There has been much discussion about using hydrogen as fuel for vehicles. Albeit, I don't know much about that type of system other than it's a clean source.

Does anyone have a link or a reliable source that could provide fuel economy numbers for a hydrogen powered vehicle? I'd like to know what the difference would be in terms of fuel economy for an average family sedan running on hydrogen versus gasoline and what sorts of performance differences one might expect.

Thanks folks.

If you do a search for "hydrogen" in the search section you can get quite a information regarding hydrogen. You will find projections about fuel milage and range. Here are a few thoughts I posted about hydrogen in response to GM suggesting to China to start building out a hydrogen infrastructure:

I think it’s a bad idea to pitch hydrogen to China. Firstly, if you tell them hydrogen is the way to go then why should they bother with plug-in hybrid technology? They should just do what they’re doing now and wait for 10 years for the hydrogen technology to become affordable. Secondly, I feel the best path for them is to use a PHEV running a diesel engine. This way they can easily convert to biodiesel and slowly get rid of the diesel and eventually move to pure EV when the battery technology catch up. Does anyone really think hydrogen technology will advance faster than battery technology?

We should do the same here is the US only have flexibility on the range extender. Hummm, that is what we ARE doing. Why, because it makes sense to do so. Are we out building hydrogen infrastructure? No. Sure they have no infrastructure in some areas but can they really afford to move to hydrogen now? No. If the area was making money they would already have gas stations. Right? Hydrogen technology commands the highest prices when compared to other alternative technologies.

If they are going to build out infrastructure it should be in smart-charging ports at parking lots. Hydrogen will probably never make it for personal transportation due to the wasted steps and efficiency losses when compared to advanced batteries. However, even if hydrogen is used for some applications the charging ports will never be wasted. We can assume that the hydrogen cars will have some plug-in capability because grid electricity will always (ALWAYS) be cheaper than hydrogen.

If they do decide to build out hydrogen stations they should do it on the highways only. Hydrogen may turn out to be a good idea for heavy transport trucks because although it takes up 4 times the volume of diesel, hydrogen has 3 times the energy content by weight. Weight is one of the most important factors for cargo transportation.

I think companies should stop pushing hydrogen until there is at least one practical car built. The new Honda is beautiful but I would like to know how it performs in all conditions, how much it costs to operate (cost of hydrogen compared to just electricity), and a good estimate for the cost of the hydrogen systems (assuming they are mass produced). I feel when that is done the pure EV (with quick charge battery technology) will seem light years ahead.

People are concerned about the procedure to rapidly charge EVs. The answer is very simple. You have quick-charge stations with advanced batteries. The batteries are charged up all day and night (so no huge substation needs to be built). When a car comes to be charged direct battery-to-battery inductive charging is utilized. It will be quick, safe, extremely efficient. The whole system has almost no moving parts at all. Project Better Place proposes the swap-out station. This will also work well and those stations can eventually be converted to quick-charge stations. They will already have the underground storage for the batteries so modification should be fairly simple. If the swap-out station was designed from the start for that eventual conversion then even better.

If they set their minds to building hydrogen stations they should not spend too much effort in the supply infrastructure. Use natural gas CH4 for now and then move to advanced hydrolizers, should the new technology make it out of the lab. Building out huge hydrogen factories and the massive amount of liquid hydrogen transport trucks would be extremely costly and I believe ultimately wasteful.
After 5 years a much better analysis can be made regarding the full scale build out of hydrogen infrastructure. It’s my believe that 5 years from now battery technology will look many times better than fuel cell technology. Let’s face the facts. Hydrogen production is inefficient, very difficult to store and requires vastly different and expensive infrastructure. It also ties people to another liquid fuel. Home charging will be more difficult compared to home charging an EV. With an EV you connect the grid or solar panels to the batteries through a simple charger. No moving parts. No water supply, filters to mess with, complex technology to break down that requires a visit from a specialist. Perhaps it’s just too simple for some interested parties.

Thus, don’t tell the Chinese to go “all out” on hydrogen. Tell them to research it heavily and proceed with caution. Smart charging stations located at every parking spot will always be welcome and will fulfill the private transportation needs of most individuals. A carefully selected range extender (if needed) will fulfill the long travel gaps. Public transportation or long-range vehicle rental would probably be better option there.

Oh, and suggest they make their cars light and small. Get that culture ingrained as soon as possible! Look how hard we have it here in the US putting tiny Smart cars on the roads with Hummers. It’s probably going to take us 20 years to get those beasts off the roads. If ever! There seems to be trend to just make very large AND green vehicles. When you calculate the amount of energy that actually moves the person it’s quite embarrassing. However, as long as it’s sustainable and we remain competitive in the global marketplace then maybe we can afford that luxury, along with our McHouses.

I know a lot of people a lot smarter than me are convinced it will be the fuel of the future, but every time I look at the numbers, it just doesn't add up.

From what I've seen, there are two viable ways to get hydrogen now. Convert natural gas or use electrolysis.

Here's what my calcs tell me about the viability of converting natural gas:
ASSUMPTIONS
· Hydrogen in the near-term future will be produced by re-forming natural gas (CH4) into H2.
· The conversion process is 80% efficient.
· 1 kg natural gas creates 0.25 kg H2
· Current US gasoline consumption = 8,700,000 barrels/day (per EIA data)
· Through improved vehicle efficiencies and less driving, gas consumption can be cut in half.
· Fuel cell vehicle net efficiency to shaft = 60%. (optimistic!)
· ICE net efficiency = 25%.
· Gasoline heating value = 5,460,000 BTU/barrel
· Natural gas heating value = 1052 BTU/ cubic foot = 54 MJ/kg
· H2 heating value = 143 MJ/kg
· Current US natural consumption = 66 billion cubic feet/day


CALCULATIONS – (convert everything into gasoline bpd equivalent)
· Current net required shaft energy @ 25% ICE efficiency = 8,700,00 bpd * 0.25 = 2,175,000 bpd equivalent
· Post efficiency improvement shaft energy = Current/2 = 1,087,500 bpd equivalent
· Required H2 energy at 60% fuel-cell efficiency = 1,087,500/0.6 = 1,812,500 bpd equivalent.
· To make one bpd equivalent of H2, it will take (54/143)/(0.25*0.8) = 1.89 bpd equivalent of natural gas. (H2 has a much higher energy density per kg, but It takes 4 kg NG to make 1 kg of H2. The conversion efficiency is 80%)
· Required natural gas energy to make H2 for all vehicles = 1,812,500 bpd*1.89 = 3,422,600 bpd equivalent.
· Convert barrels gasoline to cubic feet Natural gas - 1 barrel = 5,460,000/1,052 = 5,190 cubic feet.
· One billion cubic feet natural gas = 1,052 billion BTU’s
· 1,052 billion BTU/5,460,000 BTU/barrel = 192,673 barrels/billion cubic feet
· Required natural gas/day = 3,422,600 bpd/ 192,673 = 17.8 billion cubic feet/day
· % of current US consumption = = 17.8 billion/66 billion = 27%.

CONCLUSION
We would have to increase our natural gas production and consumption by 27% to switch to hydrogen IF we both double our driving efficiency and greatly improve the efficiency of the current hydrogen reforming process.

QUESTION – where will the gas come from, especially if we increase natural gas power generation so we can phase out coal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Please review my numbers and post any gross errors. This is back-of-the-envelope stuff, so I might have mis-carried a decimal.

When I get time next week, I'll see if I can put together part 2 - how much electricity will it take to make H2 by electrolysis?

Although I also think that hydrogen is not a good idea, there are some optimizations possible, when you make it form electricity.

First use intermitted power. If the whole grid is renewable, than there are moments of surplus of power. Use those moments to generate hydrogen. Then you have also the hydrogen on the place where you need it, transport is avoided.

Or, use HTE (or a chemical equivalent). High Temperature Electrolysis. You can use this technology in a concentrated solar power plant, with a tower design (the temperature in other designs is too low). The thermal input from such plant is much cheaper than the electrical input. Water is heated and electrolysis on heated steam requires less electricity. An Australian company is working on this technology using thermal solar combined with CPV.

Hydrogen economy was envisioned by some people in a nuclear society. If you have nuclear plant with high temperature (current plants are low temperature), you can generate hydrogen with HTE at night on low demand. Breeder reactors would be of this high temperature type. But before these reactors will be available, solar will probably already won the race.

Currently the price of natural gas has to double (or more) before these technologies become competitive.

Lucas

Besides the Co2 released and the energy required to liberate hydrogen using steam reforming, there are the transportation, storage and power density issues. Take the the BMW Hydrogen 7. It has a big 6.6 liter V12 pumping out 260hp (the motor produces 360hp in the 750Li and 438hp in the 760Li on gas power density issue), and it gets a whopping 17miles per kilogram of H2. Keep mind that at 5000 psi 1 kg of H2 takes up 20 gallons of volume (greatly reducing the range of the H7). Because BMW is storing the H2 as a liquid (at -253 °Celsius), it can store car a whopping 8kg of H2, this gives the Hydrogen 7 a 120 mile range. Oh, that range is if you keep the hydrogen actively cooled (consuming energy), if not, the liquid hydrogen will evaporate at a rate of about 5% per day. Refrigerating to -253 °C and storing at that temperature is energy intensive, even more so than compressing H2 to 5 or 10 thousand PSI (and taking a range hit). People will argue that a Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle negates these issues. It will waste less of the energy stored in the hydrogen, but isn't nearly as efficient as battery to electric motor drivetrain. And you still waste the energy used to make, compress, transport, store, cool and deliver the H2.

Hydrogen sounds cool, but doesn't make any sense in a daily driver. That is unless you own a well that is producing the natural gas that hydrogen is being reformed from. Lots of money to be made getting people to switch from gas to hydrogen. Not nearly as much an upside for those same companies if EREVs or BEV's replace gas vehicles. The electricity distribution system is efficient, and already exists (unlike hydrogen refueling stations, lots of money to be made (wasted) building those too), and the EREV or BEV produces no emissions, unlike the Hydrogen 7.

You are not alone hvacman. Not many people are smarter than Ulf Bossel and here's what he had to say about the hydrogen economy (see link below). It caused an uproar in the hydrogen economy circles and I don't think they ever recovered. This analysis is a must read if you have even the slightest interest in using hydrogen for transportation:

http://www.efcf.com/reports/E21.pdf

"Electricity obtained from hydrogen fuel cells appears to be four times as expensive as electricity drawn from the electrical transmission grid."

Ul f B o s s e l


That should be the first thing you think of when you are working on hydrogen projects. Also, in terms of energy content liquid hydrogen has 4 times the volume of gasoline but it weights 3 times less! This substance is incredibly light but extremely hard to hold on to. We will just have to wait and see what people come up with. It could be used for airplanes, heavy transport, shipping and possibly even personal transportation. However, I'm betting that EVs will be cheaper, safer and more reliable for the everyday Joe.

Texas, thanks for digging up Ulf's article. I was digging for it when I ran my own quick numbers, but couldn't quite put my Internet fingers on it. "Well-to-wheel efficiency" (W2W) is the key phrase to describe the concepts in Ulf's article.This basically is the concept of calculating the net energy available as shaft HP at the wheel as compared to the total energy content of the original energy source (not of the storage medium). Natural-gas reforming to make hydrogen is a disasterous concept for a lot of reasons, but electrolysis makes even less sense.

For our transporation energy future, we have several often-conflicting criteria to consider for our energy storage systems. including several energy density issues:

energy density per $
energy density per kg
energy density per liter

Hydrogen, when viewed through these energy-density-based rose-colored-glasses, can be made to look pretty darn attractive compared to electro-chemical energy storage. Hydrogen advocacy and official government policy is largely based on this filtered vision. Just read any promo for H2 and you'll see it.

But if we ultimately will be relying on renewable sources like PV and wind, which have high per-kW and huge per-kWh capital costs, W2W efficiency will trump energy density as the prime factor. As Ulf and others have shown, electrolytically-produced H2 will have a W2W efficiency of about 20% net, IF some breakthroughs are achieved to improve fuel-cell efficiencies. Here's a link to an opinion column I wrote last year that translated Ulf's calculations in 750 layman's words:

http://www.redding.com/news/2007/aug/26/the-hydrogen-economy-its-nothing-but-hot-air/

(OK, high temperature electrolysis (HTE) at a nuclear reactor will reduce the electrolysis energy, but all the other system losses remain, still killing the W2W efficiency. Plus, we are talking nuclear - is this a good plan?)

Current Li battery technology sees about an 80% W2W efficiency (95% charger efficiency x 90% charge efficiency x 90% discharge efficiency). Flywheel technology, at 90%, is about the only other energy storage concept that exceeds this W2W efficiency. The current vision is that flywheels are not good candidates for delivering low power outputs for hours at a time.

Despite the painfully low energy density for current-generation LI battery packs, it is by far the most energy-efficient energy storage system available now or projected to be available on the foreseeable future. It is far more likely that the battery engineers will upgrade energy densities and reduce costs faster and more simply than the hydrogen engineers can improve their W2W efficiencies. Once battery designers get a reasonably-priced and sized battery that can carry a well-engineered 4-5 passenger car 300-400 miles, the energy storage debate will be over. Batteries will have proven to be "good-enough".

My prediction - the energy density battle will demonstrate once again the old engineering adage that practical "good-enough" beats theoretical "optimal" every time.

I thought about this the other day. If we go with battery technology in cars today, future cars will only get cheaper, lighter, blah blah blah. The following thought really struck me... Unlike the current situation we are in where the cost of gas will only go up and up as the world demands more oil but less is available due to inevitable peak oil the real cost of EVs will feel like the price of gas is going down and down as we slide along the battery technology curve.

Certainly that future reduction of risk has have some value. It's the same with solar panels. It might be a bit more expensive at first but you are guaranteed those costs for the next 25 years. Knowing the costs that far out makes it easy for financial decision making. Additionally, the replacement costs of the panels will only go down. One more time because I feel this is so important... The cost of energy for EVs will get less expensive as time goes on (solar cells directly feeding batteries). What can you say about the price of gas in 10 years? Yeah, I have no idea either. People will say that a lithium shortage will cause problems but there are so many different technologies in the works that I doubt we will be locked to one formula, like we are with gasoline.

I honestly can't be sure that buying a Tesla is not the best financial move you could ever make. If gas prices in the future not only cost $20 bucks a gallon but you can only get it after sitting in line for 10 hours that Tesla is going to look quite sweet. The Volt too! With the Volt you might not be able to go on long trips but you will be tooling around town with no problems at all, accept for dealing with people trying to steal it. ;)

With a hydrogen system however I'm not sure about future cost reductions. The fact that there are so many mechanical considerations including high pressure pumps, 10,000 psi high volume pressure vessels, chemical processes that include combining forced air and pressurized hydrogen together in a pressure resistant container (fuel cell) leads me to believe that the fuel cell system will never achieve the simplicity and cost reductions that battery technology will. However, for special applications hydrogen's many advantages like very high power to weight ratio may be useful despite the complexities in containing such a light gas or the inefficiencies of it's conversion process.

I pointed out this company in another thread, but since this one is about hydrogen I'll post it here. Here are a couple of links to the companies website:

http://www.millenniumcell.com/fw/main/How_it_Works-31.html

http://www.millenniumcell.com/fw/main/Overview-27.html

They use a sodium borohydride solution to store the hydrogen. There is a solid blend that can be shipped by air. That would alleviate some of the initial infrastructure demands. Just think, you could pay for a monthly service like netflix where you pay for a certain amount of fuel in advance and it is shipped straight to your home and then you recycle the resultant Sodium metaborate.

Looks like chrysler looked at the Millennium Cell systems back in the day before the Daimler take over, but it was ended after the take over. Too bad.

http://www.allpar.com/corporate/fuel-cells.html

Ah well...

I've no doubt that hydrogen will be cheap to generate and store, given the recent breakthroughs in those respective techs. Here are two companies making progress:

Quantum Tech Link (http://www.qtww.com/)

Quantum Sphere Link (http://www.qsinano.com/)

Fortunately, all the effort going into EV's and hybrids just pave the way for fuel cell vehicles, as they can be grafted into either of these systems as a range extender.

CONCLUSION
We would have to increase our natural gas production and consumption by 27% to switch to hydrogen IF we both double our driving efficiency and greatly improve the efficiency of the current hydrogen reforming process.

QUESTION – where will the gas come from, especially if we increase natural gas power generation so we can phase out coal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Please review my numbers and post any gross errors. This is back-of-the-envelope stuff, so I might have mis-carried a decimal.

When I get time next week, I'll see if I can put together part 2 - how much electricity will it take to make H2 by electrolysis?

Ahh...HVACMAN...shack! Natural gas is the quickest/easiest way to produce hydrogen...but where are we going to get all that natural gas from? I can't help but find it ironic that in the same breath you dismiss coal. Have you ever heard of a methanogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanogen)? Funny how everyone assumes the only thing you can do with coal is combust it and contribute to global warming. Paradigms are hard to break.

Here is ONE possibility. Read the brochure and applications at the link below.

http://www.arctech.com/micgas.htm

The real potential with the above technology is in situ application. Translation – we can engineer man made natural gas fields in the 5.6trillion tons of unmineable coal in the United States alone.

Anyone voicing rejoice for a Hydrogen economy for any reason must work for Big Oil or the government. I'll take my one time purchase of a bev AND RECHARGE AT HOME AND NOT RELY ON ANYONE TO SELL ME DAMN FUEL TO RUN A REAL
STUPID HYDROGEN BATTERY POWERED ELECTRIC CAR. SOME PEOPLE ON HERE SOUND LIKE YOU JUST WANT TO GIVE AWAY YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY TO SOMEONE ELSE FOR NO GOOD REASONS, GIVE IT TO ME THEN IF YOU SO EAGER.

Read the information found at link above...before you summarily dismiss it. What is the harm in at least learning about the technology? It is but one possibility. Then you can at least dismiss it based on a rudimentary knowledge rather than a conspiracy theory.

I want there to be a choice between electricity and hydrogen, so that no one vendor can maintain high prices. Right now, we have gasoline, diesel and ethanol, each doing its part to prevent the others from getting to high above the others.

Hydrogen can be produced, even from water, without electricity, as there are solar hydrogen generators that use sunlight directly to dissociate water molecules, so don't waste time flapping your gums over hydrogen's cost being driven by electricity.

Read the information found at link above...before you summarily dismiss it. What is the harm in at least learning about the technology? It is but one possibility. Then you can at least dismiss it based on a rudimentary knowledge rather than a conspiracy theory.

Read the article. I hope the science is real and the skeletons in the process are minor. This could be huge step forward. Using the methane in a hydrogen fuel cell, however, sounds like a waste of perfectly good methane.

For the first time in a hundred years we as Americans have the true blue chance of being totally independent of big oil.
You can go with a BEV which is so simple it dosen't need any discussion or you can go with the governments plan of converting something to make hydrogen to power your car at a price you will pay for every single day just like gas. Do you want to be tied to some fat cats for the next hundred years to supply your cars with fuel or just buy you some solar panels for home use to charge your car like I did. I will be independent of all future monopolies and government bs or big oil bs. Some say give hydrogen a chance, well you are really saying hey give some one else the chance to control your life and your money, like whats been going on for the last century with gas.
Tesla had the right idea in the early 1900's with his invention of AC electric current, motors and car . You can thank him for everything you have now today, he is the true father of electricity as we know it today. Everything else in our lives we have runs on electricity but our autos. Also some Hydrogen people are saying well BEV's will make the grid pollute more from coal use, well if so stop eating then and turn off your 220v ovens that cooks your chicken casseroles for 2 hours every night.

jeremy,

You can generate your own hydrogen directly from the sun, no electricity needed:

Nanoptek Home (http://www.nanoptek.com/)

... and Quantum is developing the compression system:

Quantum / Boeing Partnership (http://www.qtww.com/files/qtww_press/080331%20QT%20Teams%20with%20Boeing%20to%20Advance %20Hydrogen%20Storage%20Technologies.pdf)

Batteries are very expensive, but GM is already planning a fuel cell Volt for production. True, if you have $100K to burn, then buy a Tesla, sit around for 4 hours until is charges, drive 200 miles, then repeat. I would prefer a fuel cell Volt that I could refuel in 5 mins from my Quantum storage tank full of hydrogen I generated from my Nanoptek hydrogen generator.

Practical Quick-charge BEVs vs. Practical Hydrogen vehicles


Who will get there first? Place your bets!

Practical Quick-charge BEVs vs. Practical Hydrogen vehicles


Who will get there first? Place your bets!

Neither, unless you count 25KWh/hr ubiquitously available charging as quick charging. Jason's Tesla owning freind will be tooling around in 400 mile $75K car by the time these developmental contracts actually develop a marketable product to find there is little market demand. Save the $, kill the pork, reduce the debt.

Since fuel cells vehicles are already on the roads from Honda, GM and Ford, I suspect FCV's will be available sooner than the silicon wire rapid recharge batteries are deployed.

Read the article. I hope the science is real and the skeletons in the process are minor. This could be huge step forward. Using the methane in a hydrogen fuel cell, however, sounds like a waste of perfectly good methane.

Koz,

The science is real, it isn't anymore cosmic than a sewer treatment plant. Methane (aka natural gas) is the richest molecule in hydrogen. So if you don't want to make hydrogen gas from it, you can make synthetic fuel via a FT process...or you can simply combust it and generate electricity in today's electric power plants. Methane provides a lot of options. It also doesn't hurt that we already have the infrastructure in place to move it around the country. Also of note, it is claimed this process can produce methane on the order of $2 per million BTU while consuming minimal amounts of water.

Anyone worried about global warming? If you take this process as a system, the humic acid that is co-produced from a ton of coal can treat up to 20 acres of land. The result is increased biomass (i.e., the humic acid causes biomass to grow larger) -- see the applications tab on the website linked in my original post. This delta increase in biomass absorbs CO2, potentially more CO2 in one year than is released from burning the methane (or syn-fuel) that is co-produced with this technology (per ton of coal). So you have in effect the potential for a net carbon sink per ton of coal. This because the microbes in this process convert the carbon in coal to methane gas and humic acid. The carbon in the resultant humic acid is mineralized (has strong bonds), thus it is sequestered. That means it does NOT oxidize back to CO2 in the environment.

Why do I mention it here? I’ve conducted a deep look into this technology and I believe this is noble prize winning technology that is flying under everyone's radar screen. I thought some people on this site might find it intriguing – you don’t know what you don’t know.

Rooster,

As an aside, there is sithane, SiH6, but I don't know how abundant or extractible it is.

I am glad that you are posting your info here, as everyone is soooo battery focused, that they are forgeting other alternatives.

Methanol fuel cells are also in existance, so you would only require a standard fuel tank with the existing distribution system to deploy that tech.

Anyone can see, hydrogen is being pushed because it means the most money to the players involved.

Hydrogen won't benfit me or you.


Lot's of moving parts to be broken and replaced...
Condensation damage, and of course, the production and delivery of hydrogen. They can use a lot of the old parts they already have.

Who do you think would produce this hydrogen? The major energy producers of course.

Where would they provide it? From their existing stations, that are already built through out the cities we live in.


I ask you to think about this..

Where is the most money made in Autos?

In the maintenance of course.
Major companies want to give you cars that break down. They want you to have a lot of moving parts.
They want you to be paying for fuel as often as possible.




Look at the electric car this way..

You can produce your own fuel from the sun. The technology will be here cheaper and fast when the electric auto is introduced.

Your maintenance costs will be greatly reduced.

Transportation doesn't have to be expensive..
it's DESIGNED to be expensive..



food for thought

Ghost has it right, the players want to keep you in debt with a hydrogen
economy. Thank God someone besides myself here has some common sense. The day is coming where we will a be liberated from the bondage
of slavery, first time in a hundred years that the controlling interest do not have all the power and control to keep us in debt buying fossil fuels.
Some of you peeps want the hydrogen economy, well you can have it and the 150k hydro home station and storage system with a couple year life span and all the maintenance issues. You guys can stay broke with your marvelous bs! I will enjoy my savings of 4 to 5k a year being fuel free and enjoy a vacation with my kids.

I'm with you guys. I'm well aware that the solar-battery-motor is too simple and too distributed for certain interested parties. Regardless, I charge batteries with solar and you will need to pull them away from me kicking and screaming. Besides, they can always just increase our taxes another way and with all the money we will be saving you can always get our money with useless product advertising. ;)

Jerry M. Woodall has some interesting ideas on how to generate hydrogen from water using aluminum (http://hydrogen.ecn.purdue.edu/2007.05.01-Woodall/).

You can generate it real-time, or if you want you can store it as a solid that is more solid than a solid (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tb2008_0401.htm#hydrogen).

Rooster,

Methanol fuel cells are also in existence, so you would only require a standard fuel tank with the existing distribution system to deploy that tech.

Jason,

I couldn't agree with you more. A Methane fuel cell would be more practical than a pure hydrogen fuel cell. See the link below.

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Methane_20Fuel_20Cell

Of course it would release some CO2, but it would be much cleaner that an ICE. Methane can be made from algae, biomass, human sewage, landfill gas and coal, so why not a methane fuel cell? What ever alternative energy technology proves the most cost effect to generate power in the future, the Volt is positioned to take advantage of it. That’s the genius of GM E-Flex chassis; the sustainer engine is merely a plug in module.

Texas,

In response to your question?


Practical Quick-charge BEVs vs. Practical Hydrogen vehicles

Who will get there first?

Neither :D, both have huge infrastructure costs associated with them. In 15 years I predict most of us will only need an EV range extender for 36 days out of the year on average. Why? Because I believe it will be cheaper and more technically feasible to develop a 100 mile range EV with a sustainer engine, than it will be to develop a 250 mile battery/capacitor that can be recharged in 5 minutes. Same logic applies to a hydrogen infrastructure.

Extrapolating from the American Driving Patterns graph on A123’s website; http://www.a123systems.com/#/applications/phev/pchart6/

- 70% of Americans drive 40 miles or less per day
- 80% of Americans drive 60 miles or less per day
- 90% of Americans drive 90 miles or less per day

Mind you, I’m certainly not against quick charging in theory, I just think it is a monumental technical challenge for both the energy storage device and the associated infrastructure. If we can get a 100 mile EV range on a vehicle like the Volt, then 90% of Americans can drive on nothing but electricity every day. We can meet the demands of the other 10% with our on domestically produced petroleum if we have to. Of course, I would like to see that 10% demand met with a domestically produced synthetic fuel that is life cycle CO2 neutral. As Tagamet is fond of saying, don’t let perfect get in the way of good enough.

Rooster, you may be right that we'll all be driving hydrocarbon burning cars in 15 years. I won't be but I wouldn't even be surprised if we are still driving Hummers around. If the price of a barrel drops and we can find a way to rape the land to get at the tar sands and shale effectively then maybe in 15 years it will still be business as usual.

However, you honestly don't feel a practical quick-charge BEV will ever be created? Never? Horse hockey. I know you will retort by saying that they will not be useful. Noted. The question was: which one will come first! Bend your reality for a moment and imagine that one of the two choices is going to be used. Which one of those two do you think, based on the way technology is advancing, will come first and why. Thanks and I also feel the hybrid will be the solution for the short-term. I just hope that the long-term solution is a renewable solution.

However, you honestly don't feel a practical quick-charge BEV will ever be created? Never? Horse hockey. I know you will retort by saying that they will not be useful. Noted.

Texas,

I do enjoy discussions with you -- you are passionate on this subject so it makes it fun. Wish I had more time to post on this site, but my wife and 3 year old daughter are extremely demanding of the free time I have. :)

For the record, I would not say, nor have I ever said, that practical quick-charge BEV can not be created -- ever. Nor would I be so stupid to say a practical quick-charge BEW wouldn’t be useful. Why would you think that?!? On the contrary, it would be revolutionary.

What I am saying is for it to be practical, by my definition, a quick charge BEV can not be anymore inconvenient than a modern ICE powered car. So I define practical as at least a 250 mile range with a recharge in 5 minutes. A 250 mile battery is doable today, Telsa has one. The hard technical problem is recharging it in 5 minutes without frying it or over sizing it to the point that it doesn’t fit in the vehicle just so it can handle the C rate required. I suppose you could put the battery in a trailer and pull it behind the vehicle, and exchange trailers every 250 miles, but that is not as convenient as refueling a vehicle, so it doesn’t fit my definition of practical. If a trailer has to go up against an ICE range extender, I think the majority of consumers will prefer the ICE range extender. Especially if it has a 100 mile EV range and the range extender is power by domestically produced, CO2 neutral, synthetic fuel.

Bottom line, I’m not aware of any battery technology, anywhere, that can handle the C rate required to quick charge a 250 mile range battery in 5 minutes. Of course, I don’t know what I don’t know. So maybe you are aware of some technology that I am not? I’d love to be wrong here, but my instinct says you are grossly underestimating the technical challenge. You will also have to install the electric infrastructure to provide the power to quick charge a battery in excess of 62.5 KWh in 5 minutes. Not technically impossible, but certainly not a nontrivial infrastructure expense either.




The question was: which one will come first! Bend your reality for a moment and imagine that one of the two choices is going to be used. Which one of those two do you think, based on the way technology is advancing, will come first and why. Thanks and I also feel the hybrid will be the solution for the short-term. I just hope that the long-term solution is a renewable solution.

OK then, if you must pin me down based on the way technology is advancing, the answer is Hydrogen Fuel Cells. Why? Because they are here now. Honda is testing the FCX in CA using Hydrogen refueling stations in CA. The hydrogen is produced using solar energy.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/owning/

GM is testing the Hydrogen Fuel Cell powered Equinox in my current stomping grounds, Washington DC.

http://www.chevrolet.com/fuelcell/

I’m not aware of any 250 mile BEV vehicles that can be quick charged in 5 minutes. As I said, I’m not against the idea. I just think it’s a damn hard technical problem to solve. It is going to require some more breakthroughs

All that said, if a 100 mile EV is mass produced with a range extender power by domestically produced, CO2 neutral, synthetic fuel, why would you invest in a hydrogen infrastructure?

Yes Rooster, It’s always fun to debate with someone with exactly the opposite opinion as me. ;) If we all agreed the forum would be dead because we would be out building this infrastructure! Ugh.

Ok, please check out the following electrical storage systems that are soon to be released (some sooner some later - 10X). Now remember that the Honda is only going to be LEASED in very small quantities (like the EV1) and the last cost estimate I heard (sorry, no link) was that it cost well over $250,000. Anyway, please check these and then tell me what you think (I know you will not change your mind but others might):


http://www.physorg.com/news116591313.html

"Toshiba will begin selling the SCiB quick charge-10 year battery in March, 2008. This industrial battery increases safety, versatility in power source and qualifies as environmentally sensitive.

Toshiba has developed a battery that can be recharged in five minutes with a lifespan of 10 years. Toshiba has trademarked the new accumulator, the SCiB. The new quick charge-Super Charge ion Battery will go to market in March, 2008. Initially, the SCiB distribution will focus on the industrial equipment sector. "


Next up we have EEstor....

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2007/09/10/eestors-ultracapacit.html


Then we have the super wild 10X silicon nanowire lithium-ion technology that is running in the lab today. Think Tesla battery pack and then reduce the size 10 times. Fast charge.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1234/


There are others that I can link to but you get the point. Is it really that far of a stretch? Currently hydrogen is so freaking expensive not to mention inefficient (4 times less than wall electricity)!

Finally, you mentioned 65 kW or so? No, I'm talking 225 kW! How? Simple - battery to battery charging. Think two batteries connected with very big cables. I'm thinking induction but that is just an engineering problem and is technically simple. The station batteries are charged all day an night and burst power to the cars battery when needed. The station batteries are also connected to the grid and act as base load capacity for the solar panels that are also connected to the station. Perfect, renewable, efficient, duel purpose.

Yes Rooster, It’s always fun to debate with someone with exactly the opposite opinion as me. ;) If we all agreed the forum would be dead because we would be out building this infrastructure! Ugh.

Texas,

Believe it or not, I think we actually agree more than we disagree.

Thanks for the links, the Toshiba SCiB quick charge battery is the first time I’ve seen the words “battery may be charged to 90 percent or more in five minutes.” and “unique feature of the new product is that after 3,000 recharges the battery only lost less than 10 percent efficiency”. I wonder if that also applies to the 5 minute, 90% capacity recharge? That wasn’t clear in the article. I hope it does, as it addresses my C rate-durability questions, so this article really perks my attention. This is the one issue that causes me the most concern technically. Perhaps we are much closer that I realized...I like positive surprise.

EEstor is a wild card. Very exciting, but is there substance to the hype and can it be massed produced? I guess I’m of the same opinion as the author,


“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, reminded Carl Sagan. Until EEStor's products are in the hands of independent testers, we can only cross our fingers.”

Most exciting is the silicon nano wires technology, with the potential to store more energy than can be stored in a tank of gas. But it is still at a low TRL, so a lot of work must be done to make it practical...and more importantly, there is still a lot of room for unexpected technical issues. It certainly warrants watching.

That said, perhaps you are correct and I am being too pessimistic on the potential for EV quick charging in the next 10-15 years. You did rattle off three different energy storage technologies that have potential. I hope they all make it to the market. We need a portfolio of energy options that compete with each other. As far as infrastructure support, once you account for your sunk costs, I can’t imagine any other energy storage transport medium being more efficient than electricity. If the battery technology pans out, I have no doubt we will have no problem raising the capital necessary to upgrade our electric grid infrastructure – that’s the beauty of capital markets. If there is a lot of money to be made, the investment funds will come.

You know, I can’t help but draw an analogy between today’s energy market and the “dot.com” boom of the 90’s. There are going to be a myriad of alternative energy products brought to the market in the next 5 years. It will be extremely interesting see which ones survive & thrive, and which ones wither away from the intense competition. Exciting times to be alive, changes are a coming I think.

Good discussion...makes me think.

Cheers!

Why not just make the batteries modular and charge in parallel?

Why not just make the batteries modular and charge in parallel?

Glen, This will be the case. If required, engineers would run a separate charging wire to each cell. However, the problems with old battery technology are with the chemistry limitations, dangers of overheating, heat of charging, packaging limitations, etc. Not the wiring.

Eric posted some great links to forklifts being quick-charged and I was surprised to see that the old lead-acid batteries were being handled in such a modern way and that they were being quick-charged so safely. I have to admit the first thoughts that came to my head were:

1) How much are these forklift batteries?
2) How much do they weigh?
3) How much energy can they store?
4) Can I fit one in the back of an electric Ford Ranger and not break the frame?

:)

Iceland wants to be fossil fuel free by 2050, and they are banking on hydrogen. But their geography and geology perhaps make hydrogen a viable reality from their geothermal wells. Elsewhere, who knows.

My objection to hydrogen is I think it helps to stall PHEV, REV and EV development and production. Governor Schwarzenegger has promised a hydrogen highway, and the Bush Administration has pushed hydrogen via FreedomCAR. But where is the PHEV, REV and EV development while we wait decades for hydrogen.

Assuming hydrogen ultimately pans out, I remain opposed. I think there's gonna be too much temptation to pursue hydrogen ICEs.

EVs, on the other hand, are quite a bit simpler and a number of systems aren't required. Exhaust, lubrication, coolant, ignition. The construction of an EV recharging stations across the nation will be quite a bit simpler and cheaper than a hydrogen network.

Should hydrogen pan out, say with hydrogen producing micro organisms, seems far better to create electricity with it.

1) How much are these forklift batteries?
2) How much do they weigh?
3) How much energy can they store?
4) Can I fit one in the back of an electric Ford Ranger and not break the frame?

:)

I have use electric forklift, power jack, sitdown forklift and standup forklift. They all have different rate of power and weigh. They are all use lead acid battery. I'm sure there are other type of battery that I have not seen. Base on two company I use to work for that deal with electric forklift. It seem lead acid battery are still use then any other battery that I have seen. When the battery unable to hold a charge. They just add water. Ten years or so, they buy sulfuric acid when the lead acid/water ratio weak. It will keep on going as long the cell in the battery have not been broken. The only tools that I have seen when they refill sulfuric acid is call "hygrometer". Many forklift can continue operate up to 8 hours before it need a recharge. What I been told by the forklift repairman is that they clean inside the battery before they refill sulfuric acid. That the only part that I have not seen it done. The battery looks like a bunch of golf cart batteries. I have been useing electric power lift for the past 8 years and continue to use it as today.

Here the link that I have found about cleaning inside the battery. I do not know if this is the same way that a forklift repaireman did. I was wondering how they do it. This is what I have found.
http://www.alton-moore.net/batteries.html

My objection to hydrogen is I think it helps to stall PHEV, REV and EV development and production. Governor Schwarzenegger has promised a hydrogen highway, and the Bush Administration has pushed hydrogen via FreedomCAR. But where is the PHEV, REV and EV development while we wait decades for hydrogen.

Assuming hydrogen ultimately pans out, I remain opposed. I think there's gonna be too much temptation to pursue hydrogen ICEs.

EVs, on the other hand, are quite a bit simpler and a number of systems aren't required. Exhaust, lubrication, coolant, ignition. The construction of an EV recharging stations across the nation will be quite a bit simpler and cheaper than a hydrogen network.

Should hydrogen pan out, say with hydrogen producing micro organisms, seems far better to create electricity with it.

Could not have said it better. Hydrogen may have some niche applications. I don't think it scales properly to be the most efficient way to power the daily drivers. At least in the US. At least not for 50 years or so.

metrologyfirst and kengrubb,

By poo-pooing hydrogen, you are no better than those who would poo-poo BEV's. As I have stated countless times, hydrogen fuel cells will allow rapid refill, which today's batteries do not. It may prove cheaper to build out a hydrogen infrastructure than an infrastructure for rapid refill electric recharge, even when batteries can be quickly charged.

Both Iceland and Japan will use their abundance geothermal energy to convert their economies from petroleum based, and I believe they will become large exporters of hydrogen in the future. It's funny how those two island nations, with the poorest resources, will end up being major energy exporters in the late 21st century.

metrologyfirst and kengrubb,

Both Iceland and Japan will use their abundance geothermal energy to convert their economies from petroleum based, and I believe they will become large exporters of hydrogen in the future. It's funny how those two island nations, with the poorest resources, will end up being major energy exporters in the late 21st century.

Here in Oregon we are seeing great strides in R&D by Oregon State University directed toward generating electicity utilizing wave energy from the swells and ocean waves along the Pacific Northwest coast. Unlike the mostly calm seas on the Atlantic, the north Pacific generates a fairly constant high wave form. Studies utilizing bouys at sea estmate an average 22KW/Sq Meter along the Oregon Coast. North toward Alaska it tops 100KW. I think that the West coast of the United States may find that it has a really good resource available to generate hydrogen from the very sea water that will generate the power.

Of course actually making this happen will require that a lot of R&D actually move on to real products, and then that the environmentalists, FERC, the courts, and other branches of government don't spend more energy trying to block utilizing this resource than the waves can generate.

I think the main issue is how are we going to store all of the intermittent energy sources for land based energy systems and also the best storage system for mobile energy systems. Here's the possible list:

1) Pumped storage hydro - most proven and highest capacity known. It may be expensive to build the reservoirs but once built they will last for over 100 years. Very low maintenance and extremely clean. Some should be built as beautiful as the Roman aqueducts as they will be a huge tourist attraction in some locations like Hawaii.

2) Battery storage for land based energy systems - seems like the most perfect solution. When the technology catches up in a few decades maybe. However, currently they are just too expensive to carry the whole load. They will most likely be used in grid connected EVs and plug-in hybrids as well as distributed quick-charge stations.

3) Thermal storage - natural. Use the earth's massive geothermal resources to provide base load. This will end up being a large part of the energy storage solution. Will be hard to integrate the solar, wind, and tidal power inputs however.

4) Thermal storage - man made. High pressure steam and molten salt can be used to store thermal energy from thermal solar and concentrated solar sources.

5) Biofuels - Algae oil and ethanol from many feed stocks including cellulotic, sugar, waste, etc. These 2nd generation biofuels are very good and will be part of the energy storage solution. How much is to be determined. Arable land must be used for food because importing food to remote locations will become increasing expensive. Algae projects around the world are using ocean water filled ponds, waste sources, fossil fuel power plant CO2 emissions, etc. Lots of research needs to be done. The derived biodiesel can be used in existing trucks and other diesel machines. The ethanol can be used in existing E85 and later with 100 percent ethanol-ready vehicles. Great potential.

6) Hydrogen. Although this storage medium is 4 times less efficient then wall electricity it has the potential to store massive amounts of energy. The storage tanks could be put underground for minimal visual impact. The hydrogen can be used in both land and mobile based fuels cells as well as can be burned in easily modified internal combustion engines. Much research needs to be done to get the costs of these systems down. The inherent inefficiencies may prove prohibitive. To be continued.

There is going to have to be some serious planning in the coming years. A well diversified portfolio of solutions will be needed to finally kick our fossil fuel burning habits.

Has there been any talk about the impact of big scale hydrogen fuel on the environment? Will the water vapor released into the atmosphere created by 300 million cars in the US alone lead to torrential rain storms? Is there any talk of possibly capturing this water vapor to alleviate drinking and agricultural water shortages instead of just letting it evaporate and create bigger clouds?

GM technology is solving so many of the world's problems. Thanks. I only ask that you do it as fast as you can. I don't want to be a senior citizen when all of this finally comes out. :D

Though the economic viability of a hydrogen economy is controversial, I haven't heard any climate scientist who is concerned about increased water vapor emissions. If anything, it would help combat global warming. Increased cloud cover and water vapor in the air would reduce solar heat gain.

Our current hydrocarbon combustion processes, including burning natural gas, gasoline, diesel, wood, etc. dump way more water vapor into the atmosphere than the hydrogen from 300 million fuel-cell vehicles.

There's one thermal storage technology that is mature, has been around for 30 years or more, and also can be a 'virtual" electrical energy storage system - Ice storage.

In the HVAC industry, we're seeing a lot more interest from the utility companies to help finance ice storage systems for large commercial buildings. With these systems, the air conditioning equipment (actually, usually water-chilling equipment) runs at night during low electrical load to refrigerate a glycol solution down to 25 degrees. It pumps the glycol through pipes immersed in a water tank. This freezes the water. The next day, during peak cooling time, the AC compressors shut off and pumps circulate the glycol through the ice tank and to the building air cooling coils. This cools the building, melts the ice, and keeps the electrically-intensive AC compressors off. Link (http://www.calmac.com/)

There is a residential-sized unit out there called the Ice Bear that does a similar thing, except without the glycol Link (http://www.ice-energy.com/)

Large campus facilities are now installing chilled water storage tanks, which can do the essentially same thing as ice storage. It takes less electricity per ton of cooling to make 40 degree chilled water than ice, but takes much larger tanks, as there is no heat of fusion.

Someone suggested plugging in some thermal storage on the Volt to help reduce the battery load for mobile cooling. 68 pounds (8) gallons of water, frozen, could provide about 1/2 ton-hour of cooling, which might last 30-40 miles of BEV operation.

No need for energy storage when the baseline electricity could be provided by geothermal and wind, and the day load by solar:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19826562.000-to-make-the-most-of-wind-power-go-fly-a-kite.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specbtm7_head_To%20make%20the%20most%20of%20 wind%20power,%20go%20fly%20a%20kite
(Sorry, paid subscription required.)
"At the height of the average wind turbine, 80 metres above ground, the wind typically blows at around 4.6 metres per second. At 800 metres, this rises to 7.2 metres per second. The dependability of the wind - how often it blows above certain speeds - also increases with altitude. It turns out that the power available from wind is tied to the cube of its speed, so the higher of these altitudes is a far more attractive option, giving you almost four times as much power as that available at turbine height. Go up to 1 kilometre, and you can harness nearly eight times as much power (see Graph). All you need is a kite - with a very long string.
"On paper, at least, it is a simple recipe for clean, cheap energy, one attractive enough for Makani Power to have received an investment of $10 million from Google last November. But crafting the reality is no easy task. Griffith is tight-lipped about the company's schemes, but admits that they are only generating power in the 10-kilowatt range at the moment, hardly the stuff of green dreams. For comparison, a large turbine can generate 5 megawatts. Makani's goal of generating electricity that costs less than that from coal-fired power plants will take some time. "The question remains of how amenable these systems are to scaling up and whether the ultimate cost of electricity will be competitive," Griffith says.

There we go comparing the costs of renewables to non-renewables. I think we will never learn. How did that work for us comparing the price of oil to that of using batteries for electric cars? Hello people! If we priced oil realistically and added all of the variables including military, health, risks from eventual depletion, etc. We would already be basking in the brilliance of solar, wind, geothermal, biofuel and other forms of energy. Might still not be making a huge percentage of our energy usage but we would certainly be much better off, especially in terms of our transportation systems.

Ok, I know we are in deep financial trouble because our currency is used for trading oil and that if that stopped we would basically have to declare bankruptcy but that does not take away from the fact that we will eventually have to deal with the problem. Effectively pricing our non-renewable energy sources is the best way to get from "here" to "there".

Oh yeah, the flying wind farms sounds good. I kind of like the simplicity of solar and pumped storage hydro because the entire system has only one major moving part (the turbine) but there is room for every renewable energy source. Hey, can we get a price check on Isle five? Oil on Isle five?

You might as well use the electricity directly to run a motor and not do the electrolysis only to use the H2 to generate electricity for a motor. You will have inherent loss in the cycle. First/second laws of thermo.
Get used to the idea...we are going to have to learn how to live in a pre-oil society.