Mass Fuel Cell Adoption Would Cost $200 Billion and Al Gore Challenges US to Go 100% Fossil Fuel Free in 10 Years
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 )
Popularity: 7%
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
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.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I still want my Volt. PLEASE HURRY GM!
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
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!
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I’m with Frankie. Bring on my VOLT SOON!
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
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.
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!
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 *******
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.
July 17th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I wonder if I can charge my Volt by running on the treadmill….
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.
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
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
July 17th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
The only environment VP Gore is interested in is the environment around his wallet.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 …
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?
July 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
speech link
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92635699
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Al, just jump in the presidential race as an indepedent and let all roll from there.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Here are 30 thousand scientists that disagree with Al.
http://oism.org/pproject/
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.
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.
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!
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
The Goracle has spoken.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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″.
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!