with, at a cost that is sustainable; then only renewable, clean sustainable energy and hydrogen fuel will meet all of those needs.
If you have any other questions, feel free to email me and I’ll be glad to respond. It will just take less time to respond that way.
Does that add up for you? If not, cough up some bucks and I'll run the numbers for you in full detail.
Paul Staples
h24u@hygen.com
Permalink