DOE Presents Scenarios for Widespread Hydrogen Vehicle Use

Hasn't this hydrogen car debate finally stopped yet? It's obvious that the energy required for hydrogen: (hydrolysis or cracking), compress it, transport it, store it, catalyze back into electricity (fuel cells) has an end-to-end efficiency that is much worse than simply taking that energy feedstock in the beginning (fossil or electricity) and applying it directly to ICE cars or electric cars.

Hence, the folks who don't adopt hydrogen at all will have a shortterm, midterm, and longterm financial advantage over those that do. This is an approach that Detroit excels at: do nothing. And what's more, in this case, that's the technically superior approach.

Hydrogen. Doomed. Save your investment money for battery-driven electric cars.

I would never get a battery car unless it can compete with my petrol car in fill up time and distance per "tank"

Hasn't this hydrogen car debate finally stopped yet? It's obvious that the energy required for hydrogen: (hydrolysis or cracking), compress it, transport it, store it, catalyze back into electricity (fuel cells) has an end-to-end efficiency that is much worse than simply taking that energy feedstock in the beginning (fossil or electricity) and applying it directly to ICE cars or electric cars.

First of all, efficiency gains keep being realized for all steps of that process. Second of all, battery-electric vehicles still haven't overcome the recharge/capacity/affordable hurdles they need to.

Hydrogen. Doomed. Save your investment money for battery-driven electric cars.

I'm always amazed at how restricted people's thinking is. Let go of the car.

These anonymous people do have certain things correct.

Fill up time is one of the largest negatives to batteries.

Yearly I take a very long trip, that I use no plane travel for. But to try to run, bike would be very difficult.

We use a bus that one of the parties of the group own's and I'm trying to figure out what that bus should use in the future. Hydrogen would with the right infrastructure make this possible. Electricity would add so much extra stop time, it would drive most the us off the wall. Biofuels are limited to the infrastructure again.

So biofuels and hydrogen.

Next, we do not want an energy monopoly. This means to much static, I think that is bad for jobs, bad for improvements, and though perhaps not most importantly (though to me it is) the environment) and allows for continued stagnant (i.e. Detriot) like thinking.

What everyone is glossing over is that it is not only Detroit that is pushing hydrogen.

Electric Car objections addressed:

1) Poor recharge time & distance per "tank" - checkout altairnano, a123systems, powergenix. toshiba and others are doing similar things. Briefly, rapid charge Li-ion batteries using high surface area electrodes are coming on. You also assume people can't change their transportation behavior to hooking up their cars overnight for recharging. You're on Treehugger man! People can and do change their behavior for something better! (just ask safeway about organic whole foods or gm about prius)

2) Insufficient range per fillup: Tesla Motors goes 220 miles per tank today. No reason to think this is the technological limit. And off the line, electric cars will totally dust any ICE car (maximum torque at zero rpm).

3) Hydrogen just needs the right infrastructure - Yeah, right. Turn the whole world upside down with new tanker trucks, pipelines, pressure vessels and safe pumps because you can't figure out how to recharge your car at home or work. Never mind getting foolsells to work.

4) Biofuels - negligibly better than petrofuels for CO2. big giveaway to agribusiness and pesticide mfgs. no more efficient "well-to-wheel" than current gasoline.

Electric Car objections addressed:

1) Poor recharge time & distance per "tank" - checkout altairnano, a123systems, powergenix. toshiba and others are doing similar things. Briefly, rapid charge Li-ion batteries using high surface area electrodes are coming on. You also assume people can't change their transportation behavior to hooking up their cars overnight for recharging. You're on Treehugger man! People can and do change their behavior for something better! (just ask safeway about organic whole foods or gm about prius)

2) Insufficient range per fillup: Tesla Motors goes 220 miles per tank today. No reason to think this is the technological limit. And off the line, electric cars will totally dust any ICE car (maximum torque at zero rpm).

3) Hydrogen just needs the right infrastructure - Yeah, right. Turn the whole world upside down with new tanker trucks, pipelines, pressure vessels and safe pumps because you can't figure out how to recharge your car at home or work. Never mind getting foolsells to work.

4) Biofuels - negligibly better than petrofuels for CO2. big giveaway to agribusiness and pesticide mfgs. no more efficient "well-to-wheel" than current gasoline.

1)Who said anything about can't change behavior? It's more of, will people change? EV's won't work for everyone.

2)Is that a true rating? It's also a $100,000 car. I'm sure EV's will get better, so will hydrogen cars. Why not have an option?

3) EV needs a lot of energy too. Nice play on fuel cells. Lets not mention the poor slow growth in battery technology over the last 30 years.

Poor recharge time & distance per "tank" - checkout altairnano, a123systems, powergenix. toshiba and others are doing similar things.

None of which have hit the market.

You also assume people can't change their transportation behavior to hooking up their cars overnight for recharging.

I see. So if I want to take a 500 mile road trip, I need to stop at a hotel along the way and stay overnight just to recharge my car?

People can and do change their behavior for something better!

Some do, most don't. You must be rather young not to realize that by now.

Insufficient range per fillup: Tesla Motors goes 220 miles per tank today.

Great. How do I drive 500 miles in a day? Where do I get $100,000 for a two-seater commuter car? Where do I get more money for a regular car I can take on road trips?

No reason to think this is the technological limit.

Yet you assume technological limits for hydrogen and fuel cells.

And off the line, electric cars will totally dust any ICE car (maximum torque at zero rpm).

Non sequitur and irrelevant. A $500 used motorcycle can dispense with a $100K Tesla off the line.

Hydrogen just needs the right infrastructure - Yeah, right. Turn the whole world upside down with new tanker trucks, pipelines, pressure vessels and safe pumps because you can't figure out how to recharge your car at home or work. Never mind getting foolsells to work.

Right, as opposed to a ultra-high-power charging infrastructure required to put 50 kWh hours into a battery pack in 5 minutes.

Biofuels - negligibly better than petrofuels for CO2. big giveaway to agribusiness and pesticide mfgs. no more efficient "well-to-wheel" than current gasoline.

Well-to-wheel of electricity isn't very good, either.

My PhD thesis is a study of this and I am familiar with this work. The production of hydrogen is a huge problem wich curiously has gotten very little attention.

Todays commercial hydrogen has the energy equivelant to $850. a gallon gasoline. The costs of transporting hydrogen using current technology is about 10x that of gasoline but could come down to around 4 to 6x with new techology and infrastruture improvments (costing $4 to 6 trillion).

The only viable large scale source is thermal splitting, which is best done by nuclear reactors. Because water is such a stable molecule it takes a lot of energy to split it, then the hydrogen needs to be collected and compressed. That makes making hydrogen significantly less efficient than making electricity, (which is a simple mechanical process with extremely easy distribution). Overall, direct mechanical production of electricity is about 3 to 5x more efficient than making hydrogen.

Our conclusion was hydrogen based energy was just completely impossible without massive subsidies. To comparison of hydrogen to $400 dollars a gallon gasoline sounds like a bargain; I would double it.

There will be no construction of water splitting reactors by private enterprise without subsidies, no one would make such a risky investment with a possibly non-existant return. Even the construction of a splitting reactor (which has never been built large scale) would be 15 years as a fast track project.

Given the cost structure, the only way this might work is if the government built several water splitting nuclear reators per region, then gave the hydrogen away free to cover the cost of distribution and provide the long term (15 to 25 years) start up investment that would not otherwise be available. It is estimated an initial build of 30 regional nuclear water splitting plants located across the nation would be required as an initial infrastructure.

The scale of this investment, both public and private, is beyond anything ever considered, while at the same time it would would take decades, and we have no idea if hydrogen would actually be a good solution until after 20 years of extrordianarily massive investment!!

This kind of investment would be better served through a variety of less damaging technologies, especially effective mass transit that much of the nation lacks. Or investing in solar residential PV panels. This is actually very cost effective by comparison; for the price of 1 hydrogen splitting reactor you could install 20 million home PV installations! For the price of a basic hydrogen infrastructure every house in the US could have free solar PV panels, a nation wide high speed train, local light rail and a free electric car for every household, plus a check for $170,000! And much less nuclear waste. And, this is technology we could build today with complete assurace it would work.

As a professional in the field I am just shocked no one has questioned the hydrogen production issue. I have to feel we have been boonswaggled by the likes of GM and the US government. The problems producing and distributing hydrogen and immense and completely obvious. Even laymen who read a simple to understand book like "The Hydrogen Economy" can see it clearly; hydrogen is an absurb direction to base a countries entire energy policy on for that one simple reason: making and distributing hydrogen is expensive and difficult. After decades of massive investment in a hydrogen econmy we would find ourselves worse off compared to the simplicity of an electrically based energy. We should continue the hybid-generator assisted electric car-full electric car transition already underway. Hydrogen doesn't make sense, anyway you look at it.

Todays commercial hydrogen has the energy equivelant to $850. a gallon gasoline.

That's odd, since one can go out and get a cylinder of hydrogen with about 1 kg of hydrogen in it for $100. A kg of hydrogen has roughly the same energy content as a gallon of gas.

Making a workable electric car is trivial compared to transforming an entire energy infrastructure! We have electricity and electric cars today. Fuel cells are a distant future, hydrogen is non-existant.

We have hybrids today, plug in hybrids soon. GMs next hybrid is a generator backed up electric car, the next phase which most consider the stepping stone toward all electric cars. Eventually, with better technology, we could have all electric cars without the compromises of electric cars today.

The hybrid to generator assisted electric to full electric is a plan that makes sense, and is something we could do. We already have a good start! Hydrogen is looking like a big mistake and a smoke screen (by GM and the Bush Administration) for doing something that can work today.

"researchers at GE say they've come up with a prototype version of an easy-to-manufacture apparatus that they believe could lead to a commercial machine able to produce hydrogen via electrolysis for about $3 per kilogram -- a quantity roughly comparable to a gallon of gasoline -- down from today's $8 per kilogram"

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16523&ch=biztech

This is actually very cost effective by comparison; for the price of 1 hydrogen splitting reactor you could install 20 million home PV installations!
Where are you getting your numbers? How much do you think a PV installation costs? Even if it's a low $8000 per house, you are saying it would cost 160 billion for a hydrogen splitting reactor.

by GM and the Bush Administration) for doing something that can work today

I suppose the hydrogen economy was never thought of before Bush was is office right? And Honda's, BMW's and Mazda's hydrogen cars must be non-existent. I mean It's all Gm and Bush's fault!!!

We have electricity and electric cars today.

Really? Precisely one road-ready (non-NEV) electric automobile was sold in the US in 2004 and 2005 -- at a price of around $108,000.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/datatables/ts205.xls
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/datatables/t1504.xls
http://www.commutercars.com/news/pressReleases/060427PressRelease.pdf

Hydrogen gas can be created through the natural gas steam reforming/water gas shift reaction method, outlined above. This creates carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, as a byproduct. This is usually released into the atmosphere, although there has also been some research into interring it underground or undersea. The steam reformers in methane-based fuel cells convert hydrocarbons into either carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide.

Recently, there have also been some concerns over possible problems related to hydrogen gas leakage, (this has been pointed out in a paper published in Science magazine by a group of Caltech scientists). Molecular hydrogen leaks slowly from most containment vessels. It has been hypothesized that if significant amounts of hydrogen gas (H2) escape, hydrogen gas may, due to ultraviolet radiation, form free radicals (H) in the stratosphere.

These free radicals would then be able to act as catalysts for ozone depletion. A large enough increase in stratospheric hydrogen from leaked H2 could exacerbate the depletion process.

However, the effect of these leakage problems may not be significant. The amount of hydrogen that leaks today is much lower (by a factor of 10-100) than the estimated 10%-20% figure conjectured by some researchers; in Germany, for example, the leakage rate is only 0.1% (less than the natural gas leak rate of 0.7%). At most, such leakage would likely be no more than 1-2% even with widespread hydrogen use, using present technology.

Additionally, present estimates indicate that it would take at least 50 years for a mature hydrogen economy to develop, and new technology developed in this period could further reduce the leakage rate.

The December 2002 issue of BioScience Magazine contained an article entitled "Renewable Energy: Current and Potential Issues." The author, David Pimentel, notes "The energy required to produce 1 billion kWh of hydrogen is 1.4 Billion kWh of electricity." Later on the same page he says "The conversion of hydrogen into direct current (DC) using a fuel cell is about 40 percent efficient." One might conclude that this means 60 percent is wasted, or that, of the 1 billion kWh produced, only 400 million kWh is used. Using 1.4 billion kWh to produce 400 Million kWh in useful energy means a loss of about 70% of the original energy available.

Hydrogen isn’t an energy source – it’s an energy carrier, like a battery. You have to make it and put energy into it, both of which take energy. Hydrogen has been used commercially for decades, so at least we don't have to figure out how to do this, or what the cheapest, most efficient method is.

Ninety-six percent of hydrogen is made from fossil fuels, mainly to refine oil and hydrogenate vegetable oil--the kind that gives you heart attacks (1). In the United States, ninety percent of hydrogen is made from natural gas, with an efficiency of 72% (2). Efficiency is how much energy you get back compared with how much energy you started out with. So an efficiency of seventy-two percent means you've lost 28% of the energy contained in the natural gas to make hydrogen. And that doesn’t count the energy it took to extract and deliver the natural gas to the hydrogen plant.

Only four percent of hydrogen is made from water. This is done with electricity, in a process called electrolysis. Hydrogen is only made from water when the hydrogen must be extremely pure. Most electricity is generated from fossil fuel driven plants that are, on average, 30% efficient. Where does the other seventy percent of the energy go? Most is lost as heat, and some as it travels through the power grid.

Electrolysis is 70% efficient. To calculate the overall efficiency of making hydrogen from water, the standard equation is to multiply the efficiency of each step. In this case you would multiply the 30% efficient power plant times the 70% efficient electrolysis to get an overall efficiency of 20%. This means you have used four units of energy to create one unit of hydrogen energy (3).

Obtaining hydrogen from fossil fuels as a feedstock or an energy source is a bit perverse, since the whole point is to avoid using fossil fuels.

No matter how you look at it, producing hydrogen from water is an energy sink. If you don't understand this concept, please mail me ten dollars and I'll send you back a dollar.

When I first heard Mister Bush talk about future hydrogen cars in his state of the union address, I knew something was wrong, since I was educated as a systems engineer at UCLA. I just did not know how wrong Mister Bush was, in pursuing this alternative for my country.

But I began to find those that did the math, and looked at the details of the challenges, of this hydrogen hoax.

There is a comparison between the posibilities of using biodiesel and hydrogen at http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_biodiesel_vs_hydrogen.html that helps to keep hydrogen usage in cars in context.

The University of New Hamshire also had a very good page at http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html to help get the energy policy we need in context.

The bottom line is that hydrogen will be just too expensive for cars. Fuel cells and hydrogen are both very expensive. Hydrogen is already in mass production, to do things like make hydrogenated vegetable oils that make us fat and clog up our veins.

I did the math, using today's technology for hydrogen cylinders. Liquid hydrogen is even more expensive, and the tanks are heaver, and it is more dangerous.

This does not mean that we will never use hydrogen for energy, becasue we might use it for energy in homes or stationary places where we do not need to compress or contain it. But, even in stationary places, the rules of energy efficiency, will rule.

What is the current price of a tank of hydrogen equivalent to a tank of gas?

See: http://mb-soft.com/public2/hydrogen.html [Hydrogen as a Fuel for Automobiles]

Their calculation gave $630 per fill up plus the $150 monthly rental fee for 60 100 pound bright red hydrogen tanks for the equivalent of 15 gallons of gasoline.

If you fueled monthly, that would cost you about $52 per gallon equivalent of gasoline when you exchanged that 6000 pounds of tanks or about $44 per gallon equivalent of gasoline for a week.

How heavy would your fuel system be?

The hydrogen only weigh 15 pounds, but the tanks would weigh 6000 pounds, and you might need to haul them in a trailer behind your car. Liquid hydrogen would need even heavier tanks. You could name your car "Tank".

See: http://mb-soft.com/public2/hydrogen.html [Hydrogen as a Fuel for Automobiles]

What have some engineers that could do the math wrote?

There is a good report on hydrogen: "Energy and the Hydrogen Economy" by Ulf Bossel, Fuel Cell Consultant, and Baldur Eliasson, ABB Switzerland Ltd., of 8 January 2003, that is available in PDF format on a link at http://www.idatech.com/technology/fuel_processors.html. It said in part:

"...the intent of this compilation is to create an awareness about the weaknesses of a pure hydrogen economy. We are surprised to discover that, apparently, the energy needed to run a hydrogen economy have never been fully assessed before."

Basically this report on hydrogen usage says that using Liquid Natural Gas, makes more sense than converting LNG to hydrogen. You would lose efficiency by the conversion and would throw away the energy of burning the carbon to CO2. The CO2 would be produced from the conversion anyway. Hydrogen fuel is much harder to handle, takes more space, and uses much more expensive fuel tanks. Converting from electricity is an even bigger loser and would require nuclear electric plants for mass usage. I read a newspaper automotive article about using borax for hydrogen storage that cost about 50 times today's gas cost.

Hydrogen fuel is much harder to handle, takes more space, and much more expensive fuel tanks. Its basic problem is that hydrogen is very light and very capable of working through tiny places. Converting from electricity is an even bigger loser.

Again, this report on the feasibility hydrogen usage, can be found now at: http://www.idatech.com/technology/fuel_processors.html. They are a company that wants fuel cells to be used. Their profit incentive would be to just go along with the hydrogen hoax. They must be honest and courageous, to issue a professional report like this, at a time like this, when our current police action president, is pushing a hydrogen economy. The URL of the feasibility report was:

http://www.idatech.com/solutions/multi_fuel_solutions/Hydrogen%20Economy%20Report%202003.pdf

Our local House Representative, Roscoe Bartlett, PhD, & his current leader party leader, Mister Bush that do not know better than to go on a tax debt money boondoggle, with their hydrogen energy schemes. What is really embarrassing, is that Roscoe is also an engineer, a doctor of engineering!

Some sharp business con artists may have got to them... Perhaps as shell game from Shell and GM. See: http://www.auto.com/industry/hfuel5_20030305.htm

In http://www.auto.com/industry/iwirb13_20021113.htm it said in part:

"In January, the Bush administration abandoned a Clinton-era effort to produce highly fuel-efficient gasoline-powered vehicles. In its place, the administration announced a joint effort with automakers to promote hydrogen fuel cell powered cars and trucks," Ford had a prototype diesel hybrid and it scared the Japanese that could do the math so much, that they are working on their diesel hybrids. They are likely to beat out the USA again.

See: http://www.auto.com/industry/iwirc4_20030104.htm

"Critics say the Bush administration and auto industry are using fuel cell research as a way to fend off calls for vehicles that get more miles per gallon.

"The whole business about fuel cell vehicles is just political theater," said analyst David Healy of Burnham Securities."

In http://www.auto.com/industry/hcars5_20030305.htm it said in part:

"One of the biggest issues is how to lower the cost of producing hydrogen-fueled vehicles, whose price tag is $1 million to $2 million now.

One of the biggest cost drivers is the fuel cell itself, which costs about $200,000 each."

Go to http://www.JunkScience.com and search for "hydrogen" and "car" and see some scientific common sense, that is not much in common.

A better idea would be to pursue hybrid cars and renewable organic oils.

From: "The Hydrogen Report, Executive Summary, An Examination of the Role of Hydrogen In Achieving U.S. Energy Independence"

SEE: http://www.tmgtech.com/pages/6/index.htm

"Conclusions

What then should be our choice of a clean alternate energy strategy? We believe that, with the exception of a few special situations:

Hydrogen is not appropriate as a fuel, notwithstanding its zero carbon content - it is simply too energy-intensive, difficult and dangerous to produce and use.

If hydrogen is used, it must not be sourced from either electricity (itself a derived energy carrier) or natural gas (an energy source in short supply with many other priority users).

Coal, rather than oil or natural gas, should be the energy source for any alternate fuel strategy, especially one that is based on derived energy carriers.

Ammonia, despite difficulties in its use, may be the optimum choice of carbon-free energy carriers; however, we do not believe that it is necessary to use carbon-free fuels – reduced carbon fuels are sufficient.

Methanol, methane, synthetic natural gas (SNG), all represent excellent reduced carbon fuels (relative to direct coal, gasoline and other hydrocarbons) that can be derived from coal and used with much greater convenience and efficiency and at a much lower energy cost than hydrogen.

Since all of these low-carbon fuels can be used as direct fuels in alternative designs of fuel cell, we believe that emphasis should be placed on the further development of such cells, with appropriate capability included for additional carbon sequestration – if needed.

Direct methanol fuel cells may be the best choice for transportation use in view of their low temperature of operation, but much more work is required to improve their efficiency.

Hydrogen has been greatly oversold by ‘evangelists” in the USDOE and elsewhere and also by the environmental lobby, including some very persuasive writers who are adept at choosing half truths to fit their preconceived conclusions. In short, upon close and objective examination, we find that The Emperor Hydrogen has no Clothes."

From: "The Hydrogen Report, Executive Summary, An Examination of the Role of Hydrogen In Achieving U.S. Energy Independence" Available at http://www.tmgtech.com/pages/7/index.htm.

"Though it is not our intention to politicize the issue of the hydrogen economy, we take strong exception to the five principal foundations of the proposed Bush Hydrogen Fuel Plan:

1. Fuel cells are a proven technology

False. Fuel cells are proven to work, but the technology to reduce manufacturing cost by an order of magnitude has not been developed, nor has the reliability or durability of low-cost fuel cells been demonstrated. In addition, we do not support the prevailing view that hydrogen is the best fuel for fuel cells.

2. The (Hydrogen Fuel Plan) initiatives will overcome key technical and cost barriers for fuel cells

False. Even if fuel cell technology advances dramatically, the major cost barriers are associated with the manufacturing and distribution of hydrogen fuel itself. These issues are inexorably linked to the laws of physics and thermodynamics.

3. Hydrogen fuel will help ensure America's energy independence

False. America will consume substantially more non-renewable energy in a hydrogen economy that it consumes today. Unless our huge reserves of coal (or nuclear power) are tapped, we will be increasingly dependent on foreign energy supplies (of oil and natural gas) with each passing year

4. Fuel cells will improve air quality and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions

False. Again, America will consume substantially more fossil energy in a hydrogen economy that it consumes today and therefore create more emissions. The public needs a much more fundamental understanding of these critical issues – as do politicians.

5. Hydrogen is the key to a clean energy future

False. As we have seen, hydrogen is quite a dirty fuel as currently manufactured. In our view, the only viable, clean, and scalable methods for producing enough energy to manufacture the huge quantities of hydrogen required are nuclear and Zero Emissions Coal. Neither of these technologies are the focus of the Bush plan.

We should give serious consideration to dropping the hydrogen mantra and adopt a “transitional fuels” paradigm that allows fuel cell development to continue on a sustainable economic path while the longer-term issues regarding hydrogen are resolved. A natural hydrogen carrier such as natural gas, methane, a liquid hydrocarbon or methanol, represents a viable alternative to pure hydrogen for fuel cells, as they require far less energy to extract the hydrogen at the point of use and can readily be derived from coal.

Our coal reserves are the most attractive fuel source on which to base the production of these transitional fuels. The extensive reserves in North America suggest that a 400-year (or more) supply of feedstocks exist in this form at present consumption rates. The prospects for developing new methods of coal conversion with near zero atmospheric emissions should be aggressively pursued as a national strategic defense priority.

The development of this coal technology could lay the foundation for a new generation of power plants and conversion facilities, which not only produce clean electricity from coal, but also manufacture methane and methanol for commercial heating and transportation.

Moreover, we submit that it is neither necessary nor economically desirable to completely eliminate CO2 emissions from vehicles. The reduced CO2 emissions from the new power-generating facilities we propose will substantially offset modest CO2 emissions from vehicles, particularly with the introduction of relatively clean-burning SOFC fuel cells using methanol. While we acknowledge that this migration to new technology will take decades, the dire (and, we submit, for the most part incorrect) global predictions of some environmentalists can be averted with steady progress toward cleaner fuels.

Given pressing timing concerns with regard to remaining oil supplies, we must also give consideration to the path we will take to address and finally solve the tremendously complex technical issues ahead. In the past, science has taken quite a ‘meandering’ path to discovery and development. That approach now may have severe consequences to our civilization. A more pragmatic approach may be called for to solve these issues, so that the required technical and human resources available can be sharply focused on coal, methane, and methanol.

Finally, we must have is a more thoughtful public debate about the merits of the hydrogen economy as proposed by the Administration. The huge investments that are anticipated in this well-intentioned but sadly misdirected proclamation will seriously impair the development of more rational energy alternatives.

10 kg of hydrogen equals the energy of a gallon of gas.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 21, 2006 2:10 PM | flag a problem

You know, it's not really kosher to plagiarize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

"researchers at GE say they've come up with a prototype version of an easy-to-manufacture apparatus that they believe could lead to a commercial machine able to produce hydrogen via electrolysis for about $3 per kilogram -- a quantity roughly comparable to a gallon of gasoline -- down from today's $8 per kilogram"

This "invention" is just electrolysis. And the cost of gas at the pump includes transportation, taxes, infrastructure. Would hydrogen for cars be tax free? If so, where would we get the money to build and repair roads? This article is insulting to anyone with half a brain. Shame on you, Technology review!

I suppose the hydrogen economy was never thought of before Bush was is office right? And Honda's, BMW's and Mazda's hydrogen cars must be non-existent. I mean It's all Gm and Bush's fault!!!

Please stop whining.

Using 1.4 billion kWh to produce 400 Million kWh in useful energy means a loss of about 70% of the original energy available.

What's your point? You realize that for every 1 million BTU of primary energy only 310,000 BTU gets to your outlet, right? That's about a 70% loss, too.

It's going to be a lot easier and quicker upping the efficiency of electrolysis and fuel cells than it is the national power grid.

Fuels cells today cost in excess of 1 million dollars and last one fifth as long as a normal internal combustion engine.

Electric cars are very simple and use proven technology that will only get better with development.

We have to ask ourselves if the "hydrogen economy" is even a good thing, before it is rammed down our throats.

You also copied that last part, verbatim, from here:
http://www.communitysolution.org/fcf-11.html

This "invention" is just electrolysis. And the cost of gas at the pump includes transportation, taxes, infrastructure. Would hydrogen for cars be tax free? If so, where would we get the money to build and repair roads? This article is insulting to anyone with half a brain.

Odd, it seems you didn't read the article.

Hydrogen isn’t an energy source – it’s an energy carrier, like a battery.

Ah, out comes the old standby. Oil is an energy carrier as well, just that it has stored fusion energy from the Sun after millions of years of decomposition of organic material.

Oh, and you're plagiarizing once again.

http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/h_scam.htm

I wonder if Treehugger is OK with you posting someone else's material, verbatim, without the author's permission?

10 kg of hydrogen equals the energy of a gallon of gas.

cf.
"a kilogram of hydrogen is roughly equivalent to a gallon of gasoline in energy content"
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/37612.pdf

So you're making false claims and repeatedly plagiarizing. What does that say about the strength (or lack thereof) of your argument?

water + wind power = fossil-fuel-free hydrogen

Please stop making false objections.

"Really? Precisely one road-ready (non-NEV) electric automobile was sold in the US in 2004 and 2005 -- at a price of around $108,000."

Today (this is 2006) several electric cars are sold in the US including the electric Tango, a reasonably priced commuter vehicle. Try searching google. There are also high performance sports cars, but both of these companies intend on making 4 door sedans that will sell for a reasonable price.

Dozens of electric cars are sold around the world for reasonable prices. These are extremely popular in europe and asia, and are rapidly gaining popularity in Britain, where they don't have to pay the congestion tax.

And the Prius is an electric car with an ICE motor and it sells for a normal price, doesn't it? A plug-in hybrid (an easy Prius conversion available today) is an electric car most of the time, and it is completely practical and effective. Most plug-in hybrid users rarely use the gas engine portion of their drive train! These are available today, not in 2 decades like fuel cells.

GM and Toyata both sold electric cars in the US in the past, and both were very well loved by there owners. You can still buy the electric Toyota Rave4 sometimes used on eBay, although they are extremely sought after and hard to find.

Remember, hydrogen isn't a fuel, it is a storage medium. Making hydrogen is complicated, storing it is difficult, there is no existing infrasture and fuel cells thenselves are expensive and in early development.

Electric cars (especially with a part time generator assist for traveling long distances) are very achievable solution that is good today and will only get better.

Fuels cells today cost in excess of 1 million dollars

No, they don't. There are no consumer-avaiable, mass-market fuel cell vehicles.

and last one fifth as long as a normal internal combustion engine.

No, they don't. There are no consumer-avaiable, mass-market fuel cell vehicles.

Electric cars are very simple and use proven technology that will only get better with development.

Yet, in the course of two years (2004-2005) with gasoline around $3/gallon, precisely one road-ready BEV was sold in the US. There's more fuel cell vehicles out being tested with consumers than that.

We have to ask ourselves if the "hydrogen economy" is even a good thing, before it is rammed down our throats.

We have to ask ourselves before anything gets rammed down our throats, including little BEV toys with high price tags. We also have to ask ourselves if we should listen to people zealously commited to one solution, and who plagiarize and provide wildly false information to support their position.

At some point along the chain of making, putting energy in, storing, and delivering the hydrogen, you’ve used more energy than you get back, and this doesn’t count the energy used to make fuel cells, storage tanks, delivery systems, and vehicles.

The laws of physics mean the hydrogen economy will always be an energy sink.

Hydrogen’s properties require you to spend more energy to do the following than you get out of it later: overcome waters’ hydrogen-oxygen bond, to move heavy cars, to prevent leaks and brittle metals, to transport hydrogen to the destination. It doesn’t matter if all of the problems are solved, or how much money is spent. You will use more energy to create, store, and transport hydrogen than you will ever get out of it.

The price of oil and natural gas will go up relentlessly due to geological depletion and political crises in extracting countries.

Since the hydrogen infrastructure will be built using the existing oil-based infrastructure (i.e. internal combustion engine vehicles, power plants and factories, plastics, etc), the price of hydrogen will go up as well -- it will never be cheaper than fossil fuels.

As depletion continues, factories will be driven out of business by high fuel costs and the parts necessary to build the extremely complex storage tanks and fuel cells might become unavailable.

In a society that’s looking more and more like Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil”, hydrogen will be too leaky