Toyota introduces advanced FCV:

Link (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gEfH9poSJfZRQKYLYOLSuaDopuZQD914FR3O2)

Please forgive the author's ignorance of hybrid vehicles. The author tries to compare a parallel hybrid to a fuel cell vehicle, and totally botches it. It's best to stick to the first couple paragraphs.

The race for fuel cell vehicles is on.

I am betting that hydrogen will basically fizzle out, much like food-based ethanol will.

As batteries get better and better, BEVs will be come the clear and easy choice. It's simply because every home already has the infrastructure (electric power) to charge em! We will still need "fueling stations" for quick charging, but of course, only for road trips.

Fueling companies won't like it, and I hope they don't have much influence on our auto companies, but who knows....

Toyota's new fuel cell looks like a winner. It also looks like Toyota's moving up their intro of the 2009 next generation Prius.

The thing about hydrogen that makes it better than electric is. They will have converters that hit water with an electric charge to add a hydrogen atom and then will separate the hydrogen out. Then you will have a continuous supply of hydrogen. Then you can fuel your car at home and power a generator for your home for all of your power needs. You will not need the electric company.

I think PFCV's will be the ultimate config - it's easy to store hydrogen, than build 1 or more powerstations on every corner. It will have the same 40 mile (and up to 100 miles eventually) initial EV range with a hydrogen fuel cell for long trips.

Here is Honda's hydrogen home fueling station. All you would need is a hydrogen powered generator and a hydrogen car and one of these bad boys and you wouldn't need an electric company. Hydrogen is clearly the future. The first one is the one that Honda is using with natural gas. The second link shows how to get hydrogen from water.

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/nov2007/bw20071127_309229.htm?chan=autos_autos+index+page_ top+stories

http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12/electrolysis/electrolysis.htm

It is good to see Hydrogen technology coming back. It was a hot item two years ago but dropped off the radar. Though water is the base fuel for a hydrogen vehicle and is readily available. I wonder the cost of running a vehicle using water as a base fuel (to produce Hydrogen) as apposed to battery/electic. It will be interesting to see a comparison.

It is good to see Hydrogen technology coming back. It was a hot item two years ago but dropped off the radar. Though water is the base fuel for a hydrogen vehicle and is readily available. I wonder the cost of running a vehicle using water as a base fuel (to produce Hydrogen) as apposed to battery/electic. It will be interesting to see a comparison.


Hydrogen generated from the wall socket is around four times less efficient. You are using wall electricity to produce two gasses (one is thrown away - oxygen) and additional energy is used to compress and store that extremely light gas. Going right from the wall socket to the battery is just too simple for some people. Please search around this forum for many discussions on this topic. Let us know what you conclude. It's just plain madness and no, hydrogen is not making a comeback. We are at a point in the research and development cycle where all the invested money from the governments around the world must start to demonstrate progress or risk cuts in funding. Don't worry, that funding is mostly going towards the electrification of the chassis so it’s very useful research and development. I support it completely and wish them all the luck in the world. They will not however be able to compete against the quick-charge BEV. I placed my bets and we need to wait about 5 years to see who was right.

Texas,

Too late. Japan and Iceland recognize the wealth their nations can create by using their vast geothermal energy sources to generate hydrogen for export, so it will flourish in their nations. If it flourishes there, it will be a competitor in the US market, and it will force battery makers to create rapid refill batteries, or be relegated to a mere 40 mile initial range for a fuel cell range extended vehicle.

I can't figure out if all of these post our being sarcastic are not. How is using electricity to convert water to hydrogen so you can create electricity a better deal than just electricity??? :confused:

I can't figure out if all of these post our being sarcastic are not. How is using electricity to convert water to hydrogen so you can create electricity a better deal than just electricity??? :confused:

Two ways:

1) Rapid refill - you can recharge your hydrogen tank in 5 - 15 minutes.

2) Batteries are very expensive. Current 200+ mile range BEV's cost $100K as a direct result of the battery costs. Honda and Toyota are marketing next gen FCV's that will be much cheaper to purchase. GM is setting up a fuel cell range extender arrangement using the Volt platform, so that their fuel cell is only 70 hp, instead of 150 - 200 hp, as in typical FCV's, so it will be cheaper still.

I can't figure out if all of these post our being sarcastic are not. How is using electricity to convert water to hydrogen so you can create electricity a better deal than just electricity??? :confused:


Don't worry omegaman66, Jason might be playing his Colbert routine but many people still think that hydrogen is a better energy solution. Quick charge lithium-ion batteries exist and will go on sale in the next few months (see my other posts). The cost of hydrogen tanks, fuel cells, efficiency losses, etc. are enormous obstacles to overcome. Did you know that the thickness of the best carbon fiber hydrogen storage tanks that are going to be used in cars (Quantum) are more than 4 inches thick and must be certified to hold over 25,000 lbs of hydrogen?! You won't see the costs of all of the high pressure systems coming down anytime soon. I'm betting the costs of quick-charge batteries will fall faster than the costs of hydrogen systems. Place your bets. In five years we will all know who was right.

Oh, I would like people to research the storage and transportation of liquid hydrogen before making any predictions of it's widespread use. The following will give you a good taste as to what we are up against. If you think hydrogen storage is a done deal after reading this please read it again. ;)

https://www.llnl.gov/str/June03/Aceves.html

After reading the article you will discover that it’s not a simple process and that a given amount of hydrogen must be vented off or a dangerous situation will occur. Sending a ship of liquid hydrogen from Europe to the US would probably result in the loss of more than 25% alone! Put in all the other losses from the generation of the hydrogen and you don't have to be a PhD to realize other forms of renewable energy will be far cheaper.

Rant and rave against hydrogen all you want, but Iceland and Japan, which have been historically resource poor, will finally be resource rich island nations.

New compression and storage techs, as well as on site generation of hydrogen will limit transport concerns. Moreover, microfuel cells are growing in use, so people will become comfortable with fuel cells long before quick car batteries for automotive applications actually show up.

Texas,

Of course, if one were to ship liquid hydrogen, one would use as much as possible of the vented hydrogen as the energy source for the transport.

All your other points are well taken.

Texas,

Of course, if one were to ship liquid hydrogen, one would use as much as possible of the vented hydrogen as the energy source for the transport.

All your other points are well taken.

... my hero ...

[QUOTE=Jason M. Hendler;5175]Rant and rave against hydrogen all you want, but Iceland and Japan, which have been historically resource poor, will finally be resource rich island nations.

QUOTE]

Ha! Now I know you have lost it. Please explain to your fans exactly how Japan, which now imports most of it's energy, is going to first eliminate all of that imported energy demand, then use extra energy to generate the hydrogen? Where are they going to get the energy? Sun? Wind? Tidal? Nuclear? If they started today with an Apollo like project how long would it take? Please give us the details of your thoughts.

[QUOTE=Jason M. Hendler;5175]Rant and rave against hydrogen all you want, but Iceland and Japan, which have been historically resource poor, will finally be resource rich island nations.

QUOTE]

Ha! Now I know you have lost it. Please explain to your fans exactly how Japan, which now imports most of it's energy, is going to first eliminate all of that imported energy demand, then use extra energy to generate the hydrogen? Where are they going to get the energy? Sun? Wind? Tidal? Nuclear? If they started today with an Apollo like project how long would it take? Please give us the details of your thoughts.

Geothermal - Japan is an island situated on the Pacific Ring of Fire.

I purchased the plans for a Hydrogen generator from runyourcaronwater.com. It is a specific type of PVC tube you build yourself capped at both ends with two metal cylinders, one inside the other, inside. There is some fabrication involving simple tools. The electrical charge from the car battery is boosted by capacitors you can buy at any Radio Shack. There is a small company in Kentucky which was featured on NBC Nightly News which will do the installation for around $2,000 USD. I heard GM has bought the patent on this simple type of generator to be installed in cars like the Volt. This generator is an adjunct to other fuel types(such as electricity). A car the size of the Volt could run on Hydrogen provided by 2 liters of water for approximately a month,with battery power as its principal mode of locomotion.

I purchased the plans for a Hydrogen generator from runyourcaronwater.com. It is a specific type of PVC tube you build yourself capped at both ends with two metal cylinders, one inside the other, inside. There is some fabrication involving simple tools. The electrical charge from the car battery is boosted by capacitors you can buy at any Radio Shack. There is a small company in Kentucky which was featured on NBC Nightly News which will do the installation for around $2,000 USD. I heard GM has bought the patent on this simple type of generator to be installed in cars like the Volt. This generator is an adjunct to other fuel types(such as electricity). A car the size of the Volt could run on Hydrogen provided by 2 liters of water for approximately a month,with battery power as its principal mode of locomotion.

My car runs on the hot air generated by your foolishness.

... additional energy is used to compress and store that extremely light gas....

There is a very efficient process that removes this step, and it is very simple. Do the electrolysis under very high water pressure. The separated gasses are already compressed. Compressed gasses stores energy, aside from the energy of hydrogen itself. The compressed gasses can also be utilized just like in cars running on compresed gas, but after the decompression step, you can use the gasses for the fuel cells. The Dutch were the first to pioneer the approach of doing electrolysis under high pressure and temperature... The overall efficiency if you can recapture the energy of the compressed gasses plus the energy value of hydrogen is nearing 90%, but still not as good as some energy recharged unto batteries.

There is a very efficient process that removes this step, and it is very simple. Do the electrolysis under very high water pressure. The separated gasses are already compressed. Compressed gasses stores energy, aside from the energy of hydrogen itself. The compressed gasses can also be utilized just like in cars running on compresed gas, but after the decompression step, you can use the gasses for the fuel cells. The Dutch were the first to pioneer the approach of doing electrolysis under high pressure and temperature... The overall efficiency if you can recapture the energy of the compressed gasses plus the energy value of hydrogen is nearing 90%, but still not as good as some energy recharged unto batteries.

Wow, that is such an obvious solution to the compression issue - 90% sounds good enough to me - forget heavy batteries, here comes lighter than air hydrogen!

References please. Let me check things out and see why they are not being used today.

I can't stand this lunacy. Let's get a Wiki on hydrogen. A single hyperlinked document that we can all contribute - with all relevant facts. A logical presetation of all facts and options. Then, based on the facts, a statement of pros and cons and an assessment of costs for each option. We can all contribute. Lyle is there a way to do this on this site? A document that we can all contribute and edit? I would also like one on updated specs for the Volt. Please!

Comments

Tom,

All options must be pursued, and not just the ones any individuals prefer over another. Breakthrough happen everyday that cause one tech to leapfrog another - even ethanol is now being produced from bio-waste and algae, so don't rule anything out.

I don't believe in throwing dice to make decisions or evaluations. The universe we live in has certain constraints. The laws of thermodynamics are irrevocable. Water runs downhill. The mere fact that life exists dictates the fundamental constants and balances of the universe. One can rely on the laws of probabiliities: Ocam's razor, "Murphy's Law". Physical processes have certain limits and implications. Designing a product is a process of making a series of best judgements and cost implications out of a sea of almost infinite possibilities. Design is the process of making these specifications explicit. Yes there will be new discoveries, in some case unexpected, but they will be made by those who have a deep understanding of their work.

I don't believe in throwing dice to make decisions or evaluations. The universe we live in has certain constraints. The laws of thermodynamics are irrevocable. Water runs downhill. The mere fact that life exists dictates the fundamental constants and balances of the universe. One can rely on the laws of probabiliities: Ocam's razor, "Murphy's Law". Physical processes have certain limits and implications. Designing a product is a process of making a series of best judgements and cost implications out of a sea of almost infinite possibilities. Design is the process of making these specifications explicit. Yes there will be new discoveries, in some case unexpected, but they will be made by those who have a deep understanding of their work.

... and those who continue to follow the old cookbook engineering paradigm will fall to the two groups who exploit their weakness:

1) visionaries, who can see beyond the "common knowledge"

2) genetic algorithms, which will pursue all options, allowing the solutions that consumers prefer to evolve

Today, multiple visionaries are pursuing varying solutions from which consumers will select the most viable, while cookbook engineers continue to naval gaze and shout from the peanut gallery.

... and those who continue to follow the old cookbook engineering paradigm will fall to the two groups who exploit their weakness:

1) visionaries, who can see beyond the "common knowledge"

2) genetic algorithms, which will pursue all options, allowing the solutions that consumers prefer to evolve


The visionaries are still constrained by many things. Cost, physics, to name just two.

Genetic algorithms are very useful in nature. There are, for example, gazillions of insects in the world; permitting RANDOM mutation and selection to change the population is therefore possible, the cost of a single insect with a bad or useless outcome is insignificant. You could implement a genetic algorithm in a computer, where the cost of each calculation is very low (because memory and computes are very, very cheap).

Government and industry can't work like that with energy projects. The cost of a blind alley is significant and we avoid it by focussing on the likely and finding ways to rule out the unlikely.

If a technology requires high capital cost, several significant breakthroughs or even just one "breakthrough" that's really a stop at the wall of physics, it's best to consider the alternatives.

... and those who continue to follow the old cookbook engineering paradigm will fall to the two groups who exploit their weakness:

1) visionaries, who can see beyond the "common knowledge"

2) genetic algorithms, which will pursue all options, allowing the solutions that consumers prefer to evolve
QUOTE]

The visionaries are still constrained by many things. Cost, physics, to name just two.

Genetic algorithms are very useful in nature. There are, for example, gazillions of insects in the world; permitting RANDOM mutation and selection to change the population is therefore possible, the cost of a single insect with a bad or useless outcome is insignificant. You could implement a genetic algorithm in a computer, where the cost of each calculation is very low (because memory and computes are very, very cheap).

Government and industry can't work like that with energy projects. The cost of a blind alley is significant and we avoid it by focussing on the likely and finding ways to rule out the unlikely.

If a technology requires high capital cost, several significant breakthroughs or even just one "breakthrough" that's really a stop at the wall of physics, it's best to consider the alternatives.

... and yet, when we allow only the "knowledgeable" to select our only paths, we end up spending close to $1 trillion to develop the Tokamak, with no results ...

The fact is, VC supported firms will pursue techs that government and university bookworms will not, for reasons that government and university bookworms will not, and consumers will select their solutions for reasons that government and university bookworms will not.

Jason,

What you say is true, but this is only a part of the picture. Let me give you a quote and mantra from the leader of one of the most innovative and visionary companies, ever, Andy Grove, CEO, president and chairman of Intel, "The devil is in the details." Yes, vision will lead to new paradigms and breakthroughs. But, the vision will be unfulfilled, and litter the dustbin of history, if it doesn’t comply with the inexorable contraints of reality. The details that that will make or break it.

Jason,

What you say is true, but this is only a part of the picture. Let me give you a quote and mantra from the leader of one of the most innovative and visionary companies, ever, Andy Grove, CEO, president and chairman of Intel, "The devil is in the details." Yes, vision will lead to new paradigms and breakthroughs. But, the vision will be unfulfilled, and litter the dustbin of history, if it doesn’t comply with the inexorable contraints of reality. The details that that will make or break it.

... so we should allow all paths to proceed without interference, as each will innovate to increase their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses. You only have to look at the automotive industry in general to see how multiple solutions, which optimize different aspects, find their niche markets.

Just out of curiosity, is this the Zen Buddhist theory of automotive company evolution?:D I'm just struggling with nomenclature.

References please. Let me check things out and see why they are not being used today.

As soon as I'm not busy, I'll try to search those papers. Many great technological breakthroughs are not in the market today doesn't mean they are not great. Proper timing and public demand has a lot to do with the success of building a better mousetrap. Another big factor is the patent. If the patent prices are exhorbitant, then the innovation may not move further. And if it indeed was marketed by others, the patent troll attorneys will have a field day. Still others, some oil companies, using some third party representations, are behind the killing of the innovations. They buy these patents and shelve them. And if it was done by another, there will be hell to pay. I have seen many innovations that were killed. A better mouse trap is not a guarantee that they will be sold or adopted.

Solar energy combined with hydrogen is better than electric from the grid to power an erev.

The efficiency in using PV to directly charge batteries is 2 to 3 times greater than any sunlight to hydrogen process. Once you get hydrogen, you have to use electricity to compress it. Then you put it into a fuel cells which are very expensive, typically 100 times more expensive per kW output than conventional internal combustion engines. The fuel cell then has an efficiency of 60% and only works above -20F (i.e. southern states). The losses in generating and using (high pressure) hydrogen make it an expensive alternative to the grid/16 kWhr battery. Those are the facts.

The efficiency in using PV to directly charge batteries is 2 to 3 times greater than any sunlight to hydrogen process. Once you get hydrogen, you have to use electricity to compress it. Then you put it into a fuel cells which are very expensive, typically 100 times more expensive per kW output than conventional internal combustion engines. The fuel cell then has an efficiency of 60% and only works above -20F (i.e. southern states). The losses in generating and using (high pressure) hydrogen make it an expensive alternative to the grid/16 kWhr battery. Those are the facts.

Where is your "evidence of fact" that fuel cells cost $150,000? Honda and Toyota are moving forward with their FCV's, so I doubt fuel cells are anywhere near that expensive.

Solar energy combined with hydrogen is better than electric from the grid to power an erev.


You just used a huge brush to paint that statement. In what way is it better? Efficiency? Cost? Please support your arguments.

Japan funds are getting all the growth, and this author points to Japan moving first on FCV's, while countries like India are burdened with petroleum price increases.

Link (http://www.thestreet.com/s/japan-funds-jump-but-india-funds-flop/funds/mutualfundinvesting/10420317.html?puc=googlefi&cm_ven=GOOGLEFI&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA)

Do all the analysis you want, speculators are placing their bets with those nations moving first and fastest on hydrogen.

typically 100 times more expensive per kW output than conventional internal combustion engines.


Rough numbers: The cost of fuel cells have come down. Say a fuel cell costs $3000 and outputs 16 kW. Compare this with a GM 455 325 hp engine, costing $2100. Then the relative cost per kW is a factor of 21. Not exact, but it certainly establish the point that fuel cells, per kW, are more than an order of magnitude more expensive. A 100X is a stretch, but whats a little stretching between friends. :)

Updated:
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/ivi4_carlson.pdf
Gives projected cost of $4000/kW for fuel cells in 2010. This gives a ratio of 461.

Fuel cell develope today has little difference in meaning than BEV development in the 90's, except FCV's are even further from being practical. It is an ineteresting idea that has interesting applications, but it is sideshow distracting attention and resources from the path of developing 100 mile AER EREV's. What problems will fuel cells be solving when our non-electric transportation fuel needs are less than 10% of what they are today and falling? Nearly all vehicle development programs and initiatives should be (and should have been for some time) focusing on advancement of batteries, electric drivetrain components, range extending power generation, AND charging infrastructure.

Koz,

There are plenty of companies in countless nations working on battery solutions, so fuel cell development isn't taking any resources away from them. Moreover, fuel cell tech is available for transportation sectors where batteries simply can't work, like aviation, as we've recently seen fuel cell aircraft making maiden voyages.

Even though I also feel that the BEV will beat the pants off of the hydrogen car I think hydrogen research and development should continue. It has been argued extensively in the past that hydrogen may be the only alternative for some niche markets. However, The focus should be on exactly what Koz just posted, "advancement of batteries, electric drivetrain components, range extending power generation, AND charging infrastructure. " BEVs and plug-in hybrids will get us where we need to be - independence from petroleum imports. I don't know what the exact economic ramifications will be but what we are doing now is killing us with a slow bleed. A Band-Aid is not going to do it. We need to stitch that up (or should I say sew that limb back on).

Texas,

Expanding on your analogy, BEV's are one stitch, REEV's are another stitch, ethanol vehicles are another stitch, high mileage ICE vehicles are another stitch, conservation is another stitch ....

It's going to take all those things to address all the niche markets out there for automobiles.

Rough numbers: The cost of fuel cells have come down. Say a fuel cell costs $3000 and outputs 16 kW. Compare this with a GM 455 325 hp engine, costing $2100. Then the relative cost per kW is a factor of 21. Not exact, but it certainly establish the point that fuel cells, per kW, are more than an order of magnitude more expensive. A 100X is a stretch, but whats a little stretching between friends. :)

Updated:
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/ivi4_carlson.pdf
Gives projected cost of $4000/kW for fuel cells in 2010. This gives a ratio of 461.

Tom,

I might be the only one who read your link, but I don't see anything stating $4000/kWh for Fuel Cells in 2010, if I am wrong, please point it out to me. The chart and table on page 5 is talking about storage tanks and not the cost of the fuel cell itself. And it's quoting the DOE target a $4/kWh for the storage tank in 2010. Don't seen anything that states that the chart is listed in thousands of dollars. This chart is also only probabilities and not reality.

Check out :
http://www.ovonic-hydrogen.com/home/home.htm
Watch the video:
http://www.ovonic-hydrogen.com/video/h2_car/h2_car_100k.asf

They are targeting 250m+ per fill at a cost of less than $3/kg, this year . I do not know all the maths to do the conversions, but depending on the efficiency of the fuel cell, the energy density of hydrogen versus the energy density of lithium batteries, the hydrogen tank is the better way to go if you can compress it enough, as these guys have done.

Also, besides this flawed reading of that document, the argument in the first part of your post is completely flawed. You are comparing the cost of the fuel cell, versus the cost of the ICE. These are not the same thing, apples and oranges comparison. The fuel cell does not directly convert the hydrogen to motion, but powers and electric motor as does the battery.

The cost of a battery that can go 250 mi per charge is somewhere in the range of $30,000 versus your fuel cell, which is simply a converter. While using electricity or other means to produce hydrogen may be more efficient in theory, the need to store that much energy in a form compact enough and lite enough to be used in mobile applications is expensive in both technologies. However, from what I can tell in my readings on the internet, the cost of hydrogen storage is coming down more quickly that the storage of electricity. I also believe that using the energy stored in chemical bonds formed by naturally occurring elements such as hydrogen and petroleum may be less efficient over all than creating batteries to store and harness electricity directly, there are many benefits that will not be outweighed by the efficiencies until the cost of electric storage comes down and "recharging" becomes as quick and simple as refueling a gas tank or compressing a gas.

Until that time, versus other sources of energy, I believe pursuing hydrogen has many benefits. Done correctly using solar and electrolysis, the energy infrastructure can become decentralized and robust. Then when the storage of electricity catches up to those of traditional storage, we can make an easy transition.

To break it down and sum it up, the technology for using hydrogen to fuel a vehicle in a manner consistent with what we are used to today is already available at a cost that is not currently unreasonable and is in a downward spiral. However, the technology for using electricity directly in a manner that is also consistent is still down the road a piece in terms of cost. So if we build out a decentralized infrastructure for capturing electricity from renewable resources and use that to generate our hydrogen, we will be ready for the transition to pure electric when and if that becomes cost effective in the future.

Tom,

I might be the only one who read your link, but I don't see anything stating $4000/kWh for Fuel Cells in 2010, if I am wrong, please point it out to me. The chart and table on page 5 is talking about storage tanks and not the cost of the fuel cell itself. And it's quoting the DOE target a $4/kWh for the storage tank in 2010. Don't seen anything that states that the chart is listed in thousands of dollars. This chart is also only probabilities and not reality.

So you are saying a hydrogen fuel tank that holds the equivalent energy of the Volt's battery pack (16 kWh) would only cost $4/kWh * 16 = $64

BigRedFed, What are you saying?

BigRedFred & Jason
It is NEVER more efficient to convert electricity to hydrogen and back, than simply storing electricity in a battery, NEVER.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is always right. I used to be a big supporter of Hydrogen until I did the costings, and it just does not work in an automotive environment.

In the home, a fuel cell works well, running off natural gas to make heat & power. I would also point out that peak gas is also coming, in the USA anyway, so cheap hydrogen is just not possible.

NZDavid,

No one is disputing that fact, but hydrogen has other attributes that make it valuable is certain applications:

1) rapid refill - you can recharge your fuel tank in 5 - 15 minutes with hydrogen, while BEV's require a min of 3 - 4 hours in the best cases, and 6 - 8 for the typical vehicle. Military applications will demand rapid refill, while automotive customers will prefer it - paying a premium

2) specific energy - energy storage in hydrogen is much lighter than batteries, making it an optimal aviation fuel

Nanoptek has created a solar hydrogen generator that skips the electrolysis step and uses sunlight to directly generate hydrogen very efficiently.

http://www.nanoptek.com/

NZDavid,

No one is disputing that fact, but hydrogen has other attributes that make it valuable is certain applications:

1) rapid refill - you can recharge your fuel tank in 5 - 15 minutes with hydrogen, while BEV's require a min of 3 - 4 hours in the best cases, and 6 - 8 for the typical vehicle. Military applications will demand rapid refill, while automotive customers will prefer it - paying a premium

2) specific energy - energy storage in hydrogen is much lighter than batteries, making it an optimal aviation fuel

Nanoptek has created a solar hydrogen generator that skips the electrolysis step and uses sunlight to directly generate hydrogen very efficiently.

http://www.nanoptek.com/

I really used to push for hydrogen as the best solution there is. But with the new development in batteries, I scaled back on that recommendation.

I used to argue that for machines or equipments that cannot be connected to electric sources, they needed fuel, and the best fuel is hydrogen. The direct solar hydrogen generation to storage, then to machinery would have been several times more efficient than from solar to biofuel (even using algae that is several times more efficient than terrestrial plants), until there were ideal batteries.

Still by and large, I agree that hydrogen are still useful in many cases and even in some large applications such as military, aviation, and even space exploration. But for now, electric batteries would seem to be geared for success, with almost certain probability. But I do love that people still work on Fuel Cells and its further improvements, like bringing the total costs down. Solving our problem should be multiple approaches and try to perfect its approach. It could provide diversity and stability in ever changing needs, so one technology may be appropriate in another changing situation compared to the current ones.

I used to keep track of several companies in solar hydrogen production using solar concentration and catalysts. The best efficiency that I have seen is around 46%, from the sun's energy into the energy of hydrogen. Compared to the best terrestrial plants in the world, from the sun's energy unto the energy of the biofuel, the best would be around 1% overall efficiency. And there is still room for improvement in the field of solar hydrogen. For example, using cheaper electrodes that can survive high temperature and pressure and the splitting of water is triggered by electrolysis that require only minimal electric current. It has been patented and I cannot find the patent number or reference currently. But suffice it to say that they do have many exciting research development in this field, but it is really too bad that the Australian companies and the Canadians have advanced much more than the US companies in the field of solar hydrogen. I did not continue to keep track about solar hydrogen when I got excited about the new batteries, Volt and Aptera. I will get back to it again at the appropriate time.

One of those companies, IIRC, is Shec-Labs, aside from Nanoptek. I wondered what happened to Shec-Labs. They used to have a demo of solar hydrogen in Southern California. Then there were several turnover of CEO and board of directors, and I was suspecting some third party investors of Oil companies, and pfftt... they're off the limelight.

But with many exciting companies now such as Aptera Motors and Sapphire Energy, whose fundings are seemingly clean from the owners of oil, I think there is a big chance to take off of oil. I'm still worried that GM has Oil companies as the major investors thru convoluted relationships with other holding companies and I really hope I am wrong on this. I don't want them to shelve the Volt by influencing the direction of GM right now. We believe that we have the best direction right now, starting with the Volt.

Electric is the future. All this talk of hydrogen is a lot of hot air. I was a beliver in hydrogen for awhile, but when you research it, you find it is just not viable. The cost of transportation, splitting, storage, infrastructure, and so on is not needed. When you can simply plug a car in, you got every other tech beat.

Regarding the batteries this Jason guy mentions. Better check on eEstor. They have made a battery that takes all of 3 mins to charge, and it will be coupled with a car from ZENN motors. It will be a major challenge to Volt and other electric vechiles. Of course a battery that can be charged in 3 mins takes a lot of amps, and household electric services will have to be upgraded.

The car that TaTa motors in India is coming out with beats hydrogen also. It runs on compressed air, and will be avaible even sooner than the Volt.

The future looks bright with these options coming on from a variety of sources. Will be in line to buy first day.

Electric is the future. All this talk of hydrogen is a lot of hot air. I was a beliver in hydrogen for awhile, but when you research it, you find it is just not viable. The cost of transportation, splitting, storage, infrastructure, and so on is not needed. When you can simply plug a car in, you got every other tech beat.

Your information is out of date, which is exactly why all tech should be allowed to move forward.


Regarding the batteries this Jason guy mentions. Better check on eEstor. They have made a battery that takes all of 3 mins to charge, and it will be coupled with a car from ZENN motors. It will be a major challenge to Volt and other electric vechiles. Of course a battery that can be charged in 3 mins takes a lot of amps, and household electric services will have to be upgraded.

EEstor is developing a capacitor, not a battery.


The car that TaTa motors in India is coming out with beats hydrogen also. It runs on compressed air, and will be avaible even sooner than the Volt.

ZPM has licensed MDI's (Tata) tech for an Air Car in the US.

Enginair has a rotary air motor, which would be good as a range extender.

EEStor is still a dream. Unless they come out of stealth mode and into the open and show scientific proof or white paper or technical paper in peer reviewed journals, then they're still unrealized dream. I'm hoping that what they've achieved is real and is commercially viable. It would be the next revolution alongside with the battery revolution.

room for everyone. The fuel cell right now does potentially have a place assuming two things. Price can be lowered (which is happening) and batteries don't advance to the point of being able to be charged up in minutes.

The ONLY advantage a fuel cell has over a BEV that I see is unlimited range without long charging stops.

Cost of a fuel cell is unlikely to ever drop as low as an E-Flex vehicle.

So the way I see it Fuel Cell vehicles will have a niche. That niche might would be very high milage vehicles. Why? Because it makes sense for me and you to drive the first forty miles on battery and then anything over that on ever increasingly expensive gasoline because we just won't need to drive long distances very often.

A 18 wheel truck driver on the other hand will routinely make trips of 200+ miles or more... even cross country trips regularly. 40 miles of electric to them is a drop in the bucket.

So in my eyes the extra cost of the fuel cell could be recouped by truck drivers. But for low mileage people (most everyone) the price of the fuel cell would never come close to being recouped.

I also don't see the cost of electricity that is generated from a fuel cell as ever getting as cheap as electricity from you house. Think about it... if a fuel cell can be made that can produce electricity cheaper than you get from a wall outlet what is to keep the electric companies from also using this technology to produce their electricity too.

Enginair has a rotary air motor, which would be good as a range extender.


Please tell us how heavy the car you are proposing is and how far this range extender is supposed to go. I will then calculate how big your trailer needs to be to hold the compressed air tanks. ;)

I know I keep bringing it up but you keep saying compressed air will work as a range extender. The other thread already proved it's not viable.

BigRedFed and Texas,

I tried various searches to get a fuel cell cost per KW. The only thing I could find were cost estimates by Carlson. I obviously made a big mess out of reading it.

Guys. Thanks for your correction. Your right. That particular document has nothing about total fuel cell cost. I'm mystified at how I got $4000! There is another report by the same author at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/39104.pdf. On page 28 he gives the cost of a 2004 50 kW automotive fuel cell system at $176/kW. If you can a better number, give a shout.

This works out to be 20X cost factor, per KW, of fuel cell over ICE. It's interesting, but this turns out to be almost equal to the factor of 21X I got under "Rough Numbers: ", just by pulling numbers out of the air!

BigRedFed
"apples and oranges comparison"

I find it to be an interesting comparison. Just another yardstick to compare technologies and another little fact to be tucked into my storehouse of EV knowledge.

So you are saying a hydrogen fuel tank that holds the equivalent energy of the Volt's battery pack (16 kWh) would only cost $4/kWh * 16 = $64

BigRedFed, What are you saying?

I am saying that the document is simply quoting a DOE target. So yes, the DOE targets, according to the document, hydrogen storage equivalent to the Volt battery pack at approx $64. According to the document though, they are predicting that it will be about four to five times that expensive, or around $250 - $320. Still cheaper than a volt battery to store the equivalent amount of energy.

BigRedFed and Texas,

Guys. Thanks for your correction. Your right. That particular document has nothing about total fuel cell cost. I'm mystified at how I got $4000! There is another report by the same author at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/39104.pdf. On page 28 he gives the cost of a 2004 50 kW automotive fuel cell system at $176/kW. If you can a better number, give a shout.

This works out to be 20X cost factor, per KW, of fuel cell over ICE. It's interesting, but this turns out to be almost equal to the factor of 21X I got under "Rough Numbers: ", just by pulling numbers out of the air!

BigRedFed
"apples and oranges comparison"

I find it to be an interesting comparison. Just another yardstick to compare technologies and another little fact to be tucked into my storehouse of EV knowledge.

Tom,

20X Cost factor, per kW, that's why I think we should look also at H2 ICEs. Ford already has the engine and so does BMW.
Old articles: http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=18794

http://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?tg=articles&idx=Print&topics=64&article=1206

To me, the only real way to move to all electric is to transition, as I stated above, from gasoline to hydrogen to ? to full electric, depending on the advancements in battery tech.

I think GM has a good stop gap with the Volt, but Ford and Honda may have the jump on the Hydrogen front, but GM is still my pick because they are not far behind on Hydrogen.

Tom,

20X Cost factor, per kW, that's why I think we should look also at H2 ICEs. Ford already has the engine and so does BMW.
Old articles: http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=18794

http://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?tg=articles&idx=Print&topics=64&article=1206

To me, the only real way to move to all electric is to transition, as I stated above, from gasoline to hydrogen to ? to full electric, depending on the advancements in battery tech.

I think GM has a good stop gap with the Volt, but Ford and Honda may have the jump on the Hydrogen front, but GM is still my pick because they are not far behind on Hydrogen.

The two configs which will eventually win out will be PFCV and rapid recharge BEV. Compressed air and ethanol will end up being the low cost vehicles for the poor, while PFCV and rapid recharge BEV will be the high performance vehicles for the wealthy.

I am saying that the document is simply quoting a DOE target. So yes, the DOE targets, according to the document, hydrogen storage equivalent to the Volt battery pack at approx $64. According to the document though, they are predicting that it will be about four to five times that expensive, or around $250 - $320. Still cheaper than a volt battery to store the equivalent amount of energy.

Is that just the cost of the tank or all of the systems needed:

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/images/quantum_hydraogen_storage_tank.jpg


Do realize those tanks are over 4 inches thick of extremely expensive carbon fiber, have limited life and will probably need to be water tested every 5 years? That's what the DOD currently requires for high pressure tanks that travel on the road. Only $64 for 16 kWh? Bull$%^&. YOU ARE DREAMING... PLEASE WAKE UP.

Is that just the cost of the tank or all of the systems needed:

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/images/quantum_hydraogen_storage_tank.jpg


Do realize those tanks are over 4 inches thick of extremely expensive carbon fiber, have limited life and will probably need to be water tested every 5 years? That's what the DOD currently requires for high pressure tanks that travel on the road. Only $64 for 16 kWh? Bull$%^&. YOU ARE DREAMING... PLEASE WAKE UP.

It must kill you to see all the pieces coming together for hydrogen. Small, high pressure tanks, cheap fuel cell stacks, EV systems and components cost reduced in REEV's, so that fuel cells and hydrogen tanks can swap right in later.

I like Quantum's portable hydrogen fuel station:

Link (http://www.qtww.com/products/haft/hyhauler.php)

To me, the only real way to move to all electric is to transition, as I stated above, from gasoline to hydrogen to ? to full electric, depending on the advancements in battery tech.

I think GM has a good stop gap with the Volt, but Ford and Honda may have the jump on the Hydrogen front, but GM is still my pick because they are not far behind on Hydrogen.

You or I must be viewing an altered state of reality. I just can't see Hydrogen as a "transition" to anything else on the horizon, including BEV. First of all, I recall anouncements for 120 mile BEV's and they are at "reasonable" pricing. These are first generation vehicles. I don't see much of leap for them to be 200+ mile vehicles in the 2nd generation and 250+ in third generation. I see this from the recent past battery development progression (especially Li) and the current frenzy of developments. Secondly, who wants to invest the trillions of dollars in hydrogen infrastructure as an interim industry?

What am I missing about EREV development? 40 miles AER developed today reduces gasoline usage by 80-88%. I see developments of 2nd generation EREV's reducing usage to 5-10% of todays cars. Please explain why we should be bothering with Hydrogen for cars.

I'm not saying it is a bad idea to research and develop hydrogen for all applications. It already has some today and there will be more tomorrow. We should encourage development of the technology. It may end up being a home energy storage solution, an airplane energy carrier solution, a trucking energy carrier solution, and even a utility grade energy storage solution. I just do not see any way that it can be a practical solution for light duty vehicles in this country unless other forms of combustion are outright banned. Countries such as Iceland that have an overabundance of energy may move to hydrogen use in cars but they will be wasting a LOT of their energy with this choice.

Hydrogen may vault past BEV's, until batteries develop quick recharge capability at an affordable cost.

Koz, I couldn’t agree with you more on the subject of hydrogen. Jason, what's killing me is that your head is thicker than the carbon fiber tanks! Seeing the costs come down? What are you talking about? To me they are only science projects at this point. Far behind the BEV or plug-in hybrid. However, like I always have to say... We will see in five years.

Hydrogen may vault past BEV's, until batteries develop quick recharge capability at an affordable cost.

That is certainly a plausible outcome if it were this two hourse race, but they both have to overcome the ICE component of the EREV. Under what circumstances can hydrogen be seen to overcome the ICE when domestic production of oil and renewables easily fill demand? The only scenario that I can imagine this happening is if there is a huge breakthrough in energy production that creates a large inexpensive surplus.

That is certainly a plausible outcome if it were this two hourse race, but they both have to overcome the ICE component of the EREV. Under what circumstances can hydrogen be seen to overcome the ICE when domestic production of oil and renewables easily fill demand? The only scenario that I can imagine this happening is if there is a huge breakthrough in energy production that creates a large inexpensive surplus.

CA already has a zero emissions mandate, which will only grow larger and larger as the years go on. Additionally, there are several states that try to copy everything CA does, so this mandate will spread. I believe air motors will succeed in meeting this mandate, but the big automakers will prefer to deliver fuel cells, as it is the future.

I believe air motors will succeed in meeting this mandate, but the big automakers will prefer to deliver fuel cells, as it is the future.

You have lost your mind! lol. I wish that you would print out what you just wrote and paste it on your wall. Then read it in a few years. My one thought is how are you going to justify your obvious error? Will you say that X technology came out and that's why hydrogen didn't make it or that Z technology made the air motor not cost effective. I doubt you will say, "Those guys were right and I was so wrong. I'm ashamed." lol. No way. We placed our bets. What was that, one crisp dollar? I want to collect on it! Date - Summer of 2013 - Volt club meeting.

Wow, Quantum Tech has already delivered one of those mobile hydrogen generation trailers to a customer:

Link (http://www.macon.com/197/story/373345.html)

CA already has a zero emissions mandate, which will only grow larger and larger as the years go on. Additionally, there are several states that try to copy everything CA does, so this mandate will spread. I believe air motors will succeed in meeting this mandate, but the big automakers will prefer to deliver fuel cells, as it is the future.

Actually, the California mandates have only grown smaller as far as zero emmissions go. Not that this is a bad thing, rather I think they are more realistic now and will actually encourage development instead of polarizing everything. The do still favor FCV over BEV for some bewildering reason. This part of the mandate should be made as tech neutral as possible as long as the affected technologies provide the desired results which involve the full life cycle of the vehicle and it's related energy source life cycle as well. The latest encourages EREV's as well and manufacturers can produce them to meet the mandates. Since the goal is to reduce emmissions as much and as quickly as possible, it is logical that if the first EREV's prove viable in the market their development will be even further encouraged. Of course, car manufacturers can't assume future logic on the part of regulators but since they would be wise to work with the regulators as much as possible to not only encourage effective legislation but also to be better positioned to react to changes in legislation. For the end user and for the manufacturers, the cost differential in producing, purchasing, and supporting BEVs versus FCVs that meet the current mandates favors BEVs tremendously.

I assume a logical response might be, "why then are manufacturers developing FCVs". I would reply that this is where the bulk of the federal monetary assistance is focused and wrongly so, IMO. This is as poor a policy choice as ethanol from corn.

Actually, the California mandates have only grown smaller as far as zero emmissions go. Not that this is a bad thing, rather I think they are more realistic now and will actually encourage development instead of polarizing everything. The do still favor FCV over BEV for some bewildering reason. This part of the mandate should be made as tech neutral as possible as long as the affected technologies provide the desired results which involve the full life cycle of the vehicle and it's related energy source life cycle as well. The latest encourages EREV's as well and manufacturers can produce them to meet the mandates. Since the goal is to reduce emmissions as much and as quickly as possible, it is logical that if the first EREV's prove viable in the market their development will be even further encouraged. Of course, car manufacturers can't assume future logic on the part of regulators but since they would be wise to work with the regulators as much as possible to not only encourage effective legislation but also to be better positioned to react to changes in legislation. For the end user and for the manufacturers, the cost differential in producing, purchasing, and supporting BEVs versus FCVs that meet the current mandates favors BEVs tremendously.

I assume a logical response might be, "why then are manufacturers developing FCVs". I would reply that this is where the bulk of the federal monetary assistance is focused and wrongly so, IMO. This is as poor a policy choice as ethanol from corn.

Cetainly, the history of the ZEV mandate has been one of decreasing and delayed numbers, but now I sense we've seen the bottom. GM, Toyota and Honda are all developing FCV's and PFCV's to meet the CA mandate, which they will easily meet, making way for increasing targets in the out years.

I don't agree that FCV development is about federal funds alone, if at all. FCV's are a good bet until cheap batteries are developed that can last 10 years. The E-REV concept skirts the life issue, by using only a small range of a battery pack's potential to extend its life. Eventually, the range extender must be replaced by something - either cheap, long life, rapid recharge batteries, or a fuel cell.

Just in case someone misses the other post by this title, I added this for completeness to this discussion:

I did a Google search for the cost of fuel cell stacks and I was getting numbers from $4500/kW (October 2003)
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...s_Struggle.htm
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsst...2003/story.htm
to projections of $176/kW. This wide discrepancy cleared up when I came across this 2008 article:
Reposted This Link
http://www.gm.com/explore/education/9-12/fuels_energy/hydrogen_challenges.html
We are truly in the midst of rapid advances in energy technologies. I am thrilled that our technology innovators are rising to the challenges of the end of our cheap oil era.

Tom, the link to GM site is broken. Can you repost that one? Thanks.

You or I must be viewing an altered state of reality. I just can't see Hydrogen as a "transition" to anything else on the horizon, including BEV. First of all, I recall anouncements for 120 mile BEV's and they are at "reasonable" pricing. These are first generation vehicles. I don't see much of leap for them to be 200+ mile vehicles in the 2nd generation and 250+ in third generation. I see this from the recent past battery development progression (especially Li) and the current frenzy of developments. Secondly, who wants to invest the trillions of dollars in hydrogen infrastructure as an interim industry?

What am I missing about EREV development? 40 miles AER developed today reduces gasoline usage by 80-88%. I see developments of 2nd generation EREV's reducing usage to 5-10% of todays cars. Please explain why we should be bothering with Hydrogen for cars.

I'm not saying it is a bad idea to research and develop hydrogen for all applications. It already has some today and there will be more tomorrow. We should encourage development of the technology. It may end up being a home energy storage solution, an airplane energy carrier solution, a trucking energy carrier solution, and even a utility grade energy storage solution. I just do not see any way that it can be a practical solution for light duty vehicles in this country unless other forms of combustion are outright banned. Countries such as Iceland that have an overabundance of energy may move to hydrogen use in cars but they will be wasting a LOT of their energy with this choice.

120 mi's simply isn't enough for me. My daily commute is 160 mi's. You might think that's a special case, but around here, many people commute from distances 40 mi's or more out. That's what living in the suburbs has done to this area. You might say that we will just have to live in closer to the city, but I say that if the technology is available, which it is in hydrogen, then we shouldn't have to. It may take three generations or more for Battery tech to reach the expected 200-300 mi range of today's gasoline vehicle, but the Hydrogen powered ICEs and FCVs can already provide this at comparable costs. It is still two years away before we will see the Volt on the road or any of the other promised EREVs from other companies, non at a price that many will be able to afford. The Honda FCX Clarity will be for lease in California for ~$600/mo this summer. The BMW Hydrogen 7 is already in the hands of some people, but it's more of a publicity stunt because the storage tanks on it are old tech and can not hold much H2. There are already Hydrogen fuel stations beginning to show up in various parts of the country. The infrastructure on how to charge electric vehicles when away from the home is still being debated.

For these reasons, I see a FCV or H2 ICE car being available on a mass produced vehicle before a BEV that can compare to today's vehicles.

One of those companies, IIRC, is Shec-Labs, aside from Nanoptek. I wondered what happened to Shec-Labs. They used to have a demo of solar hydrogen in Southern California. Then there were several turnover of CEO and board of directors, and I was suspecting some third party investors of Oil companies, and pfftt... they're off the limelight...


Mark of SHEC Labs called me about an hour or so ago and told me that they are very much alive. He called me from Spain and reminded me of the excellent progress they're making. They need investors to go full scale, so there's hope:

http://www.shec-labs.com/

ITS Crap, I spoke with a GM Tech on the equinox fuel cell and he said
it must be hand built and cost $400,000 dollars. Only with a 4 billion investment in a
fuel cell production machine line can it be mass produced. the precious metals alone cost 90k per unit. I think the 20k or less Li ion battery pack is a better choice cause its cheaper and the electricity used to make a gallon of equivalent hydrogen is $2.13 a gallon and $2.50 for fossil fuel/gas to extract the hydro. SO to the guy above, Big Red Fed you must be dreaming if you even remotely consider this a real
alternative. It only a real alternative to Big oil, whom which you will still be paying the rest of your life to buy this crap. I would rather just buy the $2.13 worth of electricity and put it directly in a battery to drive my electric car, oh no I dont even have to do that cause I spent 2.5k on a solar system. It should be against the law for Honda and GM to advertise their fuel cell car the way they do. They should market the TRUTH
By saying
Look at our new electric car with a active hydrogen battery that supplies electricity to the motor with only pure water emissions.
The average person in the USA does not know this car is just a electric car with a hydrogen electrolyte type battery. The government
sponsored program is working as they planned, isn't it.:mad:

Jeremy,

The fuel cell wasn't even $90K back before GM announced a 10X decrease in the fuel cell's cost, so I am certain they are now cheaper than a battery pack. One article about GM stated that their fuel cell was now only 3X or 4X the cost of an ICE, which is $1,500, so the real cost is between $4,500 and $6,000.

Fuel cells will be successful in a plug-in vehicle set-up like the Volt, where you can recharge, if you have the time, or fill up with hydrogen, if you don't, but you're clean and green either way.

A Cost Comparison of Fuel-Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles

3. Conclusion
We use widely-cited government
studies to directly compare the costs
associated with producing and refueling
FCVs and BEVs. The analysis is based
on an automobile model (similar to a
Honda Civic) that is representative of the
largest segment of the automobile
market. A comparison is important since
the government and industry are
devoting increasing amounts of resources
to the goal of developing a marketable
ZEV and the BEV and the FCV are
currently the only feasible alternatives.
We find that government studies
indicate that it would be far cheaper, in
terms of production and refueling costs,
to develop a BEV, even if we do not
consider the substantial cost of building
and maintaining the hydrogen
infrastructure on which the FCV would
depend. Specifically, the results show
that in an economy based on renewable
energy, the FCV requires production of
between 2.4 and 2.6 times more energy
than a comparable BEV. The FCV
propulsion system weighs 43% more,
consumes nearly three-times more space
onboard the vehicle for the same power
output, and costs approximately 46%
more than the BEV system. Further, the
refueling cost of a FCV is nearly threetimes
greater. Finally, when we relax the
renewable energy assumption, the BEV
is still more efficient, cleaner, and vastly
less expensive in terms of manufacturing,
refueling, and infrastructure investment.


http://www.metricmind.com/data/bevs_vs_fcvs.pdf

Texas,

Once again, you use metrics like efficiency, size and weight, when the number that consumers look for is upfront costs. For a BEV, the upfront cost of the battery pack is $20K, whereas I've seen figures for the GM fuel cell that puts its cost between $4,500 and $6,000.

Texas,

Once again, you use metrics like efficiency, size and weight, when the number that consumers look for is upfront costs. For a BEV, the upfront cost of the battery pack is $20K, whereas I've seen figures for the GM fuel cell that puts its cost between $4,500 and $6,000.


Please give us any reference at all. Any. "I've seen figures" doesn't hold much water. I hope you agree. Please don't forget to include the cost of the storage system. If it’s a high pressure system don't forget to include the testing and required replacement costs (DOT currently requires any high pressure tanks carried on the road to be tested every 5 years and replaced every 10). Nobody knows what the new laws will be but I hope people can agree that a testing and replacement policy is a good idea. Imagine a 15 year old 10,000 psi hydrogen tank that has never been tested and is in very poor condition. Slightly dangerous?

If the consumer is only looking at the upfront costs then why are they not out buying huge SUVs and trucks? You can pick one up anywhere at half the price they were last year. Nobody wants them. Why? Because they are not afraid of the upfront cost. They are afraid to go to the gas station and pay for the fuel.

The way consumers think about vehicle costs is going to change. The technology is changing and the cost of fuel has now become a major point. Fuel costs in the past were not considered because they were such a small percentage of a drivers budget. I think we can all agree that situation has changed. What has also changed is that drivers have no idea what the cost of fuel will be in the next few years. When the BEV and hydrogen car hit the market the consumer is going to be well aware of the operating costs. The BEV will be several orders of magnitude cheaper to refuel and maintain. We will find out soon enough.

Texas,

Unfortunately, the article didn't have searchable terms that I could effectively use on Google without getting a million hits, it merely stated that today's fuel cells cost 3X to 4X that of an ICE, so feel free to search anything in that last phrase, and see what comes up.

You are forgetting about the PFCV configuration, in which people will be using hydrogen far less frequently than they are using gasoline now.

Moreover, the value of rapid refill will far outweigh any fuel cost concerns, especially when their first 40 miles is cheap.

Texas,

Unfortunately, the article didn't have searchable terms that I could effectively use on Google without getting a million hits, it merely stated that today's fuel cells cost 3X to 4X that of an ICE, so feel free to search anything in that last phrase, and see what comes up.

You are forgetting about the PFCV configuration, in which people will be using hydrogen far less frequently than they are using gasoline now.

Moreover, the value of rapid refill will far outweigh any fuel cost concerns, especially when their first 40 miles is cheap.


Well, I couldn't find any good reference on what you claim. Everything I see points to hydrogen being very expensive when compared to BEV technology.

I'm not forgetting about the PFCV. It is basically an advanced hybrid solution that requires not only plugging in but also trips to the non-existent hydrogen refueling stations.

It is my contention that the quick-charge BEV will beat the hydrogen car and it's required infrastructure in the market place. Of course we both know each other's position on this subject. I will be looking forward to collecting my dollar prize.

From my experiences with hydrogen generation it isn't practical in any form to use in our cars. It takes far more electricity to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen than the energy the hydrogen can produce. Further more you then have to compress this gas to extreme levels to transported it. The refilling stations will cost an obscene amount of money. Just a diesel air compressor that I have seen used to fill paintball tanks cost anywhere from 8,000 to 12,000. I hate to see what you'll need to fill 25,000 pounds of hydrogen. Then there is the fear of having that compressed hydrogen in your car.

Here is the practical outlook on the situation. If the volt and the many cars to follow with this tech can deliver 40 miles on a charge. Then for 25 days of the month I and most American's will not use a drop of fuel. It will be straight from our country's electric grid and into my car. Last time I checked electric to electric conversion is rather efficient. Then on those few days that I use 5 miles worth of gasoline, ethanol, diesel, the 2 dollars a month for gas isn't going to bother me at ALL. So, why waste all this energy to produce, transport and store hydrogen when we can easily meet the supply and demand of this small amount of fuel using home grown bio fuels. Hydrogen is a waste of time. Until we figure out cold fusion....I am not that interested in it.

My bet is on ethanol to be the support for our electrified cars. Then having a "green" electric grid within a number of years running off of tidal, solar, wind, geothermal energy sources.

This is the independence that the American public should demand and is what the American nation needs. Neat, tomorrow is the 4th. "No, transportation without electrification" Yea, I just quoted myself right now at this moment. So, who wants to place their bets against me?

Jeremy,

Same old tired argument. Rapid refill, and cheaper upfront costs will trump abstract efficienty numbers everytime. Batteries are currently far too expensive and take too long to recharge.

Jeremy,

Same old tired argument. Rapid refill, and cheaper upfront costs will trump abstract efficienty numbers everytime. Batteries are currently far too expensive and take too long to recharge.

I'm with Texas on this one (I can't believe I wrote that!), you make claims about fuel cell cost, but show no credible reference to support it. Even if you are correct and fuel cells for vehicles are 3-4X more than an ICE (does that include the cost of the high-pressure tanks?), are you really going to spend that much money on a power source you rarely use in a FC-PHEV? Economically it would make more sense to run a hydrogen ICE like the one BMW built.

I'm with Texas on this one (I can't believe I wrote that!), you make claims about fuel cell cost, but show no credible reference to support it.

I believe that I linked to the article that stated the current fuel cell from GM only cost 3X to 4X the cost of an ICE in one of my posts on this site, so perhaps that will narrow your search.


Even if you are correct and fuel cells for vehicles are 3-4X more than an ICE (does that include the cost of the high-pressure tanks?), are you really going to spend that much money on a power source you rarely use in a FC-PHEV?

A fuel cell is more efficient than a hydrogen ICE, but more importantly, a fuel cell is silent. Initially, GM targeted their fuel cells for Cadillacs, but to save development time, they are introducing them in the Volt body style. That said, some will still prefer, and should have the option for a hydrogen ICE.


Economically it would make more sense to run a hydrogen ICE like the one BMW built.

It would be interesting to see what the economics are. A hydrogen ICE would only be 1/2 as cheap, while the fuel efficiency is probably only 1/2 that of a fuel cell, so I suspect the cross-over point would be much sooner than in the calc between fuel cells and batteries.

As companies are offering all these options, we will get to see which approach wins out in the end. I am still pulling for the Air Car to make significant penetration in the small / cheap car market.

I believe that I linked to the article that stated the current fuel cell from GM only cost 3X to 4X the cost of an ICE in one of my posts on this site, so perhaps that will narrow your search.



A fuel cell is more efficient than a hydrogen ICE, but more importantly, a fuel cell is silent. Initially, GM targeted their fuel cells for Cadillacs, but to save development time, they are introducing them in the Volt body style. That said, some will still prefer, and should have the option for a hydrogen ICE.



It would be interesting to see what the economics are. A hydrogen ICE would only be 1/2 as cheap, while the fuel efficiency is probably only 1/2 that of a fuel cell, so I suspect the cross-over point would be much sooner than in the calc between fuel cells and batteries.

As companies are offering all these options, we will get to see which approach wins out in the end. I am still pulling for the Air Car to make significant penetration in the small / cheap car market.

If you run across the link again, please repost.

The other advantage of the hydrogen ICE in the short term is that it would run on gas as well, so it would be a more viable alternative with limited hydrogen availability.

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Uniquely/FutureTechnologies/Hydrogen.aspx?enc=t0eBkkksaeOlO9zOt8gzADZCvgwlYpsT NlAXDAkk1+s=

If you run across the link again, please repost.

The other advantage of the hydrogen ICE in the short term is that it would run on gas as well, so it would be a more viable alternative with limited hydrogen availability.

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Uniquely/FutureTechnologies/Hydrogen.aspx?enc=t0eBkkksaeOlO9zOt8gzADZCvgwlYpsT NlAXDAkk1+s=

Yes, I do believe that there is a market for the hydrogen ICE, and it has some attractive features. Cold start is very important in very cold climates, and hydrogen is already a gas, so there is no concern over the need to atomize the fuel to start the engine in cold temperatures.

In my opinion, batteries will win out in the short term as costs of production drop significantly with scale. Hydrogen has two main drawbacks and one key advantage over batteries

1. Chicken and egg with refueling stations
2. Storage

BUT much better for quick refilling which is crucial for long distance travel.

My bet is that with the rate of advancement in battery technology and the potential for ultra capacitors etc in the near future, hydrogen will never take off. In the end, hydrogen is only a storage medium for electricity, which batteries are much better at in terms of efficiency (generator to wheel efficiency).

The one thing I think we have learnt over the last couple of decades is one can't predict what impact technological advances will have on the rapid development of seemingly unrelated fields (e.g. exponential growth in computer processing power and the human genome project, the latter of which would never have been completed if the former hadn't happened).

Hey Joe, Thanks again for speaking with me.
Just to clarify, I´m NOT from SHEC Labs, I work with them for the past 5 years, raising funds and getting prepared to get some projects started here in Europe.