For what seems like forever, hydrogen fuel-cell technology has been a shimmering mirage dancing on the distant horizon of the auto-tech desert. No matter how long we keep trudging, how many reams of press-releases we wade through, nothing definite ever seems to happen to bring it any closer. Until now?
Honda Motor Co. has announced the development of it’s latest (fourth generation), compact, solar-powered, home refueling station for the hydrogen fuel FCX Clarity (200 of which are being leased in a California pilot project). With a compact 6-kilowatt solar panel array for power, the station contains a revolutionary high-pressure electrolyzer that can deliver 0.5 KG of extremely pure, pressurized hydrogen gas to the car for every 8 hours of sunlight. Why is this significant?
Honda Solar Hydrogen Station
Although every major automaker has a fuel-cell research program, with GM in particular proclaiming that hydrogen (rather than advances in batteries) is the basis of it’s long term energy strategy, there are several obvious barriers to the success of the technology:
* Hydrogen is actually an energy storage medium rather than a fuel in the petroleum sense (i.e. all usable hydrogen fuel must be produced by electrolysis or reformation, which consume electricity).
* an entire hydrogen refueling infrastructure would need to be built, across the U.S. and around the world.
* vehicle fuel cells remain incredibly expensive to produce.
Since before 2000, billions of dollars have been pouring into vehicle fuel-cell research, but if any practical developments in these three areas have occurred they’ve been kept remarkably quiet. Critics like Doug Korthoff of LiveOilFree accuse automakers (and oil companies) of having used fuel-cell technology as a red-herring to distract lawmakers from requiring battery electric vehicles. Even among those critics who don’t suspect bad faith, many point out that the first barrier is not so much a challenge we can hope to overcome as it is inescapable physics. In other words, the whole proposition may simply not make much sense, particularly if we see competing improvements in battery technology.
But here is where the potential significance of the home refueling station becomes apparent. With one relatively small solar panel and some plumbing that could easily fit on a garage wall, the Honda home station provides enough purified, high-pressure hydrogen from a single day’s sunlight (0.5 KG) to power the car for one standard commute for most drivers.
Voila! Both the first and second obstacles appear to have been dealt a serious blow! It would seem that with this equipment, both the “problem” of where to get the energy to create hydrogen, and the crushing economics of building all the refueling infrastructure necessary to get the system on the road, have been significantly reduced. Of course hydrogen filling stations would still be required, but early-adopters should be a lot more willing to buy a vehicle without waiting for a filling-station network that blankets the earth, if they know that at least they can fill their cars at home. And conceptually, this system works even better if it’s paired with a EREV such as the GM-Volt, with the fuel-cell taking the place of the existing range extender. Days might pass before the vehicle actually consumes any hydrogen, days in which the home system is gradually topping off the tank. Filling station construction could, initially at least, be concentrated on the highways.
Of course, all this may not be quite as wonderful as it sounds (what ever is?). Omitted in the Honda press release and in many of the press accounts is the fact that the electrolyzer requires natural gas as a raw material to generate hydrogen. So the solar panels are not simply providing 30 miles/day of travel directly from the sun, they are in effect converting one fuel to another, albeit a tremendously abundant, environmentally friendly fuel. How much energy is coming from each source, and at what efficiency is of course proprietary information that is not available. We can hope that the technology will ultimately be adapted to water electrolysis, but who knows? And none of this speaks to the third barrier, the current exorbitantly high cost of vehicle fuel cells.
Nevertheless, those of us who until now have been skeptical of the coming “hydrogen economy” can look at this development and say that if it’s not exactly the light at the end of the tunnel, at least it’s starting to look like there really is a tunnel, and not just a black arch painted on the side of a mountain by a lunatic coyote.
Sources: (Cartech, New York Times, HondaNews)
+6
Feb 14th, 2010 (8:49 am)I think it’s wonderful how this article illustrates that fuel-cells and the voltec drive train are not competitors, but complementarity to each other. It’s just simply an option while ordering…ICE for your range extender of fuel cell sir?
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (8:51 am)Thanks for a report that does not insult the intelligence of those who are dubious of “fool” cells.
+4
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:04 am)Where is ESTOR?
Sorry…had to ask.
-2
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:05 am)I’ve always assumed that by 2030, most companies have an E-REV option powered by hydrogen. It makes more sense than gas – no NVH issues, the fuel cell just turns on and off silently, H2 can be stored for a long time in the car’s tank, and its fast fill-up capabilities work well for long trips, not spending large amounts of time recharging a battery.
FCs will hit the market in 2015-2020, and be relatively affordable (not more than 15% more expensive than a comparable ICE) by 2030.
+14
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:12 am)While I applaud the research into hydrogen, this technology still has a long way to go before it is practical. Although the efficiency numbers aren’t available, I would expect it would much more efficient to:
1: Store the electricity generated by the 6KW solar cell in a battery, and then transfer it to your PHEV during the evening. It would be even more efficient to charge your PHEV directly using this solar cell.
2: Rather than develop a hydrogen fuel cell, why not spend that R&D money to develop automotive Methane (natural gas) fuel cell?
The infrastructure is largely in place, and many people have natural gas lines in their homes.
A methane fuel cell would be a much more efficient use of methane than burning it in an ICE, or making hydrogen, and would make a great range extender.
It would also serve as an intermediate step to a “hydrogen economy”, methane has 4 hydrogen atoms to every 1 carbon atom (CH4).
Methane can be produced from a variety of biological sources, such as switch grass, landfills, waste treatment facilities, and even coal. So it is renewable.
-1
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:22 am)….Where have you gone Michael Robinson?
Let’s see, could we burn hydrogen to heat water and our homes?
If a residential system can run from a small solar panel economically then commercial systems must be viable as well, ergo – no infrastructure problem. Not that there ever was.
Must be carbon emissions from this – Oh No – Honda is polluting the world with tree food.
It seems there is a very bright future out there somewhere given all the technology potential that keeps surfacing day by day. If only the governments of the World and phony institutions like the IPCC would get out of the way.
The job of government is to encourage R&D without dictating it, planning it or managing it.
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:25 am)I’m intrigued by the possibilities of the DEFC (Direct-to-Ethanol-Fuel-Cell) concept* because it deals effectively with each of the issues raised in the excellent prologue post, namely…
1) all usable hydrogen fuel must be produced by electrolysis or reformation, which consume electricity
2) an entire hydrogen refueling infrastructure would need to be built, across the U.S. and around the world
3) vehicle fuel cells remain incredibly expensive to produce
Re: 1), ethanol is an abundant source of hydrogen, works well in fuel cells & is cheap to produce as well as renewable (note Brazil’s massive production of renewable ethanol).
Issue 2) is very easily and inexpensively resolved by simply converting 1-2 pumps at our multitude of existing gas stations (many of which are already pumping 85% ethanol – E85).
Finally 3), there is a reasonable possibility that non-noble-metal electrodes (e.g., ceramic) will prove practical for use with DEFCs, thus dramatically reducing the major cost factor of fuel cells.
OK, fire up your gasoline-powered flame throwers —but before you do, please read up on the DEFC concept (the link below is a good starting point)— and be advised that I’ll respond with a flame thrower burning high-energy, clean-burning, renewable ethanol!
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-ethanol_fuel_cell
+19
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:29 am)Awesome, so now we have a number on just how inefficient hydrogen is.
6kW of solar, gets you one standard commute of 30 miles. Had that energy (48kWh) been put into a tesla, that would have got you about 200miles.
So now can we stop with the hydrogen charade and get on with the job of developing better batteries and ultracapacitors thanks.
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:34 am)While I hate to disagree with Jon, and would love to get off of oil, this development does really do much of anything. Electrolysis at home has always been possible, perhaps even economical, I doubt that adding a solar cell will help its economics. But the main problem of lack of hydrogen infrastructure remains. If I have this refueling station at home, what happens if I want to drive more than 50 miles from there? I STILL can’t fill up wherever I please. One needs the infrastructure to alleviate range anxiety and this does nothing for that.
I do agree with Rooster, methane is the way to go. That is everywhere in the US and topping off with that would be easy.
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:41 am)The two major problems with methane are 1) it’s less efficient in fuel cells than ethanol and 2) the infrastructure for methane delivery is much less practical than for ethanol delivery (also see my post #7). While methanol is a step in the right direction, in my opinion DEFC could prove to be a “giant leap”!
+8
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:55 am)I fail to see progress here. How does this change the fact that a FCV is still orders of magnitude more expensive than EV’s, producing storing and using hydrogen is still a tremendously wasteful process (if it can give 30 miles of h2, how many miles can it give a BEV?), and the infrastructure that would still be needed to make h2 main stream just isnt there?
+10
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:56 am)Robot and fuel cell tech won’t really help us out right now nor in the near or not-so-distant future. (But they have been sort of a way to capture attention and imagination, though impractical as both are.)
We need to stay focused on EREV, because that’s the twenty-year segway toward other
techs (whichever becomes financially feasible).
Voltec right accross the board is what we need right now. EREV designs are where OEM’s ought to go, as soon as possible. OEM execs ought to get away (seriously) on a two week sabatical from the entrenched methodologies (with new investors and new business affiliates) and come up with a whole new set of ways to fund their research departments toward simple EREV applications.
The technical flexibilites of EREV and a 40 to 50 mile battery pack are the most profit-prone, since the consumer will be saving around $150 to $250 per month on gasoline.
If OEM financial departments can’t process that “pot of gold” ($150 to $250 a month in higher customer affordabilities) then they ought to be replaced, (Monday, February 15th, 2010).
If investors can’t process that “pot of gold” then they are not ready to invest, and, really do not have anything to invest in your firm in the first place.
It amazes me that there apparently are not more OEM’s going EREV. This apparent intransigence of understanding of the profit potential for sales of EREV’s will be so very clear to the public in a few more months, as, for approximately half the populace, only “seeing is believing”.
You can expect all manner of panic ads meant to confuse the public, produced by these outmoded OEM’s that are designed to maintain the public in a state of technical confusion, in order that they remain tricked into purchasing a non-EREV vehicle, and, to attempt to maintain investor’s unawareness to keep investing in outmoded technologies.
The lesson with this Honda Fuel Cell is more simple. They are utilizing an infrastructure that already exists in tapping into a residential natural gas supply (which is a raw fuel that is impure with carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide, which has me a bit skeptical as to the maintenance costs of anything the customer might need to subsequently buy).
But, the lesson is that we use in part, what we already have in place, for the best ways possible for the lowest costs possible, for the highest reliabilities possible.
GM is doing that best. Only GM is doing it very well, for a plan for increasing the production numbers of it.
I think that for the next ten to twelve years, EREV will remain concretely the best we can do for the widely variable tasking of transportation that the public has been conditioned to expect and demand.
BTW, very nicely and professionally composed post Jon. It was a pleasure to read it.
More guest posts like that for other EREV designs and topics would be a really nice perspective.
Thank you again for your very fine composition, Jon.
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:02 am)Ya’ll are going to have to check these numbers I just ran. I’ve always wondered what energy conversion efficiencies we were talking about to produce hydrogen. If the simple numbers I just ran are true I side w/Roosteron this one.
Solar energy harvested in one day=30Whr
H2 created—————————-14.6 Kw-hr
looks like a 50%nergy conversion efficiency and we have not run it thru the fuel cell yet.
Can anyone verify my calcs.
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:03 am)nasman, while I think E-REV with DEFC’s as the range extender could be a great solution too, it cannot be a long term solution unless we figure out how to produce ethanol in a sustainable renewable way. Right now we produce it from corn. Takes as much petroleum energy to do so (fueling the farm equipment, ect) as ethanol you get out. So if you fueled your farm equipment on the ethanol you would just be producing net of nothing. It works great for Brazil because they can grow sugar cane, a much more energy positive method.
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:06 am)I wouldn’t go as far as to translate 6kW of solar cells for 8 hours to 48kWh. There are a number of losses – those cells aren’t perpendicular to the sun all the time, there is loss in converting DC to AC, etc, time of year effects (with the same panel at the same angle, its output is seasonally affected to the the location of the sun in the sky).
I would estimate it to be about 32kWh (4kW * 8 hrs) based on my real world experience. Still not as efficient (you could recharge your Volt a little less than four times, or about 140 miles). But the trade-off is that it would take your Volt over 12 hours to put 32kWh into your batteries at 220V, it takes about 60 seconds to put half a kg of H2 into a tank.
You can see where each system has its benefits.
-3
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:10 am)What do you think about battery leasing? I think it makes perfect economic sense. The up front cost of the car is cheap, then monthly lease cost is about the same as the monthly savings in gasoline, at the end of the least you don’t own the battery, but why would you want to? It is old and has reduced range and by then there are much better higher capacity, faster charging and lighter batteries available for less money. On the manufacturer side at the end of the lease they now can sell the cells to a utility company for load leveling and keep the battery box to re-manufacture with new cells to create a new pack. Win-win-win.
+6
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:13 am)This wonderful solution for hydrogen production does not make sense.
I have a 6.3 kw Solar array on my roof. It is NOT compact. It is 33 panels each of which are approx 5 ft by 3ft. AND this was NOT cheap. It cost more than $50k for the solar system.
-Mike C
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:18 am)I agree it’s about the efficiencies. But why consume all that energy making alcohols, when you can make methane directly from methanogens at 97 degs F? (Aside from the fact we have large supplies readily available in the ground)
I’m curious, what’s the efficiency of a state of the art methane fuel cells vice a state of the art DEFC? Then, how much methane can be produced from a pound of switch grass vice ethanol from a pound of switch grass (or even corn/sugar cane)? Looking at total efficiency (electrons per pound of switchgrass), I would place my bet on methane be more efficient, it’s a much simpler molecule. Especially when you consider methanol can readily be made from methane. How does the efficiency of a methanol fuel cell compare to a DEFC? Lots of options with methane, you can also make Fischer Tropsch hydrocarbon fuels with it that are compatible with today’s ICEs.
That said, I’m aware of research on microbes the make alcohol directly, but I’m not as familiar with this research as I am with the research being done on methanogens (TRL 6). Frankly, R&D money should be spent on both technologies, and may the best win. I’m just not convinced methane isn’t the best technology.
+6
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:20 am)The Volt is a serial hybrid and not a parallel hybrid as reported in this post, correct?
+8
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:25 am)I’d like to thank the guest author for a very well written and thoughtful article. It took a huge amount of courage to even address this particular topic, given the consistently negative tenor the discussion of fuel cells has historically taken here. The guts that took deserve kudos!
I’m not saying that anyone’s personal stance should change, I’m just saying that it was a really good piece to kick off the discussion.
Regardless of personal (often passionate) views on fuel cell tech, the guest author deserves a round of applause. JMO (but I’m right on this one – g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+7
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:26 am)So were getting off oil only to get on Natural GAS ,NO Thanks, How about just use that solar cell to recharge a battery ,did they ever think of that, no they would rather sell you a very expensive fuel cell that use a lot of fossil fuels(natural gas)
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:31 am)Good for you, Dan. I started writing my post before you, but your’s came up 10 before me (lol).
You also make great points about the EREV!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+3
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:35 am)Yep. I noticed that too. The slip really didn’t take anything away from the topic though, so I didn’t see it as a “biggie”. Good attention to detail on your part though.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+3
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:35 am)There should be a lot more more asterisks in this article. At first blush, I thought that the solar array was somehow pulling hydrogen out of thin air (literally!).
Then reality sets in:
- Unfortunately, you need natural gas to make it all work.
- I can’t imagine having one of these 2001: A Space Odyssey obelisks in my driveway.
This all reminds me of the touchy feely greenwashing Toyota is doing to make it sound like everything Toyota is solar powered*
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/07/21/toyota-uses-18-foot-solar-flowers-to-market-2010-prius/
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/12/29/toyota-developing-solar-powered-electric-vehicle-charging-statio/
* Unfortunately the public, these so-called solar charging stations don’t run entirely on solar power. Fortunately the Toyota, the ignorant masses see the word “solar”, fail to recognize the fact that these things aren’t all solar, and therefore thinks that Toyota is the most wondeful car company in the world.²
² Until you consider the accelerator and brake pedal debacle.
+6
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:37 am)Lets see:
1. H2 – Convert Methane into H2 and use it in a fuel cell that costs more than 6 cars.
2. CNG – Compress Methane into a tank and burn it directly in an ICE. Compressor costs $1k per year.
3. KWh/BEV – Use electricity directly from the grid and replace it to the grid using solar during the day.
4. C8H18 – Continue to use gasoline.
The Honda GX Natural Gas vehicle is still the lowest emission production vehicle sold in the US. The only economical alternative on the near horizon is an EREV.
I’ll take a Volt with an E85 generator over all the above.
+12
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:38 am)please forgive my ignorance here, but why not just use natural gas in an ICE, instead of using all that energy to convert it to hydrogen?
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:39 am)Agree, it was a good thought provoking article — kudo’s to Jon. I’m still holding out for Blacklight power for the energy panacea…now that’s a controversial topic!
+10
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:40 am)I will say it again.
You just took 30 Kwhr of electricity and converted some amount of natural gas into 15 Kw-hr of Hydrogen.
HELLO–this makes sense because????
+5
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:40 am)JonK,
I think you are a bit behind the curve if you think that current ethanol production depends on food stuffs. Cellulosic ethanol is getting close to being commercially viable from landfill waste (Coskata), algae, etc.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:41 am)Leasing anything is great where there is a proven residual value, and, an easy liquidation market for whatever you want to lease.
Leases have something called a “Lease Factor”. It is a way to say “yes” to a (harder to close) deal without being limited to APR disclosure. A lease factor, of, say, 30 percent APR in some instances is very good if the money to be earned in the meantime for a piece of equipment, would have a monthly return on investment that is astoundingly good. This is very common in automotive shops where, say, a Genisys and training is packaged at three thousand bucks at a monthly cost of $160. (It’s insane for a shop to not have a Genisys). But, in the first three months of operations and training, Six thousand dollars is earned beyond what the shop or waveform-untrained tech would have possibly earned. (They only are doing scheduled maintenance and only the broken things you yourselves can see with your own eyes).
There is this parallel also in leasing a battery if the return on investment is the savings of *lots* of gasoline per month. The savings ought to be **double or even triple** the monthly difference in customer savings to monthly lease cost in order to choose a lease. (Never never never just a “one to one, or a one and a half to one” return savings ratio). (Lease companies are not going to take on (loss potential for) something where you are not going to pay them 30 percent to 40 percent APR unless you have lots of assets and a high credit score). But, the price of gas is the main aspect for the feasibility of that lease. In addition, if the price of a vehicle is also very modest yet highly functional and equally as comfortable and safe, then, yes, I could see a battery lease working for the customer at a bare minimum of a two-to-one savings ratio, especially if there is a second generation pack that would be backwards compatible to last three times longer.
if
there is a garranteed mechanism to add a new battery into the payment plan of the BEV for a preconcerted set of costs, conditions, and, most of all, logistics for all the unanticipated intervening events that could possibly come up during the term of the
ownership
of the vehicle, not just the term of the lease, or the term of the warranty, or the term of the note. So, you see, there is a lot more “homework” to be considered when we say “lease”.
It can be a great segway for newer, far more feasible battery tech.
GM is already doing development that is “backward compatible” (from their 10 year battery, not like someone elses three to five year battery), but also, for future economic feasiblilites as well as many many other new advantages.
GM is making their new generation batteries
backwards compatible to Generation One.
This is another reason why GM does the right things for their customers even to twenty years out after purchase.
-2
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:41 am)An ICE is only 25-35% efficient. A Fuel Cell is 55-65% efficient.
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:51 am)Kudos to the author! Well said.
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:56 am)Because most consumers would not want 240 atmospheres (times two cubic feet) of compressed natural gas (or anything else combustible compressed in a tank) in the trunk in the event an accident on the right rear to knock off the fitting of the tank. Sudden decompression of 480 cubic feet of cng or h2 is not a comfortable thought to remain in the back of your mind.
I wouldn’t even *drive* near the damn things.
Have we not learned the lesson of the Hindenberg yet?
This promotion of cng for trucks is because if there is anaccident, and, the cng tanks are not enclosed inside the interior of the cab. They still will emit sulphur that may trigger respiratory problems for people in the vehicles behind them.)
The trunk of the Honda ************IS************* THE INTERIOR OF THE BODY!!
+6
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:04 am)There are so many things here that don’t make sense.
1) 6 kW of solar panels are not going to be considered compact by any reasonable person.
2) The solar panels alone will cost as much as a luxury car. Add in the other specialized equipment required and the car itself and it’s not inconcievable that the whole package will be $200,000.
3) I not sure of this, but it seems to me that there must be some inefficiencies in all of the conversions going on w/ this system. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just store the solar electricity into batteries and transfer the energy to a BEV? Or run the car directly on the home natural gas service and use the solar electricity to compress the natural gas into a liquid?
-2
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:12 am)Pick, pick, pick… (lol)
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:17 am)I don’t know about Blacklight energy these days, but I know that there was a heck of a lot of energy expended *under* blacklights back in the 60′s (evil grin).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+15
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:20 am)As an EV driver (Mini-E #183) powered by sunshine, Id like to point out a few things that lead me to believe that batteries and solar are the way to go.
First congrats to Honda for seeing the nexus between electric cars and solar power.
Honda from their release says that a 6kw PV system not shown, will employ a 48-panel, 6.0kW solar array to make the 0.5kg of pressurized hydrogen. The array utilizes thin film solar CIGS panels. This array will be over 600 sq ft in size to drive a car 10,000 miles annually. It’s a bit misleading to show the charger with the sail like structure behind it, as most folks assume that is the size of the solar charger not 600 sq. ft.
To drive my Mini E 10,000 miles a year, I use a 2kw PV system producing 3000kwh that covers 150 sq ft of my roof space. For a Volt it would be even less as the car is more efficient. My total system size is 7.5kw, this is enough to power both our house and two electric cars.
My live solar production can be seen here:
https://www.sunpowermonitor.com/residential/kiosk.aspx?id=581F0406-8F31-4B77-94C5-21D51B5AF3F3&type=address
For a Honda hydrogen car:
A 6.0kw system will generate 9000kws a year, daily producing 0.5kg of pressurized hydrogen, this is enough energy to propel the Honda 30-35 miles a day, or 10,000 miles a year. This is nearly 1kwh per mile of energy use.
Now for a Volt or Mini-E:
The same 6kw system producing 9000kwh a year is enough to propel a car 110 miles daily, or 36,000 miles a year. (the equation is 4 miles per KW. The Mini-E is slightly less due to weight and aerodynamics, the Volt is slightly more)
I question weather Hydrogen will ever make sense as I see great strides coming in battery density, battery range and battery prices and the infrastructure already exist in every home and commercial buildings in the US.
Cheers
Peder
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:21 am)Hydrogen is not ideal in some scenarios but may be in others. For example:
- Large, electrically-driven vehicles cannot be expected to be powered by batteries alone.
- Some vehicles need to recharge several times a day and don’t have the luxury of plugging in (taxis, police, delivery vehicles, forklifts, etc.)
- Hydrogen is a zero emission solution that reduces pollution in urban centers.
- Hydrogen powered vehicles are quiet, so reduce noise pollution in urban centers.
There is admittedly a trade-off between efficiency and fuel diversity.
We should not wait for hydrogen to arrive before making the leap to electrically-driven vehicles. Gasoline serial hybrids are where we will start. Hydrogen serial hybrids that serve a broader class of vehicles is a longer term solution IMO.
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:24 am)I would have said the same thing about methanol FC’s. Except this takes the oil and gas companies far out of their comfort zone hence no splashy headlines, or subsidized public/private partnerships that make it appear that the fuel (or energy carrier) will soon be price competitive with gasoline. Despite methanols many advantages over hyrdogen.
+4
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:26 am)_________________________________________________________________________
#7 nasaman said:
“I’m intrigued by the possibilities of the DEFC (Direct-to-Ethanol-Fuel-Cell) concept…”
—————————–
I’m in agreement with Nasaman w/ respect to DEFC vs. Hydrogen Fuel Cell.
….but Fuel Cells (of all flavors) and all other forms of range extenders will become a moot point when battery and battery quick charge technology allows 80% SOC < 10min charge w/ 200mile+ AER.
_________________________________________________________________________
+5
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:28 am)We need to focus on what is doable right now and in the near future. If Honda has the funds to go in the direction of personal use hydrogen then more power to them. This is how change happens.
We have EREV technology right now. And we have solar panels right now. It’s best to continue up the Voltec road for at least 6 or 8 years. It’s a certainty that affordable 300 mile range battery technology will be available by 2020. And it’s likely that home solar will catch on just as dish TV has. Most solar systems I read about have a 6 year payback. Then it’s pretty much free energy from that point forward.
We can use solar energy to charge batteries in our homes right now. In 2014 we will have much larger Voltec vehicles with 60 mile range batteries. I believe industrial areas and retail shops will soon offer free car charging to visitors and consumers. The city parking garages here in Santa Barbara offer EV parking with recharge unit free for the first 75 minutes. And $2.50 for the next hour.
=D-Volt
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:30 am)Quick battery charges defy the laws of physics with the existing grid. So either way (hydrogen or quick charge) a huge investment in infrastructure is needed to support a zero emission society.
+3
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:33 am)Hey MDDave,
I think you’re right on all three counts.
While nothing I see in that picture of the honda solar device resembles anything in physics that collects photovoltaic energy. Perhaps radiant solar (far cheaper & direct) is more like it for the claimed ratings and the curvature of the device.
I treat it all as “conceptainment”. Concepts that entertain are just a form of advertising. But the end feasibilities might at least be worth some sort of spin-off advantage, like home heating or absorption baseline air conditioning or home dehumidification (the new research area for reducing overtonnage) for a very well insulated home.
Just like the honda robot that is meant to help the disabled “someday”. A five million dollar robot to help only one or a half dozen disabled persons only, doesn’t make sense either, when there are so many unemployed and undertrained (yet eager to learn) able-bodied people out there. (Train the eager-to-learn to do more important work, is what I say.)
For Tag,
Didn’t you mean
“Picky, picky, picky” instead? LOL.
-1
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:34 am)I don’t know if this is the right place to bring this up, but how can the Tesla get over 200 miles of electric operation from an approximately 1,000-lb. lithium-ion battery while the Volt gets only 40 miles from the same weight of battery? What does Tesla know that GM doesn’t know?
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:39 am)When Honda’s new generation home fueling station was first reported I had the impression that it would use solar panels for electrolysis which would shift the initial cost of infrastructure buildout to the rich owners of the first FC vehicles sold commercially.
Thank you for the information on the use of NG with this system. New and accurate information is always welcome.
+4
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:49 am)Tesla’s Roadster battery is about 900 lbs. The Volt battery is about 350 lbs with about half of it’s capacity used at the start of it’s service life, with idea that full capacity will be available for at least ten years and up to 15 depending on individual state regulations.
The Roadster battery, not expected to be fully charged nearly as often, relies on commodity laptop cells. The Volt battery being much smaller and under going more charge cycles and much higher regulatory standards is more robust.
+3
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:57 am)Am i missing something here,does not Hydrogen boil off at constant rate while stored in the fuel tank. DId someone invent a fix for this? Would not the hydrogen boil off almost as fast as its produced taking the natural gas with it?
+4
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:58 am)That turns out not to be the case. H2 storage is particularly nasty. It must be compressed to reduce the volume, and it leaks. You can’t just fill up the tank and leave it. A week later the tank will be practically empty. NASA has to keep topping off hydrogen tanks until just before launch. Efforts to make H2 tanks leakproof will just make them heavier and more expensive.
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:58 am)Did you ever get an answer to this question? Combined with automotive electric motors getting 92% and above efficiencies, that seems like an outstanding question.
+4
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:00 pm)jeffhre,
That explanation is *perfectly* well defined, and is the most concise and best one so far, I think. You ought to save and re-post it for when additional/new visitors to the site bring that question up.
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:02 pm)When I first read the title and prologue I thought you were going to mention GM’s new fuel cell that uses only 30 grams or one ounce of platinum (about $1,500) and weighs only 282 lbs. The size of a 4 cylinder ICE like the one in the Volt. They say it will be viable by 2015 (when have we heard that before?).
http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=22847
Of course it’s still not sustainable. Producing 20 million Fuel Cells for 20 million vehicles in the US would use all of the global platinum mined per year which is about 20 million ounces, and who really knows how much platinum there is in the world with only a handful of platinum mines in existence and the price seems to be going up constantly, platinum was less than $500/ounce 10 years ago and how much would the price increase because we are now adding vehicles to the the platinum demand?
The first thing we need to do is figure out a way to do this *well* without platinum, or maybe less than 10 grams. If they can get it down to single digit grams of platinum, then we can talk. How long do you think it’ll take before people start stealing the platinum from your FCV during the middle of the night if there is $1,500-2000 worth of platinum in there? That’s a whole month’s paycheck working full time for those who can find a job!
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:06 pm)I like your thinking!!! Now if you take your feedstocks and deplete the landfills instead of building artificial ponds or using arable land…
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:08 pm)Some executives at Honda apparently are really keen on fuel cells. They, and they alone, are
spending a lot of money foolishly.
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:12 pm)Anyone who got at least a “C” in high school science class knows that Hydrogen is explosive, especially if they can remember the old film strips of the Hindenburg going down in flames.
Now, those old memories have little or nothing to do with modern Hydrogen production systems that will be used on Honda cars, but if one of my neighbors buys one I will always have, in the back of my mind, this tiny fear that Billy Bob might blow up his home and part of mine because accidents can, and will, always happen.
I don’t want to be negative. I like the idea of ‘clean energy’. But if Voltec costs the same, I’ll go with that. It’s safer.
+3
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:14 pm)I really agree with you Ken,
As highly refined the Honda 3000iu portable generator is, I am constantly perplexed as to why in world Honda does not make (or say they’ll make) an EREV. I just do not understand this at all about Honda. Not at all. (And, I drive a very fine 05 Honda Element!).
Perhaps the upper management is watching too much science fiction to maintain feasibility references for consumers’ more immediate needs, or, their research commitments have been cast too far into the future, which is not as wise.
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:25 pm)Would be interesting to know whether the solar driven reforming of methane also works with biogas raw gas. This would be really an advantage offering 100% renewable…
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:29 pm)Somewhere in the wholesale power provision universe, providers may use batteries to raise the level of dispatchable power they contract to utilities. The utilities themselves will never be in the market for a bunch of used stuff repurposed from cars.
For example wind farms are looking at a theoretical potential of between 10 to 20% of capacity as dispatchable, depending on location and how their wind profiles translate into verifiable power profiles.
Dispatchable power is more expensive, so in this case if batteries make sense to provide more reliable power, then providers that rely on intermittant sources can sign richer contracts with utilities.
Right now that’s just a lot of “ifs” strung together though.
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:31 pm)Yes,
You got it, biogas = methane = natural gas = CH4
+7
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:42 pm)Not just that. The H2 generator uses natural gas as the raw material as well. This is incredible inefficient. Very disappointed in this article.
The basic problem with H2 is that – the end to end process is much more inefficient than competing technologies. Hydrogen vehicle is betting against thermodynamics.
- If using natural gas as raw material, it is more efficient to use it in CNG vehicles
- If using electricity for electrolysis, it is much more efficient to use in the electricity in a battery EV. Infact 3 times more efficient.
Take a look at this paper by Prof Ulf Bossel
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E21.pdf
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:44 pm)The time is NOW! , A123 cells will do this TODAY.. but 200 miles of range will cost ya!
Far cheaper than a hydrogen infrastructure and the rare supplies of platinum is just to electrify all the roads.. sustain the batteries as you drive with wireless power transfer.. and even that is overkill.
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:45 pm)Exxon/Mobil just bought XTO Energy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BD28G20091214
This has everything to do with hydrogen and fuel cells, if you think about it and connect the dots.
+3
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:46 pm)Belief systems are much harder to change than technology.
Thanks Dan.
+4
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:53 pm)Absolutely. Hydrogen is the smallest element – and leaks through even metal ! Hydrogen is the most insane carrier of energy we could have come up with.
If we ever go the fuel cell route, we would use methane fuel cells rather than hydrogen.
-9
Feb 14th, 2010 (12:59 pm)You can’t use the process of generating hydrogen from methane to compare to batteries, because:
1) you have not assigned a value for rapid refill
2) you have not provided high volume cost for batteries and fuel cells
3) you have not assigned a value for range
Unless consumers learn new behaviors, they will opt for fuel cells, as long as the premium is not too great.
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (1:02 pm)More info for anyone curious — tech is not there yet, but has potential. Would think this tech has a much higher probability of success than straight to hydrogen…JMO
Biogas: The composition of biogas varies depending upon the origin of the anaerobic digestion process. Landfill gas typically has methane concentrations around 50%. Advanced waste treatment technologies can produce biogas with 55-75%CH4 or higher using in situ purification techniques.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas
Methanol Fuel: “Biomethanol” may be produced by gasification of organic materials to synthesis gas followed by conventional methanol synthesis. Production of methanol from synthesis gas using Biomass-To-Liquid can offer methanol production from biomass at efficiencies up to 75%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_fuel
Direct Methanol Fuel Cell: Current DMFC efficiencies hover around 20–30% and can possibly be increased to 40–50%. The maximum theoretical volumetric energy density of methanol is 4780 W-hr/L. This value for rechargeable batteries (such as NiMH, lithium-ion, and lithium-ion polymer) ranges from 200 to 310 W-hr/L. The U.S. Department of Energy has developed a set of micro fuel cell targets for 2010. This document calls for more than tripling both the specific power (W/kg) and power density (W/L) from 30 in 2006 to 100 in 2010. The energy density needs to double, going from 500 to 1000, and the lifetime must increase fivefold from 1000 to 5000 hours. Also, the cost has to be reduced from $5/W to $3/W.
http://www.micromagazine.com/archive/06/06/reality.html
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (1:02 pm)Well-formed article. Glad to see an honest reporter not choosing sides, but reporting mostly necessary information.
I would like to point out Honda’s proprietary method of marketing fuel sources to the people. With their CNG Civics, they sell a “Phil” station to put in your garage that compresses your natural gas for vehicle use. You still can’t really fill it up at many stations, so those people understand that it’s a commuting car. And they still get sold, and they are extremely clean-burning (well, in comparison to petrol). So, if GM is highlighting plug-in technology, should they not also be contracting with solar/wind installers to get the fuel source directly to buyers’ homes?
Speaking of fuel sources, there has not been much talk of ethanol on here lately. Coskata, of whom GM is a major contributor, has had their gasification plant online since October, and to barely any pomp and circumstance. But it seems so simple to me if we are to use range-extenders with small batteries, and fuel cells are always on the horizon, that we must embrace the sources of fuel which are derived from waste. Gasification is extremely flexible, using feedstocks of trash, tires, plastics, and crop residue. Yes, there is the argument on food source, but cellulosic technology can use about half of the stalks, leaves, etc. that are left behind after a harvest and aren’t needed for the soil. How to collect that stuff is really the only unknown here. There is plenty of trash in the world, and this is a way to recycle almost all of it.
The VOLT is being designed for a flex-fuel engine (at least, last I heard). That means it is capable of using regular gasoline, or any blend up to 85% ethanol. I would like to know how many Volt buyers will keep E85 in their tank, or would be aware of the source of that ethanol if they used it. E85 is the left bower behind the right battery in this hand the Volt will soon play. It’s significance in turning tricks should not be overlooked.
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (1:09 pm)LOL, that must be Texan for Pick, Pick, Pick. It must come from our Pennsylvanian mining history (yes, we mine coal).
BTW, I love the term Conceptainment.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
-6
Feb 14th, 2010 (1:24 pm)EV Now,
Apply a realistic cost analysis, adding value for rapid refill and range, and you will see how a consumer thinks.
Those who can afford it will opt for a fuel cell, due to greater range after a refill and rapid refill.
+3
Feb 14th, 2010 (1:31 pm)Step 1) Mine Natural Gas for the home Hydrofuel
Step 2) Hook up the Solar powered converter
Step 3) Get a day’s commute from a day’s worth of sunlight + natural gas
Am I missing something here? Are we overcomplicating things a tad? If I’m already stockpiling natural gas, shouldn’t I just buy a CNG car? OR if I’m using sunlight for energy, wouldn’t an electric car be just as practical? And if we are extracting the hydrogen from the Natural Gas Hydrocarbons…what happens to the carbon? Is it collected in a big black ashy mess in the bottom of the electrolizer? Try selling that one to consumers!
+5
Feb 14th, 2010 (1:52 pm)JUST???? electrify all the roads????
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 14th, 2010 (1:56 pm)I’m not a huge supporter of FC tech, but there *is* a lot of research going on to find a more suitable catalyst than Platinum. Check out the Modern Technology section at MIT.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (1:59 pm)Why don’t you do a quick, back of a dirty napkin comparison of the cost hydrogen fill-ups vs gas and electricity. What would be the cost of a fuel that will be more expensive than gas, that results in half the mileage from the equivalent energy that’s taken from a 220 volt plug, and requires 3 times the energy inputs to deliver to consumers?
What if I asked a consumer to pick from three similarly priced cars and pay $4000 a year for hydrogen, $2000 a year for gas or $500 a year for electricity? What is the actual premium the consumer is being asked to pay for hydrogen. Remember oil basically jumps into pipes from the ground under pressure. Purified hydrogen will always have to be created.
What is the cost value of that rapid refill and range. If the expense of the FC stack and hydrogen refill is way out of line today, will it be viable to replace a gas/E85 range extender with a fuel cell stack and hydrogen refills in 2015? As battery prices decrease and capacities increase, you would really have to be in love with the technology to say the value to consumers is unquestionable.
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:01 pm)I don’t think it takes 60 seconds to put 0.5 Kg of H2 into a tank. It takes 8 hours + 60 sec to refill the tank.
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:04 pm)Agree, keeping on the methane fuel cell theme:
“A solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) is composed of a gas-tight electrolyte layer sandwiched between porous cathode and anode layers. Oxygen from the air flows through the cathode, and a fuel gas containing hydrogen, such as methane, flows past the anode. Negatively charged oxygen ions migrate through the electrolyte membrane and react with the hydrogen to form water, which reacts with the methane fuel to form carbon dioxide and hydrogen. This electrochemical reaction generates electrons, which flow from the anode to an external load and back to the cathode, a final step that both completes the circuit and supplies electric power. To increase voltage output, several fuel cells are stacked together, a configuration called a fuel cell stack that forms the heart of a clean power generator.”
“…while both large gas turbines and the best fuel cell boast an energy conversion efficiency rate of 50 percent, gas turbines become less efficient as they become smaller. Fuel cell generators, however, retain their 50 percent efficiency rating regardless of size, meaning they’re ideally suited for small-scale work like distributed and portable power generation. ”
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-fuel-cells.html
So why not develop them for use as a range extender on a PHEV? Using grid power and fuel cell power for automotive applications doesn’t not have to be mutually exclusive.
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:15 pm)I agree with you regarding the safety issues and obviously anxiously await the Volt. But from an Optimist’s point of (distorted) view, of the 97 people onboard the Hindenburg, 62 survived (including the Captain) (LOL)
Some speculation about the cause of the crash (by a Nasa scientist) is that the ship was coated to reduce leakage – with rocket fuel!
I’m just a cesspool of useless information.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:26 pm)Grid power to electric motor is 95% efficient. Grid power to battery to electric motor is 90% efficient.
Grid power through this [Fuel cells are 60% efficient (ideally 65%), results in Hydrogen at 33% efficient, to fuel cells at 65%, to electric motor at 95% efficient = ??????] to the electric motor now equals about 9% efficient?
If so wouldn’t there be a large gain in taking this part out – Hydrogen at 33% efficient, to fuel cells at 65%, to electric motor at 95% efficient = ?????
Please check to see if I have gotten this incorrect.
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:30 pm)To Jeffhre: Thank you or your excellent explanation of how the Tesla can have a electric range of well over 200 miles when the Volt is limited to 40 miles. I did not know that the Tesla has such a heavy battery–900 lbs.–compared to the Volt’s 350 lbs.
900/350 = 2.6 which would suggest the Tesla should have a range of 2.6 x 40 or 104 miles. Instead it is over double that. Is this all attributable to the Tesla fully charging its battery?
What is the long-term effect of the full-charging regime, from the user’s point of view? Will the Tesla battery have to be replaced twice as often as the Volt battery? Say every five years instead of every ten? What is Tesla’s reasoning? That buyers who can afford a Tesla can afford a battery replacement more often? Any idea what the change will cost? How much is this cost less than a new battery in the case of lithium-ion batteries because they are so highly salvageable? Does Tesla offer any sort of discounted deal?
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:34 pm)The context of my statement was for longer journeys, where you have Hydrogen fueling stations that have the hydrogen there for you to dispense.
Quit being pedantic, you’re not helping anyone.
-3
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:41 pm)I do not interested diging hydrogen fraud at all. I would prefer read eestor gosips or got some feeling what is going within battery community.
This Honda PR afair is 100% fraud. I wonder who is paying for that. And this realy has cost!
-2
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:46 pm)Why wouldn’t we just burn it in a range extender?
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:49 pm)You are BOTH right. It takes time to generate the Hydrogen and it’s able to be used quickly at a fueling station.
All fixed.(g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:51 pm)FC’s emit water from renewables, replaces tailpipe emissions with water.
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:53 pm)With batteries and home charging easily covering 95% of daily commutes, hydrogen for personal transportation is a conceptualized solution in search of a problem.
-Biofuels
-Battery sawp
-Highly efficient nat gas combustion
-Quick charge
-Cathode swap
All can be implemented today, without much if any further technological development. What does hydrogen do better?
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:58 pm)Yes, but if you have to ask…”Tesla offers laundry list of new options, $12k prepaid battery replacement ” ( http://green.autoblog.com/2009/01/17/tesla-offers-laundry-list-of-new-options-12k-prepaid-battery-r/ )
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:59 pm)Carbon neutral isn’t good enough? Range extended emmissions from a highly efficient ethanol burning generator would be negligible.
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (2:59 pm)Receive Government grant money (at least historically)?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (3:05 pm)Here is the key (should have been at the top of the article).
Omitted in the Honda press release and in many of the press accounts is the fact that the electrolyzer requires natural gas as a raw material to generate hydrogen. So the solar panels are not simply providing 30 miles/day of travel directly from the sun, they are in effect converting one fuel to another …
I knew there was no way on Earth a home solar panel is going to power a car. More BS from the solar (and wind) fantasists.
Nuclear Power + Electric Cars = The Future
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (3:09 pm)You must have skimmed over the comments – the need for natural gas was/is being discussed.
I definitely agree with the need for more nuclear power!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 14th, 2010 (3:14 pm)Yes? The messenger always gets shot.
Either in a cost effective package would be a great first step. Only one option seems cost approachable for an OEM now.
+3
Feb 14th, 2010 (3:14 pm)Dr. Bossel presents a strong case against an hydrogen-based economy. (Thanks #59) “The analysis reveals that between 1.6 and 2.0 electrical energy units must be harvested from renewable sources for every energy unit of hydrogen gas sold to the user.” U. Bossel, [Use #59 URL pdf] Proceedings of the IEEE Vol. 94,No. 10, p.1846 October 2006.
He does not however rule out the use of fuel cells or the use of hydrogen for “niche applications”. Id. at p.1846. Last week GM showed off a smaller FC 2/3rds size of prior equivalent power. GM forecasts 2015 FC availability. GM’s website claims a FC driven million miles in its wide spread trials (N.Y. D.C. & So.Cal.) and further claims 50,000 gals of gasoline have been saved. GM’s 2015 forecast has merit. That being not one drop of imported oil was consumed by the trial drivers. GM’s FC progress makes a congruent argument in support of 2015 useful niche-market FC.
Not only did the Administration cut off Mar ’09 FC R&D federal funding contending FC’s will not be a commercial reality in the next 10-20 years…it right now throws billions at Toyota & Nissan to create a few hundred jobs while Nummi Fremont is right now being shut down by Toyota costing tens of thousands of lost unrecoverable jobs -That’s irrefutably incongruent.
Feb 14th, 2010 (3:23 pm)What is that niche, and why won’t entrepreneurial activity fill it?
Feb 14th, 2010 (3:27 pm)Sorry that my observation touched a nerve. Just trying to compare apples to apples. Your post did not imply to me that you were thinking of an infastructure of recharging stations along the highways. In that case, yes the short fill time would provide a great advantage. I thought we were only looking at the individual Honda home station concept. If we’re looking at a public filling station concept, then other factors come into play, such as do want to use solar power to do the conversion to H2? Seems more economical to use grid power when considering the large solar array area required to provide sufficient energy to service say, 10 cars per hour. Peace.
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (3:37 pm)Well written & for some reason that 60 mile AER Voltec has always resonated with my way of thinking. Sixty miles of range would be amazing with gas / E85 fill-ups being a rarity for most drivers. +1
-1
Feb 14th, 2010 (3:40 pm)It was always understood that a range-extending engine could be powered off of a wide array of possible fuels–including biofuels, liquified coal, natural gas, and yes, fuel cells. When looked at in this context, hydrogen could be viewed as a complimentary technology rather than competing. Indeed, in future generations of the Volt, a solar panel could be built directly onto the car’s roof and hood.
I would personally like to see GM experiment with using a rotary compressed air engine in their Volt to extent its range past 40 miles. Such technology would be simple, cheap, lightweight, super-efficient, emissions-free, etc. Unfortunately, this, like hydrogen, will have to wait for another day. Sincerely, George, Sudbury, Canada, Go Volt!
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (3:44 pm)______________________________________________________________________________
#42 OhmExcited Said:
“Quick battery charges defy the laws of physics with the existing grid. So either way (hydrogen or quick charge) a huge investment in infrastructure is needed to support a zero emission society.
”
—————–
OhmExcited,
Which law(s) of physics would prevent quick charge from the existing grid? Please provide detail.
______________________________________________________________________________________
+4
Feb 14th, 2010 (3:57 pm)Steve K9,
A fantasy is when it exist only in imagination.
Solar PV+EV is real.
I have driving 15,000 miles a year in a trouble free electric car (Mini-E) powered only by solar energy. This accounts for only 33% (4,000kwhs) of the energy I generate on my roof (12,000kwh a year) the rest goes to power my home 100%.
If you would like to see how cheap it is to drive on solar PV click here
http://electricmini.blogspot.com/2010/01/charts-for-cost-of-solar-fuel.html
Cheers
peder
Feb 14th, 2010 (4:12 pm)Ditto!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 14th, 2010 (4:26 pm)Uh oh, am I getting into the high optimism zone?
Feb 14th, 2010 (4:30 pm)Looked at your site – that’s amazing. Didn’t it cost 30 or 35,000 dollars to do this just a few years ago?
Have you had your system long enough to see how production differs between summmer and winter?
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (4:36 pm)LOL, it’s *really* not that bad a place to be! As to whether you’re close or not, I guess it depends on how long it’ll be until we actually “see” 60 AER. You seem to think that it’ll be later than Nov 2010… (lol). OK, maybe it’ll be in Gen IA. Gen II ought to break 80 AER.
Are you feeling it??? (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 14th, 2010 (4:36 pm)Show me where I can buy said hydrogen generator, then we’ll talk.
Feb 14th, 2010 (4:39 pm)LOL —–100%
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (4:39 pm)A few years ago it was 6k-8k per system kw. Today in most parts of the sunbelt you can get a system installed in the 4K range. Many larger installations (more than 5kw) are in the 3K to 3.5K per kw of PV range
2kw is approx 8k and makes the 3000kwh a year you need to drive 10,000 miles.
Here in So-Cal our 7.5kw system produces 700kwh per month in the winter and 1200kwh during the summer. Annually we produce between 11,500 and 12,000kwh. We have had a 4.5 kw system for 3 years and then 6 months ago added 3kw as our gas station for the Mini-E for a total of 7.5kw. This is when we added the data loggers so we could put it on the internet. Thats why the data only starts 6 months ago.
Solar fuel has a payoff of about 4 years compared to buying gas for the same mileage. then you drive free the rest of your life
Cheers
peder
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (4:50 pm)I have methane service at my house right now. It powers my furnace, my dryer, and my hot water heater. It could power a car, too, I just need a pump to increase it to a pressure that is appropriate for a car’s fuel tank, and maybe a reservoir so that I can do quick refills..
No hydrogen proponent has ever provided a satisfactory answer to the following question: if hydrogen is a workable energy source, why aren’t we using it to run household appliances and furnaces? You can already change between natural gas (methane) and propane on appropriately-designed appliances by changing a nozzle, why not use hydrogen the same way?
As I understand it, the answer is twofold: 1) most hydrogen is reformed methane, so it’s easier to just burn the methane directly — the CO2 is going to be released either way. 2) solar generated hydrogen is way too expensive for this purpose.
But I’d to hear a worthwhile counter-argument!
Feb 14th, 2010 (4:53 pm)Thanks Peder, amazing!!
+2
Feb 14th, 2010 (4:59 pm)I find the idea of a SOLAR POWERED (and methane, shhh) hydrogen generator to be a pretty deceptive and foul piece of marketing hype.
For solar energy storage in automotive applications–
Direct electric drive:
BEST: leakage-free ultracaps. Theoretical 100% charge storage efficiency.
BETTER: high-capacity Li-Ion batteries.
OK: Current tech Ni-MH batteries.
Fuel cells:
POOR: Solar electricity for electrolysis of hydrogen.
FOUL: Solar electricity used as a greenwash for natgas hydrogen conversion.
Feb 14th, 2010 (5:39 pm)Congratulations on the wonderful setup! I have to confess that when I saw “Peder” I jumped to the erroneous idea that you’d be in Europe. It’s great that you have the web setup so that others can benefit as well.
Just curious, but are you going to go with a BEV or a Volt?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (5:44 pm)Here’s a pressure break for everyone. The Motor Trend Magazine test drive of the Volt. Showcasing tech features. While displaying the universal ease of operation of the car.
My Honda CR-V ($29k with options) will produce a 0-60 time of 9.5 seconds. This is with a 160hp 4 cylinder gasoline engine. I would expect maybe 15 mpg with the pedal floored. And would also expect problems resulting from engine abuse including seal rupture and oil leaks.
The Motor Trend Magazine Volt video offers a very good look at the true acceleration of the Volt. Video is shot from the front seat. As well as from a fixed point on the demo parking lot course.
The 2010 V-8 Mustang and 2010 Camaro both take just 5 seconds to accelerate from 0-60 mph. The Volt achieves a high torque 0-60 time of 8.8 seconds using no gas. With no engine abuse penalty. The acceleration is described as linear.
The rear view camera is optional.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbbv-CCVqyg
=D-Volt
Feb 14th, 2010 (6:07 pm)This is a WONDERFUL summary of how everything fits together. I was going to suggest that at some point liquid hydrogen might be a good way to store energy. But even the liquifaction process involves lots of losses. I do wonder if LNG would be wothwile. Then either use it in a FC or convert it to H2.
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (6:23 pm)One word:
DROOL
Be well,
Tagamet
/and thanks for the link!
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 14th, 2010 (7:35 pm)Works pretty well to keep a blimp in the air!
Well, as long as you keep the no smoking light on, that is.
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (7:42 pm)Putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t make it more appealing.
Keep it simple. In 30 years we should only need a power cord and an advanced battery.
Feb 14th, 2010 (7:48 pm)If the VOLT were powered by ‘Mr. Fusion’, I would still wonder about radiation leaks. Maybe I should change my name tag to “Captain Paranoid”.
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (7:57 pm)Peder,
Wow! Nice job on the website, and great to read a real life story of someone using solar.
I am itching to look at different solar/wind solutions. One issue for solar, is my location, which is in WI, which gets less sun than Carlsbad. I have a brother in northern WI, who lives totally off grid, but lets just say he is a bird of a different color. He has a small solar panel setup (2 KW?), and lives in a straw home, he built himself, with the help of myself and my other bro’s. He uses wood heat, and uses DC for his fridge and some lighting. He does have an inverter, so you can run normal 110 VAC appliances, but he rarely runs it since just running the inverter takes power (I said he was a bird of a different color, and I mean it). If you turn on a light in his house, you better have a good reason. Hot water is a luxury, and he does have a propane tank to run his water heater, but he has NEVER had his tank refilled in the last 6 years (you get where I am going with that)
Anyway, I find that your solar setup and the numbers you present very intriguing, and I am really going to start digging deeper into doing a cost analysis for my home (I have a wife and kids, unlike my single “hermit” of a brother, and they tend to be energy hogs!)
Thanks for you post. Please continue with more in the near future.
Feb 14th, 2010 (8:04 pm)And I had you pegged for a Gen I buyer.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 14th, 2010 (8:12 pm)How about this one?
Feb 14th, 2010 (8:51 pm)Personally, I’m not quite “seeing it” (but I would kinda like to meet your one brother…)(g).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:02 pm)Sorry Tag,
I am not sure how or if, you can attach images. Seems you can attach a URL image, and I even used the URL from browser to local file. Not seeming to work.
Can someone give me the secret decoder ring?
BTW: My Brother lives a different life style than me, and I do envy him in ways, but I also appreciate the conviences of “unlimited” electricity. He has a computer with BlueSky internet, but he only turns it on if the sun is shining. It can be a long time between emails with him during the cloudy winter season here. He probably could you a good psychiatric analysis, but then again, we all could, probably.
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:05 pm)Man that’s a hard one. If BMW extends the lease another year and lowers it to the $500 range, I’ll stay with Mini-E#183 and then decide on either the Volt or the Active E. If not I will buy the Volt.
My dream garage is a 100 mile range BEV like the Mini-E and an SUV with a voltec setup.
My personal preference is a BEV because thats what works for my commute. We are a two car family and the second one would be the suv voltec.
Cheers
Peder
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:18 pm)Just in the last couple of threads someone posted great set of step by step instructions. I just upload a pic to Photobucket.com and they have 3 kinds of cut and paste links that can be used here (I *think* I use the img one). Just scan the last two or three threads for the detailed instructions (or use photobucket). Maybe the person who was kind enough to send the instructions will pipe up as to where they are for you.
HTH,
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:33 pm)One more try
Cool! Thanks Tag, it worked. I just added the pic to photobucket, then copied the URL, and pasted into the dialog.
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:39 pm)Well since the photo upload works, here is the beginning of the solar panel supports that we built.
You can see a old set of his panels in the background.
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (9:41 pm)Most excellent! I’m glad you were successful. Can’t you just *feel* the personal growth! (lol).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:17 pm)I can feel it! This technology thing just gets me all a tingle…
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (10:30 pm)Hard to tell when this site will let us grow (thanks Lyle, great community)
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:15 pm)A 6 kilowatt solar panel array is “small” and “compact”???? (Whatever that thing is in the picture, it definitely doesn’t have 6 kW of solar panels.)
http://world.honda.com/news/2010/c100127New-Solar-Hydrogen-Station/
This page says it uses “thin film” solar panels. So if we’re generous and say 7 watts per square foot, then we’re left with 857 square feet of solar panels! Most people don’t even have NEAR that much southern facing roof area on their house.
And if we’re even more generous and say $1.75 per watt for thin film panels, that brings the cost to $10,500… and that’s just for the solar panels! It’ll be much more for all the extra equipment.
And we’re still left with fossil fuels and CO2. I can’t imagine this whole complicated process is much better than just burning the natural gas in an ICE, and it’s certainly not better than simply charging a battery.
+1
Feb 14th, 2010 (11:38 pm)It is nice to see that you have humour .
Nobody who knows anything would take
Hydyogen as a serious replacement .
Feb 15th, 2010 (12:00 am)Aw come on, everybody knows something.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Feb 15th, 2010 (12:49 am)I need to clarify my position on the DEFC concept…
I have NO INTEREST in DEFC replacing Voltec (EREV)! My intent is to suggest a possible future alternative to a reciprocating internal combustion engine used in Voltec as a replacement for the ICE-driven electric generator needed for extended-range operation —with a silent, clean, vibration & noise-free electric generator (i.e., a DEFC).
Feb 15th, 2010 (12:53 am)My prediction:
Fuel cells will go into widespread use in military applications.
Power directly from the electric grid will be used in the vast majority of passenger car applications, and fuel cells won’t catch on.
It is a wash whether or not long-distance freight trucks will end up using fuel cells, since infrastrucutre is less of an issue and batteries will have to be huge.
By the time H2 becomes viable, batteries will be so good we won’t need it in passenger cars.
Feb 15th, 2010 (1:07 am)I *think* that’s what most of us thought that you were suggesting. I read every comment and can see why the one you quoted could cause you pause – or maybe *I* just read yours as intended and then read the other comments to reflect that (correct) reading (g).
Seems like most folks have turned in (3 posts in the last hour or so), and I’m about to join them.
Be well my friend,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Feb 15th, 2010 (1:12 am)Hydrogen, great for trucks, but I don’t want to blow up my garage with hydrogen.
No thanks, I’ll stick with electricity!
GO EV !!!
Feb 15th, 2010 (1:36 am)-In regard to the size of the solar panels, the thing in the picture is in fact, the whole deal (according to Honda). It’s truncated in the photo, but the sail-like structure is about twelve feet tall and five feet wide.
-One of the main benefits of hydrogen as a fuel is that there is no carbon released from the fuel-cell. This is not the case with Methanol and Ethanol fuel cells. Now, is the amount significant? I know it’s generally a lot less than an ICE, so one might reasonably call that improvement enough. But part of the push to develop fuel cells is the fear of Zero-emissions requirements, particularly in CA. Hydrogen fuel cells (unlike hydrogen Ice, or any other existing fuel cell technology) literally emits nothing harmful at the vehicle.
-the solar refueling station puts the H2 directly into the car as it is being made (it has no storage tank of its own). Honda is assuming smart-grid technology; the station feeds electricity into the grid by day, pulls some out at night for electrolysis.
At a commercial, pressurized hydrogen gas-station, one could fill the car (4KG-240 miles) in five minutes. This is really the main advantage of chemical fuels in general (assuming fuel is available). Will batteries supersede this spec.? Perhaps one day. But some people think not.
-As far as the issue with NASA demonstrating that H2 is too volatile to store, I think you’ll find that NASA uses liquid hydrogen, which is going to be a lot more volatile than pressurized gas.
-The real kicker in all this is that the solar-station is using Natural gas as its raw-material. Of course, natural gas is piped to 90% of all houses, so it makes good sense from an infra-structure point of view. But it’s when they can do it with water that they’ll really have batteries on the run.
Feb 15th, 2010 (2:58 am)This raises an interesting question, which would be: If a BEV is charged at off peak hours then how much carbon does it release? The answer is zero because the electricity is already being produced. Rather than go to ground it goes into a battery, the important point being that it doesn’t add any carbon to the atmosphere in addition to that which would be added otherwise.
As others have mentioned, you’d have to see at least two breakthroughs for hydrogen to make economic sense. First you need a breakthrough to make the conversion from natural gas to hydrogen more efficient. A 6 kW system is large, but even then it’s not going to do the job if you live outside selected areas of the US, including places like Florida and other parts of the SE where there is a lot of sun but also a lot of clouds. We won’t talk about states at higher latitudes. Second you’d need a much less expensive fuel cell. Batteries may be expensive but not compared to a fuel cell.
But yes, all liquid fuels beat out batteries for recharging. Li-air batteries might change this because you might just be able to change out liquids, but that would be in the longer term. However, this system isn’t actually any faster than just recharging a battery. And while you correctly point out that natural gas runs to most houses, electricity is more ubiquitous. It’s everywhere. Home, office, mall. You name it and you’ll find electricity there.
Feb 15th, 2010 (3:16 am)Well at $800\month for the mini-E lease I don’t think you’re saving any money as compared to a standard mini. Not that it needs to be about money. My point would be that you have to include the price of the battery if you’re trying to compute a break even point.
I doubt (and to some extent hope) that solar will ever pay off, even after rebates. Where I am you can charge an EV for $.06/kWh on a separate meter. In contrast, even in a good place for solar, which most of the country is not, you can’t produce electricity for that little even after rebates. And even this price is too high and will drop over time as smart meters become the standard and electric utilities can use variable cost pricing.
Feb 15th, 2010 (3:17 am)Nice article BTW. Well written and thought provoking.
Feb 15th, 2010 (4:19 am)The utilities never waste electricity, even at night.. just less gets produced.. not that I care about carbon.
Feb 15th, 2010 (4:25 am)Since this H2 generator requires that NG is piped in to the location, then:
A far simpler solution, efficient, mucho cheaper and with zero leakage (hydrogen will leak thru anything) is to just compress the piped-in NG gas supply into a tank on the car.. use the solar power to run the compressor/chiller and also to recharge the Volt.
The NG for the Volt would be very beneficial, it is very clean burning and never goes stale in the tank.. the Volt would become a triple fuel car and thus never have a fuel issue.
Honda already has this tech for home NG refueling, and NG can be manufactured from waste if that is your cup. Perhaps a fuel cell will be more efficient, but perhaps not.. the Volts ICE may actually beat it running on NG.
Feb 15th, 2010 (5:20 am)On what day do you predict that natural gas will pay you back for your trouble and start giving you free, zero pollution, with energy independence from any company drilling, piping, charging you for and raising the price of, fuel?
Feb 15th, 2010 (5:27 am)You’d have to do the math for the 25 year system life, inverter replacement, increased property value, free energy after seven years etc. calculations to say for sure.
Feb 15th, 2010 (6:13 am)I agree with most of your predictions, but the fuel cells that the military will use will not be H2 but alcohol or diesel (in reality all fuel cells oxidize hydrogen), many in stationary applications… Probably the same for long distance trucking but batteries may even displace that use due to low operating cost.. heavy duty fast chargers in truck stops require trivial infrastructure.
Batteries for cars are good enough now, in all respects.. but time will lower cost and increase performance as the auto makers settle on one chemistry/one form factor.
Feb 15th, 2010 (9:20 am)Not necessarily–it’s fairly easy to make methane at a FOB using a bioreactor….you have to do something with all that food and latrine waste.
http://www.ultracellpower.com/sp.php?military
“UltraCell Corporation (Livermore, CA) was founded in 2002 to commercialize an advanced Reformed Methanol Micro Fuel Cell (RMFC) technology invented at the U. S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). This technology enables a breakthrough in micro fuel cell performance. UltraCell is the first to commercialize RMFC technology to provide clean renewable energy to power portable electronics. UltraCell’s XX25™ micro fuel cell system is leading the industry with its ultra-compact size and light weight. The XX25 is the only system in its class to have undergone extensive Military Specification qualification testing and field trials.
UltraCell¹s team has extensive experience in all aspects of fuel cells, including research, product development, manufacturing and customer applications. The company has developed new technologies and intellectual property in the field of methanol-based fuel cells and continues to innovate in this rapidly emerging field. UltraCell has an exclusive license with LLNL for micro fuel cell technology based upon reforming methanol into hydrogen reformate using proprietary technology in the fuel reformer and hydrogen fuel cell stack.
UltraCell Corporation is under contract with a variety of U.S. Government sources to develop light-weight and portable power sources for our military.
The U.S. Military is dependent on portable power for C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) missions. For a typical 72 hour mission, requiring 20 Watts average power, each soldier requires 27 lbs of rechargeable military batteries (or 18 pounds of non-rechargeable batteries). Some platoons have designated individual soldiers solely to carry large loads of batteries for the platoon.
Heavy, military batteries are currently being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the U.S. Military needs a light-weight, high power, environmentally friendly alternative to batteries.
The UltraCell XX25™ Fuel Cell is designed to provide uninterrupted power to field computer and communications equipment for extended periods at a considerable weight advantage over existing battery solutions � 65% of weight savings over a typical 72 hour mission.
The rugged design of the XX25 makes it suitable for the most demanding of environments, and its compatibility with night vision equipment permits around the clock usage in critical missions.”
In my opinion, I believe this technology has real potential as a silent range extender solution in 10-15 years–not as a replacement for battery grid power…we still need to maximize automotive use of grid power to reduce the need for range extending fuel. That would allow the US to meet the remaining demand for range extending fuel with domestic alternatives, like methane, ethanol…and one day hydrogen or even a large capacity super-capacitor.
+1
Feb 15th, 2010 (10:32 am)Interesting post about UltraCell.
But back to the primary thread, I think is was Jason Hendler who suggested that the wealthier portion of the American drivers would be willing to pay a significant premium for the convenience of fast refills and longer distance driving. This may be true. After all he is talking about people who buy $40k and up cars and don’t really care if it gets poor gas millage. They may grumble about high gas prices, but are under no strain to pay the high prices.
This article extols the virtues of FCs and proclaims a “Significant Fuel Cell Advance” without providing any advance at all, just a very expensive method of re-fueling at home. It is only a temporary solution for early adopters of FC cars, as it will be much cheaper to purchase H2 at a filling station when one near by becomes available.
The suggestion here is that there will be a split, with FCVs for the wealthy and BEVs for the rest of us. Battery technology is advancing rapidly, and in the next 5-10 years we will see 5-10 reduction in price and size. For BEV owners they will adjust to the idea that a “fast charge” is 20 minutes or more, and be willing to put up with that in order to have lower operating costs.
I believe large trucks will eventually become battery operated, as it will be cheaper than FC.
We should promote LFTRs to generate electricity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHdRJqi__Z8 Safe cheap and almost no radioactive waste that decays in 300 years instead of 100000. Oh and it cannot be used to make bombs.
Feb 15th, 2010 (10:47 am)Hi Don,
Here in Southern California we have a tiered rate system, any bill over $40 and you are paying 33cents a kw in some cases close to 40cents a kw.
In So-Cal with our sunshine, At 33cents a kw the break even point is in 6 years using the same money that you were paying your utility. At 17 cents a kw its 15 years and your correct, at 6 cents a kw Solar PV would not pay for itself for 30 years if ever. If you are not in a sunny cimate and your current rate is 6cents a kw, you would not do solar for the economics of it.
Most of our electricity comes from domestic sources, just two percent from oil. The real important part of solar pv for me is its role powering automotives such as my Mini-E. To the extent we drive cars like the Volt and other plug-ins we will drastically cut emmisions and our dependence on OPEC.
You are most right by saying that can also be done by utility electric power as oppossed to solar.
It just depends on where you live and what your rates are. For example the state of Washington gets most of its energy from Hydro, customers pays only 5-8 cents a kw, and solar PV has less performance the more north you are.
Still, plenty of folks are still doing solar pv in Washington
Solar/Wind/Hydro whould be what I would look to first for making the energy we require.
to the point of the article, Hydrogen fuel cells are much less efficient than solar no matter what the cost of electricity is.
Cheers
Peder
+1
Feb 15th, 2010 (11:17 am)Carl:
I am astounded that it took until response 29 before anyone pointed out this most glaring issue. So we are going to throw away a day’s worth of expensive solar power electricity to convert perfectly useable CNG into a harder-to-store H2 product to use in a infinitely more-expensive engine and loose half the energy value of the CNG along the way?
Seriously, I want to work for Honda. I imagine that you can easily get paid for doing nothing at that shop, heck, if all you do is NOT work you are more efficient than there energy plan for this car.
This plan make’s Eestor look good.
+1
Feb 15th, 2010 (11:26 am)So what’s the efficiency of using natural gas to make hydrogen, which is what currently happens? If it’s less than 50% (hint: it is), then hydrogen, as is, is a scam and we should already be using natural gas range extenders in hybrids (see Hyundai and Prius concepts).
Feb 15th, 2010 (11:39 am)+1
You forgot to add that you still produce CO2 pollution in the reforming process.
-2
Feb 15th, 2010 (2:06 pm)It’s vs its, guys. That’s a cognitive speedbump for your smarter readers, and we simply stop reading when we see a basic grammar mistake like that.
http://www.angryflower.com/itsits.gif
Feb 15th, 2010 (2:24 pm)The invention is a process that replaces a compressor with a slow high pressure electrolyzer. It has no local storage, and indeed does take 8 hours to put 0.5 kg of H2 into the car’s tank. No 60 second option.
Feb 15th, 2010 (3:07 pm)A day late, so who cares? lol
At first glance, this looks like the answer to my question of why it was Honda, particularly, who took the plunge towards the mass-production of CIGS based photovoltaic cells:
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=2264
However, this announcement looks more like some clever PR soup:
[Boss]: “We need something to distract the press from our Fit recall, now that they’re on the warpath with Toyota. What have we got outside of the core business?”
” …Hondajet?” [groans and mumbles go around the room]
[Boss]: “Who cares in this economy!”
“Let’s see: Our Photovoltaic division , but it’s having trouble with cost reductions.”
“There’s that darned Clarity Fuel Cell program that’s going nowhere … “
[hand raises at back] “Ooo! Ooo! I have an idea!!”
If there is a cost breakthrough in fuel cells, and if the problem of carrying hydrogen on board a vehicle is solved (not really addressed by any of this), maybe the “home fueling station” is news, just barely; but it isn’t a breakthrough.
Let Clarity give Honda some EV experience, let their CIGS arrays get plentiful / cheap enough for more people to put on their roofs; then let them offer a ‘chicken-and-egg’ solar-charged BEV program. That would be far more noteworthy, IMO.
+1
Feb 15th, 2010 (3:17 pm)Huh?
I used it’s correctly, as a contraction, not a possesive. Misused apostrophes are ugly, too, but if you are looking for good grammar use, internet blogs are the last place it would be expected to be found.
Feb 15th, 2010 (8:18 pm)“Oh the humanity!”
Feb 15th, 2010 (8:24 pm)#41
I agree. +1 Next case.
+1
Feb 15th, 2010 (8:27 pm)#148
Speak for yourself. As the self proclaimed “King of the Typos”, I don’t notice about 99% of them, and couldn’t care less about the rest. It’s the blogosphere man. Chill out. -1, and I don’t do them lightly
Feb 15th, 2010 (8:29 pm)#151
See also #154. +1
Feb 15th, 2010 (8:29 pm)What ever happened to the professor at a college in CA that was demonstrating how to create hydrogen with two common metals in water? There has to be a way to create hydrogen economically. Seems they have the fuel cell size figured out… now just get the hydrogen ….
Feb 15th, 2010 (11:34 pm)There’s is nothing “small” about a 6kW panel. Most of the usable area of my roof is covered with polysilicon panels to get a panel rating of just over 4kW. If they’ve got a small panel at 6kW then either our quest for power is at an end as our solution has been found or it is one bleeping-expensive panel.
Just for perspective, at only 8kWh to fully charge the volt, I can produce that from my 4kW array on the shortest day of the year, provided it is sunny all day (which isn’t that frequent in December!). On the longest day of the year, I can produce almost 30kWh.
So, I’m not super impressed that you can get a daily commute out of the world’s best 6kW panel. With a B/ER-EV you could get BOTH that and power your house from the world’s best 6kW panel.
Feb 16th, 2010 (11:38 am)But progress is progress. Solar panel technology, as in thin-film is moving along ….maybe not fast enough, but it is moving along. I’m still in the camp of plug in EREVs and EVs being the solution.
Charging an EV from rooftop solar or wind seems a great solution.
Feb 16th, 2010 (2:14 pm)Let’s not forget about the 5000 PSI tank of HYDROGEN in a FCV. I don’t want that in my car, do you?
Feb 16th, 2010 (3:25 pm)Since when is the load factor of PV technology a full 100%?
Full 8 hours at maximum capacity seems very remote: peak power *could* be achieved only during a short period of the day at optimal angles and temperatures. The rest of the day is suboptimal. And do not forget that seasonal influences will reduce the numbers even further. Not to mention occasional clouds, rain, snow, but also degradation of performance over time, etc.
No: a 6 kWattpeak installation will not produce 48 kWh a day. Typically A LOT less.