Comments patrickS has made

  • 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, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • 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 3 months, 2 weeks ago 18 Responses

  • 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 4 months ago 39 Responses

  • 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 4 months ago 39 Responses

  • 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 4 months ago 39 Responses

  • It's a valid question, but hydrogen leakage should not be an environmental or safety concern preventing or slowing the development of hydrogen technologies.

    Regarding hydrogen leakage, that topic has already been presented and debated in the scientific journal Science.  The original piece "Potential Environmental Impact of a Hydrogen Economy on the Stratosphere" was published 13 June 2003.  It was full of the same questions, but strange and unrealistic assumptions which were rebutted in the 10 October issue, in three separate, published letters by professors Kammen and Lipman at UCal-Berkeley, Amory Lovins and Dr. Lehman at the Schatz Energy Research Center who showed both that the leakage assumptions in the original piece were unrealistic and that hydrogen leakage even at VERY LARGE volumes of hydrogen use would not contribute negatively to the environment.

    In fact, Lovins argued, since we are releasing so many hydrogen compounds into the atmosphere already in the form of fossil fuels, "Thus, a H2 economy, rather than increasing anthropogenic H2 emissions by ~4 to 8 times, as Tromp et al. fear, would probably reduce them by one or perhaps two orders of magnitude, to a level well below natural releases."

    Bottom line: hydrogen leakage, which would be minimal in almost every practical case to begin with, should not be a concern environmentally even if hydrogen was used in HUGE volumes around the world.

    On Congress reverses Chu’s decision, flushes $100 million down the toilet pursuing hydrogen cars posted 4 months ago 39 Responses

  • This page has an impressive collection of information that virtually no one who’s developing hydrogen vehicles or fuel cells today would agree with. The Dan Neil piece–so many things about that article were dead wrong. Even Secretary Chu has made some mistakes in his assertions about the state of the technology. But they are correctable.

    The truth is that hydrogen technologies are some of the best alternative technologies that exist today. And we will need them along with a portfolio of technologies to meet our energy challenges. Congress has this one right so far.

    On Congress reverses Chu’s decision, flushes $100 million down the toilet pursuing hydrogen cars posted 4 months, 1 week ago 39 Responses

  • Counter-point

    GreyFalcon misses one of the most basic points.  You cannot compare a 2-seater vehicle to a 4-seater family car.  It's apples and oranges.  Not to mention that much of your data is skewed.

    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).
    On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 9 months, 1 week ago 77 Responses

  • Sad to see such narrow-mindedness

    It really is sad to see another example of the narrowmindedness that this blog perpetuates.  Joe, you and I have debated on BBC, we had opposing pieces come out next to each other in a section of the Washington Post last week... I know you're an intelligent person deep down.  And so I just don't understand how you can be so wrong with your one-sided and inflammatory approach to hydrogen vehicles, like above.  Many of your accusations are wrong and so are those in Dan Niel's article.

    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 AssociationOn L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 9 months, 1 week ago 77 Responses

  • Not battery VS fuel cell, battery AND fuel cell

    Are we really having this argument again?  Choosing plug-ins over hydrogen vehicles before either are in the showrooms will only limit our options and chance for real progress.  Plus, in all likelihood, the technologies may be used together to reap the benefits of both technologies while minimizing their challenges.

    The fact is that there are lots of alternative vehicle technologies out there and they will be ready at different times.  No one in the hydrogen industry that I work with will deny the challenges everyone is working to address, just the like the battery industry is addressing challenges as well.  That's why neither plug-ins nor hydrogen vehicles are in your showrooms yet.  There's work to be done.

    In a few years, plug-ins from some automakers may make it into to the marketplace before hydrogen vehicles.  And that will be GOOD, if people actually buy them, because it will give us another alternative to choose from when we buy our next vehicle.  But plug-ins alone won't be good enough in the long run.  They won't have the several hundred mile range and quick fueling that hydrogen vehicles can offer, and it's arguable in the long term if they can even match the emissions benefits depending on how you do your calculations and projections.  

    It just doesn't make practical sense to count out hydrogen cars right now.  Like I've posted before, let's talk about the challenges of both batteries and hydrogen--this Economist article sure does point out the hydrogen ones--and let's work to address them all instead of having a pissing contest over which one is better when no one actually knows in this pre-commercial stage.

    All we know right now is that we have some great alternatives that have real promise to meet our energy, environmental and even economical needs.  We'd be a bunch of fools if we didn't try to make them all work.
    On The Economist agrees with me on hydrogen posted 1 year, 2 months ago 21 Responses

  • Responses to Previous Comments

    In the interest of healthy debate here are some responses to the questions and challenges posted so far:

    Tank weight:  Yes, hydrogen tanks are heavier.  But that's not the whole picture.  Look at the whole vehicle. Fuel cells eliminate the need for a transmission, for example.  And that high-tech tank is so strong that it can actually help protect you in an accident.  Plus, batteries aren't light as a feather.  

    Heavy trucks:  Hydrogen injection systems (combustion, not fuel cells) are being sold to heavy trucks today.  They aren't 100% hydrogen engines--more like a hydrogen assist, but they reduce fuel consumption by about 10% or more, increase power by about 5% and significantly reduce emissions.  And they can do this today.  Find out more about how hydrogen injection systems clean up emissions, reduce fuel.  Plus as the costs of fuel cells come down, you can put them on board as auxillary (quiet) power units to reduce/stop idling.

    The cost of distributing hydrogen:  Yes, moving hydrogen long distances can be expensive and an energy balance loser.  But you don't have to truck it around like you do gasoline.  You can make hydrogen on-site, on a small scale--small enough for a single camera--or on a larger scale, for your home, neighborhood or city.  When really large quantities are needed, pipelines can be installed, adding to the over 700 miles of hydrogen pipelines installed and in use today.  With today's technology, we can dsipense hydrogen at the pump for the equivalent of $3/gal of gasoline.  And those costs are still coming down.

    Cost of the fuel cell: It's not 4 times as much as your engine today.  It's now down to less than 2 times ($94/kW compared to $50/kW for gasoline engines) at volume (500,000 units).  And that cost is coming down too.  One nice thing about fuel cells though is that they'll last longer than the 2-3 years that advanced batteries last.  So while the cost needs to come down, even at the current price, fuel cells already have some cost advantanges compared to other alternatives.  Hydrogen engines which some automakers have developed are much cheaper than fuel cells today and so those vehicles could enter the marketplace now if more stations were in place.

    I hope this helps.  Working for the National Hydrogen Association, our job is to make sure you have the information you need.On To solve global warming, we need to support every alternative transportation pathway posted 1 year, 3 months ago 22 Responses

  • The real winner? A vehicle that uses a combination

    If you really understand what Bob Rose's post says--that all alternative technologies need improvement and none of them are yet commercial so we need to advance them together--you will see how inane it is to badmouth one technology over the other.  Healthy debate?  Sure.  But mindless and early technology picking will never help us.  Here's a concept that might:

    I spend the majority of my time working with the National Hydrogen Association, the automakers, energy companies, non-profits, the government and others and if there's one thing I've come to understand, it's that we're going to need a variety of vehicle technologies to reduce the amount of carbon we're importing from overseas and putting into the atmosphere.

    Batteries, plug-ins, fuel cells, etc. are going to be ready for commercialization at different times.  The automakers and others are trying to get all of them to work because in many ways, they complement each other.  

    No one from the hydrogen industry will deny the challenges in front of the technologies.  Engage us and we will tell you how they are being overcome.  But let's make sure that at the same time, we recognize the challenges that batteries and plug-ins have, like range, weight and cost to name a few.  Then, let's talk about the way that we'll use all three together, embracing the advantages of each so we can truly transform the vehicles we want to drive the next time we go into a showroom.

    Now we're doing something that might actually be helpful.
    On To solve global warming, we need to support every alternative transportation pathway posted 1 year, 3 months ago 22 Responses

  • Put all your eggs in one basket?

    Bob Wallace has the right idea here.  There are several alternatives which will be ready at different times.  Without research as a part of technology development, we'll never be able to take advantage of the benefits from any of them.  

    To meet our energy needs, we'll need a portfolio of options and hydrogen technologies are going to be PART of that portfolio.  So that means hydrogen technologies WITH, not instead of, renewables, plug-in technology, some batteries, hybridization and others so that we can use the advantages of each technology.  Looking for a silver bullet, if you believe in that sort of thing, will limit us all.

    And research dollars are going to continue to be needed to make these technologies ready for commercialization.  So let's put some effort into making some progress (like the fact that the cost of a fuel cell for a vehicles has come down from $300/kW to $90/kW in just the last 4 years due in part to DOE money), instead of trying to cut technologies out of the picture.  

    I spend a lot of my time working with the National Hydrogen Association and I'll be the first to say that we're going to need a group of technologies (not JUST hydrogen) if we really want to have a meaningful impact on A) reducing fuel imports, B) improving the environment and C) growing the economy.  And as we work to get there, hydrogen will be an important part of the solution.
    On Department of Energy flushes $15 million down the hydrogen toilet posted 1 year, 3 months ago 18 Responses

  • We Need Hydrogen

    You know, I love the fact that we're putting so much emphasis on alternative fuels.  We NEED them.  It makes sense to shift to using more of them.  But what doesn't make any sense is eliminating the hydrogen option.

    Hybrids are great.  Ethanol, sure.  Biodiesel, why not?  Electric vehicles have their advantages (and fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles).  But ALL of those depend on fossil fuels and will for the next several years.  They are great near-term solutions.  We ALSO need to keep our eyes focused on developing solutions for the longer term after that.  

    Read the articles, the hydrogen industry is not only interested in reducing emissions, but reducing energy imports as well.  You can pick out all the negative articles you like with half baked arguments, but in the end, there's a reason why dozens and dozens of companies (large AND small), universities, labs, governments and others are investing hydrogen technologies. They've done their homework.  Hydrogen provides a suite of options (including production options) that can:

    -reduce our dependence on imported fuels,
    -improve the environment and even
    -grow the economy.  

    Now why would you want to discount a technology group that can do that, especially one that works brilliantly with renewable technologies to even improve the effectiveness of them?!

    Reading the posts here and on other blogs, I only ask before you rush to judgement on this incredible group of technologies (which is still emerging), and believe someone who thinks that hydrogen is a huge conspiracy, distraction, hoax or fraud, read a little more on your own.  You might be surprised at what you find.
    On All about hydrogen posted 2 years, 6 months ago 17 Responses