-----

"Hydrogen cars are not mass produced anywhere," said Teitur Torkelsson, managing partner of FTO Sustainable Solutions. "But a majority of car makers are announcing electric cars to be produced in the next four or five years, so it becomes a big part of our energy solutions." Even the country's 840-mile-long ring road could theoretically be covered with just 14 fast-charging stations. The Icelandic government is expected to ease the way for the E.V.'s by removing import taxes on them, as was recommended by a Finance Ministry working group.

---

Ever been to Iceland?  Have any idea how small the county is?  How few people live there?

I have.  I walked from one edge to the other edge of the only large city one morning.  Not a difficult stroll.

Understand the cost of small scale manufacturing?

300,000 people in the entire country.  About 600 cars per 1,000 people.  

Maybe the nordic countries will show the way on this too.  Their social safety net, free college educationm free healthcare, shows the way already to real satisfaction and fulfillment.

If renewable electric transportation takes over there, it might proviode enough of a mass market to spur mass production.  Audi/VW are going for 100,000 A-1 plugin hybrids per year.

They won't be sold in the US.  These more progressive couinytries will buy every one they can build, with no nasty trade restrictions threatened.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Not only is electric more efficient, there seems to be more going on with e cars than h cars. Electricity is unlimited, is tried and true for over a century, and is delivered at the speed of light through an already existing pipeline. Down here, (in California), all of that energy could be generated by the solar power tower concept which stores heat for later electrical production. Infact, just that alone (as with just wind and its viable storage alone) could power this wasteful nation many times over.
Granted, we will have to be more efficient (lest we can afford a Tesla) but NiMH batteries should be on the list for mass cheapernization...

Oh sure, if we ever generate our electricity from renewable sources, we could have cars and a living planet too. Unfortunately, here in the U.S. we generate our electricity from coal. As long as planet-killing coal is on our grid, electric cars are death to us all.
For the next twenty years at least, if you value life on Earth, you are anti-electric car. In fact, any real environmentalist would be anti-car.

For the next twenty years at least, if you value life on Earth, you are anti-electric car. In fact, any real environmentalist would be anti-car.

The current anti-hydrogen meme is "Hydrogen is not a fuel, it is a storage medium".  Fine, but that is what batteries are.  Electricity to recharge an electric car, or to generate hydrogen can be equally clean or dirty.

Batteries weigh a lot.   An empty battery is as heavy as a full battery.   Hydrogen packs more energy per unit volume than any other fuel.

Clean hydrogen -- generated by wind or solar and created from water -- can be just as easily added to the Hydrogen Grid as the Electric Grid.

Generators of any type can store energy as hydrogen more efficiently and in larger quantities more cheaply than in batteries.   That means a standard -- even a coal generator -- can run at an optimized level, creating hydrogen to handled baseload.

Hydrogen can also be generated in a loosely coupled grid -- by homeowners.  Who can use their own, or purchase it.  And it doesn't necessarily require a connection such as a pipe or wire -- it can be delivered by truck.

Means you support gas guzzling by default.  No way around it.  Your position strengthens the 2 ton wheelchair industry.

The 750 watt battery electric/human powered hybrid exersize machine is the anti-wheelchair alternative.

Plugin battery electric transportation and renewable power go well together.  Don't pin coal or the consumption mindset on plugin hybrids, bicycle, car, truck, or train.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Batteries weigh a lot.   An empty battery is as heavy as a full battery.   Hydrogen packs more energy per unit volume than any other fuel.

When the facts are against you, make up something?  Is that your strategy?  The LHV of H2 per liter is nowhere near the best among fuels.

Clean hydrogen -- generated by wind or solar and created from water -- can be just as easily added to the Hydrogen Grid as the Electric Grid.

False.  It takes 2-4× as much renewable energy to fuel a mile of fuel cell vehicle driving as it does to fuel a mile of electric driving.  Thus it is 2-4× harder, at least, to create a clean hydrogen infrastructure.

Generators of any type can store energy as hydrogen more efficiently and in larger quantities more cheaply than in batteries.   That means a standard -- even a coal generator -- can run at an optimized level, creating hydrogen to handled baseload.

False again.  The 2-4× efficiency difference makes makes hydrogen 3-6× more costly per mile than electricity.  The efficiency from power plant to battery output is about 80% efficient.  The path from power plant to fuel cell output is about 20-39% efficient.

Hydrogen can also be generated in a loosely coupled grid -- by homeowners.  Who can use their own, or purchase it.  And it doesn't necessarily require a connection such as a pipe or wire -- it can be delivered by truck.

But it will take 2-4× as much power from the grid to fuel a mile as driving directly on grid electricity.  It is grossly wasteful to use hydrogen.

I would appreciate it greatly if you would explain why you are so intensely pro-hydrogen.

Hydrogen seems to be your only issue and you push boundaries very hard to support your position.

Now, I'm sure you don't own the patent on the element hydrogen.  What drives you so hard to support one single technology?

False.  It takes 2-4× as much renewable energy to fuel a mile of fuel cell vehicle driving as it does to fuel a mile of electric driving.  Thus it is 2-4× harder, at least, to create a clean hydrogen infrastructure.

Current hydrolysis technology yes, but with Nocera process, 100% conversion rate.

The LHV of H2 per liter is nowhere near the best among fuels.

Hydrogen has more energy per unit mass than other fuels (61,100 BTUs per pound versus 20,900 BTUs per pound of gasoline).

I would appreciate it greatly if you would explain why you are so intensely pro-hydrogen.

I want to reduce pollution as much as anyone.

Honda is leasing FCX vehicles right now.

I think in terms of components.

Getting H2 vehicles on the road right now, using existing infrastructure, is one way to if not reduce, than control pollution -- cars in cities would not pollute.

Second we can "drop" in components as they become available.

Imagine that Honda mass marketed the FCX, and that all cities added H2 pumps.   It's easier to control backend pollution with sinks, scrubbers, than front-end.

The follow up is adding wind-solar H2 generators to the H-grid, reducing back end pollution.

The add on benefits are as I mentioned earlier -- a loosely coupled grid that allows for homes to be built semi-coupled to the national grid.

Hydrogen has more energy per unit mass than other fuels (61,100 BTUs per pound versus 20,900 BTUs per pound of gasoline).

Your original claim was "Hydrogen packs more energy per unit volume than any other fuel."  You said volume, not mass.

The energy density of the fuel storage hardly matters.  Our family has 83,000 miles on a practical Battery Electric Vehicle that uses 61 Wh/kg batteries and gets approximately 230 Wh/mi motor to wheels despite the mass penalty.  Modern LiNiCoAl batteries are as much as 175 Wh/kg, which only makes EVs more practical.

At 175 Wh/kg, 150 miles of range in a 200 Wh/mi sedan requires 171 kg of batteries.  The FreedomCar goal for H2 storage is 2000 Wh/kg, so the same range would be 15kg.  To this add the fuel cell mass (FreedomCar goal 325 W/kg, so 50 kW is 154 kg) and now you've got 169 kg for the FCV.  It's a wash.

I want to reduce pollution as much as anyone.

EVs do this better than FCVs because they are more efficient.

Honda is leasing FCX vehicles right now.

They are putting prototypes in the hands of drivers to get real-world data.  Most indications are that these vehicles cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce.  There are fuel cell lifetime and cost issues still to solve.

The follow up is adding wind-solar H2 generators to the H-grid, reducing back end pollution.

But if all the aggressive goals for electrolysis and fuel cells were realized, it would take twice as much wind and solar to power FCVs compared to BEVs.  This makes them a poor choice.

Earl has pretty much fielded a response but let me add details...

Generating hydrogen, using the methods at hand right now, will require 2+ more energy than using batteries.  That means building 2+ times as many wind mills, solar panels, whatever.  

Building and maintaining each of those devices creates some pollution, at least until we can get past using petroleum in manufacturing and transportation.

Additionally we're going to clutter up twice as much land with devices if we have to produce twice as much power.

Then we need to build more than just the extra generation facilities.  We have to build transportation and distribution facilities.  That's more pollution.

So hydrogen is net expensive compared to BEVs in terms of pollution.

I look at hydrogen as a good idea.  But not the best idea.  Going electric means even less pollution.

Hydrogen, to me, is a lot like biofuel.  Food-based biofuel was an interesting alternative to petroleum until someone actually crunched the numbers.  

We need to remember that market forces are almost certainly going to determine our choice and right now BEVs/PHEVs bite our budgets the least.

(I'm guessing that we're going to see significant drops in battery prices rather than significant drops in hydrogen and fuel cell engines in our near future.  Who knows what reality will be 50, 100 years from now?)

Even 2x electricity infrastructure wouldn't be the bottom line either.

Since it'd be 2x electric + hydrogen refueling infrastructure.

-David Ahlport

David, you're right of course.  I try to use the most aggressive numbers I can find for H2 FCVs because then no one can argue that some technology is going to make it better.  I don't actually believe that H2 FCVs will close the gap to being only 2x better, but by using such aggressive data, I avoid the back and forth of someone saying "the fuel cells will improve" and so on.  78% of HHV efficiency for electrolysis and compression and 60% of LHV for fuel cell peak are not likely to be exceeded, IMO.

That's the beauty of batteries.  No moving parts, no pressure tanks, regulators, pumps.

Mass production of batteries is orders of magnitude simpler than mass production of hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles.  Battery powered cars with standard fueled backup generators need no new infrastructure. Even billing for the kwhs to recharge can be done via credit card internet account.

The addition of a self contained ICE backup generator to extend the range of even a 20 mile plugin hybrid, gives them the fueling convenience and range of a gas guzzler, with the ultra efficiency of 100+ mpg average fuel sipping performance.

That kind of mileage across the vehicle fleet, coupled with the reduction of driving miles with bikes, mass transit, ridesharing, and freight rail replacing long haul trucking, can eliminate imported oil over 10 years and maybe all oil use in twenty years.

As batteries get better, less and less fuel would be needed.  And some amount of eco-friendly biofuel, biogas from waste and biodiesel from algae waste pricessing could provide (the remaining 10% of present oil consumption) as oil runs out.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin