Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Mass Fuel Cell Adoption Would Cost $200 Billion and Al Gore Challenges US to Go 100% Fossil Fuel Free in 10 Years

July 17th, 2008 | Posted in: Environment, Grid, Hydrogen

A new study was just published in which researchers estimated it would cost $200 Billion in research and infrastructure to bring fuel cell vehicles to mass market levels.

The study analyzed the cost of bringing 2 million fuel cell cars to the roads by 2020 and 25 million by 2030. It was determined that to achieve such a ramp up, the government would need to spend $55 billion between 2008 and 2023 and private industry would need to spend $145 billion.

It was noted in the article that the high and rising cost of platinum makes of 57% of the cost of fuel cell stacks and was a significant barrier, as well, from the article "future platinum supply is a critical issue in forward projections of fuel-cell costs."

So while a production-intent fuel-cell Chevy Volt program is underway at GM, there remains serious considerations whether fuel cells will become the dominant vehicle type.

The study logically concludes that the best approach to displacing petroleum will be to develop a portfolio of alternative fuel vehicles including battery EVs, hybrids, and bio-fuel cars in addition to fuel cells.

Source (Marketwatch )

On a somewhat related note, Al Gore just gave a speech in which he challenged the U.S. to an initiative to achieve 100% fossil-fuel free electricity in 10 years. He cited not just environment concerns but those of national security as well.

Source (Text of Speech )

Posted by: Lyle

136 Responses to “Mass Fuel Cell Adoption Would Cost $200 Billion and Al Gore Challenges US to Go 100% Fossil Fuel Free in 10 Years”

Len Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

One more reason fool cells are not the prime path, Platinum.

A mix of tech makes good sense, but the fastest way to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels is electric vehicles. At least once we have curtailed our consumption as much as possible.

I don’t see this country completely off fossil fuels though. Especially in that time frame.

(Quote)
Frankie Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

I still want my Volt. PLEASE HURRY GM!

(Quote)
shaun Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:19 pm

well after Gore achieves 100% fossil-fuel free electricity in his mansion. Maybe I’ll worry about fuel cell vehicles

(Quote)
Aspherical Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

No way fuel cells will be the dominant energy source for vehicles at any time. The cost of the many precious metals in the catalysts (which includes platinum) won’t allow it. I also hear of people ripping out catalytic converters for the platinum. Imagine if you have a fuel cell vehicle!

(Quote)
Gsned57 Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Lithium is the 3rd most abundant metal on earth. Fast recharge is technically already there although it wouldn’t happen at peoples homes. Imagine what $200,000,000,000 would do to the battery industry. No hydrogen infrastructure needed. Not only that, but when your batteries no longer perform above the %80 line, that lithium is totally recyclable (not to say platinum wouldn’t be). I see know reason to loose efficiency by converting to hydrogen and then back to electricity.

(Quote)
wow Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Batteries are going to be too good for the inefficient and expensive hydrogen cycle to go mainstream. If only the leaps in battery technology had been 15 years earlier we wouldn’t be wasting so much effort elsewhere. Hindsight is always 20/20 though…

(Quote)
BigCityCat Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Al is trying to get us to use less so there will be more for him to fly around in his private jet. He won’t be happy till we all live in Tipi’s, cooking our food over cow dung and wiping our asses with our bare hands.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Oh great. Leave it to Gore to thoroughly foul things up.

What level of national sacrifice would it take to be fossil-fuel free in ten years? Is it even possible? All we had to do in the ’60s is send a dozen guys to the Moon and back: a mere bagatelle by comparison. This goes beyond inconvenience, Al. No sacrifice is too great for “Captain Planet.”

If there was ever more ample proof that Hydrogen is not the way to go …

Yeah, Mr. Gore; let’s see you lead by example.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:35 pm

#3 shaun

“well after Gore achieves 100% fossil-fuel free electricity in his mansion. Maybe I’ll worry about fuel cell vehicles”

I agree. Another example of a “politician” talking out of both sides of his mouth. Best example of an ass-hole could not be found than Al Gore.

But, after saying that, I agree we need to move off petroleum. Just not the way Big Al is presently doing it.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

I keep telling you that big oil, the automakers to some extent and the government to a large extent wants to keep us on a fuel that requires filling stations on every block, service centers, parts houses and lots of “gallons” to be taxed when you fill-up. They do not want to see the structure that has made them so rich and us so dependent to be replaced with solar collectors at your home, etc.

(Quote)
ROBERT M. SPERRY Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:44 pm

I’m with Frankie. Bring on my VOLT SOON!

(Quote)
Mark Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

200 Billion for mass fuel cell adoption..

I bet mass electric vehicle adoption would cost one *tenth* of that

(Quote)
Sam Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Speaking of the fuel cell, do any of tech-savy people here
know whether the hydrogen fuel cells can operate reasonably at -40 C? or for that matter, do the Li ion cells operate at reasonable levels at -40 C? I live in Canada, where winter is harsh, but I want my VOLT, too. Please let me know someone! Thanx.

(Quote)
d burgdorff Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Just for a nano-second I thought there was an opportunity to compromise with environmentalists. I thought, between nuclear and windpower maybe we could go this way and have all the natural gas and coal we need for our vehicles. Back to reality!

(Quote)
Fred******** Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

GM nows your chance!! bring on the Volt and bring on the Hydrogen cars / look at the Honda Clarity *********Go for it now , make a hydrogen home fuel pump / they will get the point *****The Goverment is even tired of being pushed around by OPEC and Big oil *******

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:03 pm

QuantumSphere has a nickel iron catalyst 1000 times more active than platinum:

http://www.merid.org/NDN/more.php?id=1451

The danger here is that forces are trying to block all but their own pet solutions – some want CNG, some non-food ethanol, some biodiesel, some BEV, some fuel cell – just as Dems and Reps are getting in each other’s way on current policies, people are interferring in future policy.

Gore is only jumping in, because T. Boone Pickens took the spotlight away from the Presidential candidates. It’s sad that neither candidate can articulate what they plan to do, so people from the right and left are jumping in. That only happens in a leadership vacuum.

(Quote)
Aspherical Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:04 pm

I wonder if I can charge my Volt by running on the treadmill….

(Quote)
Gorey Al Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Anyone who put the i in ‘internet’ probably knows what he is talking about. What is impossible to the rest of us is highly possible to Big Al. I wonder how many light bulbs it takes to see inside that Tennessee mansion of his.

(Quote)
Texas Cowboy Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Here are the 3 lies of a Texas Volt Owner:

1 – I won that belt buckle at the rodeo
2 – My Volt is paid off
3 – I was helping that sheep cross the fence

(Quote)
Grant Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

I think the series-hybrid (of any make) would be a good first step, as it really doesn’t matter what the generator actually IS. That’s what the E-Flex was all about, you have your battery driving the wheels. All the generator does is provide power away from a charger, so you COULD have fuel cells, nanosolar, natural gas, hydrogen, diesel, gasoline, a trailer hitch and some coal, a juiced hamster in a wheel, whatever. As time goes on and technology advances, the battery gets better, and the generator can be changed very easily.

Let’s get the functional platform down FIRST before we argue over what to do with it. To do otherwise is to start picking out the horse cart when you don’t own a horse.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Grant,

Amen brother – too many people trying to dictate the future, instead of letting consumers sort it out with GM’s flex fuel and E-REV solutions.

(Quote)
VancouverJon Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Fuel cells run easily at -40ºC. The startup was the only concern previously and all of the car companies have figured it out. They don’t even use a plug like ICE engines do when it’s that cold.

Batteries will never be the only source of energy storage for an automobile. People who are saying quick charging is already here or just around the corner don’t know what they are talking about. I was just in an advanced battery workshop. You will see extremely low platinum fuel cell catalysts LONG before you see any quick charge batteries.

You will be able to make your own hydrogen at home. Heck, that’s what Honda is counting on. They are marketing a Home Energy Station that reforms Natural Gas. You could easily install an electrolyser to do the same thing with electricity from solar panels on your roof.

Lastly, how much hydrogen would you actually need? I will almost never have to put gas in my VOLT and it would be the same thing for hydrogen in a fuel cell volt. So as long as they have a couple conveniently placed hydrogen stations (along major highways) I’d be set for fossil-free driving. Plus a fuel cell is WAY more efficient than an ICE. ICEs are 15-20% if they’re lucky and the Honda Clarity FCX is 60%.

I love when people who have no technical knowledge of batteries or fuel cells make such informed decisions about the future of each…

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

It really bothers me every time someone suggests wasting more precious research money that could go to battery development on fool sells. This does nothing more than distract from EV/battery development which I believe is its purpose.

If Al Gore were a true environmentalist he’d know this. Really makes me wonder who’s pulling his strings.

(Quote)
Alternator Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Most alternators used to charge batteries in cars today have brushes. Will the Volt alternator be high-efficiency (i.e. brushless) or just a monster alternator of current generation. I can’t believe it takes a 4 cylinder engine to crank a high-tech alternator.

(Quote)
Mister Gore Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:24 pm

The only environment VP Gore is interested in is the environment around his wallet.

(Quote)
Bob C Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Please keep in mind that Al Gore is a principle in an investment fund that is comprised of ‘green’ technologies. Mr. Gore’s altruism is forever tarnished by opening a fund that stands to profit from any government subsidies that alternative energy start-up companies can get their hands on.

http://www.generationim.com/

(Quote)
Alternator Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Maybe the Volt has two(2) alternators. One to charge the battery and one to power the electric motor by itself.

(Quote)
OhmExcited Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Non-hydro renewables currently account for 2.4% of US electrical generation. Of the non-emitting sources of electricity (nuclear, hydro, renewables) nuclear makes up 72.3%, hydro 24.9%, wind 1.6%, geothermal 1.3%, solar 0.05%. Hydro is virtually tapped out. So even if you grow wind and solar at a tremendous rate, it will be a very long time before it catches up to existing nuclear plants, let alone puts a dent in emissions globally. Especially as domestic demand for energy will grow by a whopping 40-50% by 2030 while global demand doubles. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore is against nuclear.

If warming is a national security issue of extreme importance, even to the point of putting our entire civilizations at risk, then the government would need to nationalize all electric power, enforce strict rationing, and send troops to oil wells and coal mines to stop production.

This is not going to happen. I feel that Mr. Gore is being the Jeremiah prophet of doom to clear his conscience and position himself as a seer in the annals of history, and simultaneously stands to profit from any moves in the direction he is advocating.

(Quote)
butters Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

How does a goal of 100% fossil-fuel-free ELECTRICITY relate in any way to hydrogen, which is an energy transport medium that competes directly with electricity?

Al Gore, by the way, buys 100% carbon-neutral electricity through Green Power Switch, fought for years with suspiciously-resistant local code officials before he was permitted to install rooftop PV, pays for acres of forests to be planted around the world, and operates a venture capital firm focused entirely on investing millions in sustainable technology initiatives. Not that any of this will convince those who have been sucked into this coordinated smear campaign…

I drive my compact car 4 miles to work everyday when I could potentially bike, because I don’t particularly like the idea of biking through the tunnel that separates my apartment from my office. But then again, I spend my days designing ultra-efficient green buildings that routinely save 40-80% of the energy consumption compared to typical buildings. That’s my contribution to this problem, because I’m an engineer.

If I were a household name and respected statesmen that has given thousands of presentations on the environment and energy, then flying around the world would probably be an unavoidable aspect of contributing in the best way that I could. If Al Gore never left his geodesic dome for fear of emitting carbon, then he wouldn’t be bringing his greatest abilities to the table. We are different people that apply different skills to a common challenge, and although we both could have a smaller individual carbon footprint before offsets, we are both guided by the idea that our positive contributions outweigh our negatives.

(Quote)
Vincent Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Thats a bargain….we are spending 700 Billion on oil imports in one year at $140 a barrel. I didn’t read all the above posts. Sorry if this has been stated already. But it deserves being mention several times anyway. Thats a staggering amount of money to transfer to towel heads in the Middle East.

(Quote)
d burgdorff Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Lyle – With your connections at GM maybe you could ask if GM has any plans to bring a Saab bi-fuel car (natural gas and premium gasoline) to the U.S.

I suppose it would have to be re-engineered to pass our safety and clean air standards.

(Quote)
Jason C Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

#8 Jackson
#9 N Riley

We want leadership…no, we NEED leadership and are desperate for it. The current administration is not giving it to us. period. What Vice Preisdent Gore is saying “here is a goal and it won’t be easy but we CAN do it” I agree that Hydrogen is not the best answer, I think that some form of renewable boifuel based on cellulosic waste combined with wind & solar should be our first move.

What sacrifice would you prefer? How about we send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the middle east to protect the oil for middle east theocracies who turn around and make us pay through the nose for it? On top of that, these countries are NOT friendly to us and lets not forget that burning this stuff is killing the planet.

(Quote)
Vincent Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pm

The US Military spends over 600 Billion a year…that doesn’t include the behind the doors spending.

(Quote)
Ohm's Law Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Here in Dallas the Price of Electricity has skyrocketed since the great G.W. Bush signed a law deregulating electricity. We pay 3 times the price per kW/hr than nearby Oklahoma (which still regulates Electric and NG rates). When Gov. Bush signed the bill he made all these wonderful proclamations about how this was going to lower energy costs for Texans. What a total joke. BTW, San Antonio refused to de-regulate and their Electric rates are less than half the rest of the state. Go figure.

(Quote)
Jason C Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

#29 Butters

My hat is off to you. People like you are the true heros for the next generation.

Please post your information, I have a friend I was just talking to about building a solar/wind home in Washington state and he wanted to know where to go to find someone to design & build it. Sounds like you do more commercial stuff but could you point the right way?

Jason

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

Vincent,

You are correct – if we are spending $700 billion for foreign oil, then even the outrageous estimate of a $200 billion infrastructure change would be small potatoes.

(Quote)
Delta Force Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:48 pm

@Vincent:

The U.S. Military is making sure you don’t have to worry about an IED while you are driving down your favorite highway in the U.S. of A.

(Quote)
Nelson Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Electricity is everywhere, it keeps us alive. It’s a shame we haven’t been able to fully utilize the occurrence we regularly see in nature. If we could only replicate the production of, or harness lighting as a source of electricity, our power supply would be infinite. I wonder if NASA ever decided to continue their tether experiments I read about a while ago.

http://www.mig.rssi.ru/mirrors/stern/Education/wtether.html

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Mr Gore didn’t mention anything about hydrogen today. Here’s the text of his speech:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/07/17/climate.speech.pdf

I don’t agree with many of his claims, but I think he got this part right:

“We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid.”

(Quote)
Texan Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:53 pm

@Paul-R:

Texas is one of the largest energy producers.
Texas IS NOT a part of the NATIONAL GRID.
Texas has its own independent grid.
Gore doesn’t know what he is talking about.

(Quote)
TXU Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

@Paul-R:

Texas is one of the largest producers of energy in the US.
Texas is NOT part of the National Grid.
Texas has its own independent Grid.
Gore does’nt know what he is talking about.

(Quote)
Mike Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:56 pm

I think everyone is mixing up both things here Al gore never mention fuel cells. In his speech he only talks about Solar Cells. Which we can use to charge the batteries on the Volt. Anyway I just noticed people were commenting as if Al gore was promoting fuel cells when in fact he is just promoting greener technologies.

The Gore “mansion” is not only a home but an office complex. Its energy use is typical for a facility of its size. And Gore actually pays considerably more for his electricity because he chooses to buy green energy, produced by renewable sources.

(Quote)
vincent Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 5:58 pm

37 Delta Force.
I very much appreciate our Military. I’m showing a comparison in the hopes you and others can see 200 Billion or 20 Billion per year or 4 air craft carriers per year over 10 years is not the end of the world.
Pumping 700 Billion to radical towel heads most certainly is!
no being out of the middle east makes us spend this on the military.

(Quote)
Gary Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Expensive plantinum in fuel cells? Yet another reason to avoid Hydrogen to power cars. Instead of going to war over oil, we’ll be going to war over platimum.

I think the reason why fuel cells got a foothold in people’s minds as to powering vehicles… that was over 10 years ago when people couldn’t think outside the box and assumed the only way to power a vehicle was with some kind of liquid–not electrons in a solid battery.

Now that viable battery technology is here, that’s the way to go. Lithium is plentiful, inexpensive, and recyclable. When a battery goes bad, you just melt it down and build a new one. As for extended range beyond a battery’s charge, stick with gas until batteries will be able to safely hold a charge for a 500-mile trip. At that point, fossil fuels wouldn’t be required for 99% of vehicles on the road, and there wouldn’t be any concern about “foreign oil” at that point.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Gary,

The ultimate solution today is a Volt using a fuel cell range extender. You plug-in for normal commutes, and rapidly refill will hydrogen for longer trips.

(Quote)
Delta Force Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

I agree we can easily afford to spend $1 trillion to get us off oil (at least the 70% that we import). It would pay for itself quickly. I hope I live to see the day when those raghead governments in the MiddleEast can no longer greenmail us with their oil price-fixing cartels.

(Quote)
Frank D Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

To those who criticize Al Gore, first listen to all of his speech at . You owe it to our countries future and the direction this country is headed. This moment in time can truly change many things, the importance of this, we all know. I realize it doesn’t look good for a person to jet around the world and give speeches, but what should he do, bicycle around the world? I have realized that those leaders must have access to build political consensus and move things in a positive direction, and yes it takes lots of time and money. I also realize this is a flawed system, we (the public) want things to change NOW, but I see, we are headed there! Have an open mind and take the time to listen. I am very optimistic we will start seeing results. This should be bigger than politics.

(Quote)
David L Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

#35 Jason C wrote:

“I have a friend I was just talking to about building a solar/wind home in Washington state and he wanted to know where to go to find someone to design & build it.”

I suggest you friend checks out the following site: http://www.homepower.com/home and looks at the articles and ads …

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:12 pm

J.M.H #45

“The ultimate solution today is a Volt using a fuel cell range extender. You plug-in for normal commutes, and rapidly refill will hydrogen for longer trips.”

*** *** ***

Today??? Where are you going to get hydrogen?

(Quote)
F Deras Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pm

speech link

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92635699

(Quote)
Len Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

For all practical purposes fast charge batteries are here. I can charge an A123 battery consisting of three cells from a 12volt battery with a piece of zip cord for a limiting resister. I believe you will find that most of the new technology batteries with nano structures on the cathode will permit fast charging to 80% of full charge. Both the iMiev and the Subaru electric vehicles have fast chargers available. If you have the current source you can do an 80% charge in 15 minutes. You could do pretty good if you had a circuit for an instant hot water system. I think they need 70 amps or so. It would take longer than 15 minutes though.

(Quote)
Toronto Jim Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

@ vincent

Most of the oil that the US imports is from canada, and we are not “radical towel heads.” Only a fraction of the oil that the US imports is from the middle east. That being said I appreciate you giving the figures in the article some perspective.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Gsned57 # 5 Imagine what $200,000,000,000 would do to the battery industry.

Funny, that is exactly what I thought when I was reading that.
I make it no secret that I think fuel cells for cars is a bad idea. But what could that money do for battery technology? I would much rather see that happen.

(Quote)
ed noble Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:18 pm

So the “We just want to help you” Socialist ALGORE
has a plan…Gee isn`t he part of the problem…Didn`t his leftist party stop all attempts to get out proven oil reserves…Offshore..Anwar with billions of barrels of oil…No new refineries in over 30yrs….No Nuclear plants in over 30 yrs…. His Socialist buddies have boxed it all up…Put up every road block imaginable…
Now he`s blowing the pipe to follow him…And the sheep come…At least 50% of them …NO THANKS

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Nasaman,

If we through 200 billion dollars into battery technology, do you think it would still improve at a glacial pace? It is soooooo slow now and has been since their invention.

(Quote)
Vincent Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Guys, I’m not trying to offend anyone or argue at all in any way.
What ever the percentage is that comes from the Middle East…it’s too much.
My data may be wrong but I read we went from about 25% imported oil in the 1970’s to about 70% today.
Keep that massive money…the most in history to ever leave a nation here in the U.S.

(Quote)
VancouverJon Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Sam #13, correction. -30ºC is the current fuel cell technology, not -40ºC like I said. But I don’t think that involves a plug, which seems silly to me. People who live in those conditions will already have access for their current car.

Len #51, how many cycles will you get out of that quick charge? Everything I’ve heard says that your lifetime is non-existent when you deviate from the recommended charge . What’s the point of a quick charge if your battery won’t last more than a couple weeks.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Maybe it’s time for a new name for the blog. I see a lot of political ranting here, and damned little about the Volt.

(Quote)
mikeinatl. Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

OK Al, lets do the math.

You need $200 Billion and 10 years just to start up your new plan. (Sounds like a big government boondoggle just waiting to happen.)

Volt could well be ready in about 2 years and cut out gasoline use for about 78% of American commutes using existing home electricity technology. It would constitute a DRAMATIC reduction in gasoline use… 8 years sooner! (A year or two after that more many more Volt competitors will be on the scene with ever improving products.)

And if Volt’s onboard generator were designed to use diesel and biodiesel they would even burn an additional 30% cleaner. Another existing technology with a delivery infrastructure already in place. There’s a gas station just around the corner anywhere you go.

The power to charge the car batteries could come from coal, nukes, hydro, wind or solar shingles on your roof. All existing technologies and delivery systems. All coming from American sources. And all getting cleaner and better every year.

Your plan requires 10 more years of rising oil prices and trillions of dollars flowing to countries that hate us.
And 10 more years of crumbling American economy due to skyrocketing fuel costs. 10 more years of pollution. And 10 more years of individuals in pain, choosing between gas to go to work and the other things they need. Do we really have that kind of time here? This is a real crisis that is threatening America’s very existence.

We could be energy independent and dramatically cleaner in less than half the time it takes to even START UP your plan to start seeing results.

And the cost? Just buy a Volt and plug it in.

(Quote)
Vincent Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

Oil imported from whom and how much…

(Quote)
Duece Nukem Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Modern Nuclear reactors are powerful and safe. They do not use fuel rods, they use round pellets. No chance of a china syndrome. Can be built using many small reactors instead of a few large ones. That way rotating maintainance can be performed without going offline. And its clean and reliable. It’s time for some more nukes ASAP.

(Quote)
Len Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:32 pm

I keep hearing huge numbers about the cash flow to the Saudis. More than what we spend a day in Iran.

The first huge leap forward in commercial battery tech was the A123 batteries, but I am finding that there are patents on the chemical composition that date back to the late 1990s (U of Texas i think). All the new stuff that is heading for cars are using variations on that composition (and I got a feeling they will be found in violation of the patents, which seem to me are rather broad). The next big advance will be carbon nano structures like the researcher from Stanford developed. Interestingly enough the Saudis have offered him a 30 million dollar grant. He just has to teach there three months of the year.

(Quote)
Hummer Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Instead of selling the Hummer brand why doesn’t GM convert them to Volt E-REV design and sell them to the Army. I think the Army is looking for a quick strike vehicle that can run in silent mode right before attacking. It would be better than a Segway Brigade.

(Quote)
Paul-R Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Texan/TXU, I’m trying to understand your point.

Are against a UNG? Do we even have one? I don’t know, and you seem to have some strong opinions about it.

Is Texas electricity better or cheaper? You just don’t want to share it?

I don’t really have any opinions yet on the UNG topic, I was mainly sharing Gore’s quote because it relates to electric cars.

(Quote)
BigCityCat Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:42 pm

AL Gore has already proven himself to be a liar. Man made global warming is a myth. The earth has gotten cooler over the last ten years. There are thousands of scientists who completely disagree with the lie. That does not change the fact that it is good for America to be energy independent, but the idea that we are going to solve this problem in 10 years is a joke. Do everything he suggested that makes sense. He is still a liar.

(Quote)
Hous Volt Pharteen Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Al, just jump in the presidential race as an indepedent and let all roll from there.

(Quote)
BigCityCat Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Here are 30 thousand scientists that disagree with Al.

http://oism.org/pproject/

(Quote)
butters Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:45 pm

#35 Jason C

My firm does commercial and institutional buildings, and it would be inappropriate to advertise here. For green homes, I would start here:

http://www.freegreen.com/FreeGreen-Product-Line-Selection.aspx

They provide a small selection of free green home construction documents ready to be issued to a qualified general contractor for bid. At the very least, it’s enough to eliminate the schematic phases of a relatively similar design.

(Quote)
canehdian Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

“Speaking of the fuel cell, do any of tech-savy people here
know whether the hydrogen fuel cells can operate reasonably at -40 C? or for that matter, do the Li ion cells operate at reasonable levels at -40 C? I live in Canada, where winter is harsh, but I want my VOLT, too. Please let me know someone! Thanx.”

The science of a fuel cell is simple – hydrogen and oxygen are brought close together, but separated by a very thin membrane (there’s catalysts and such as well, I’m just simplifying it here) – the electrons are stripped from the hydrogen, travel through the circuit and meet up with the oxygen on the other side, and the hydrogen ions meet up with the electronegative oxygen, forming water. Normally when forming water, the hydrogens’ electrons are pulled in by oxygen and they bond together.
In theory, this can occur at anything above absolute zero (-273.15c) but there are other factors, such as the hydrogen and oxygen must be in gas form (both of which are at -40c)
Once out of system, though, there will be no heat and the water will instantly freeze. (the immediate reaction will generate some heat within the fuel cell)
Lots has been left out through simplification – but in theory, -40c is no problem.

“Modern Nuclear reactors are powerful and safe. They do not use fuel rods, they use round pellets. No chance of a china syndrome. Can be built using many small reactors instead of a few large ones. That way rotating maintainance can be performed without going offline. And its clean and reliable. It’s time for some more nukes ASAP.”

Define “modern”.
Many nuke plants were built 20 or 30 years ago.
The CANDU reactors in Ontario still use rods.
They are certainly safe, though. They were from day 1. I’m not sure on the design of other reactors, but I have studied the structure of a CANDU and aside from a massive explosion (not by the fission reaction) there is nothing that will harm people or the environment.

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Noel Park #58

“Maybe it’s time for a new name for the blog. I see a lot of political ranting here, and damned little about the Volt.”

*** *** ***

I agree, even though I blasted Gore myself for the proposed waste.

Somehow I’m hoping one of McCain’s staff will be able to get a cell cam pic of the production Volt and we’ll have a true Volt thread!

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 7:26 pm

i heard from a friend whos sister works asa battery researcher
he told me my sister gets kick backs for going as slow as possible..its common practice i guess for that field
i cnat guess on any other field because i dont have an insider in them to speak to

(Quote)
d burgdorff Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

I personally don’t mind discussing other topics on this site. The level of knowledge from our contributors is much greater than other sights. The one thing that we all seem to agree on is that we cannot wait to get our hands on a new Volt!

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 7:44 pm

AL Gore is , once again, confused. We have no substantial foreign dependencies in fuel used for electrical power, although we do import a lot of Canadian natural gas, which I doubt anyone is worried about. I just saw some stats that show almost no oil currently being used, and even at its peak , the percentage was always below 10% and that small amount of petroleum we can produce ourselves. If I had to bet, I’d place bets on Pebble Bed Reactors as the dominant global response to lower carbon. Wind, most wave, and photovoltaic is simply unreliable and too expensive, with the added side effect expense of requiring that all of it be duplicated with controllable power generation capacity due to peak demand requirements, which they cannot satisfy, sans some cheap battery coming along. But you don”t make plans based on vague hopes and wishes. Solar thermal is far and away the most promising alternative energy technology as of now and investment capital will continue to flow into that technology, at the expense of wind, wave and photovoltaic, as has been the case for the past year or so. Wind is passe and wave is foundering on technical problems.
I laugh when I hear people claim we need “diversity” – both the crappy and useless aternative tehnologies in addition to the good ones, as if this diversity somehow meant something. I really don’t think we have to worry about uranium suddenly forgetting how to heat things up, or the sun forgetting how to shine.

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 7:48 pm

#22 Vancouver says “You will see extremely low platinum fuel cell catalysts LONG before you see any quick charge batteries.”

The Mitsubishi iMiEV, operating now in Japan in prototype mode, has quick charge Li-ion batteries. Maybe they will turn out to be practical for widespread use, or maybe not, but they seem to exist.

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Grizzly and others — The last few topics have been political or involved political figures. When there’s hard news about the Volt, we’ll shift back to a less political discussion.

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

After reading a few posts, I get the feeling of “Doom and Gloom”. The great generation of the 1940’s sacrificed for a worthy cause…and overcame. Of course, the challenges of eliminating energy dependence (in words, foreign trade of energy is optional…not a requirement) and environmental issues has not reached the point of being considered a “clear and present danger”. Whether you believe in global warming or not, destruction of the environment is all too real. Smog in the cities, man-made mountains of trash (landfills), industrially polluted waters that make fish inedible, etc. If it does not affect you on daily basis yet, it will eventually or your descendents.

And the proponents of nuclear power, please send your request to the proper authorities ASAP to store the nuclear waste in your backyard…because I do not want it in mine! If you do not get your request, I’m sure that you can acquire some land near Yucca Mountain especially when it starts taking deposits.

(Quote)
mien green Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

13 Sam

Nope. -40 °F is the lowest temperature that fuel cells can be reasonably expected to perform.

Actually, they all have to be heated in order to operate efficiently. A fairly recent advance is a fuel cell that can perform effectively at a relatively reduced temperature. But low ambient temperatures only dictate that the heat load to the fuel cell generator will be greater.

(Quote)
kubel Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 8:10 pm

LOL fuel cell.

Inefficient.
Expensive.
Unpractical.

Why are we focusing on a technology that is 20-years off when we should be focusing on a technology that is available now (BEVs and PHEVs). If we can drop the price electrical energy storage and eventually develop a fast-charging storage device, there would be absolutely no demand for fuel cells. We are much closer to perfecting batteries than we are hydrogen fool sells.

(Quote)
volton Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 8:18 pm

The Goracle has spoken.

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 8:19 pm

funny everyone i know is dam sick and tired of the goverment
they are doing alot of things different then they used to
including home brewed or local mechanic shop creations to solve there problems
instead of waiting like sheeps and hoping the shepard leads us to water .. we arel ookin for it ourselves
some of us are finding it
pretty soon we wont give two chits about the goverment we are doin g for ourselves now
… the goverment forgets that WE dont need them THEy need us

(Quote)
George K Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

I would like to see GM go the opposite way of Honda. Honda has deemed the PHEV as a fad. They have no PHEV program, and are going directly to the fuel cell vehicle “phase”. Thus they are pouring money into the FCX Clarity fuel cell project in S. Calif., where they are leasing the vehicles for $600 / month, 3 year lease.

Additionally, Honda mis-read the hybrid “phase” completely. They introduced the Civic hybrid in 2003, but it was almost an apologetic hybrid. You could barely tell from the outside or inside that it was a sophisticated hybrid, almost equivalent to the Prius (but couldn’t go on battery power alone). Thus most who compared the 2 chose the Prius.

Another misjudgment led to the development of the Accord hybrid, when they incorrectly thought the market wanted more horse power than mpg in a hybrid (24 / 32 mpg vs Camry 33 / 34 mpg). Again, it’s not hard to guess which kept winning. Honda is discontinuing the Accord hybrid this year.

So, if Honda is an example of what not to put your money into, I hope GM cuts (big time) the fuel cell program, and moves those resources into PHEV E-Flex / biofuel!

In other words, go Volt and E-Flex!

(Quote)
Ed M Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

That’s Al Gore for you, he makes challenges but offers no solutions to fix the problem.
100% fossil-fuel free electricity in 10 years sounds like a great idea if we weren’t afraid of Nuclear plants and damming rivers.

(Quote)
Van Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 9:00 pm

We keep wasting time on the fool cell, when we need to invest about 2 billion in lithium battery production facilities. We can make the cars, the motors, and cables and the controllers, but right now we cannot make 10,000 lithium car batteries per month. That is the hitch in our get-a-long. We need the government and the electric utilities to invest in the battery production facilities. And we need focus on this problem, rather than careening from one distraction (Al Gore) to another (fool cells). We can be well on our way to foreign oil independence by shifting to domestic energy use via the plug in 10 years only if we build the battery production facilities.

(Quote)
Glen Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Maybe the NRC needs to do some Googleing.

http://www.qsinano.com/apps_fuelcell.php

An alternative catalyst solution that demonstrates great promise is using lower cost metals at the nanoscale to replace platinum. Palladium is a first example, as it resembles platinum chemically, is extracted from copper-nickel ore, and is already used as catalyst material in the catalytic converters of automobiles. It is 75% less expensive than platinum, and when used at the nano scale in direct methanol fuel cells, palladium has demonstrated an increased power density of 45%. This power enhancement is due to the improved selectivity of the palladium catalyst and the additional surface area in nano scale materials–more particles are on the surface that can chemically interact, translating to a dramatic efficiency improvement of the catalytic reaction. Thus, using nano scale palladium is both less expensive and leads to better performance. Additionally, work is underway with Cobalt and Nickel, each of which can potentially achieve these results at even lower costs.

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

76 Jeff:

I highly suggest you read up on Breeder reactors.

There is absolutely no problem with waste if you use the correct reactor.

Here is the dirty little secret…the technology in our current nuclear reactors is OLD. It is ANCIENT and based on the first generation reactor design for the Navy.

(Quote)
MDDave Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 9:49 pm

mikeinatl, I think you are forgetting that there will be only be a few thousand Volts available in 2010. The Volt may be able to eliminate the need for gasoline in 78% of American commutes, but not if there are only a few thousand of them. It will be decades before EVs replace the hundreds of millions of gasoline-powered vehicles.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

Last 3 threads:

Plitical-Gore/Fuel cells
E85
Political-McCain

/I am so well rested, I’m going to come at the next thread like a Spider Monkey

(Quote)
Morgan Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 9:57 pm

87 Statik:

That put the most disturbing image in my head and due to you I shall have nightmares tonight.

Thank you.

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

#85

“There is absolutely no problem with waste if you use the correct reactor.”

Any nuclear waste generated? If so and you lived on a farm, would you volunteer to store the waste? Please provide links. I searched for an operating commericial breeder reactor…and only found one in Russia, a few closed plants, and talk that is a future tech. No info on the waste stream of the one in Russia scheduled for shutdown in 2010.

Please do not get me wrong, I’m all for nuclear reactors with NO NET NUCLEAR WASTE and do not require government studies of predicting 1 million years into the future. Or a cartoon like “Yucca Mountain Johnny” to influence the children of today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/youth/index.shtml

(Quote)
Grizzly Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Staik #87

“/I am so well rested, I’m going to come at the next thread like a Spider Monkey”

*** *** ***

Rested or not, I could wake you from the dead with a simple thread titled “Chaper 11″.

(Quote)
Sam Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Vancouver Jon, canehdian, and mien green, thanx for your responses! One good thing as a Canadian is that even though we freeze our butts off for longer than our US cousins is that there are plugs available everywhere (even at apartments) that could be used to charge the Volt! GM, please make Volt reasonably priced in Canada!

(Quote)
canehdian Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Found an interesting design by some MIT people, Solar Windows.
They collect the sun, concentrate it to the edges of the window, where cells can operate at 10x+ efficiency – definitely viable for a car with lots of glass.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/solarcells-0710.html

Perhaps someone can find more info on this.

Judging by the pictures provided, it may not be suitable for cars – low visibility?
It’s hard to tell, but this may be the “tinted windows” of the future for the Volt.
They say they can be ready in 3 years…

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 10:32 pm

Until batteries are designed for rapid refill, fuel cells will have a place in the mix.

(Quote)
Adam Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Just imagine, $200 billion in battery research….. It wouldn’t even take 1/10th of that to make a 400 mile battery, or ultra-capacitor.. They are already complaining about not enough lithium, now they want platinum? Give me a break!!

(Quote)
JES Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 11:17 pm

Fuel cells are great technology….but not in all fuel cells are ceated equal!!!!! And, fuel cells in cars were a joke 10 years ago and will still be a joke 10 years from now.

MCFCs and SOFCs both are near 50% at turing hydrcarbons to electricity. Compare that to 38% from gas power plants. When the heat recovered is sent to a combined cycles like a heat engine (which most already do), electric effecincies can reach 73%. If that heat is used for space heating instead, the combined effeciencies can reach 85%. If strategically placed in building towers, communities and indutrial sites, this technology can greatly reduce the strain on the long distance transmission grid and I2 losses. These are more than perfect for wastewater treatment plants or landfill gasses where the natural gas (methane) emmisions are collected for power, but just as great for any state that does not have great renewable sources (SE America) such as wind, concentrated solar, hydro, tidal, wave, geothemal, and must rely on nuclear, methane and coal.

DMFCs are great for powering small electronics where an outlet just is not available.

PAFCs and AFCs will eventually die out and be the dinosaurs of the fuel cell.

PEMs, on the other hand, will never be mainstream as long as the catalysts cost an arm and a leg along with hydrogen taking many times more electricity (at low effeciencies by fossil fuels) to create than it provides. Combine that with H2 being he smallest molecule known to man (causing very leaky storage and transportation issues), one can easily see NOW (don’t need to say 20/20 hindsight 25 years from now) that PEMs in cars is about the stupidest waste of our reasearch dollars.

(Quote)
jeremy Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 1:27 am

ie seen that t boone pickens commercial today atleast he makes some points in his comercial.. however the same points could relate to the volt..
and being soo wel lrested. .for mccains trip to the volt tomarrow?
yes another political thread tomarrow~u can count on it

(Quote)
omegaman66 Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 4:35 am

#29 butters

It always amazes me when wacky enviromentalist give theirself a hug for polluting less, as if they have crossed the magical line that makes them good and others bad. Please, I am not impressed with someone that has many millions contributes a portion of their income to ‘green tech’ while still living so high on the hog that we can’t even imagine it. Yeah big sacrifice.

So far once let ME be the one to draw the line on what is and isn’t acceptable. Driving 4 miles to work is unacceptable when you can bike that distance. You are now over line and are no longer allowed to pat yourself on the back as you are officially in the filty, rotten polluting pig category again.

(Quote)
Fred X Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 5:11 am

Here is An Inconvenient Truth:

HOUSE # 1: A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home.

HOUSE # 2: This house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains 4 bedrooms and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels (no oil or natural gas), and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house.

HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is Al Gore’’s.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas & it is the home of President George W. Bush.

(Quote)
Fred X Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 5:14 am

If you want to be able to use your volt you better be in favor of nuclear. But then I do not need to tell you. Sooner or later with the dollar collapse you will come around to my way of thinking. Only a matter of time and pain.

(Quote)
perp Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 5:26 am

Hydrogen vs. Battery – a calculation

I keep on hearing of the hydrogen-fuel cell route to propel vehicles. Then there is the view that the way to go is by battery and electric motor. Here is a calculation that I hope will end all debate.

Starting point in both cases is the electricity grid.

Hydrogen- Fuel cell route:
Electricity from the grid is converted to DC to electrolyse water. The produced hydrogen is then compressed and transported to the fuel cell. Electric current from the fuel cell then drives the electric motor. Each of the above steps have efficiencies that are given in brackets in the following. Conversion AC-DC (95%) – Electrolysis (75%) – Compression (90%) -Transport (80%) – Fuel cell (50%) – Electric motor (90%). The total efficiency of the hydrogen route is given by the product of the efficiencies of each and every step. This results in a total efficiency of 23% for the hydrogen route.

Battery route:
Electricity is converted to charge the battery. The battery then drives the electric motor.
The steps are: AC grid (90%) – AC-DC-Battery (85%) – Electric motor (90%).
The total efficiency of the battery route is 69%.

The calculation shows that the Battery route is 3 times as efficient as the Hydrogen route. The enormous waste in the Hydrogen route is compounded by the fact that electrolysis of water requires a huge amount of energy, since the hydrogen-oxygen bond is extremely strong.

It should be evident from the above that the Battery route is the only viable way.

(Quote)
Cire Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 6:15 am

200 billion for fuel cells means another 50 million in Gores pockets.

(Quote)
wow Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 6:19 am

I agree we should go more and more to renewables, but Al Gore is a scare-mongerer with global warming, and his targets are unrealistic and unnecessary and economically more disastrous than his imagined scenarios.

(Quote)
&eye Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 6:23 am

Converting the US electricity grid to 100% renewable (or at least non-fossil fuel sources) is absolutely positively not going to happen in the next 10, 20, 50+ years. Starting to DECENTRALIZE our electricity production should be priority number one. Small wind, solar, and hydro farms can provide power to houses, neighborhoods, and towns. centralized ownership and management of the energy system is what we need to change before we can change where the energy is coming from. Our energy production system should not be a profit making industry. Without decentralizing no other changes will ever truly revolutionize the energy industry. We’ll still have gov’t/corporations in control of and profiting off of our usage of energy. Companies profiting off of technologies like thin-film solar and the like is great. But gov’t/corporations profiting off of our simply USING energy is a backwards and horribly messed up situation. We should be making power on smaller and more localized scales. Hopefully companies like Nanosolar can lead the way towards truly revolutionizing the energy, by selling solutions that allow other companies and eventually individuals to make their own clean power.

(Quote)
Murray Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 7:05 am

I’m getting SO tired of the hydrogen DIVERSION….watching National Geographic Channel last night and I get peeved with every new commercial being put out by a car company talking about this pipe dream !!
Honda and their FCX celebrity hoax car ….. oooo its only emmission is water….SHUT UP!
Then my beloved BMW … showing a silouette of their beautiful driving machine getting filled up with water and touting how great it would be to have a car whos only emmission was water…… BMW…. I love ya as a current owner but …..SHUT UP!

Not one commercial or mention about electrifcation of the vehicle … I still remain confident that it will come!

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 7:21 am

This money is better spent on ELECTRIC infrastructure for the grid for generation from solar, wind, nuclear, and hydro. Oh yeah, AND battery development.

Hydrogen is a stupid idea for all the reasons above.

(Quote)
Baseman Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 7:24 am

Check out the following plan to get America off foreign oil by oil billionare T. Boone Pickens.

Harness the wind and solar to generate electricity for the VOLT!

http://www.pickensplan.com

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 7:28 am

100 Perp. I agree 100% with your figures.

Also for 200 billion you could construct 40,000 Km of HVDC, or, from South to North up through the wind belt and from East to West through the sun belt. Another tie line from East to West south of the Canadian border would give coverage to most HVAC lines.

Finally, the 200B is for 2 million cars only. The HVDC lines I propose would cover all 180 million cars in the USA, and a lot more besides.

Wind, solar, & nuclear all have their place powering Volts.

(Quote)
Kevin R Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 7:30 am

It’s batteries stupid!

(Quote)
MDDave Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 8:02 am

Fred X @ 98, To say that George Bush’s house “incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide” is a stretch, but I believe your basic facts are correct. One thing to consider, though, is that his ranch is in a relatively remote area, so access to city water and natural gas is probably not an option. This means that some of the efficiencies built into the house may be as much out of necessity as they are a choice to be “green.” And of course, whatever Karma credits GB has acquired with his house have been rendered moot by some of his other actions. But still, I guess you have to give credit where credit is due.

Remember John Edwards’s 28,200 square foot mansion? I wonder how much energy that house uses. I don’t begrudge anyone for making lots of money and wasting it on bloated energy bills for trophy houses, but it’s hard to take these same people seriously when they lecture the rest of us on global warming and energy conservation. I probably shouldn’t be so cynical about Al Gore because I agree with him on many points, but I get the feeling his real motivations are money and attention. While he was always somewhat involved in energy conservation and the environment, he didn’t push for change nearly as hard as he does now when he had the political power to do something meaningful. Basically, I think he was astute enough to realize that of his many interests the environment and energy conservation areas were ripe for exploitation, so that’s where he went.

(Quote)
Van Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 8:07 am

Amen, its the batteries.

Just a little on nuclear power. Modern plants are “breeder” reactors in that they operate with a neutron flux where some of the U238 absorbs neutrons and decays to Plutonium and some of that is subsequently fissioned. The so called spent fuel still contains recoverable U238 and Plutonium along with other useful isotopes. Therefore the spent fuel does not need to be stored in a place where one million year predictions are necessary, but only in a monitored retrievable storage facility, so that the “spent” fuel could be retrieved and reprocessed during the design life of the facility, say 200 years.

Bottom line, there are no technical reasons for not including nuclear in our plan to shift from fossil fuel, but plenty of political reasons driven by fear mongering.

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 8:09 am

Hmmm … I wonder if this Genesys technology is for real.

http://www.genesys-hydrogen.com/content/view/18/34/

I’m also wondering if this new QuantumSphere technology is going to lead to some big things someday for batteries and fuel cells.

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=MB1TEN4Y1UKPMQSNDLOSKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=208808678

Hydrogen looks more viable the CHEAPER the technology gets. Gotta get the fuel cells for the cars cheaper, the hydrogen itself cheaper and the infrastructure needs to be less costly. It’s all about COST just like everything else in the energy industry.

Gotta admit, we need the energy density and LIGHTWEIGHT characteristics of hydrogen fuel cells if the battery scientists cannot come up with a 10 minute quick charging 300+ mile battery. Such a battery is DEFINITELY the preferred solution. Until then, we’re stuck with having to have “range extenders”.

What the latest and greatest range extender of the next 10 years will be, I don’t know. It just needs to be inexpensive, reliable, durable, lightweight and doesn’t screw up the environment too much. The fuel for it needs to be very abundant, minimally polluting and inexpensive. The infrastructure for it needs to be convenient, safe and inexpensive. It would be awesome to inexpensively “fuel up” our cars at home OR at a filling station someday. The people who are trying to get us switched over to a “hydrogen economy” have their work cut out for them. They better get SUPER busy. They better make some big breakthroughs soon.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 8:25 am

Further to my 107.
Although, only for wind & HVAC, not including solar, nuclear, or distribution the $60B figure seems reasonable to me.

Only $5B more than the proposed government subsidy for the fuel cells.

The scenario presented consists of approximately 19,000 miles of new 765 kV transmission lines. This mileage includes existing 765 kV project proposals, such as ETT’s CREZ project in the ERCOT region and others in MISO and PJM. The rough cost of this plan is estimated to be $60 billion in 2007 dollars. This figure assumes a $2.6 million per mile 765 kV line cost, as well as an additional 20% for station integration, DC connections, and other related costs. These costs are ballpark estimates created without the benefit of detailed engineering and should be considered as such.
Source:http://www.aep.com/about/i765project/docs/WindTransmissionVisionWhitePaper.pdf

(Quote)
RB Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 8:40 am

#93 Jason says “Until batteries are designed for rapid refill, fuel cells will have a place in the mix” The prototype Mitsu iMiEV is said to be designed for rapid refill. Other authorities (i.e. people on this blog have said that the timing of Li-ion refill is limited by the charging circuit, not the batteries.)

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 9:26 am

Nuclear’s dirty little secret: we’re running out of (conventional) nuclear fuel.

But, there’s good news: we have tons (literally) of Thorium, which can be used far more safely in reactors that can ‘burn up’ the waste from today’s reactors as they generate electricity. There’s literally centuries worth of clean energy on this continent. Only Australia has more Thorium (and this is only based on known reserves; no one is really out there trying to find it). We would be well served to put some billions of dollars into a program to develop Thorium reactor technology.

To believe in antropogenic climate change, and be against nuclear energy is the height of hypocrisy.

Nothing will help alternate grid decentralization and alternate energy in general than a program to develop superconducting powerlines in the US. There’s another good place for the government to get involved.

Mister Great Engineer Gore is pulling that $200B figure out of an oriface other than his mouth. To do anything of the sort in 10 years would cost much more than our gross GDP, and still not make the deadline date.

CO2 is not a pollutant. You’re exhaling it, now. The enviornment would collapse if you could summon a genie to make all of it disappear with an ill-advised wish. If we go to “green energy” in the US, it could have great benefits for our future, but it will do next to nothing for the Planet. The climate is changing. It always has, it always will; it’s what the climate does. Global warming advocates are actually proposing human-directed climate change, in the name of mitigating it.

Was Gore really not talking about fuel cells? Lyle, why plaster a big pic of one at the top of this article, then? Do you enjoy reading political strife in your blog?

But as to hydrogen fuel cells in cars:

It may be possible to drastically lower the costs of fuel cells (in ten years? who knows?). But by comparison, that’s an easy task compared with the problem of how to efficiently store hydrogen in a car.

How do you make the hydrogen? From Natural Gas (and you can use that in a car more easily than hydtrogen), or electricity (which still has to be generated by some means; and can be used more easily in a car with batteries).

I don’t see it coming in 10, 20 or 30 years because of these other limiting factors, but I wouldn’t say the hydrogen in cars won’t ever make sense. Suppose the Polywell reactor turns out to be do-able (frankly, that’s something of a wild card at the moment). Energy would be so cheap in 50 – 100 years that the portability of hydrogen could outweigh the efficiency of batteries. That’s something you’ll have to ask George Jetson, if you live long enough to meet him.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 9:36 am

#72 d burgdorff

“The level of knowledge from our contributors is much greater than other sights.”

Yes, we do have some informed contributors. You people (well, some of you people anyway) taught me a lot about the fuel cells. But, we have our share low-intellect contributors as well.

What if, instead of Al Gore, it was [insert respected conservative name here] who challenged us to “…commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years?” Who thinks that is a bad idea? I’ve heard people wish for the US government to stop fighting so much and, instead work together to give us solutions. Well, the US government is “…of the People, by the People, for the People.” We are the people, so we are the government. If producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources is a good idea, Let’s stop fighting it. Why fight about/disparage the messenger? That seems petty.

Lyle provided a link to Al Gore’s speech. It would be more productive to debate what he actually said, rather than blurt knee-jerk, partisan, political bile. Eyes on the prize people. Focus. Hold it together so that we can undertake a necessary campaign to improve our situation. In-fighting and dysfunction will kill us.

(Quote)
Joe OBrien Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 10:07 am

Given what we’ve WASTED on this useless war in Iraq, and what we spend on imported energy every year, the 200 Billion is a bargain. Like it matters debt wise. 200 Billion to buy energy security, and freedom from crippling our way of life when the oil supply starts to run low. It is really a bargain for the human race.

And over time fuel cells will be able to be made even more effecient, maybe not even needing platinum. Think on an energy security level, and the survival of our race type of issue, and it is a bargain.

(Quote)
Van Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 11:26 am

Yes, the naturally occurring fuel for nuclear fission reactors is non-renewable and so the supply is limited. But there is plenty of it to facilitate our shift from fossil fuel dependence to renewables, by providing plenty of electrical energy over the next 50 to 100 years.

What stands in the way is fear mongering.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pm

ThombDhomb:

“What if, instead of Al Gore, it was [insert respected conservative name here] who challenged us to “…commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years?”

You would have seen exactly the same sort of “blurt knee-jerk, partisan, political bile” and “In-fighting and dysfunction.” It would just be different people doing it.

Don’t believe me?

Consider Nancy Pelosi’s response to George Bush’s last energy proposal (which contained far more about the shortcomings of George than of his proposal).

I have no objections to getting off petroleum. The 10 year timescale in the proposal is totally unrealistic, and fair game for all the criticism which can be brought to bear upon it, regardless of what brand of politician is making it.

I’m also considering the source. I have no desire to read the detailed rantings of a known liar and fearmonger.

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm

#17

Want cheaper home generation..look into micro CHP
..google Freewatt.

high efficiecny furnace,heat and electricity at you home…I want one and a Volt

(Quote)
Randy C. Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

$200 billion is a light estimate. I see hydrogen costing 5 times that much to even approach the current convenience of gasoline. And where is this money going to ultimately come from? The only place it can every single consumer that wants to utilize hydrogen as a fuel. And the unfortunate thing is that in the beginning we will all have to pay for it.

(Quote)
jes Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

I just wanted to add one more thing that I failed to mention and do not recall reading in this thread….

To get 100% off fossil fuels (and I am concidering natural gas – methane – a fossil fuel, though a large volume can be collected from present time), we HAVE to have many storage centers on the mega….poss. giga….watt scale because natural gas is out only true variable fuel source.

Coal – base load

Nuclear – base load

Fuel cell (MCFC) – base load – stresses too much with many start/stops….still powerd by some sort of hydrocarbon such as methane, albeit twice as effecient

Fuel cell (SOFC) – not stressed, but still takes time to warm up…thus base load…still powerd by H2 or some sort of hydrocarbon such as methane, albeit twice as effecient

Solar – predicatable enough to fire up other plants, but only a viable source from 10:00AM to 3:00 PM (maybe longer during summer and days without fog cover in the morning).

Wind – great source of total power, but variable and too upredicatable to replace fossil fuels

tidal – too little to be major contributer

wave – too little to be a major contributer

hydroelectric – great baseload if you are near a good source…storage is potential energy when pumped at night

Biofuels – best for transportation

Biogas – other than landfield gasses and wastewater treatment plants, most all biogas is in european countries like Germany

Natural gas – the only source than can be adjusted on the fly to meet demand.

I am a supporter of all renewable energy and would like 100% renewable sources, but we have to have relativley low cost storage in the megawatt scale either near the renewable sources or near the biggest load sources (urban areas) to act as buffers from power generation to power use. REs will never be mainstream until then.

(Quote)
Ryan P Says:
July 19th, 2008 at 1:16 am

#26 Bob C:
“Please keep in mind that Al Gore is a principle in an investment fund that is comprised of ‘green’ technologies. Mr. Gore’s altruism is forever tarnished…”

OK, smartass, you just go look at what companies your 401k or 457b retirement fund is invested in. When you see that 10-15% of your mutual funds are ‘greenies’ you have a choice:
a) sell some stock.
b) don’t sell, and admit you’re tarnished.
c) quit blogging on this site where the rest of us have to WADE THRU YOUR CRAP to get to the good information.

buh bye!

(Quote)
Ryan P Says:
July 19th, 2008 at 1:31 am

Lyle, Lyle, Lyle.

Lyle.

Puhleeze do us all a favor, and pledge to just stop mentioning ANY politicians, of any party, here on this site. You see what hate mail it generates?

If anybody here wants to read about some politicians stance on an issue, there are plenty of other sites to go to.

(Quote)
Ryan P Says:
July 19th, 2008 at 1:50 am

#58 Noel Park:
“Maybe it’s time for a new name for the blog. I see a lot of political ranting here, and damned little about the Volt.”

DAMN STRAIGHT!

(Quote)
Chris Says:
July 19th, 2008 at 7:10 am

Wow, this would have been cheaper than the wasted stimulus package of throwing money at us to spend at McDonalds and the movies this summer.

(Quote)
doggydogworld Says:
July 19th, 2008 at 7:01 pm

#28 OhmExcited. Your data is old. Nuclear is now below 70% of US non-CO2 electricity. The DOE says wind will be 4% this year (44 TWh wind out of roughly 1150 TWh nuke+hydro+other renewable). US wind has grown 30%/year the last decade, at this rate wind will exceed nuclear in 2019.

In other matters, the $200b hydrogen fuel cell study is a joke. The $200b is just to get 4 million FCVs on the road by 2023. That’s $50k of subsidy per vehicle. At this point “some magic happens” and the FCVs become cost-competitive with normal cars on a life-cycle basis and no futher subsidies are needed. It’s amazing the study’s authors can forecast prices so accurately in 2023 but excluded PHEVs from their study because it’s too hard to predict when suitable batteries will be available. LOL.

(Quote)
the petrol prophet Says:
July 20th, 2008 at 1:28 am

Some of you are very naive about our government’s motives and dependence on mideast oil. It’s all about economics and strategic “control” of the oil. This is done indirectly by buying oil from the oil rich mideast nations. The oil-based financial relationship with these nations creates political and economic influence in the region, which translates to power. The underlying objective is to exert as much power in the region as possible, as a tool for maintaining strategic control. Obviously, if the u.s. abandoned the oil-based relationship with the OPEC nations, other oil consuming nations would move in and attempt to control those financial relationships. Any nation or group of nations that has significant control of the global oil supply could literally hold the rest of the world hostage by limiting or denying exports to the big oil consuming nations. This is the connection to national security.

(Quote)
fred Says:
July 20th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

200 billion for the good of mankind or 3 trillion to kill mankind. only a retard can make that choice. Is Canada really the largest importer of oil to america?

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
July 20th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

#118 Jackson
Forget about the politicians and the politics for a minute. Do you oppose the goal of producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources? What I’m talking about is the idea. You seem to want to keep things political. Do you oppose the 10-year timeframe? People thought we couldn’t get to the moon in ten years. Where there is a will, there is a way. Otherwise, we could fight and get nowhere.

(Quote)
Russ Says:
July 21st, 2008 at 6:57 am

I don’t get all this negativity about Al Gore. Is everyone brain dead? Gore has done more than anyone else on the earth in promoting clean alternate energy. If Gore had been president, and clearly the majority of the American public wanted him to be, we would have a clean renewable energy program in place. Who out there thinks that being oil free and independant is a bad thing? Jesse Ventura had it right when he said the worst thing in this country is the two party system. I just talked to a staunch conservative Republican who told me that it was the liberal democrats who were holding up the development of alternate energy!!! Daaaa! Give me a break and wake up America!

(Quote)
Greg Says:
July 21st, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Russ, The problem is Gore is a phony. He uses much more energy than most people. How do you make an airplane not use fossil fuels?

(Quote)
Russ Says:
July 21st, 2008 at 11:09 pm

Yes Greg, according to Rush Limbaugh. Gore’s house uses solar panels, his heating and cooling are through a ground source heat pump using electrical energy produced by the solar panels. I would be willing to bet that his detractors are oil company shills! We sent a man to the moon in less than 10 years, we built the interstate highway system in less than 15 years, we built the bomb in less than 4 years……can anyone dare question whether we can get off of fossil fuels in 10 years!!!! The oil companies would love to make you believe that we can’t!!! and besides, we don’t have any choice!!! The only question is whether it will be a smooth transition or whether we will have to go through a giant depression that would make the 1929 depression seem like good times.

(Quote)
Oscar Will Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Fossil fuel free?? In how long??? By when??

I want to know what will fuel a 747 or an Air Force bomber if not some sort of fossil fuel.

(Quote)
stopcrazypp Says:
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:29 am

@VancouverJon #22

10 minute quick charge for 100 mile range, in Oahu, a couple of YEARS ago with lead acid batteries.
http://www.greencar.com/features/features39/

10 minute quick charge for ~200 mile range (they claim 250 but I don’t think they will get that judging by Tesla’s results) using altairnano batteries:
http://www.gizmag.com/britains-lightning-gt-electric-supercar/9059/

More details (warning pdf download):
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/p2docs/casestudy3_house.pdf

The charger/draw seems to be a bigger problem than the batteries just by virtue of you drawing so much energy in such a short amount of time putting a huge load on whatever electricity source you are using.

So there are batteries capable of quick charge. You said you went to an advanced battery workshop; it probably was talking about more conventional li-ions. The conventional li-ions/nimhs actually can’t charge as fast as lead acids b/c of thermal reasons; ie. the Tesla Roadster’s batteries can charge to full in 1 hour for 220 miles as an absolute max, which is slower than the lead acids in the previous example. There’s also the consideration that a lot of these batteries can charge to 80% a lot quicker than to 100%; ie. the iMIEV usually taking 7 hours to charge with 200V but can charge 80% in 30 minutes w/ a quick charger even given the more normal li-ion batteries (different from the Nano Titanate batteries).

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03/21/new-york-2008-autobloggreen-drives-the-mitsubishi-i-miev-w-vid/

I can’t say much on low-platinum fuel cells since I haven’t really looked into it, but I don’t imagine they are close at all judging from your comment.

(Quote)
Michael Robinson Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 2:36 am

Please EV zealots, get a clue. The technology necessary to
produce fuel cell cars and establish an infrastructure to support
them is far more mature than the technology behind EV’s.

A $16k battery is not practical compared to the cost of a
hydrogen fuel cell stack using carbon nanotube electrodes. Hydrogen can be distributed as magnesium hydride slurry produced using renewable energy or nuclear energy.
Hydrogen can be produced using bacteria instead of
electrolysis and there are other methods of getting
hydrogen as well such as cooking horse manure to
release methane gas which can be reformed. If the
auto manufacturers choose to store hydrogen on
vehicles as magnesium hydride slurry, the current fueling infrastructure for diesel and gasoline will adapt easily and
cheaply.

Methods to safely handle hydrogen are well known.

The technology to lower the cost of fuel cells enough to make
mass production of them profitable exists now. It is inappropriate
to use the cost of platinum to predict the cost of fuel cells. In
prototype vehicles, of course you use platinum. In mass
production, you use carbon nanotubes which perform better
than platinum and cost a lot less.

Hydrogen is the only zero emission option that can propel a
vehicle for 300-500 miles affordably.

2 tons of batteries to get that kind of range is not acceptable.

Battery technology has majorly improved, but I think battery
technology will lose the race to fuel cell technology.

There is a greater danger of explosion from a 16kW Lithium
ION battery than a 10k PSI hydrogen tank.

The $200 billion dollar figure is simply wrong. It is too high.
Not only that, $200 billion would be a small price to pay to
end the nation’s dependence on foreign oil now.

There are no technological barriers left to prevent mass production
of fuel cell cars, only political ones.

(Quote)
Michael Robinson Says:
March 27th, 2009 at 12:40 am

Platinum accounts for 114 billion of the 200 billion estimated cost
or 57% according to the article.

Hmm, platinum can be easily replaced by nitrogen doped vertical carbon nanotubes. Carbon is common, unlike platinum, so it
should be significantly cheaper. Lets say that it would cost
$125 billion, that is significantly less.

The infrastructure cost estimate doesn’t take into account the use
of hydrogen containing compounds to transport hydrogen safely
and efficiently, so that’s a second reason why this $200 billion
estimate is just plain wrong.

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009
This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]
BigCityCat
Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009
I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]
omnimoeish
First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009
The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]
admin
Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009
- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]
Texas
New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009
Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]
srschrier
New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier

Mass Fuel Cell Adoption Would Cost $200 Billion and Al Gore Challenges US to Go 100% Fossil Fuel Free in 10 Years

136 Responses to “Mass Fuel Cell Adoption Would Cost $200 Billion and Al Gore Challenges US to Go 100% Fossil Fuel Free in 10 Years”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts