patrickS’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mr. Romm's points, like those in his other posts, continue to show his bias and are wrong on costs, efficiency and readiness of the technology. Here are a few quick examples. Like another commenter said, the bottom line is "We can and need to afford aggressive programs for each technology. In the end the public can decide how big a battery and fuel cell they will buy in a vehicle." EFFICIENCY: Please, take the word of a real engineer from a real auto company. From Toyota engineer, Justin Ward, reported publicly at the SAE World Congress this year: "With natural gas as the feedstock for hydrogen and power generation, Toyota currently calculates 40% Well-to-Wheels efficiency for a fuel cell vehicle; 33% for an EV; 34% for a hybrid (Prius); and 19% for an internal combustion engine." http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/04/h2fcv-20090423.html#more GREENHOUSE GASES: Both can make an improvement. In California, battery vehicles, using electricity from the grid and hydrogen vehicles, using hydrogen from natural gas have about the same reduction in greenhouse gases--50% compared to gasoline vehicles. In the rest of the country, BEVs are a little worse off taking their electricity from the grid because of the older coal power plants that are so ubiquitous, while hydrogen vehicles still reduce GHGs by 50%. If we used renewables, the emissions for both battery vehicles AND hydrogen vehicles would be ZERO--that's the goal. http://www.h2gen.com/Uploads/file/Battery_vs_FuelCell_EVs.pdf This could go on. There is a reason that most major auto makers are developing both battery and hydrogen vehicles: they will both help and they work cooperatively together. It's WAY too early to choose one technology over another.On Climate and hydrogen car advocate gets almost everything wrong posted 1 month ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The truth is that BOTH hydrogen fuel cells and batteries are valuable.  Anyone who's supporting only one technology by itself is missing at least half of the picture.  They're complimentary electricity-based technologies which work well on the same vehicle.  Let's embrace them both and take a giant step forward together instead of continuing to feed this backwards-stepping vitriolfest.

  On The limits of today's electric car technology posted 2 months, 4 weeks ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  DELIVERY:

  One of the great benefits of hydrogen delivery is that it doesn't have to be trucked around.  In some cases it will be, like gasoline is today, but in some others, like the West LA hydrogen station, hydrogen can be made on-site using renewable electricity.  Therefore you need no delivery--0 truck trips.  OR, when you have large volumes of hydrogen, you might choose to transport it by pipeline--also = 0 truck trips.  There's already a hydrogen pipeline running near I-5 in southern California, there are pipelines in northern California, in the Gulf region and elsewhere.  In fact, in the U.S. according to the EIA, there are 1,212 miles of hydrogen pipeline in use today.  These are all viable options.

  So the point is that with hydrogen, you have options for how you produce, store, deliver and use it--choices we don't have today with gasoline.  Bossel's assumptions overly simplify this situation by choosing just one option in many cases, often an unpopular option, which make his resulting conclusions unrealistic and wrong.  This is one of the many reasons why Bossel's arguments are fundamentally flawed.

   

  On Congress reverses Chu’s decision, flushes $100 million down the toilet pursuing hydrogen cars posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 39 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Veritone, so now that your technology arguments have been rebutted and there is obviously a sea of people who don't agree with you or your mentors Romm and Bossel, you're turning personal?  I don't think that's very professional or mature.  Let's stick to the technology and the facts.  There is real technology to back up my points.

  On Congress reverses Chu’s decision, flushes $100 million down the toilet pursuing hydrogen cars posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 39 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Ahhh....the Bossel argument.  Another mediocre, antiquated and slanted take on hydrogen and fuel cell technology.  Yes, we're familiar with this one too.
  
  Like Romm, many of Dr. Bossel's assumptions are unleastic or apples and oranges comparisons. Bossel writes from an extremely one-sided point of view. Look at some of the assumptions he makes: Fuel cell efficiency 40%, all hydrogen liquified, then delivered.
  
  Fuel cell vehicles are over 60% efficient tank to wheels (Honda, GM, Daimler, all show these higher efficiency numbers in real practice). This is documented by EPA, DOE, NREL, and others around the world. Don't let Dr. Bossel fool you.
  
  As for hydrogen transport, the vast majority of hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles is today transported in gaseous form, not liquid.  Another lopsided and unrealistic assessment.  Yes, some automakers have been using liquid H2, but not with the older technology Bossel describes.

  Also, if you do Bossel's calculation of CO2/mile, using real numbers, with hydrogen made from natural gas, fuel cell vehicles are on par with electric vehicles over the entire US. Better in some states, worse in a few, but as a whole on par. Hydrogen from renewables is better, of course, just like with electricity.

  We can go on.  The bottom line is that Bossel is not showing a true or realistic representation of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, just like our author of this Grist post.  Trust the volumes of scientists, engineers and others who far outnumber a few armchair critics and know that hydrogen and fuel cells work because they're developing the technology first-hand.

  On Congress reverses Chu’s decision, flushes $100 million down the toilet pursuing hydrogen cars posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 39 Responses