Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Has Hydrogen Run Out of Gas?

February 16th, 2009 | Posted in: Hydrogen

In the period leading up to the electric car revolution in which we are just in the foothills of, a future of hydrogen-powered vehicles was all the rage.

Some automakers like Honda and GM have put a lot of resources into developing hydrogen vehicles. At the Detroit Auto Show in 2008, Honda unveiled its Clarity FCX fuel-cell sedan.

Author Dan Neil had a go at the car in the LA Times.

Neil said that despite his long experience driving many cars, he’d never driven one so advanced and “blinded with science” as the Clarity FCX. He derided the concept though calling hydrogen a poor way to move cars and describing it as a “tragic cul-de-sac” in the search for sustainable fuels. He noted that hydrogen fuel cell cars were nothing more than a way to game California’s CARB rules requiring automaker to build zero-emissions vehicles.

Hydrogen he says is a lousy way to move vehicles, not to mention that a hydrogen fueling network doesn’t exist and building one would cost countless billions. The electric grid, and power outlets on the other hand are already everywhere.

Neil also reports summarily that it requires 60 kwh of electricity to produce one kg of hydrogen, which in the FCX works out to an efficiency of 1.1 mile/kwh. Plug-in cars with lithium-ion batteries like the Tesla Roadster or the Volt get 5 miles/kwh, for a nearly five-fold increase in efficiency.

Furthermore he noted the FCXs likely cost around $2 million per car.

Finally though he gushes over the intense beauty and function of the car says “Behold, the grand and lovely futility of the FCX Clarity. It’s hard to scold something so wonderful, so I won’t. Just bring me one that I can plug in.”

And so it may well be that the hydrogen highway may very well be the road to nowhere.

Source (LA Times)

Posted by: Lyle

192 Responses to “Has Hydrogen Run Out of Gas?”

statik Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:09 pm

Aaaaaaaaaaaah! Its a hydrogen thread!

/did hydrogen ever have any gas would also be a good title
//good video Lyle, thanks

(Quote)
Unni Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:13 pm

I think they gained from the fuel-cell, ex: if you look at volt configuration( serial hybrid – you can replace the range-extender ice engine with a fuel cell).

The problem is not hydrogen or Oil, Its Renewable energy. If hydrogen is renewable, then replace range extender with a hydrogen based electricity generator.

Back to question: Do volt has 2 electric motors directly powering the wheels ?

(Quote)
Larry Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:22 pm

Hydrogen has never been reviewed as viable by any established scientific publication (you can’t buy it, can’t store it, and OMG what a potential explosion hazard!!! ).

I believe the hydrogen issue was just the Bush administration’s way of tossing a stick for the environmentalists to go chase…

(Quote)
Markh Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:28 pm

Hydrogen was just for the oil companies. That way we will all still have to come and fill up with their hydrogen that comes off of the refining business. They just burn it now since it is too hard to transport and store. They would love us all to have h2 cars since if we fill them up and don’t drive them they still lose h2 just sitting there. I would love to sell h2, since my customers would always need more since it just escapes. What a waste, all the time and effort, a serial hybrid is the way to go. Also there are plans to put serial hybrid aircraft up in the skies.

(Quote)
James E Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:28 pm

I liked what he had to say about EV’s “just give me one with a plug.”

I agree NPNS!

(Quote)
Jerry Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:28 pm

It’s simply amazing, the most abundant element in the entire universe is so completely inefficient in powering cars. Makes my brain hurt thinking about it.!!!!! NPNS….

(Quote)
D Lo Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:33 pm

#2 # Unni “Back to question: Do volt has 2 electric motors directly powering the wheels ?”

No, just one in the current configuration. Jeep (Chrysler) has shown off a demo of a four wheel drive with in-wheel motors for all four. Great way to reduce moving parts (drive train, transmission, etc).

(Quote)
Tim Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Like corn ethanol, the H2 market existed not because of real economics, but because of oil companies lobbing for Statist central planning tax money redistribution and media global warming hype. Both food-ethanol and H2 have proven to be financially unsustainable for one reason or another despite $Billions in taxpayer money and “man-made global warming” fear mongering.

The cold fact is that EVs will go back on the shelf if battery costs do not come down dramatically AND fuel costs increase don’t increase substantially… and fast!

EEStor’s (if it exists) much lower cost, weight & mass/kwh will save the electric car because (unlike the rich “green posers”) the masses can NEVER pay two to 4 times what a car is really worth just because it is electric. There are just too many sacrifices in range and too many changes in habit and they simply can’t afford it.

Will they sell a few hundred thousand EVs without EEStor? Yes, with LOTS of taxpayer redistribution and years of debt payments for future generations.

Will a few hunderd thousand EVs make any real difference to the grid (V2G) or reduce C02 levels significantly? No, but maybe the economy of scale will reduce the pack price a thousand or two.

People don’t REALLY like “change” and won’t accept it unless they are very unhappy! (back to that whole frog in warm water story)

It’s simple economics. Don’t shoot the messenger. I want an E-REV very badly, but not at $30K+ net.

Common EEStor!!!! (please be real)

(Quote)
Mark Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:37 pm

Using hydrogen for powering cars came from Big Oil. They know that oil is running out, and they want to still be in the loop. They hate the very idea of an electric car because they are kept out of the loop.

NPNS

(Quote)
Blake Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:39 pm

Engineers have always known that from an energy and efficiency viewpoint, hydrogen never made sense. However, many people thought and still think that we need a car that goes 300 miles between fillups and only takes a few minutes to fill the tank. Hydrogen has this potential but at an extremely high cost. So back when oil was cheap and we were all wasteful (oh wait, oil is still cheap), driving around with a 5000 psi H2 tank sounded like a good idea, especially if you had to spend a millions per car to do so. Fortunately, we are now looking for more realistic solutions now and it appears that electric cars may get their shot.

(Quote)
D Lo Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:43 pm

With hydrogen you are basically driving with a bomb under your car. So you have to reinforce like mad to ensure safety, which adds to weight, which takes away from braking, decreasing safety, etc. Look, if hydrogen is a solid source of energy, put a hydrogen “pig” in your backyard and have it create electricity for your house/car. Better, why wouldn’t all power plants just run on hydrogen? Anyone remember the hindenburg? That’d be a catchy name for a new VW, wouldn’t it. “hey get in the hindenburg, lets go up to the store”. That’s ok, I’ll just drive this old Gremlin. Hydrogen is right idea–electric drive train–wrong energy storage method.
The Chevy Volt pretty much has it right, although the obsession with Lithium should be tempered. If having lead-acid would drop the cost 10 grand and speed up production 10 months, I’d say save Lithium for round 2.

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:44 pm

Hydrogen…probably a keyword if the viability plan was being presented a few years ago. It had enough gas to get considerable funding in recent years. But the ballon has never been inflated to propel non-space vehicles economically.

H2 is still an energy carrier…not an energy source.

(Quote)
Jake Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:45 pm

Can I please interject here to propose an outright ban on wordplay like “Fool Sells” and the like? I think one’s arguments are undermined when one resorts to such catch phrases. Thanks.

(Quote)
CorvetteGuy Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:46 pm

#8 Tim

You are right on the money. Lithium batteries may get the VOLT to market, but something like EEStor is what will make it cheaper and practical for the masses, and more likely profitable for GM.

(Quote)
Tom Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:50 pm

I think Larry and Dan Neil are WAY off base. I had the opportunity to drive a hydrogen powered fuel cell ELECTRIC VEHICLE for 3 months and it was totally fun. It was hard to believe that GM put this car together as a test bed and not a car you could get at a show room. The car was fabulous and I am totally stoked on hydrogen as a fuel source.

All these critics seem to live in the past with their comments. Like nanotechnology and photovoltaiscs will never make electrolysis more efficient. Like breakthroughs in hydrogen production from bacteria or other sources such as sewage will NEVER happen. Give me a break folks. And this comment about an explosive hazard is just trite. If, and I repeat IF hydrogen were to leak from a storage tank it would accelerate straight up and would be 20 yards above you in one second. Should it ignite it would go straight up even faster. Compare that to gasoline. Which would you rather have leak?

I’ll take H2 any day. And don’t blame Bush, Obama is spending a lot of money on hydrogen too, or is Obama just tossing another stick? Short answer, no.

To finish I agree with the previous comments that a fuel cell as an extender for the Volt is a terrific idea. That way you don’t need to get hydrogen that often and would help to slowly have a demand for hydrogen fueling stations.

I LOVE your site Lyle, keep up the good work.

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:56 pm

One day – hydrogen fusion

(Quote)
James Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 10:59 pm

Hydrogen vehicles are electric vehicles. Batteries are not an energy source either. Hydrogen is safer than gasoline. Hydrogen is viable; why do you think NASA uses hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries? Fuel Cells are not that much more expensive than lithium-ion batteries on a per kW basis. Fuel cells will get to less than $100 per kW in volume. A fuel cell electric vehicle is 50% more efficient than current hybrids. Got hydrogen. It is amazing how much mis-information there is out there on hydrogen. Germany, Japan, Iceland, the EU, they all must be wrong. Batteries are the answer to all our problems, they can do it all; yeah, right. Dan Neil doesn’t know what he is talking about. Hydrogen was the only thing Bush got right. People who don’t understand or bash hydrogen haven’t done their research. Read people, READ.

(Quote)
Adam Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:00 pm

If we dumped the BILLIONS into EEStor, like they want to do with the H2 infrastructure, we would already have E-REV out.. It would be much easier to add a 480v outlet at every fueling station, far cheaper than H2 would be, but still expensive.

(Quote)
Tom Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:02 pm

Mark says – “if we fill them up and don’t drive them they still lose h2 just sitting there. I would love to sell h2, since my customers would always need more since it just escapes.” Not true Mark. The storage tanks on the Equinox Fuel Cell EV would take TEN years to lose 3%. Try storing gas for one year and it turns to gunk.

Then there is “inefficient in powering cars” I got an average of 40 miles to the Kg. The best I got was 72 miles to the Kg.

And the idea that oil companies are behind hydrogen is just silly.

Come on guys, do a little research before you make these kinds of statements. Oi vey!

(Quote)
D Lo Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:06 pm

#15 Tom
“And this comment about an explosive hazard is just trite.”

I should clarify, in the event my comment about hydrogen being a bomb confuses anyone. It is the fact that hydrogen is stored in a gaseous state under pressure. Gasoline is flammable, not explosive. So Tom is correct, one should prefer a hydrogen leak to gasoline, but a collision with liquid gasoline vs. a compressed canister–in this case filled with an indisputably flammable gas–is another story. Hydrogen was an idea, just not good enough compared with other possibilities.

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:19 pm

James #17 wrote:

People who don’t understand or bash hydrogen haven’t done their research. Read people, READ.
=================================================
James a really good quality high school chemistry course would do you a world of good.

Hydrogen is a very efficient fuel if you hypothesize the delivery of all the hydrogen to your vehicle at a price you are willing to pay. The inefficiency lies in manufacturing the hydrogen, It takes a very large energy input, and there are no hydrogen wells.

(Quote)
ThomC Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:35 pm

#20 D Lo
>> I should clarify, in the event my comment about hydrogen being a bomb confuses anyone. It is the fact that hydrogen is stored in a gaseous state under pressure.

Just when I was about to flame you for the silly comment about hydrogen being a bomb, you ruin my fun with the observation about pressure.

How very true… damn you

What with all of the economic factors against hydrogen as a transportation prime mover, I’d completely ignored the all too true safety issues inherent in driving around with a vehicle that’s got a fairly large, very high pressure tank in it. Just think of what would happen if a Honda Clarity gets rear-ended by a loaded semi. Who cares if it’s flamible… just imagine what it’ll be like when a fully charged hydrogen tank ruptures! I would not want to be strapped into that car.

(Quote)
Larry Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:40 pm

Unfortunately, I’ve heard nothing to counter the argument that EEStor can achieve only 1% (one mile’s worth) of storage due to dielectric saturation. It has 30Farads of capacitance up to, maybe, 300V and above that it effectively drops to 0.03Farads Any news to the contrary?

Seriously, while hydrogen and fuel cells are a wonderful technology the costs and infrastructure just aren’t there (yet). Interestingly enough an EEStor with only 1mile of capacity would be a perfect marriage for a fuel cell. The supercap can capture and release energy quickly for rapid stopping and starting while the fuel cells can be kept small (inexpensive) enough to provide just the average power needed to run the car.

(Quote)
GXT Says:
February 16th, 2009 at 11:42 pm

I always find it strange to see a site dedicated to a product requiring a breakthrough to be feasible taking pot shots at another.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:28 am

GXT@24 Says:
I always find it strange to see a site dedicated to a product requiring a breakthrough to be feasible taking pot shots at another.
*******************************************************************************************
Which specific “breakthrough”do you mean? With ~3dozen mules on the road, it seems like the technology is moving right along. It’s not like the Volt depends on the actual existence of EEStor or any other (fantasy) breakthroughs to be a functional vehicle. If you’re talking about the economy in general being in the porcelain facility, that holds for all auto sales.
Looking back, I don’t remember any sites extolling the potentially huge demand for BRICK sized cellphones, but I hear that they a have done pretty well so far (though I really miss the crank on the side of the wall phone box to ring up Ethyl to chat and then have the the connection put through,
Just curious.
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
omnimoeish Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:45 am

@24 GXT “I always find it strange to see a site dedicated to a product requiring a breakthrough to be feasible taking pot shots at another.”

GM was making serial hybrids with twice the all electric range (80 miles) and twice the fuel economy (up to 100 mpg) in extended range mode 10 years ago and for 1/20th the cost of the latest hydrogen vehicles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1#EV1_series_hybrid

The only breakthrough we needed for the Volt is through the thick skulls of GM’s executives to finally listen to Bob Lutz for the green light to do it.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:53 am

I thought we were trying to get away from having a gas tank. And besides, who will want to go back to the weekly refueling ritual when the garage plug-in is available?

=D~

(Quote)
tim-the-dreamer Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:03 am

unni@#2

Go to unitednuclear.com and look up hydrogen, you’ll find that you don’t need to change the ice at all to run off h2. Their vehicles are normal ice running off gas with the metal hydride tanks suppying the h2 fuel. The only source of explosion you’d worry about is from the gas tank. Why the clairity used liquid instead of blast proof metal hydrides is beyound me. Pretty car though.

The volt as is can use h2 readily. Remember it’s a flexfuel geni. You’d have to add the metal hydride tanks, feed line, and a few hardware for opperations including the program for the computer to burn h2 efficiantly. If I had the volt right now, I’d most deffinately invest in a h2 geni with alternative power sources. I’m lazy, but quality time loosing butt cheeks to save more in the long run is worth the sweat. Yea, I can see how big oil would benifit from that, sheesh.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:04 am

I wouldn’t say hydrogen is dead. Maybe for cars. See below for a project that I’m currently working on. Hydrogen has an amazing energy density that could revolutionize UAV’s.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q4/071024b_nr.html

(Quote)
unni Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:10 am

#7 D Lo,

Thanks , If the in-wheel motor has a lot advantages like no need of transmission, drive shafts, differential gears or other complex mechanical components then why volt didn’t chose that way ?

They can easily add 2 light electric motors to the other wheels and make it an “auto 4×4″ r auto traction or slip wheel control with power savings.

some reading said EV1 had 2 motors of 54hp, Why 2 was needed ?
Do volt also come with a hyper charger station which can charge the car t 80% in 30 minutes ?

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:12 am

White House said that GM is getting another $4 billion, even though they’ve yet to come up with a plan for profitability. The saddest part is, I’m not even shocked. I guess I’m becoming desensitized to it.

But there is hope, maybe UAW and the bondholders will just give in to be nice. We could at least ask. Not sure what other leverage there is.

Is anyone else feeling just a little bit nervous about the power Geithner (& his predecessor Paulson) have? GM gets the money while Chrysler is going to get put through the ringer. I guess we should just trust them and get over it. They do know what’s in our best interest after all.

(Quote)
omnimoeish Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:36 am

@31 Cautious Fan says,

“White House said that GM is getting another $4 billion”
____________________________________________________

It is sad, that it’s come to this. But can anyone really say for sure whether chapter 11 will not totally create a chain reaction that will wipe out the teetering parts suppliers and dealers (even assuming for the sake of argument that customers don’t care about buying a car from a company in bankruptcy, which obviously they do since GM and Chrysler’s sales are down more than even Ford’s by significant percentages).

Our government has already dumped over $7 trillion on this problem even before Obama stepped foot in the oval office and it’s not looking like it’s going to let up any time soon. Is another $4 billion really going to matter?

I’m guessing by the time our economy is in any kind of decent shape, we will have at least doubled the national debt, probably tripled it from the current $11 trillion. Add to that a 19% interest rate or whatever and there’s just flat out no way we will ever pay that back. Our whole country will be in chapter 11 and there’s not much China and Japan and whoever we owe can do about it. I would guess by the time Obama is out of office (I give him 8 years) the next President will have to figure out how to fix this national debt problem while dealing with serious social security problems and possibly health care unless Obama steps up that plate. Our production part of our economy will be totally gutted. I think Obama will just be happy to have things straighten out a little bit and stop crashing.

(Quote)
tim-the-dreamer Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:40 am

Cautious Fan@31,

“They do know what’s in our best interest after all.”

Doubt it. I know a guy who, in his lifetime, started businesses and made them work. He read the bail out, sorry, STIMULUS plan and got royally ticked. All he’d get out of it was that our money is going to the same clowns that got us into this mess. He says that the best way to use the $800billion is to give it equally to everyone who filed taxes. No-matter what it’ll still get into the banks. The wealthy will save it, while the rest would pay off debts, bills, morgages, buy homes and new cars, etc. The ones that didn’t or don’t file taxes are either criminals or illeagals and won’t get our money. Let’s face it, that last stimulus checks weren’t enough to make a scratch. Especially with folks strugglling check to check. Maybe he’s right.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:41 am

“White House said that GM is getting another $4 billion”

__________________________

Once again the hard working American tax payer is out of the loop and needs to just shut up and keep working overtime.

=D~

(Quote)
tim-the-dreamer Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:17 am

unni@30

The ev-1 was experimental by all rights. Two 54hp would probably equal the 108hp needed at the time. Now that their a little more serious is why the design parameters are so strikingly different in the newer models being presented. Plus, in order to stand out to get our cash; each corperation will have to present differing tech otherwise why buy the same stuff for differing prices? The 4×4 config. would appeal to those like myself that like going off the beaten path where more traction would benifit better than power conservitive 2×4 road use. IMO.

(Quote)
truthguy Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:42 am

I may be misinformed. I may be naive, but I seem to be missing something. Where o where do we get the hydrogen?

(Quote)
tim-the-dreamer Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 3:01 am

@36

Your spiket, the air, according to horizen.comm; through chemical reactions. Look around, you might find a few surprises the oil cartels won’t talk about.

Ovionics talk of metal hydrides using methane and other fuels. Doesn’t hurt to look. Gotta go, later folks.

(Quote)
joe obrien Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 4:22 am

Hydrogen was ond only is a way for oil companies to sell you a form of electricity, since a hydrogen car is basically an EV that creates the electricity on the fly from the stored hydrogen. A brilliant way for the greedy oil companies to try and get their greedy hands into the next generation of vehicles that don’t require oil.

Thankfully more companies are simply moving to erev and ev and cutting the oil companies out of the loop.

I am giddy with anticipation hoping to see OPEC come crashing down in 20 years or less.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:43 am

February 16, 2009 ~ G.M. Presses Union for Cuts in Health Care

“… Mr. Gettelfinger, for his part, is trying to protect one of the jewels of the U.A.W. contract, which is essentially health care for life for anyone who worked on the assembly line and their surviving spouses. ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/business/economy/17auto.html?_r=1

=D~

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:49 am

02/17/09

(Reuters) – Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc, Donald Trump’s casino group, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Tuesday, court documents show.

The casino operator had assets of about $2.1 billion and total debts of about $1.74 billion on December 31, 2008, it said in its filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey.

Nine affiliates of the casino operator including Trump Plaza Associates, Trump Plaza Associates, Trump Marina Associates and Trump Taj Mahal Associates simultaneously sought protection, according to the filing.

_____________________

Hey D.C. … we got any TARP left? Do we really want to lose these jobs? We just can’t let them go under. They are sure to profit again soon.

=D~

(Quote)
jim Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:52 am

If fuel cells are going nowhere. Why do fuel cells lead US patents granted list. Many people thought home computers was a pointless idea with no future.

(Quote)
Blake Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:26 am

There were some good comments in support of Hydrogen. However, as a Engineer that has been working on fuel cells for the past 6 years, let me add a few things that seem to be often overlooked.

First off, the advantages. #1, high specific energy. This means that due to Hydrogen, you can store more energy in a fuel cell system than you can in a battery. This is why NASA initially chose fuel cells, batteries just couldn’t store enough energy for the longer duration missions plus fuel cells have the added benefit of creating water which was useful for cooling and drinking.

#2 High Efficiency. Compared to heat engines, fuel cells are much more efficient. At low powers they can be up around 80% efficient although typically they are around 50% efficient.

#3 Rapid rechargeability. Just refill the hydrogen and air(or Oxygen) and you are ready to go. This is why I believe the car industry loves them, they let us continue to fill up in the same way as we are used to.

#4 Clean emissions – no need to elaborate here

So far they seem great, until you start to consider the negative effects.

#1 Hydrogen storage. No matter what, storing enough Hydrogen for a 300 miles is no easy task. Storing it as a cryogen (around -423 deg F) as NASA does isn’t going to work for automobiles. No matter what, it just keeps boiling off which is why they continue to fuel the space shuttle until a few minutes before liftoff. The only viable alternatives are to store it at a really high pressure as is currently done, or store it chemically. Either way, the tanks are heavy and expensive.

#2 Cost. Producing a fuel cell isn’t cheap. Currently, there just isn’t a known path to get fuel cells and hydrogen storage down to a price people can afford. I’ve heard Toyota engineers claim that fuel cells cars would be at least 10x too expensive, even with mass production. Personally, I’d say that it is probably more like 50 – 100x too expensive. This is why they have been 15 years in the future for the past 50 years. Advances have been made, but we need orders of magnitude decreases in price.

#Reliability. Fuel cells typically degrade fairly rapidly. To get them to be robust and last the lifetime of a vehicle can be done, but makes them even more expensive.

In the end, it is a question of how we best use our money and our available energy. Do we have enough clean energy that we can make hydrogen, compress it, and then only get half of the energy out when we run it through a fuel cell? Is it really worth the at least 10x increase in sticker price all so that we can fill up in 5 minutes? Despite my desire for clean transportation, when the Clarity costs as much as a small used buisiness jet, I’ll probably take the jet.

(Quote)
Van Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:37 am

Hydrogen and EEStor have had the effect of delaying investment in lithium battery development and production facilities.

(Quote)
Greg C Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:40 am

If you look at the video notice this. On the gas pump it says “SHELL HYDROGEN”. Yes we will have to buy hydrogen from the same oil companies that are hiking up gas prices and making huge profits today. Does anyelse see a future problem with this? Hydrogen has to be converted (made from something) and shipped. I can see it now. Some sort of “event” will make the conversion and shipment of hydrogen fuel difficult and will cut the supplies available. Oil (energy?) companies will have to raise prices! Converting to hydrogen will keep us in the same catch 22 that the oil companies have us in now. Pure electric is the way to go. Time and time again big business has showed us that it cannot be trusted to do whats best for it’s customers. I’d rather put solar electric panels on my house and plug in my car. I can depend on the sun a lot more than I can depend on Shell or Exxon!

(Quote)
Darius Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:50 am

Dear Tom,

I would advice you reading secondary school text book on physics and find out what are primary energy sources what are secondary. You will find that electricity as well as hydrogen are secondary energy source and could be produced transforming primary energy sources such as nuclear fission or nuclear fusion (solar, oil…….) or geothermal ( which might be the same nuclear fusion) several times. But conventional way to produce hydrogen is first to make electricity and then divide H2O into H2 and O2. There are several other ways of producing hydrogen directly but electricity would be more efficient.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:00 am

My thoughts: Spend the money on developing better batteries instead of spending money on hydrogen.

(Quote)
Jim I Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:28 am

I hate hydrogen threads like this…….

Just waiting for the Volt!

NPNS

(Quote)
koz Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:43 am

Larry #3

There is cornucopia of things to blame Bush for but the switch from BEV to hydrogen isn’t one that he should shoulder alone. That ball got rolling with Clinton, CARB, scientists and industry lobbying before W got in office. He just dribbled further along. Not that CARB or anybody was wrong for changing the regulations at that time. The problem has been that hybrids, particularly plug-ins, and BEVs have been treated like a red headed next to the fair haired hydrogen ever since.

(Quote)
Joe Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:09 am

I have to agree with James @17 on this one. Many are misinformed on hydrogen vehicles.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:14 am

GM called the Volt their “moon shot”.

We’ve been to the moon, but when was the last time that an “average Joe” could afford the trip?

That’s the problem with batteries and fool cells. The technology is already here, it works but H2 needs a VERY expensive infrastructure and there are source material and supply line addiction problems with the fuel and cost problems with the cell while chemical batteries of the type we need will be too expensive for the “average Joe” for the foreseeable future. GM knows this and that’s why they tried to minimize pack size with less expensive “range-extender”.

The sad fact is that battery electrics can’t complete with oil without Statist central planning (unsustainable) until oil gets back to $150/bbl and packs DROP in cost by 75%.

H2 is simply a geek and Big Oil’s fantasy used to bribe gullible politicians out of taxpayer money. (kind of like the multi-Billion supercollider fiasco while people starve)

Do we need “better” batteries? Yes and NO.

We need better AND much cheaper batteries. It’s like eating all the cake you want without gaining weight or having health problems. (good luck with that)

GM was wrong, we don’t need another “moon shot”.

We need a miracle that only GREED fueled by free competition can provide. Gov’t can provide a LEVEL playing field by getting out of the way and breaking up monopolis, BUT the last thing we need is those morons in Congress choosing technologies by redistributing to some while starving others! They can’t even balance the budget.

We don’t need another Corn Ethanol.

(Quote)
Guido Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:30 am

Good article, good posts. Hydrogen’s too expensive, batteries are too expensive, that leaves ….. cellulosic ethanol. Yes, I realize that we will have to fill up more often – but it will be a bridge technology that will afford us time to figure out how to harness something better. Coming to a landfill / sawgrass field / biomass suppository near you – soon.

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:35 am

I’m with Statik: aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh (I know, crazy thought).

On the day when the viability plan is due, why aren’t we talking numbers and fed here?

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:39 am

speaking of which, good article on the viability plan:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29231797/

(Quote)
SteveK Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:49 am

Hydrogen never made sense. It was misunderstood as an energy source instead of an energy distribution system (by the way some ’scientific’ publications — C&E News for one) consistently misreported this. The electric grid was already there, so spending the money on battery development always made sense. Thankfully, hydrogen is in fact dead.

(Quote)
RamZ Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:50 am

” many people thought and still think that we need a car that goes 300 miles between fillups and only takes a few minutes to fill the tank. Hydrogen has this potential but at an extremely high cost.”

Maybe a lot of people who have a short daily commute, don’t have a family in tow and have lots of free time don’t need a 300 mile range car/truck. There are many other people who need a truck, or have large families or have to travel great distances that a battery will not be the way to go. Maybe the battery technology will advance enough to get over this hurdle or EESTOR will be real but Hydrogen makes more sense as it has a much higher energy storage density.
Hydrogen is more expensive to produce but this is coming down. MIT has come up with a room temperature catalyst that should decrease the cost considerably:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/solar-hydrogen-home-mit-announces-major-breakthrough-in-solar-energy-storage/

Of course the first hand built Fuel Cell cars cost a million dollars. What do you think the cost of the first Pre-prototype Volt cost.
The cost of the Fuel Cell will come down just like the cost of any new technology comes down. My first calculator which could do the basic four functions cost $200 in 1970 dollars, now cost a few dollars.
I think that Plugin technology and H2 technology will end up going hand in hand. I can’t wait until I can switch my Natural Gas heating in my home to H2 and when I can Plug my car into the house and run the house off my car which will be charged from my roof top solar cells. Two ways of clean energy storage is better than one,

(Quote)
Maynard Keenan Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:06 am

Seems to be a very polarizing topic
Batteries against fuel cells. My opinion: both is better than fossile fuel. Let’s see which one finishes first at a reasonable price.

There is one thing I’d like to add to this conversation:
I’m from Germany and we don’t have the distances like most of you Americans. Probably that 60km pure battery range would be enough for me.
But I don’t like the idea of plugging my Volt in EVERY day. That sucks. So I would appreciate a bigger range, even though I don’t really need it.

Maybe I’m not the only one with this opinion…

(Quote)
BillR1 Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:13 am

Why did someone even think of hydrogen as a fuel in the first place? It’s great for rockets because of its energy density (Btu/lb), but that isn’t so important for land vehicles.

The basic answer for me seems to be CO2 emissions. The byproduct of hydrogen fuel is water vapor, so carbon is taken out of the equation.

So the whole issue as I see it is whether or not fuel taxes or political mandates will require the use of hydrogen. Electric cars will not directly emit CO2, however, the range extender may, so a fuel cell range extender could be mandated in the future.

For large tractor trailer trucks that travel long distances, with current and even forseable technology, they will not see significant gains with E-REV. These vehicles may be the target for hydrogen to reduce their carbon emissions.

So, if it wasn’t for the Kyoto Protocol and the fear of global warming (real or not), hydrogen would not even be discussed. I think there has been plenty of discussion here and in the forum that the use of hydrogen is inefficient as compared to direct use of source fuels (petroleum, coal, natural gas, biomass, nuclear, renewables, etc.).

If the political direction becomes that we must reduce CO2 at all cost, then hydrogen will prevail, and we will pay the price.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:16 am

hi Maynard Keenan #56,

“… I don’t like the idea of plugging my Volt in EVERY day.”

________________________

I plug in an EV GEM car almost everyday. It takes about 8 seconds and actually feels rewarding to do. Come back in a few hours and you are good to go.

=D~

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:28 am

Do people here really believe that gasoline is “flammable not explosive”? When your car uses gasoline, it does so in a vaporized form for the explicit purpose of causing explosions in the engine’s cylinders. These explosions, ignited by the spark plugs, make the engine go. True, the liquid gasoline in your tank will not “explode”. But the gasoline vapors in your tank will. Gasoline has the primary advantage of being very energy dense and fairly inexpensive. Safety, however, is not a serious advantage. (not to mention gasoline contains carcinogens and is a contaminant in groundwater when underground tanks leak).

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:41 am

So..if Honda scraps all the FCX Clarity’s on the road, because they cost too much right now, and the infrastructure is not in place (i.e. great idea, but the market is not ready and cannot support it) will someone make the “who killed the fuel cell car?” (jest)

(Quote)
Van Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:43 am

Are lithium ion batteries “too expensive?” Estimates of cost vary widely, but the current cost seems to fall between $600 per KWh and $1000 per KWh. Many articles suggest the next generation of lithium batteries will be twice as powerful at half the cost, or about 240 Wh/Kg and $300 to $500 per KWh. These, if they are not vaporware, will not be too expensive.

But lets back up to the existing so called expensive batteries and assume a cost of $750 per KWh, or about $12,000 for the Volt battery. A vehicle like the Prius could have a 5 KWh battery for the added cost of say $4,000 so instead of a $22,000 Prius, a Plug in Prius with an AER of about 15 miles would cost $26,000. I would buy that in a New York minute.

And then as battery costs come down, assuming they will come down, larger batteries will become not “too expensive.” Or so it seems to me.

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:51 am

Amazing how the entire scientific community involved with such things once predicted (for certain) a future hydrogen economy – hydrogen to power everything. First problem to solve – find a way to
transport it (somehow no one ever thought to ask). Second, find a way to cheaply produce it via electrolysis (apparently cheaper means have arrived), third, find an electricity source to produce it – here Pickens and his 2000 windmills were hoping they can use those windmills for something other than producing small amounts of power when no one needs it, and instead produce hydrogen.

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:58 am

Hopefully people will soon be sophisticated enough to separate hydrogen from the concept of fuel cells. They are NOT joined at the hip. Hydrogen is an energy carrier (like gasoline), and fuel cells are devices for releasing the energy (like an ICE). In other words, the argument shouldn’t be over whether fuel cells should replace batteries, it should be over whether we can develop cheap enough fuel cells to replace the ICE range extender in an EREV. I hope that someday we can.

In a fuel cell range extender situation, it would be ideal to get away from gasoline and have a cleaner more homogenous fuel like ethanol. Yes, ethanol has nearly 30% less energy density than gasoline, but a fuel cell generally is twice as efficient as an ICE. This leads to an overall increase in system efficiency when using a fuel cell and ethanol together.

The trick is to develop affordable fuel cells and affordable cellulosic ethanol (since corn ethanol is a giant net energy suck). Both can happen if we keep at it. I wholly encourage continued R&D into these technologies while we use lithium batteries and gasoline as a bridge technology in the mean time.

(Quote)
Steven Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:00 am

I think you kind of missed the boat doing a general hydrogen thread on one of the most important days in GMs financial survival. Tons of news coming out today ripe for discussion.

(Quote)
Jethro Bodine Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:01 am

Blake, Thanks for the honest apprasial.

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:07 am

#56 Maynard – The beauty of the Volt is that you DON’T have to plug it in every day. If need be, you could run it as a serial hybrid and still achieve 50 mpg, which is higher than a Prius. Plugging in optimizes the benefits, but isn’t required (assuming you are not trying to climb Pike’s Peak). That’s the whole point of the Volt.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:13 am

Maynard #56
But I don’t like the idea of plugging my Volt in EVERY day. That sucks. So I would appreciate a bigger range, even though I don’t really need it.

——-
I too want more range. I am curious though. Since plugging in the Volt shouldn’t take more than 10 seconds or so, why do you think you would hate it so much?

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:16 am

Short article and picture of an in-wheel drive and suspension system.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/02/16/michelin_e_wheel_deal/

(Quote)
stas peterson Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:24 am

markh, et al,

Mr. Bush can be blamed for most anything even when he is NOT guilty. It was the California CARBite idiots that wanted and STILL want hydrogen cars. Look at the rewards/penalties in the Goofball CARBite green points system.

Mr. Bush founded the US Automotive Battery Consortium, USABC, to bring Li-on batteries to the automotive scene. If he had not done, so we would be 5-10 years or more behind, from where the technology is today, as the clear and evolving choice.

Any good technological approach, when the various alternative technologies are not yet clear, as was the case 8 years ago, is to let the several technologies evolve, and see where they lead. The winner will emerge, and it has. Even as you thought it was the appropriate choice all along, as verified by the creation of the USABC.

Greenie kooks have no such rationality. They glommed on to ethanol, only to find its warts after much wated investment. They glommed on to Windmills and then found out that they produce on average at 3% of rated nameplate, and also destabilize the electric grid causing blackouts. Even as they kill birds, consume lots of land, and become an economic nightmare. They glommed onto Solar but its un-economic inefficiencies have yet to be close to being overcome. They ignore the terrible Thermal pollution, and horrendous Albedo warming effects that make GHGs seem a minor warming worry, by comparison.

Of course greenie loons never recognized thatt driving up the electricity cost, by an order of magnitude, would kill the electric car. It would also bankrupt our painfully reconstructed steel industry, now the most efficient and cleanest steel industry in the World, as it is based on electric furnaces, almost exclusively. many othe rindustrioes would die as well.

In the case of the CARBite idiots, they demanded and STILL demand that automakers earn REQUIRED “gold” points by building Fool Cell cars. That is their idiotic “idee fixe”. Place the blame where it is due on CARBite green loons. They earned it, they deserve it.

(Quote)
TALLPALL Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:27 am

*** 651 day’s to go ***

(Quote)
GM Volt Fan Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:38 am

One energy storage researcher I hope gets a good sized chunk of the battery research money from the stimulus package is Dr. Li Cui at Stanford. I bet he’s doing some mind blowing things in his lab these days with his silicon nanowire battery research. Let’s hope so.

http://gas2.org/2009/01/21/silicon-nanowire-batteries-take-two-the-core-shell-approach/

http://gm-volt.com/2007/12/21/gm-voltcom-interview-with-dr-cui-inventor-of-silicon-nanowire-lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough/

Dr. Cui KNOWS there’s a potentially gigantic market out there for automotive batteries and he probably wants to be known as “the next Thomas Edison” … as do most scientists. The world needs a huge breakthrough in energy storage technology and we’ll certainly heap on the fame and fortune to whoever makes it happen. It’s gotta be exciting to be a battery scientist these days. The big breakthrough is in the pipeline somewhere I’m sure. It’s just a matter of time til it makes it into the cars.

By the way, I wouldn’t count out fuel cells just yet for the range extender. Maybe it won’t be a HYDROGEN fuel cell. It could be a methanol fuel cell. Who knows? There’s probably still going to be a need for super high energy density storage capability for SOME vehicles. It won’t be practical for small passenger cars in the short run though. It might start out being used for more expensive vehicles like 18 wheeler trucks and delivery vans where cost isn’t always a major factor. Military vehicles for example could use the stealthy quiet capability of electric and fuel cell propulstion. Who knows, after 15-20 years of refinements it might finally be cheap and reliable enough to trickle down to smaller consumer vehicles.

(Quote)
D.. Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:45 am

off topic – Voice of Reason. excerpt below describing how we begin to repair failing US economy makes sense to me.

-Why bail out GM and Citibank when the firms are moving as many operations offshore as they possibly can?

Much of US infrastructure is in poor shape and needs renewing. However, infrastructure jobs do not produce goods and services that can be sold abroad. The massive commitment to infrastructure does nothing to help the US reduce its huge trade deficit, the financing of which is becoming a major problem. Moreover, when the infrastructure projects are completed, so are the jobs.

At best, assuming Mexican immigrants do not get most of the construction jobs, all Obama’s stimulus program can do is to reduce the number of unemployed temporarily.

Unless US corporations can be required to use American labor to produce the goods and services that they sell in American markets, there is no hope for the US economy. No one in the Obama administration has the wits to address this problem. Thus, the economy will continue to implode.-

thanks

http://counterpunch.org/roberts02092009.html

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:51 am

69. Continued…

Whether you like Bush or not, he should get credit for the 2005 energy bill that paved the way for Nuclear power plant applications. The NRC has recieved over 20 reactor apps and expects a total of 30. These plants will ultimately keep electricity reasonably priced in the Nuclear Belt from NY down to FL and over to TX. The anti nuke types (Harry Reid, Nancy P) are in power now. Lets hope this is one item that they do not “change”.

In the Clinton Administration, Nuclear research was zeroed out (the first big speech), and the energy policy was to build Natural Gas turbines for electrical energy generation. Bush’s energy policy was more realistic.

As far as hydrogen goes, Bush’s push on Nuclear also is paving the way for High Temperature Gas Reactors which will (or can) produce hydrogen from process heat directly. No need to make electricity and then make hydrogen. This is more efficient. This program is progressing right now at DOE and has significant funding ( for now). Given that we are broke as a country, this might (and maybe should) get cut which would take away one of the cheaper sources of potential future H2 production.

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:52 am

#53 Dave B — Thank you for the link to the story on the viability plan.

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 10:58 am

#56 Maynard Keenan —> I agree that plugging and unplugging every day is going to get to be a big nuisance. At first it will be fun to do something different. In a month or so it will become just another task, added on to a lot of others. (It still will be fun to drive past gas stations.)

More capacity would be highly advantageous. Once a week would be heaven, relatively.

(Quote)
Mitch Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:02 am

http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MzMzODA

hmmm….interesting..

(Quote)
unni Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:05 am

#28, thanks, IMHO there are 2 ways to use hydrogen as of now.

1) http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

The third will be a controlled fusion ( but may be it will take a very long time to be practical )

The fuel cell ones which were in market were electric cars and the other hydrogen conversion of ICE engine came recent( i think Honda came up with those).

#35 : thanks, I too was thinking the 4×4 may be good because the snow is incresting every year ( call it global warming ). For me mild 4×4s helps to run on these conditions ( yes we can have mild 4×4 with EVs )

Miev stuff : It says that iMiev can charged to 80% of battery in 30 minutes using the quick-charger system. What about Volt ?

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:09 am

“The road to nowhere”. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? I think we have heard this time and time again on this site. But some of us can’t keep from bringing up hydrogen as the savior of the planet. It may be one day, but not now and not in the future anytime close. Thanks, Lyle, for this article. Now, I am going back and read everyone’s comments.

(Quote)
Maynard Keenan Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:23 am

#67 Rashiid Amul:

Having to plug in my Volt every day just takes a bit of my freedom (probably just emotional – but then again buying a car isn’t just rational).
The whole idea of the Volt is to try to go on battery in everyday life and just use the range extender on special occasion long term trips. If I just use it as a good miles-per-gallon hybrid car, it isn’t worth the money.
I like the new Toyota iQ for example (I couldn’t find it on the international page – is it too small for America?). The 1.4 D model just needs 4 liters/100km. That’s (let me calculate) pretty exactly 60 miles-per-gallon with a cheap car…

So I want more than just a fuel efficient car – and I will get it with the Volt – but just if I plug it in EVERY day…

And (as so many others) I don’t have a garage. So I have to lower a pretty long cable from my balcony down to the street. Always hoping that I get close parking lot. And that definately takes more than 10 seconds

(Quote)
Gary Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:25 am

Selling for $5/kg versus $50 to make it? And people were complaining about the viability of ethanol?

(Quote)
Alejandro Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:26 am

Sorry guys, this is from the last thread but I wanted to answer one of the comments and know most of you are not checking the last article anymore. So here it goes.

#128 D.. Says:
Voice of reason? I think not. It is not reasonable to export all US jobs to sweaty children in 3rd world countries. Neither should there be unlimited imports from said countries. Static and Don C. you otta be ashamed, ashamed of yourselves for making such silly remarks. Remarks of ideologues…thanks
______________________________________________________________________________
Dear D:
I am sorry D but as an economist I must tell you, trade especially Free trade is ALWAYS better for EVERYONE, the importers and the exporters. Economics is a science much more precise than most people believe or want to recognize. A lot of the economic non-sense happens because politicians do not listen to what real economists have to tell them, those real economists who go by the book, and are free of socialist ideologies that contradict what they have studied. Other times politicians do listen to sound economic advice, but they rather listen to the crowds because another thing that happens with economics is that, unlike medicine, where nobody would argue with the doctor’s diagnostic and treatment, with economic problems people always think they know better. The sad thing is that sound economic measures are generally hard to sell to the public because in the short-run require painful decisions, and politicians have to be reelected in only four more years. Now, please I have nothing against politics, I am studying myself a masters in government; however, that is simple the truth of the matter.
Regarding your comments of ,“no exporting to export all US jobs to sweaty children in 3rd world countries”, let me tell you that I am from Bolivia, which is the poorest country of all Latin America with the only exception of Haiti, even though we are close. When people accuse that children fill factories in the third world is because they have not been there. Of course, there might be cases like that, but the overwhelming majority of them employ only adults. Moreover, for those children who do work mostly shining shoes, in construction jobs, etc. It is easy to condemn the fact that they are working but when the alternative is that, there will not be enough food at home for them and their siblings; the alternative is less talking and censuring. We either give them all the food and money they need by direct aid or by allowing their parents to work in a factory that produces goods and services that will be FREELY export to other countries, even if this affects some people in the richest, and one of the greatest countries on earth.
Sincerely,
Alejandro

P.S. I am not flattering when I say the U.S. is one of the greatest countries in the world, and I say one of and not The greatest because I love my country.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:29 am

Hydrogen. LOL. Next case.

(Quote)
KentT Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:42 am

Hey Jim in PA #68 has a great point regarding fool cells, I mean fuel cells!

A fuel cell does not HAVE to have hydrogen as the “fuel.” And the point about the fuel cell being the range extender instead of an ICE is right on the money.

BUT

I think this whole thread is moot. Battery price/performance will reach a tipping point. Can anyone say what it is? In fact the pure EV, with no range extender with a real life 200+ mile range and fast charging will finally remove the need for a range extender and we can all have sub $20K electric cars with all the amenities of AC, four doors and great performance.

There was a race between fuel cells and batteries and like so many things, the market has decided. A $20K battery pack is more economically viable and available sooner then a $1M fuel cell with unproven reliability (need to meet that 10yr/100,000 mile California mandated warranty!) not to mention electricity is everywhere with the potential for renewable generation while hydrogen (is everywhere, really) but needs to be processed at a scale that will take more energy than would be worth it.

GM is already mentioning Gen2 batteries at half the size/weight and half the cost. Think of the economy of scale when the automakers hit 1 million E-REVs. I predict a Volt pack will cost $4K in five years. A factor of 5(?) decrease in price. Any takers?

Face it. Batteries have won.

(Quote)
Alejandro Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:50 am

#83 Kent T
I agree with you, not only battery powered cars are now cheaper to produce now but everything lead us to believe that will be the case in the near future. Besides, with E-REV’s or EVs there is the unbeatable convenience of having the opportunity to charge them from any plug even in the comfort of your own home.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 11:53 am

On the topic of the ‘viability plans’ being submitted today, GM has announced that Wags is going to do a press conference today at the Renaissance Conference Center @6:30pm…why so late? No clue.

You can watch it here at 6:30pm:

http://gmtv.feedroom.com/?fr_story=0f989aeb092a6410b7160fe2169cabde5c97e097

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

______________________________________________________

Question: What is the best EV range extender technology currently available? (clue: it’s not a hydrogen fuel cell )

Answer: Micro Turbine Electric Generator:
* Single moving part.
* Low maintenance (change air filter 1/year).
* No oil lube required (can use an air/foil bearing).
* Proven Technology
* 1/3 of the weight of piston ICE
* 1/3 of the size of piston ICE
* 1/3 of the emissions of piston ICE
* 1/3 of the cost of a piston ICE when scaled to high volume production.
* 50%+ more fuel efficient than piston ICE for generating electricity at a constant peak level.
* Can run on gas, diesel, or natural gas.

This concept has been experimented with in the past for EV’s (including GM) but the technology to manufacture a reliable micro turbine electric generator at a low cost was not there yet (materials, air bearings, exacting tolerances). Also the battery (to take a quick charge w/o memory effect) technology including sophisticated battery charge control software was not sufficiently available. That technology is now available and proven.

Think about the symmetry of it: A micro turbine (containing a single moving part) charging the batteries to an EREV to power the electric drive motor (containing a single moving part).
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

Regarding the viability plans being submitted today, I think the old adage of “no news is good news” sadly doesn’t apply here. To say that GM and Chrysler are scrambling to get these plans together is probably an understatement. We’ll see I guess.

Regarding fuel cell cars…cool cars, cool technology, but highly impractical for the now, and nobody besides Honda has the gazillions needed to throw at this technology.

(Quote)
Dan Neil Fills Up a Honda Clarity Video Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
The Grump Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:39 pm

I’ve commented in on hydrogen before, but here is the real test – try making it in your own backyard. And no, you don’t need a pig (that’s methane), just electric and a water source.

OK, you splitting hydrogen and oxygen – now what? Don’t look at me – I knew it was a dumb idea. I saw the “hydrogen car” episode on Mythbusters. A portable water splitting unit tied to the air fuel/air intake. It failed miserably. Then, true to form, they hooked up a tank of pure hydrogen to the car, and it started. However, a flash fire from leaked hydrogen ended the experiment quickly. No one was hurt.

OK – logic time. If you can’t make car-fuel ready hydrogen in your backyard, where do you get it ? Exxon. Mobil. Chevron. You know the list. Electric CAN be made in your backyard. Hydrogen? Not so much. I’ll wait on the Volt.

(Quote)
k-dawg Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

Looks like countries are becoming concerned on who will be chopped in GM’s plans for profitability today.

Canada (not too worried..hmm, i would be)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jsWZBDTncgkfoU4rPKySqmLIAxkA

Germany (is worried)
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200902171145DOWJONESDJONLINE000529_FORTUNE5.htm

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:54 pm

#85 statik –> thanks for the link. I’ll watch. I assume so late because first they submit the report (at 5pm minus one minute), then eat something, then go on TV. I can’t see what advantage it would have otherwise. On the other hand, they want to have a TV time today, not tomorrow, so as to be sure the GM side of the story is in the paper and on TV tomorrow.

(Quote)
Tom H Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

#42 Blake

#2 High Efficiency. Compared to heat engines, fuel cells are much more efficient. At low powers they can be up around 80% efficient although typically they are around 50% efficient.
——————————————————————————
Like the many other excellent postings on this board, Blake’s impressive write-up draws on actual facts, knowledge and work experience. We don’t see any of the ” I think probably” statements or “somebody, I foget who once said” attributions which are all to common on this board.

That said, I would respectfully submit that the statement that fuel cells are more efficient than heat engines, while absolutely correct, is made from the wrong perspective. If you start with H2 fuel in the tank and ready to go, hydrogen looks efficient. But if you go back to the source of the hydrogen, you find the ultimate energy input per mile driven is very low.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

Maynard #79.

Thanks for your reply.
When I ask about plugging in, I always assume that people have their own garage. How stupid of me to assume that, as I do know better.

If I had to plug in everyday you like do, I would dislike it also.

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

Schmeltz Says:
nobody besides Honda has the gazillions needed to throw at this technology

Just to clarify an issue I have with the Media. When Honda came out with their little H2 fuel cell car, I saw the media swoon over it and claim that Honda was great, etc, etc,. They made it sound like Honda was a pioneer in this area. No mention of the home team.

Honda plans to hand build 24 of these and they have only delivered a few.

GM, at the time of the Honda announcement of car #1, already had project driveway underway with about 100 Fuel cell Equinox’s in daily driver use. GM should get some credit for the technology initiative (if credit on fuel cells is being given).

(Quote)
Tom H Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:06 pm

Maynard #56
But I don’t like the idea of plugging my Volt in EVERY day. That sucks. So I would appreciate a bigger range, even though I don’t really need it.

——————————————————
Right now, you could double the range of the volt for about $10,000. Then you could plug in every other night. This would save you about 200 plug-ins per year, or about 33 minutes. Assume a 9 year car life, you save 5 hours. Everybody whose time is worth $2,000 per hour would be well served by doubling the AER of the Volt.

(Quote)
stas peterson Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

I must say, I grow weary of all the anti-capitalist, anti free enterprise, socialist rhetoric, so freely spilled here. Response #3, 4, 35, and 44 are loaded with socialist venom for free enterprise which made us the wealthiest country in the world. Government makes nothing. Everything you eat, wear or shelter in comes from the private sector. Yet dopes here think otherwise.

Did any of you see or hear of the speech that Mr. Putin just made? He warned Obama and his minions of the consequences of their mad dash toward Socialism that the Clueless One is undertaking.

Astounding to have the Russian President warning the American President about the detrimental, tyrannical, and in the end ineffective, aspects of State Socialism. Mr Putin goes on to warn of what it dearly cost the Russian people for 70 years. On the very same day that Oil Commissar Chavez, so beloved of young Kennedy and Markey, has declared himself President for Life, in Venezuela. I feel like I just entered Alice’s Wonderland.

http://www.therightperspective.org/?p=1472

(Quote)
ThombDbhomb Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:16 pm

#96 stas peterson

I grow weary of your diatribes. Views different from our own are things we have to put up with. You like free markets. You don’t like free speech?

(Quote)
D.. Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:23 pm

alejandro, Not an economist, but it is my understanding that your country was economically devastated, first by 400 years of elite exploitation, followed most recently with more of the same- neo-liberal policies beginning in the early eighties . Privitazation run amock, Bolivia was the first proving ground for Milton Friedman’s theories, now thoroughly discredited. (After twenty five years of neo-liberal policies in bolivia, GDP was smaller than ever). Who suffered?Why, the poorest of the indigenious population majority, Alejandro. But this experiment was finally brought to a close, after muchpopular blood was shed at the barricades, then elections. Finally the indigenious are in charge. An it’s about time. 400 years is a long time to wait for justice.

By the way, same story applies to Argentina, Venezuela. They were subjected the the radical privitazation of the Chicago Boys theories. ultimately the people went to the streets because the suffering was so great, bringing the governments down.

Aagain, i’m not an economist, but it doesn’t take one to inform you that if you’re continuing the preach the free-market mantra, then you haven’t a clue. (No offense), Sincerely. D

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:35 pm

stas peterson, #96.

I had quite a laugh. I had no idea you had a sense of humor.
Thanks for showing us your funny side.

(Quote)
canehdian Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

I didn’t have time to read everything, but I still think hydrogen could be viable.
I’d prefer all-electric – but perhaps an e-rev based on hydrogen can let me go long-distance when I need it, the hydrogen tank sitting empty when I don’t.

Claims of cost of production of hydrogen – I don’t see it.
In the GTA or Niagara Falls, the vast majority of our power generation is nuclear or hydroelectric, which are running 24/7 – whether we need it or not. This excess power can be used for plug-in cars at night or hey.. how about generating some hydrogen through electrolysis? The plants are right next to lake ontario (or niagara river) – a massive source of water. Water + electricity = hydrogen and oxygen. Amazing.
Or how about a windmill “home brew” station – in the week between fillups you could sure make a lot of hydrogen yourself.

Sure, that second option may not be too viable (today) but who knows.. it may be in the future.
You guys are too quick to give up.

As for the “super high pressure exposion” and “gasoline is not explosive”.. Why don’t you ask the Mythbusters – I’m sure they’d love to blow up some gas tanks to prove you wrong

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

All of you who keep saying that hydrogen is viable are missing the point. It doesn’t matter that it viable, which at this time it is not because of the distribution problems of not having stations to carry the product. The point you are missing is that with hydrogen we are expected to continue the refining, distribution and service station model of today’s world. I don’t want to do that. I want to be able to plug in my car to fuel it. I don’t mind the extra range extending ICE at this juncture because I believe it will not be needed in the future. Even if it is, that is preferable to having to stop every 300 miles or less to go to a service station to get hydrogen fuel. And don’t say we will be able to fuel our hydrogen cars at home. That is stupid. Who is going to be able to afford a hydrogen car PLUS a home fueling station. I have electric power at home. I have electric plugs to plug into. I don’t need nor do I want anything to do with hydrogen fueled cars. At this point they are a boon doogle. Maybe in 100 years, but I doubt that.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

______________________________________________________
Follow up to my above #86 post:

Research “Ferdinand Porsche” + “electric car” + “turbine”

It would be ironic if, after this very long EV/EREV development journey, the automotive industry ended up with Ferdinand’s original concept of an EREV plug-in using a micro turbine as the range extender.
_____________________________________________________

(Quote)
Tim Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

stas peterson (#96)

Many of these people want their shiny new toys and will happily trade anything for them, even their freedom. (or they just aren’t engaged enough in politics to see the whole big picture of what’s REALLY going on).

22 States Claiming Sovereignty: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, SC, TX, & WA

http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/

What’s next?

scary, isn’t it….

(hint; buy gold, food, guns & ammo NOW while your fiat $Dollars still have value)

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

Tim #103 says,
buy gold, food, guns & ammo NOW while your fiat $Dollars still have value

Thanks for the heads up Tim. I bought a gun and a lot of ammo.

Question: What am I going to shoot?

(Quote)
Tim Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

Rashiid Amul (#104) says:

“Question: What am I going to shoot?”

Answer: anyone who comes for your gold, food, guns, ammo or any other thing of value in your home or on your person even if that person is wearing jack boots or camo.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

#19 Tom

“And the idea that oil companies are behind hydrogen is just silly.”
—————————–

And just who do you think will be making hydrogen and distributing it? And who “owns” the service station network in the country? The little old oil companies will be hip deep in the hydrogen business. They have the money to build the facilities, the expertise, and the distribution network. No thanks, I want to divorce myself from the weekly trip to the service station. Even if hydrogen was viable, which it is not at this time.

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

#92 Tom H –

You are correct that fuel cells are efficient BUT the inefficiency of hydrogen as the fuel eliminates any overall gains. This is precisely why we need to stop thinking of hydrogen as the only viable fuel cell fuel. Methanol and ethanol are also technically viable to run fuel cells. So if we develop a good cellulosic ethanol industry, we can accomplish the short term goal of powering our ICEs, and the long term goal of powering fuel cells. Similarly, you can run fuel cells off of natural gas or off of methanol created from natural gas or coal gassification. All three of these fuel options lead to energy independence.

Just because you want to understandably give up on hydrogen doesn’t mean you should give up on fuel cells. Sever the two concepts from one another in your mind. Our R&D dollars would be wisely spent developing affordable fuel cells that run these fuels. Then use them to replace ICEs and we’ve just doubled our nation’s fuel efficiency. Use them as range extenders in EREVs and you’ll barely need to use them at all.

I do agree with above posters that by the time affordable fuel cells are available, battery technology may be developed to the point where range extenders are obsolete and purely electric cars are viable. But there will always be an application for locally fueled engines. And in those applications, a great long term strategy would be to replace ICEs with fuel cells. And none of this has anything to do with hydrogen.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

N. Riley #106 says,
No thanks, I want to divorce myself from the weekly trip to the service station.

——–
Oh Yes. I 100% wholeheartedly agree.

-Death to oil and oil companies. (Thanks Anti-oil Jihadi. I hope you are well)

(Quote)
D.. Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

for # 96- People have spoken in Venezuela.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/02/16/MNK115UM6K.DTL

(Quote)
DonC Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:04 pm

In looking a hydrogen as an energy carrier we should be careful not to confuse fuel cells with the fuel. While hydrogen may be impractical for many of the reason mentioned, with of course possible exceptions such as the one brought up by Cautious Fan, a fuel cell could be powered by something like ethanol. (I use ethanol because Jason Hendler has mentioned a new breakthrough catalyst that makes this feasible). GM could do a Volt, with very low cost per mile for the 40 miles, and then run the car with a fuel cell powered by ethanol. (Cost prohibitive at the moment but these things change).

BillR — I missed the opportunity yesterday, but thanks for the cite to the GreenMonk interview in the last thread. It was very informative. We normally don’t get such a long interview, and the length seemed to give a great flavor of GM’s thinking on several issues. I found the fact that while electricity and gas prices vary by country and region, the ratio of the cost of transport between the two tended to stay at a 1:6 to be very interesting.

(Quote)
KentT Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

Tsk, tsk! People! Soooo unimaginative!

Fuel cells powered cars 100 years from now? In 100 years our children and grandchildren will be standing on a car lot (gee how did THAT survive?) and will have to decide between a car powered by either Mr. Fusion or Dark Energy.

Go super-conducting supercollider!

(Quote)
Schmeltz Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:12 pm

@#94 Nuclearboy:

It is correct to say that both GM and Honda seem to be the leaders in the Fuel Cell world with other Automakers following behind in lesser degrees. The point I was trying to make is that only Honda currently has money to continue funding this particular research–GM doesn’t. These Automakers have come an extremely long way with this Hydrogen research, and have made some wonderful strides with it, but it is still not far enough it seems to offer a competitively priced vehicle to a society that doesn’t have a practical, cost effective Hydrogen manufacturing and distribution system in place. With that said, I don’t think we all should just quit and give up on Hydrogen forever, but instead research it if you’ve got the funds. Honda can afford to do that right now. GM can’t.

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

#103 Tim – I am surprised you still subscribe to the antiquated practice of combusting gunpowder to propel a bullet. As a fan of this website I would have assumed you would prefer the high voltage taser charging in your garage.

NPNS (no plug, no shot)

(Quote)
GXT Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:20 pm

94. nuclearboy,

You are a little misinformed.

You wrote:
“Honda plans to hand build 24 of these and they have only delivered a few.

GM, at the time of the Honda announcement of car #1, already had project driveway underway with about 100 Fuel cell Equinox’s in daily driver use. GM should get some credit for the technology initiative (if credit on fuel cells is being given).”

First, Honda plans to build 200.

Second, and here is the important lesson about GM, Project Driveway was announced Sept. 2006. However the first of the 100 vehicles did not roll out until January 2008 (http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/). The FCX began leasing in July 2007. Not only that, I’m not sure when (or if) all 100 equinox’s made it onto the roads.

More importantly, while GM had to retrofit Equinoxes, Honda made a car from the ground up. The more interesting part is that if GM ever manages to get the Volt working, then they hope one day to replace the ICE with a hydrogen fuel stack. Sounds kind of like GM’s real moonshot was already done by Honda with the FCX in 2007.

Good companies deliver. Bad companies talk.

(Quote)
jeff j Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:22 pm

#104 Start at the top and work your way down! LOL

I have enough guns ,and ammo and food I just need more GOLD!!!
My GM Stock is about worthless!!! GM @ 2.14 today

(Quote)
Starcast Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Tim #50

GM was wrong, we don’t need another “moon shot”.

“We need a miracle that only GREED fueled by free competition can provide. Gov’t can provide a LEVEL playing field by getting out of the way and breaking up monopolis, BUT the last thing we need is those morons in Congress choosing technologies by redistributing to some while starving others! They can’t even balance the budget.

We don’t need another Corn Ethanol.”

Best post of the day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 2:50 pm

Statik — looking forward to your comments on Wagoners speech at 6:30 EST. Scuttlebut is that UAW and bondholders are playing chicken against taxpayer money. My money is on them (literally and figuratively.) Hopefully we’ll find out more tonight.

Why would GM be so late on their 4th quarter financials? At some point, when the money is coming from the public trough rather then the market, it would make business sense to focus more effort on fighting for your place at the trough, rather then expending effort in business affairs. You think they just don’t have the staff to put out the report, or are they withholding it due to some negative information in there. If I’m an investor, I’d be a little spooked.

I wish BO would just rip the band-aid off. This bottomless pit strategy is depressing.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

Jim in PA (#113)

Yep, toys like tazers are really nice, but technology is expensive, it breaks and I prefer tools which actually work to get the job done right the FIRST time. Who wants to get shot in the butt while walking away from a “neutralized” threat?

Anyway, I’d really prefer a good sharp knife because you don’t have to worry about buying ammo or drawing attention to yourself, BUT you have to get a lot closer to those damn jack boots. Those comrades hunt in packs, and they don’t like the freedom loving types or the Constitutional limits on their power.

I wish we could just call the whole thing off, but power corrupts and ultimate power…

This talk of guns etc. is crazy! Let’s talk about something sane…

like how taxpayer redistribution funded H2 & corn ethanol is just Statists ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments and the simple laws of supply vs. demand economics!

(Quote)
BillR1 Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

For those interested, this is the best article I have seen on the current economic situation and the needs for the future (more efficient cars, more efficient electrical grid, etc.)

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/17/news/companies/sachs_carmakers.fortune/?postversion=2009021711

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 3:07 pm

Scuttlebut on GM’s plans

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200902161455DOWJONESDJONLINE000321_FORTUNE5.htm

(Quote)
Tim Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

Cautious Fan (#120)

BANKRUPTCY?

Why didn’t they just tell GM to do this in the first place?????

(nevermind. yes I knew it was a stupid question.)

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

I saw an beautifully restored antique Ford pickup on the way to work, today. It had a split windshield, so it must be pre-War. Funny how little the automobile has changed when you consider them in the broadest terms: Internal combustion engines, mechanical transmission, friction braking.

The ICE (as we call it) and transmission is over a century old. Only now is something queuing up to replace it.

I won’t say that hydrogen will always be impractical for cars, but it requires an unlikely excess of clean energy (fusion, fission, or fusion / fission hybrid reactors). It also requires an effective and safe means of storage (normal pressure “hydrogen sponge”).

I think it will be at least 60 years before hydrogen is ready to to replace the BEV … and at that time, it will be in competition with other means of on-board electricity generation.

And speaking of that, YES; a turbine would be GREAT … if it could be made cheaply enough. One great asset of electric drive is that many more power creation scenarios exist. I think that when people look back at the Volt design, they’ll be surprised that in ICE was used (until they are reminded that this is what we had, back at the turn of the century).

Those of you promoting fuel cells running on something other than hydrogen may find that their designers will have to deal with “coking:” the tendency of carbon-containing fuels to leave behind a carbon residue which reduces the cell’s efficiency.

(Quote)
Alejandro Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 3:26 pm

#98 D.. Says: “Not an economist, but it is my understanding that your country was economically devastated, first by 400 years of elite exploitation, followed most recently with more of the same- neo-liberal policies beginning in the early eighties . Privitazation run amock, Bolivia was the first proving ground for Milton Friedman’s theories, now thoroughly discredited. (After twenty five years of neo-liberal policies in bolivia, GDP was smaller than ever).”

Dear D:
First of all, I can tell right away that you are not an economist. That is ok, not a problem as long as we “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, ……..” and let everyone do what they are good at it.
However, regarding the situation in my country, I can see that you are really concerned about that since you brought the subject up out of the blue. As you said is no secret that the Spaniards colonized America and millions of people were exploited thereafter. However, my country has been independent for almost 200 years so far. Although, discrimination and racism has persisted up until now that is not the main reason of our underdevelopment, corruption is. Corruption that goes beyond any limits you could begin to imagine, and goes from the top members of the government (present and past) to the poorest of the poor. If you ever travel there you will find this to be true and includes All social classes, political affiliations, or ethnicities, stating different would be simply ignorance or stupidity.
Having said that, let me explain you that for the most part since WWII my country was ruled by leftist governments, with the exception of the 70’s when there was a military regime for 7 years), but even with them, throughout most of the twentieth century the Bolivian government had acquired great participation in the country’s economy and all the large companies were state-owned. The result was that ALL BUT ONE, let me repeat that ALL BUT ONE of those state-owned companies had yearly losses, not profits. Now, in 1985 the government at the time started taking sound economic measures and privatized most of those companies. After all, why should the government be in charge of running trains, flying planes, having a phone company, or a mining company? Especially considering that were not profitable. The gas company that was profitable, once it was privatized, gave the government more money in taxes than it had ever done in the past, regardless of the low taxes and royalties arranged with the foreign companies. The truth be told, during the last 20 years prior to this government, the country’s economy consistently grew an average of 4%, which is not impressive, but incredible if you consider our past performance. During that time, the country did not stopped growing, not even a single year, something very few countries can say in Latin America. On top of that, the privatized companies started to offer a much better service to the public, for instance telephone access multiplied by 20 times, the trains had more regular schedules, etc. Finally, the present government, despite being blessed by the high rocketed international prices of gas decided to nationalize all the companies, and as result we are having the short-run effect of having more money (that has not been translated in more benefits for the people by the way). But with the problem that not a single company wants to invest now in a country where the government decides to steal (nationalize) its assets; therefore, we are already having serious difficulties to get enough gas to deliver our promises to neighboring countries.
Finally, since you seem to have a racial problem. Let me tell you that one of our Vice-Presidents in recent years was indigenous, actually he is really indigenous, unlike Morales, who is kind of Obama, mixed race. Well everyone likes him because he is a very well educated gentleman. So, the reason why many, 40% to be more precise, of my people don’t like our present government is because of the failed socialist recipes it is implementing, and the same feeling would exist had him being white, black or red.
Sincerely,
Alejandro

(Quote)
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

Anybody looks at this, hot off the press today: “http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/enzymatic-proce.html#more”

I have no particular knowledge of chemistry, but on the surface this sounds potentially interesting.

But as someone pointed out near the top of the thread, all Honda has to do is take the FCX Clarity, yank the fuel cell, and put in a small ICE genset. (I have good information that Honda knows how to make them…)

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

(continued from 122, since Ajax editor fell on it’s face):

Please replace

“I think it will be at least 60 years before hydrogen is ready to to replace the BEV … and at that time, it will be in competition with other means of on-board electricity generation.”

with

I think it will be at least 60 years before hydrogen is ready to go toe-to-toe with the BEVs and EREVs of that time, but they’ll be competing with much greater AERs, a network of quick-charge stations, and other means of on-board electricity generation.

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 3:40 pm

#125 Fahrvergnugen Fanboy — Thanks for the exciting link. I was wondering how the energy balance worked, but I’m sure that those who know about such things find that obvious.

(Quote)
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

RB #125:

One of the exciting things in the link, from my very limited understanding of such things, is that the reaction is endothermic (that’s energy-absorbing, I think…) but at ambient temperatures. So you can pump in let’s say 100F heat from the ambient environment and it ends up as part of the hydrogen energy. The rest of the energy would come from the cellulose.

Please correct me, somebody, if I’ve gotten it wrong.

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Here in Franklin County VA we use corn to make ethanol and we want to know what dern fool would put it in their car? You can sell it out of the back of your truck in Philadelphia and make enough to buy gasoline no matter how much it costs.

Thanks CDavis for some good posts on a really poor day.

Nukes (we already have em) + (X)EV = the dawn of a new day in the USA

(Quote)
ccombs Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

The only way I ever see hydrogen becoming feasible for large scale power production (say in cars) is in conjunction with massive fusion plants that produce such cheap electricity that electrolyzing water to extract H2 becomes practical. This may occur in the future, but it will be a looong time before they can compete with battery-rechargeable vehicles, which are *almost* feasible now (not quite there in terms of cost yet, let’s not get ahead of ourselves).

Hydrogen will be a niche fuel, if that. BEVs are the way to go, and EREV is the bridge that will get us there.

(Quote)
Barry Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

Meanwhile, the Dow approching decade lows in the 7,500s today. I think we are about to drop off an economic abyss. The bad thing is, its like a negative feedback loop. The worse it gets, the worse it gets. Time to start hunkering down kids.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 4:18 pm

#117 Cautious fan said:

Statik — looking forward to your comments on Wagoners speech at 6:30 EST. Scuttlebut is that UAW and bondholders are playing chicken against taxpayer money. My money is on them (literally and figuratively.) Hopefully we’ll find out more tonight.

Why would GM be so late on their 4th quarter financials? At some point, when the money is coming from the public trough rather then the market, it would make business sense to focus more effort on fighting for your place at the trough, rather then expending effort in business affairs. You think they just don’t have the staff to put out the report, or are they withholding it due to some negative information in there. If I’m an investor, I’d be a little spooked.

I wish BO would just rip the band-aid off. This bottomless pit strategy is depressing.
===========================

Actually, I’m not going to listen to it, at least not live. I’m going to take the family out for a nice dinner. It is hard to believe but GM and the Volt are not my number one priority in this world, hehe.

As for the ’scuttlebut, ‘UAW and GM I’m sure have some kind of half-a**ed thing worked up. However, GM does not have to get anything done with the bondholders at this point…the deadline on them is actually March 31st.

As for the Q4 report, it has been ‘done’ for ages I’m sure and sitting on Wag’s desk. The problem is the materially damaged themselves in Q4 as a continuing operation…a self-inflicted gunshot wound if you will, when they thought they were going C11 (pre bailout), over buying inventories, over-producing demand by a factor of 3 to 1, basic stuff you do before a run on the bank ie) take as much as you can get before you are cut off.

/they probably just want to get ‘the plan’ out first…on media frenzy at a time I suppose

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 4:21 pm

We do not need to waste billions of dollars on hydrogen fuel development. Use that money to develop better battery technology and build better, safer nuclear generating stations. The last 10 years have seen vast improvements in nuclear safety and fuel usage. We need to get busy applying that knowledge and building the nuclear plants we need to keep our electrical systems supplied with clean and cheap power. The new plants that are on the drawing boards are much more efficient, safer and cheaper to operate than the ones built decades and decades ago. Technology has advanced many times since the last nuclear plant was built in the U.S. Lets get moving again.

(Quote)
Tom Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

A few more tidbits for those who care. #22 “Just think of what would happen if a Honda Clarity gets rear-ended by a loaded semi.” The answer for the GM fuel cell tank is nothing would happen. The tanks are the strongest part of the car. Even if the rest of the car was crushed the tank would remain intact. Also a fully charged tank only happens right after refueling. The other 98% of the time it’s less then fully charged. These storage tanks were shot, dropped, and put on a bonfire, the H2 leaks out and does not explode. And don’t forget you have to have a fuel air mixture to have an explosive combination.

As to all of these comments about manufacturing and transportation. How about a gas station that uses photvoltaics, combined with nanotechnology to efficiently create H2 via electolysis then store it onsite. That is more then doable in the next 5 years let alone 10 or as some suggest 15.

It’s always interesting to read everyones comments, and I appreciate them all. That’s one of the reasons this site is such a great resource.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Fahrvergnugen Fanboy (#127)

endothermic is energy absorbing.

If I read it right, the reaction produces not only hydrogen, but glucose…

I’ve read that some soil bacteria have been found that actually produce electricity (read it too long ago, and don’t have link). Of course, glucose would be an ideal food for them.

They say in the linked article that elevated temperatures could yield greater efficiencies by orders of magnitude…

You know, a fuel cell does produce some heat …

… I wonder how small they could make this “single-pot” chemical reactor?

… Are you thinking what I’m thinking?

Oh, and are you still liking your Honda Fit?

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Lyle,

Those “facts” regarding hydrogen vs. electricity efficiency are just plain out of date, or simply wrong. Most importantly, outlets that will RAPIDLY RECHARGE your vehicle ARE NOT AVAILABLE, so infrastructure is necessary for BOTH hydrogen and electricity, to match the unlimited range of today’s gasoline ICE vehicles.

Many nations will adopt hydrogen, and a large segment of the US will also, especially for maritime, aviation and long haul applications, where hydrogen makes most sense.

(Quote)
Stewart Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 4:37 pm

Nuclear is a old, dying technology. We don’t need waste producing, dangerous, and relatively weak energy sources like nuclear.

Why choose those options to invest in when there are ways to produce energy that are 100% renewable and non emission or waste producing. Solar, ocean, and wind can do everything we need and then some. Lets move forward not backwards.

(Quote)
RB Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 4:40 pm

Fahrvergnugen Fanboy (#127) –> I read it the same as you explain, with endothermic meaning energy absorbing. Thanks also to Jackson #134 with his added comments about the value of elevated temperatures.

Accepting it all as true (and I have no reason not to do so), I think that is an amazing reaction. It is remarkable (to me) that it goes forward at room temperature (I would have thought it would have to be externally heated.)

I wonder if it can be scaled up fairly readily.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 4:52 pm

Chrysler is out. Surprise…it wants more money!
===================

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Chrysler LLC presented its new turnaround plan to the federal government Tuesday and said it’ll need an additional $5 billion in additional federal loans to allow the company to survive.

Chrysler said it plans to cut about 3,000 jobs, or 6% of its workforce, and reduce capacity by another 100,000 vehicles this year as it tries to adjusted to reduced demand. It also said it has won the concessions from the United Auto Workers union and its creditors that were demanded under terms of the loan from the Treasury Department.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/17/news/companies/auto_plans/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote

Also, it is going to can 3 models

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 4:55 pm

@Stewart 136
“Solar, ocean, and wind can do everything we need and then some. Lets move forward not backwards.”

I think to a certain percentage, most of us think your statement is true. NOW, how to store the energy when it’s abundant for day’s when it’s not is another technological challenge.

I’ll take my Volt, No Generator, No ICE, shaken not stirred…

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:14 pm

Just out of curiousity….
If there are little to no sales of vehicles for the past 6 months, what are the plant employees building? Are they working? If so, what are they doing?

From my past asseblyline experience, non Union of course, we were sent home.

Just curious.

(Quote)
D.. Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

Not buying it, Alejandro. Nationalizing oil is not stealing, just spreading the natural wealth fairly. That’s what’s going on in Venezuela after many years of contol of the resources of, for, by the few. And it’s what the US in encouraging in Iraq. Everyone to share in the wealth there. You got a problem with that, Alejandro.?..

By ;the way, Alejandro , defender of sweat shops and the status quo.. I’m a firm believer in the US helping the less fortunate countries of the world, .And We should trade with the world, but only with countries that are mindful of human rights, labor rights and the environment. I don’t think it good policy to exploit the workers of developing world. Howzabout a living wage in bolivia, alejandro?You down with that? Sweatshops on our own border are bad enough, I can imagine the conditions in Haiti, bolivia,

As I said, many of your ideas are wrongheaded, elitist, dated, IMHO. Might want to rethink those, though I am no economist. Sincerely, D…thanks

(Quote)
Unni Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

Nissan is also coming with EV next year :

http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1018694_exec-nissan-electric-car-will-have-100-mile-range-and-launch-in-us-in-2010

2010 is going to be a different year. I think most people address the range anxiety by having a 100 mile range and save cost/space of range extender.

I believe Volt also should start looking that direction as battery technology advances. like 40 to then 100 mile range , then 300 and then to 500. This save a lot space and that can be used to store extra battery if needed.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:20 pm

UAW reaches tentative deal with domestic automakers

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — The United Auto Workers union said Tuesday that it has reached a tentative deal to modify labor contracts hammered out in 2007 due to the “extraordinarily difficult economic climate.” The union said terms of the modifications will be made available after working out details of the employees’ health care benefits plan and ratification of the agreement by the union.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7bF49D2AA0-D7C5-449C-9DC4-DF9F235DE9AD%7d&siteid=yhoof2
========================
Translation: We have some kind of a deal on some stuff and still working on some other stuff. We aren’t going to tell you anything about it right now, so you can’t really judge the significance of this deal…but it is viability time, so we just thought you should know.

(Quote)
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:22 pm

If this thing really absorbs heat in the upper room-temperature range and outputs hydrogen (and glucose?!!) then here’s my scenario:

1: It cools your house (maybe hooked up to the back-end of your air-conditioner?).
2: It fills your car with hydrogen.
3: It fills your other car (or your liquor cabinet) with ethanol from the glucose.

Just keep shoveling in those grass clippings! (OK, exaggeration, but in principal that’s it.)

And as far as I can tell, I don’t see any laws of physics being violated. Could this possibly be really true? C’mon, science guys, we need you now…

(Quote)
D.. Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:24 pm

jack sparrow. large caverns full of pressurized air is great for energy storage. (Did) You -all saw the article in Scientific American few months back? A grand solar plan.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

Alejandro,

Thank God “D.” does not speak for the vast majority of Americans. He is a someone who has not really been exposed to the real world, apparently. He needed to have lived in the Soviet Union (also known as the worker’s paradise). Now the real worker’s paradise is in North Korea. Maybe he will emigrate to North Korea where they would appreciate his view points. Thanks but no thanks, D.

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Fahrvergnugen Fanboy144

Sounds great and at a neighborhood scale (after someone spends billions to create economies of scale to get it to that level), then folks may be bold enough to get together and try it in brand new subdivisions that have not already paid thousands per home to get on the grid. For an individual homeowner it would be cost prohibitive to the extreme in the near future, if all the chemical and bio processes pan out and can be scaled economically.

(Quote)
Jacob Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

#142 Unni

I think a Nissan EV car like that with a 100 mile range at a low price will sell like crazy. Especially if they can get it out in early 2010 and if gas prices are back up around the $4 range. You just know Nissan, Mitsubishi, Hyundai etc. have these cars up their sleeve and are just waiting to pounce on this market. The first company that produces a sub $20k car with this kind of range wins. Unfortunately for GM, they are pricing themselves out of competition with the Volt not to mention the low 40 mile range. I just dont see anyone buying a car that’s 50% more expensive with 150% less range.

(Quote)
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:39 pm

“If this thing really absorbs heat in the upper room-temperature range and outputs hydrogen (and glucose?!!)” then not only that but, used on a massive enough scale it would…

… ACTUALLY COUNTERACT GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!

This is like the kind of stuff I used to “invent” when I was in fifth grade before I realized I don’t have the math ability to ever be a grown-up scientist.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:45 pm

DETROIT – 02/17/09

General Motors Corp. is expected shortly to release the details of its own restructuring plan and follow that up with a news conference at 6:30 p.m. GM has received $13.4 billion in government loans — $4 billion of that on Tuesday.

The plan will stick with GM’s public strategy of trying to remain viable and avoiding Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been finalized.

GM’s plan will discuss cost savings from labor concessions and additional plant closures, but the locations of those plants will not be revealed, another person briefed on the plan said Monday. The number of factories to be closed wasn’t available.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090217/ap_on_bi_ge/autos_bailout

=D~

(Quote)
Fahrvergnugen Fanboy Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:48 pm

“For an individual homeowner it would be cost prohibitive to the extreme in the near future”

Yes, of course. I was just having a little fun. But how about change that to

1: Cool your nuclear power plant’s waste heat instead of dumping heated water back into the river…

I’m almost as excited as I was the night they announced Cold Fusion on the CBS Evening News. I hope it turns out differently.

(Quote)
Dave K. =D~ Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pm

hi Jacob #148,

“I think a Nissan EV car like that with a 100 mile range at a low price will sell like crazy.”

___________________________________

My second car must be able to travel 300 continuous miles. Why limit yourself to (maybe) 100 miles per charge when you can either go with a 40mpg Cruze or upgrade to an extended range Volt?

And don’t forget trying to sell the idea of $20,000 with limited range to your spouse. Am I right or am I crazy?

=D~

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:02 pm

Thought I’d mention the 3 cars cut from the remarkably short (relatively speaking…GM’s is supposedly north of 700 pages) Chrysler ‘viability plan’

Dodge Aspen, Dodge Durango and Chrysler PT Cruiser.

Chrysler is also bringing the humor in its page turner…they peg the SAAR at 10.1 million. That is so December ‘08.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:07 pm

@Jacob 148,

“I think a Nissan EV car like that with a 100 mile range at a low price will sell like crazy.”

If one were available today, I’d trade in my friggin Piece of phukin shlt 2002 Ford Explorer for it in a heartbeat.

(Quote)
statik Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:13 pm

Re: Nissan brings 100 miler to market in 2010

IF they can do it, the sales are just waiting…big time. They certainly have my dollar bills ready to go. The market wants anything right now, even the Indight sold over 10,000 copies in its first weekend taking sales in Japan.

I figure everyone they can make for all of 2010 and 2012 will be sold by the end of the first day of taking orders.

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:14 pm

D
CaptJackSparrow
Stewart

Some new studies conclude that storage for renewable is not the bottle-neck that it appeared to be. Too comfortable right now to look it up though, just ranting. Summary is that at large scales there is someplace with sufficient sun, wind and wave activity.

Problems are still 1) Cost (wind and and possibly wave, not so much solar, are now competitive with peak hours generation costs) and 2) Transmission/infrastructure capacity and suitability. Transmission upgrades are a national problem and phenomenally expensive, (at least we thought it was expensive until these bailout numbers came out) and expediency, inertia, politics etc. keep it off the agenda.

One bright spot for storage though is with phev’s and ev’s in driveways and parking spaces with nothing to do, especially during peak hours on weekdays. Power can be sold back at peak rates and bought at lower rates when wind and wave power are generated but not used by the sleeping populace at night.

Utilities are itching to see what happens to the coming 11 year old car batteries(first hybrids, then the big boys). A Volt driver may not think much of that old 16KWh battery, but old Volt batteries could be a really cheap way for a power provider to get a perfectly usable 6 or 7KWh storage unit.

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:20 pm

Fahrvergnugen Fanboy 1: Cool your nuclear power plant’s waste heat instead of dumping heated water back into the river…

I’m almost as excited as I was the night they announced Cold Fusion on the CBS Evening News. I hope it turns out differently

A truly glowing set of solutions.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

@statik 155
“. The market wants anything right now, even the Indight sold over 10,000 copies in its first weekend taking sales in Japan.”

Yeah, I read that somewhere that they out sold their 5000 unit expectation/month in one week. A full BEV with a range of at least 40 miles and freeway speed should’ve been here yesterday.

The Volt is my first choice and the Th!nk City and the Ford Focus BEV are tied for secind choice.

I’ll take my Volt, No Generator, No ICE, shaken not stirred…

(Quote)
chevonly Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:26 pm

Kill hydrogen to expensive
Kill windfarms a total blight on the landscape and T-Boonie has to much money already.
Electrification of everything, solar on a massive scale or better yet.
STILL THE MOST AMOUNT OF POWER PRODUCED AT THE BEST PRICE WITH THE SMALLEST FOOTPRINT FOR WHAT COMES OUT THE OTHER END.
NUCLEAR POWER PERIOD AND IN THE FUTURE TOCAMAX THE POWER OF THE SUN. KILL THE WINDFARM BIRD SHREDDERS NOW!!!!!!!!!

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:31 pm

#143 statik Says: UAW reaches tentative deal with domestic automakers

Translation: We have some kind of a deal on some stuff and still working on some other stuff. We aren’t going to tell you anything about it right now, so you can’t really judge the significance of this deal…but it is viability time, so we just thought you should know.
————————————————————————————–
As I understand it, Feb 17th was just a government status check on viability. The real drop-dead date is March 31st. If there is no final viability plan by then, GM will go Chapter 11, which will inevitably lead to Chapter 7.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

@chevonly 159
“BIRD SHREDDERS”

Dude called em bird shredders…
lol….

I never heard that one……
Good chuckle, thanks chevonly, I’m going to get another beer…..

(Quote)
Kurt Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:40 pm

Hydrogen is NOT explosive, people! Your gasoline tank, however…

Oh, ye of little faith to believe that technology can’t improve, costs can’t come down, and fueling infrastructure won’t expand. Um, it happened once, it’ll happen again!

And what’s with avid bloggers now knocking/doubting the Volt? My Volt will be more expensive than the 2nd or 3rd generation, or the cars that compete with it after release. Call it my investment in new technology. And my home’s solar roof charging it still costs way less than gasoline on my commuting miles.

The battery w/ range extender idea was genius, because 40 miles is an amazingly accurate commuting range, where the battery makes all the economic balance that it needs. Plus, as carbon nanotubes and others become the norm for fuel cells rather than platinum, fuel cells can become the range-extender without having to rely so much on hydrogen day-to-day. I know it’s been said, but that makes great economic sense, and gives that charging infrastructure a bit of leeway in its construction timeline. The battery will still be much more efficient, another reason why it’s still needed in this equation.

It gives me hope that each new generation sees a different climatic/national security/pollution picture, and the American innovative spirit keeps driving them to do something about it. I know cars are only one small area, but everything counts here.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:40 pm

#17 James Says: “Hydrogen is viable; why do you think NASA uses hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries?”
————————————————————————————–
For NASA, hydrogen fuel cells make the most sense. The energy-to-weight ratio is much better than batteries. For a spacecraft, weight is the biggest issue. So for NASA, it doesn’t matter that the production of hydrogen is terribly inefficient, or that fuel cells cost a fortune, since a lower launch weight more than makes up for that.

Fuel cells are used on nuclear submarines for the same reasons.

But for the mass market, hydrogen doesn’t make any sense.

Why a hydrogen economy doesn’t make sense
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.

(Quote)
Kurt Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:46 pm

#159
Nuclear power?? Are you kidding me with this? Everyone knows it’s WAY more expensive than ANYTHING else, and creates all kind of radioactive waste no one knows what to do with.

TRUTH – One kg of CIGS (mining by-product in South Dakota) on a solar panel will create FIVE TIMES more energy over its life than a kg of enriched uranium (imported from Russia). Umm…solar’s got it beat by cost AND power curve. We need more power during the day, when the sun shines! (Nuclear fails because it is a flat-level base-load power supply).

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:48 pm

Jason Hendler,

“Those “facts” regarding hydrogen vs. electricity efficiency are just plain out of date, or simply wrong. Most importantly, outlets that will RAPIDLY RECHARGE your vehicle ARE NOT AVAILABLE, so infrastructure is necessary for BOTH hydrogen and electricity, to match the unlimited range of today’s gasoline ICE vehicles.”

Hey thanks for that, boy sure wish somebody would invent a Lowes or Home Depot or something to sell those electrical panels for washers dryers, industrial sized service etc. that don’t exist.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 6:48 pm

#162 Kurt Says: Oh, ye of little faith to believe that technology can’t improve, costs can’t come down, and fueling infrastructure won’t expand.
————————————————————————————–
Why do you believe this will happen for hydrogen and not for batteries?

In the time it takes to make hydrogen viable, there will many better alternatives…

(Quote)
Jeff Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:08 pm

Saturn Dealers to Spin-Off From GM Into New Company

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123491214914203599.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Under the new plan, Mr. Januska said, Saturn dealers would be open to selling vehicles made by Indian or Chinese manufacturers that would be sold as Saturns.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:17 pm

#165 Jeffhre Says: Most importantly, outlets that will RAPIDLY RECHARGE your vehicle ARE NOT AVAILABLE,
————————————————————————————–
This is a very good point. Any change to the filling station infrastructure is a big deal. It will take 25-50 years for any new filling station infrastructure to completely penetrate remote and rural areas.

This is why I believe the answer lies in a combination of EREVs and Ethanol. FlexFuel cars still run on gasoline, so filling up in remote areas is no problem.

Coskata is already building a large scale plant that make cellulosic ethanol for $1 per gallon.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9928810-54.html
Using this method, they can replace up to 35% of our current gasoline usage. Unlike corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol doesn’t require fossil fuels to produce.

With a typical yearly driving pattern, the Volt uses only 37 gallons of gasoline per year. If most of those those 37 gallons are converted to E85, thats only 6 gallons of gas per year, or 1.5% of the current CAFE standard.

This is why national security experts recommend a combination of FlexFuel and plug-ins to make us energy independent. See here for details:
http://www.setamericafree.org/solution.html

As many here have said, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

Dave G – I think another drawback to batteries on satellites is the fact that they tend to operate poorly in very cold conditions, and space is cold. In fact there is a real life fuel cell manufacturer in upstate NY (PlugPower) that has actually sold some fuel cell units for operating forklifts in WalMart food distribution cold warehouses for this very reason.

(Quote)
Len Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:28 pm

G.M said that it needed $4.6 billion within weeks from loans previously requested from the government and an additional $12 billion on top of that to avoid a court filing.

It sounds like GM is telling the Fed, “Please, Please send me into bankruptsy”. Just think, the taxpayers will get to take over their pension obligations. What a treat! We get stuck no matter what!

I love the way this is playing out. I got no pension, I got no guarenteed heathcare, but wait!, I get to pay for a bunch of other people to have both. I am just so happy! It is a good thing I have a sense of ironic humor.

(Quote)
Don Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

I want a Ford Pinto that runs on hydrogen. I’ll put on a bumper sticker saying “Don’t even THINK about tailgating me”

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

#169 Jim in PA Says: “I think another drawback to batteries on satellites is the fact that they tend to operate poorly in very cold conditions, and space is cold.”
————————————————————————————–
Yes, good point.

But note that batteries warm up as they are used, which is what makes EREVs viable for colder climates. The gas engine warms the battery initially, for a couple of minutes, and then the battery takes over and keeps itself warm through use. A very workable solution that uses a minimal amount of liquid fuel (gas or E85).

(Quote)
Red HHR Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 7:36 pm

Huh,

What happened to the Tesla road test?
Did the extension cord break?

Locally them bird shredders run at about 30% of rated (electrical) capacity. I am not sure what the bird shredding capacity is, however I have yet to see a shredded bird. So the shredding utilization is somewhat lower than published reports would indicate.

Red HHR (Hey Barney, when do I get my Volt?)

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:30 pm

stas peterson 96 “Government makes nothing. Everything you eat, wear or shelter in comes from the private sector. Yet dopes here think otherwise”

Good point Stas, I don’t understand why we don’t just eliminate all government from sea to shining sea and go independent.

(Quote)
Jeffhre Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:45 pm

Maynard # 56

If you are serious, then install a key-less entry and start button. Then the time you once took to insert the key and start the ICE can be used to plug and unplug. That and not going to get gas at all when you drive less than 40 miles a day should make the 3 seconds to grab and plug the cord much more bearable, he he.

Static, if, he he, is copy written my apologies.

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 8:59 pm

Actually, you weren’t thinking nearly small enough, Fahrvergnugen Fanboy. I was thinking of nasaman’s idea of creating hydrogen on board the car.

You pump in a slurry of water and ground up cellulose, and voila! Hydrogen for a fuel cell, and glucose for electricity-producing microbes.

/just funnin’ ya’ll.

Hey, what about that Fit?

(Quote)
Jackson Says:
February 17th, 2009 at 9:08 pm

Old ideas about Nuclear were formed about old Nuclear technology.

There are all sorts of interesting things being done to solve many of these problems cited by Kurt (#164) and others.

One of my favorites uses a fusion device simply as a source of neutrons to transmutate elements such as thorium (and those found in nuclear waste) to fissile forms. The requirements for the fusion device would be much less rigorous, since it would not require ‘breakeven,’ the neutron bombardment would simply augment fission which wouldn’t occur otherwise.

We shouldn’t judge new nuclear technology by a 60 year old paradigm any more than any other.

And yes, Kurt, CIGS is an exciting prospect; but what do you do at night?

Large scale energy storage and low (or better yet no) loss, long-distance transmission are crucial if ‘alternate energy’ is to replace old-line sources. Neither is available universally.

(Quote)
The Grump Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 4:46 am

Hey beertender, I’ll have whatever #159 chevonly is having, and keep ‘em coming.
—————————————————————
BTW, no one has said how they intend to make, compress to a usable level, and store hydrogen in their own backyard yet. Easy to do with electric – solar panels. Not so easy with hydrogen. But there’s always Exxon – they’ll hook you up, for a fee of course.

(Quote)
jim Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 6:22 am

Your all wrong, the future is not hydrogen or electric. But a hamster going round a wheel (with lots of guns and ammo).

(Quote)
tim-the-dreamer Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 6:24 am

The Grump@178,

Unitednuclear.com, and you can get the nuc material to build a safe beta-voltic battery to help recharge your volt batteries so you may not need to ever plug it in . From what I’ve been able to make out the process uses thermo-electric cooling.

(Quote)
tim-the-dreamer Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 6:31 am

Jim @ 179,

Don’t forget his little headband, archery set, and bowie knife .

(Quote)
Darius Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 9:35 am

Kurt,

I do not believe in nuclear as you do but due to completely different reason – Uranium fuel volume is limited almost the same as oil and raw uranium Russians are purchasing in Australia not exploiting their own!!!!!!
Raw uranium price is increasing rapidly. Therefore nuclear is not panacea together with wind, wave and etc. I think that we are on brink of big inventions. I don’t know which is comming but most realistic is laser fusion. May be Blacklight is real thing – who knows.

(Quote)
The Grump Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 11:50 am

Hold on beertender, I also want some of whatever #180 tim-the-dreamer is smoking, too.

(Quote)
Pragmatic Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

#124 Fahrvergnugen Fanboy, Jackson et al,

“Enzymatic Process Converts Cellulosic Materials and Water into Hydrogen at Low Temperature”

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/enzymatic-proce.html#more

“A chemical energy output greater than the chemical energy stored in sugars due the to process converting low-temperature thermal energy into high-quality hydrogen—“like Prometheus stealing fire,” according to Zhang.”

The BIG news here is that ambient heat energy (i.e. room temperature) is playing a major role in the reaction. As Fahrvergnugen, and Jackson note – this is a BIG deal. Since it sets us in the pursuit of other reactions where ambient heat energy is utilized in reactions.

As to its uses in on-demand energy production – as Jackson suggests, a compact exchanger feeding an FC – if made small enough provides for a biochemical FC that… well, runs on wood chips. While this may never be practical, it does open an important door to low energy reactions where we begin to see energy outputs balancing upward from their inputs (excluding ambient thermal).

There are of course rather large political forces at play here. As energy its production and sources, is the gatekeeper to technological/societal growth. Too little energy and the society remains monopolized by market/dictatorial forces, Too much of a volatile kind and there are dangers to political stability. Ubiquitous energy (a cosmological fact) requires societal restraint and maturity – i.e. don’t give keys to the chocolate factory to unenlightened ten year olds.

It is incumbent upon the human race to take those restraints in hand, by themselves, un-dictated. They must be taken and implemented by choice, for benefits rendered at present and in the future. Which puts us at a crossroads of sorts. “We” being the ten year olds. By accepting the weights and responsibilities of abundant energy, we also must accept reasonable paths of growth.

Else we end up sugar shocked, fat, smeared in fudge sauce, lying at the trough of the chocolate factory.

(Quote)
Tom Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

Dave in 163 uses this quote – The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen

That quote MAY be true today, but the ASSUMPTION is that today will equal tomorrow and that just ain’t true. Tomorrow will have breakthroughs. There are hints of them today and a certain number will become viable. This is like the early days of gasoline 100 years ago. Times changed for gasoline and the same will happen for hydrogen.

(Quote)
Don Says:
February 18th, 2009 at 7:11 pm

Hydrogen is so dead for vehicle fuel. Let it rest in peace. Even if one could solve all the issues of storing, transferring, and efficiently using hydrogen in a vehicle . . . there is still no efficient source of hydrogen. Hydrogen is an energy storage system, not an energy source. The best way of making hydrogen right now is from natural gas . . . why not just burn the natural gas as is!!!

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
February 19th, 2009 at 4:20 am

Tom #185 ” That quote MAY be true today, but the ASSUMPTION is that today will equal tomorrow and that just ain’t true. Tomorrow will have breakthroughs. There are hints of them today and a certain number will become viable. This is like the early days of gasoline 100 years ago. Times changed for gasoline and the same will happen for hydrogen”

____________________________________

Slight problem with the analogy – more than a 100 years ago gasoline was dumped in rivers as a useless byproduct during the refining of lamp oil. Rivers had so much of the stuff they reportedly caught fire. I doubt anyone is going to dump costly hydrogen anywhere anytime soon while waiting until the point that billions of liters are burned to run vehicles. Did you look at the video above and see the price of that stuff! And this is without any demand for burning it in ICE’s or fuel cells.

Higher demand usually brings the price up not down. If anything, breakthroughs that increase hydrogen demand in the short term would make the economics of hydrogen worse in the long term. Sorry, not trying to beat that horse to death but gas a hundred yrs ago really was a horse of different stripes.

Apparently river fires when commonly expected enough that they weren’t even reported as news until the 1950’s or ’60s. ( http://www.takepart.com/blog/2008/10/25/a-brief-history-of-clevelands-cuyahoga-river-catching-fire/ ) By the way Cleveland is where an obscure outfit called Standard Oil started by a young guy named J. D. Rocke something got it’s start.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
February 19th, 2009 at 4:46 am

Pragmatic 184 “Else we end up sugar shocked, fat, smeared in fudge sauce, lying at the trough of the chocolate factory.”
________________________________
Brilliant summary, nice segue too. Wow, Mad Max meets Willy Wonka, that’s even better than Predator v. Alien.

My take is it’s kinda like Bill Paxton screaming in the movie Aliens, ” We’re all gonna die”. There’s a lot more talent expended there than is required for a standard horror flick (or blog). How that relates to population growth and carrying capacity should be your next task, delivered in terms of popular movie allegory of course.

(Quote)
Tom Says:
February 19th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

185 jeffhre Says: Did you look at the video above and see the price of that stuff! And this is without any demand for burning it in ICE’s or fuel cells.

Air Products says they can deliver Hydrogen via truck for $3.00 per kg and by pipe for $2.70. They expect the price to go down from there.

An earlier post of mine put it this way – How about a gas station that uses photovoltaics, combined with nanotechnology to efficiently create H2 via electolysis then store it onsite. That is more then doable in the next 5 years let alone 10 or as some suggest 15.

My reference to the early days of gasoline referred to a lack of infrastructure and not throwing gas in the rivers.

(Quote)
Dean Says:
February 21st, 2009 at 2:21 am

I do not want another car that uses fuel that the oil barons can manufacture, monopolize, and enslave us with. My god people, do you not realize that if we develop electric vehicles, the electricity you put into the car could eventually be produced on your own roof. Using the current electric grid an EV typically gets 5 to 10 times the distance from $1.00 worth of elec. then a gas car can get from $1.00 worth of gas. Think about it, that’s an 80% to 90% savings.

The problem is that no self-respecting (greedy) investor (who’s only interest is making as much money as possible at any cost) is going to put money into a product that once sold gives no more return (I.E. EV’s with batteries, and solar panels) not when they can invest in, and promote an auto that requires a fuel (I.E. gas, hydrogen, ethanol,). A fuel that the car owner has no choice but to buy from them, increasing their profits significantly.

If you would like to take the time and effort to process the elec. from your roof or the grid into highly explosive hydrogen first, and then put that into your car, then that is your prerogative. As for me, I would rather save the effort and the loss of energy from the conversion process (about 2/3rds), and just place the elec. straight into the car as is.

(Quote)
Michael Robinson Says:
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:14 am

Hydrogen fuel cell cars are a much better idea than battery electric
ones. Hydrogen fuel cell cars, no matter how you decide to store
the hydrogen on them, can be refueled in minutes. With
expensive platinum going away and being replaced by carbon nanotubes which are much cheaper, fuel cells are going to sharply
drop in price. Carbon nanotube electrodes are more resilient than
platinum, so the 50k mile ceiling for fuel cells is going to be breached.

It is not necessary to use electricity to get hydrogen, it just happens
to be a popular and well understood method. Hydrogen can be
retrieved via bacterial action given the right conditions. Another
option is reforming biofuels, saves the trouble of having to ship
hydrogen. An area the size of Texas if algae is used to produce
biofuels can replace all the gasoline that is used in the U.S. currently. Even if hydrogen gas is transported, there is a pipeline
technology for $500k a mile that will work.

Go to safe hydrogen’s web site, they have a chemical slurry that could be used to store and distribute hydrogen both safely and efficiently. The slurry can be pumped into cars instead of hydrogen gas and the left over hydroxide pumped out for reprocessing.
The left over for magnesium hydride slurry is milk of magnesia. Mixing the slurry with water releases the hydrogen. The slurry fuel tank only needs to be 20% larger than the typical gas tank for a fuel cell car to have a decent range.

High pressure hydrogen tanks are safer than large Lithium ION
batteries when it comes to explosions. The Hindenburg didn’t
explode because of hydrogen, it exploded because the skin
was coated in rocket fuel.

The Toyota FCHV Highlander can go 500+ miles on a single load
of 10k PSI hydrogen. It was tested on the Alaskan Alcan highway.

Fuel cell car technology has progressed to the point where affordable vehicles can be manufactured given high enough
volume production. The problem is, no refueling infrastructure.
The Magnesium Hydride Slurry I mentioned can be transported
on existing gasoline tanker trucks with a minimum amount of
modification. The slurry won’t ignite even if you a apply an open
propane flame to it. If bacteria is used to get hydrogen, it’ll take
some electricity to make the slurry but nowhere near what it takes
to do electrolysis. The benefit of fuel cell cars having a system
on them to reform slurry is that existing fuel infrastructure will
work. It costs some electricity wise to make slurry, but I think
the benefits of it outweigh that cost.

Hydrogen has to be manufactured. Repeat, hydrogen is not an
optional substance. Hydrogen is needed to make gasoline and
it is needed to create fertilizer and it is needed in the food industry.

High pressure hydrogen tanks can take a bullet and not explode.
They are safe. The car companies seem to think these high
pressure tanks are simple, unfortunately it is difficult to refuel
high pressure tanks if you don’t have a compressor. Refueling
with Magnesium Hydride Slurry would be easier. Magnesium
Hydride Slurry has the consistency of latex paint.

If 25% of cars in the U.S. ran on Magnesium Hydride Slurry, it
would be affordable to manufacture and distribute it. The electricity
to make slurry can be collected in desert regions via solar panels.
Death valley would be a good place to locate large solar power
farms. The hydrogen for the slurry can be collected via bacteria
from waste water or sea water.

Lithium ION batteries have a tendency to explode which only gets
worse as they get larger. It takes hours, not minutes, to recharge
large Lithium ION batteries. There is not enough Lithium in the world to replace all conventional gasoline powered automobiles
with hybrids. The hybrid is not a solution to the problem of
dependence on fossil fuel. Unfortunately, EV’s and E-REVS are
a distraction from the real solution to dependence on fossil fuel
for transportation which is fuel cell car using hydrogen gas.

Please check out the following sites to educate yourself about
hydrogen:

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com
http://www.hydrogendiscoveries.com

(Quote)
Auto Blog Says:
March 24th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

Great read – keep up the great work!

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

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
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory November 18, 2009
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1038564_thnk-picks-indiana-for-u-s-factory) […]
Jason M. Hendler
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010 November 18, 2009
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010: _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler
Any news about the NiMH battery? November 18, 2009
Now that there are new owners of the patent, is there any indication that they will allow its use for electric cars? Like many others, I believe that... […]
Desertstraw
energy requirments of modern electric vehicles November 18, 2009
does anyone know any credible sources of information concerning the electricity requirements of modern electric vehicles per mile of travel and the... […]
crubkings
30% reduction November 18, 2009
The Belgian governement decided that if you buy a car with less then 60g/km emmision you get a 15% tax reduction and you can write it off for 100% if... […]
filiep

Has Hydrogen Run Out of Gas?

192 Responses to “Has Hydrogen Run Out of Gas?”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts