H24U2’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  RE: Check it Paul

  Yes, SOFCs can be made to use other fuels.  I wasn't talking about SOFCs, I was talking about PEM FCs, which are what is viable for transportation uses.  SOFCs are for stationary use, not vehicles.  They are too big and they generate way to much heat, some up to 2000+ degrees F.  Not applicable for transportation.

   

  Thanks,

   

  Paul Staples

  h24u@hygen.com

  On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 77 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re: Where was the math Paul?

  
  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

  On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 77 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re:Huh?

  Lots of fossil fuel, since it charges off the grid w/o any renewable energy requirement, and no way to monitor it or require it.

   

  H2 can be required, monitored, and regulated.

   

  Hence Renewable generated hydrogen can be required and will eliminate the need for refineries, coal mines and natural gas wells.

   

  Using BEVs charged at homes will only eliminate off peak rates and make a 24 hour peak, which at night when most vehicles will be charged, is powered by fossil fuels (Natural gas, petroleum, and coal).  This will increase the amout of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Not as much as continuing with gasoline vehicles, but more than renewable hydrogen fueled at your corner gas station.

   

  That's how.

  On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 77 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Romm,
  You are a fraud! You're on a mission to destroy renewable sustainable hydrogen. Not because it is not doable, (it is very doable), not because it is not sustainable (cause it is the only completely sustainable and viable alternative), not because it is economically viable, (it is ultimately the only model that get's less expensive the more you use), not because it is not operationally viable (it is more operationally viable than any other alternative). No, none of those reasons at all. No environmental reason, no economical reason, no scientific reason. No, it is personal for you, isn't it Mr. Romm.

  
  And who do you think you are telling everyone "I have explained at length many times why the first car of child born in 2003-or the last car, for that matter-will not be a hydrogen fuel cell car, most notably in my best selling book, The Hype About Hydrogen." You couldn't explain your way out of a paper bag. You aren't qualified even to write that book, since you have never conducted any validated comprehensive research in the field.

  
  When you were working for the DOE, you saw your budget cut and hydrogen's budget increased. That's it! It is as simple as that. That hurt your career path. You are angry for personal reasons, and in your petty revenge have gone on an inquisition-like crusade to destroy hydrogen technologies and projects to get back at those that prospered from that funding.

  
  You saw batteries languishing, and hydrogen/fuel cells moving forward, and that angered you. After several billions of dollars wasted on batteries (you say $2 billion spent on hydrogen, chicken feed compared to battery R & D), batteries were not meeting the customer demands, and never will.

  You just love to keep on bringing up George Bush_t and that state of the union speech were he mentions hydrogen. You do that to gin up the environmental community into believing that hydrogen is bad for the environment, because most of them are lacking the scientific aptitude to understand the technology and what the advocates are proposing, and if Bush_t says it must be bad. What about dirty batteries? If batteries are charged by fossil fuel generated power, then are not the batteries dirty? More than you know, since most of your BEVs will be charged by coal! They are enablers of fossil fuel. That is what George Bush_t was promoting, fossil fuels and nuclear power.

  
  It is no wonder that oil companies and fossil fuel developers are shying away from hydrogen, because it is clear that the only viable hydrogen that will succeed must be clean sustainable renewable hydrogen, and that will end their monopoly on energy, which they have been working the last 30 years to prevent. Because they know that H2 is the only alternative that can put an end to this energy merry-go-round. You see it is easy to require that the corner gas station use renewable energy to produce hydrogen. You can regulate it and legislate that. It would be easy to monitor and implement. You can't do that with battery chargers. You can't legislate that everyone must purchase clean renewable energy for their homes, unless you outlaw petroleum energy usage (love to imagine it, but unrealistic, as most of even the most adamant BEV supporters will likely concede). This will lead to more fossil fuel usage to meet that off-peak demand for fossil fuels, also requiring significant residential infrastructure upgrading, costing many billions of dollars. Oh, and good buy to the off-peak pricing. Now it will be 24 hr peak.
  Many of the people you quote above aren't even marginal leaders and advocates in the field. They are the godless bureaucrats and fossil fuel shills, doing the oil company's, fossil fuel, and battery industries bidding, just like you. That's all there is to that. Nothing that they are saying is anything new. They always have talked down the promise of renewable hydrogen. There is plenty of room for plug-in and regular hybrids! They run even cleaner, further and more sustainably with hydrogen than with fossil fuels. And easily convertible.

  If your quote of Achtelik is correct, ("If all the cars were there that would be needed for the infrastructure, then the stations would be there," Achtelik said.), then he is in fantasy land. Unless the oil companies decide to finance their own demise (and, you know they won't do that), the only way is for government to fund it and/or, as long as the gas station is the gatekeeper for alternative fuels, require gas station outlets to allow other contractors come in and install alternative fueling systems. What does he think is going to happen, that fueling stations will just magically appear if the auto companies just manufacture the vehicles? That people will buy them without fueling stations in place to fuel them, or that they will just install their own?

  
  Now Roy Kim seems to understand the issue of fueling infrastructure:
  "But Kim sees reason for optimism, with General Motors Corp., Honda Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Daimler AG moving closer to putting hydrogen cars in the hands of customers. Once the Honda Clarity or GM Equinox catches on, the stations will come, he argued."

  
  The best you can come up with in response is:
  "Not."
  You sound more like a pre-pubescent teen. That is clearly about your speed.

  
  And who are these so-called 99.99% of energy and transportation analyst you talk about. Most of the energy analysts I have read and talked to say the renewable hydrogen paradigm is the only sustainable infrastructure for the foreseeable future.

  
  Face it Romm. You're on a crusade against hydrogen for personal career reasons, not for the betterment of our environment or economy.

  You are a fraud! And you should be ashamed of yourself.

   

  h24u

   

  On The false hope of a hydrogen economy is on its death bed posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re: All this yelling about hydrogen

  No.  They can not use multiple fuels.  What you are talking about is an on-board reformer (different type for each fuel), which separates the hydrogen from the fuel (the only thing that give energy to the fuel anyway).  Reformers have been dismissed for emission reasons as well as efficiency and operational reasons like carrying a refinery on-board. Too much crap to muck up the works.  All of the auto industry have given up on it, except Exxon/Mobil, who wants to continue the fossil fuel economy, and refrain from introducing new technology in their fueling stations, not to mention eliminating oil refineries which renewable hydrogen would do, and BEVs would not.

  Paul Staples
  h24u@hygen.com

  Paul Staples

  On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 77 Responses