Hydrogen the Saviour

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Last year the world consumed an unprecedented 88.9 million b/d of petroleum products, over 3500 bcm of natural gas and 3.7 billion tons of coal (oil equivalent). It is true that fossil fuels have made modern civilisation possible, and the global economy continues to be heavily dependent on this energy source. But the constant climb of the prices is posing an increasing threat of causing lasting recession. In addition, carbon emissions have disturbed the complex climate balance of the planet to an extent that may be close to becoming irreversible. Apart from the economic and environmental effects, the dependency on fossil fuels also brings political problems: plenty of oil-rich countries are now ruled by authoritarian regimes, which are playing a retrograde rather than positive role in international politics.

There has been a lot of talking about a fundamental shift being long overdue, a major shift of the energy paradigm with global consequences that few have had the chance to witness in their lifetime. There is a new technology, or rather, a wide spectrum of technologies, based on hydrogen, which are showing a promising potential to solve the big energy issues of our time. Being by far the most commonplace chemical element in the universe, hydrogen is not just a cleaner and more energetic fuel, it could steer the future of the world into directions we haven't even dreamt about.

Of course this new paradigm is being embraced to a varying extent in the various corners of the world. The EU for example has recognised the necessity to support the new industry which is still in its baby stages. The FCH JU program (Fuel Cells and Hydrogen - Joint Undertaking) has received 450 billion euros until 2020 from the European budget, which will be used to help the wider spreading of technologies using hydrogen as fuel. The private sector will have to add at least 50% to the public funds, in other words a near 1 billion euro stimulus fund is expected to be in place very soon. Some member states are also developing their own separate mechanisms for aiding the sector. Germany is the most ambitious in this respect, the federal government assigning 1.4 billion euros for developing its hydrogen industry until 2016. Belgium is also investing at large scales.

Various projects are being introduced in the European cities, including the overhaul of their public transport, and involving programs that are aiming to fully substitute the diesel buses with new ones using hydrogen. London already deployed 30 hydrogen taxis in addition to these buses during the 2012 Olympics; and in Copenhagen, hydrogen cars are being given to top officials, to serve as promotion prototypes for the new technology. German and Italian companies are developing house gadgets producing heat and electricity and using hydrogen cells. And a 53 million euro project involves the installation of such devices in 1000 households and monitoring their performance in real-life conditions. In Hungary, a large chemical plant has installed a 1 MW energy station that produces electricity using the hydrogen that used to be released as a side product from its work, and now this system is meeting the energy needs of the facility. And Finland is developing various prototypes of hydrogen-based charging devices for PCs, mobiles, etc. The list could go on.

You could ask, why is such heavy subsidising necessary, provided that hydrogen energy appears to have some obvious advantages to carbon? The answer is not just in the ecological threat and the need of a fast shift of the energy paradigm. There are plenty of examples of technologies that have been much better than the mainstream ones, but never got their chance anyway. And the hydrogen industry itself experienced a slowdown, once the initial enthusiasm of the 90s had evaporated in the 2000s. The principle that the best and most effective option should win thanks to the principle of free competition on the market, has proved time and time again to be just a nice slogan. In reality, the established industries are jealously guarding their interests, and whenever they get challenged, they are prepared to respond instantly and fiercely.

Throughout history, the global economy has experienced a few major energy shifts. First there was the shift from wood to coal, then from coal to oil, and then to electricity. And each time the transition has taken a lot of time. In the case of coal it took about two centuries. Oil and electricity needed 50-70 years to take over. If history is to be repeated, hydrogen should fully substitute the "dirty and expensive" carbon as late as the end of the century.

But this time things could be different. Some mathematical models (like those of the Bruegel think-tank) are forecasting that by 2050 the hydrogen cars could be occupying a 25% market share, a similar segment belonging to hybrid cars. In fact hydrogen will gain a more wide-spread application if the oil prices remain relatively high. The other important factor are the international climate agreements: today the market price of a ton of CO2 emissions in Europe is below 5 euros. The situation could change if the price reaches 20 euros, as the pre-crisis forecasts used to indicate. Universal carbon tax could be a great stimulus for hydrogen fuel, especially given the fact that the latter is not being taxed at the moment.

The long-term dependency of the societal institutions on the previously chosen direction, the so called "path dependency", is a scientifically confirmed fact. Big oil is investing enormous sums in oil and gas deposits, in infrastructure and in developing the markets. The automobile lobby is also one of the most powerful. Various shareholders at the multinational oil and gas corporations and the related industries are some of the most influential billionaires, the most aggressive investment funds, the most powerful governments. But this is just one side of the problem. Most people and enterprises are not prone to adopting innovative concepts just like that, without externalising the risks. It would be too costly. So the world has grown accustomed to taking the internal combustion engine for granted, as well as the centralised energy grids (including electricity, gas and heat). The gas stations, despite the high oil-based fuel prices, are a major landmark in every neighbourhood. In this sense, shifting from carbon to hydrogen is widely considered a leap into the unknown - which is why it is causing so much resistance.

What's more, it is not certain if the investments that are needed for such a drastic energy shift, would be returned at all eventually. They would be so huge that they would be hardly possible for any company trying to enter the market on its own. Abandoning one type of fuel means abandoning entire institutions: the introduction of hydrogen technology would disturb the comfortable serenity of the technical schools, unions, media, employers, etc. Even if the new industry could have the advantage of learning from the mistakes of its predecessor, and save a lot of trouble and money in the process by avoiding them. Besides, chances are that cutting-edge innovators would enjoy less returns than the companies which have entered the business later, using the beaten track. And that is a deterrent, too.

On the other hand, there is practically no major automobile company which hasn't already done some research and developed a technology that is only waiting for the hydrogen-fueling infrastructure to be in place, to be launched on the market. The introduction of this type of engine and the start of its open competition with the internal combustion engine is just a matter of time. It is more likely that the hydrogen energy systems supplying homes with hot water, heat and electricity, would actually come sooner than hydrogen cars, because those require less power than automobiles, and the price will be lower, respectively.

Still, what countries like Germany, Belgium and UK are doing, still looks like baby steps. Most of the world is still a blank map in regards to hydrogen technologies. It is just that installing hydrogen fueling stations is still a very expensive affair, which is a hindrance to developing this type of transportation at a larger scale.

On the other hand, countries where investment in the development of hydrogen technology is still in its embryonic stage (or is non-existent), tend to lack the powerful lobbies and special interests that would potentially put obstacles to that new industry. And this gives them a chance to become leading factors in this respect in the future. This could become a leading branch in the industry of countries that are currently nowhere on the map of modern energy technologies. And this presents them with an opportunity to occupy a niche which they could then develop and exploit to their benefit, turning them into hydrogen hubs of regional significance.

Granted, always being at the cutting edge of the technological tsunami is not always the most beneficial decision from a purely economic standpoint. For example China saved a lot of funds by practically skipping an entire technological phase. The Chinese population embraced mobile phones without first having had landline ones, and the need to spread all those cables around the enormous country was skipped, respectively. This example could be extended to such technologies like garbage incinerators, which have been widespread in the West ever since the 60s, but have remained largely unknown in Central and Eastern Europe - and now that modern garbage-processing plants (using plasma) are being introduced everywhere, the latter could skip right to that stage. And these plants are promising to be among the main sources of the new hydrogen fuel. Such a complex solution would simultaneously address several problems (the need of garbage dispensing plus energy source), and it would bring down the price of the latter. And this, in turn, would lift the relevant hydrogen transport along with it. The process is known as a "virtuous cycle".

General estimates indicate that the minimum density of the fueling stations that would allow hydrogen automobiles to be widely introduced, is one per 300 km. There are already 80 such fueling stations operating around Europe, and another 50 are under construction. And the Old Continent is approaching the critical point beyond which it would become a matter of economic and practical necessity for each country to opt for joining the grid, rather than remaining off the hydrogen map, and being bypassed by this emerging industry.

The good news is, the future might be arriving much faster than initially thought. A 2010 McKinsey analysis concluded that the production cost of hydrogen in 2030 would be 3.6 euros - and today it is possible to produce hydrogen under 3 euros. In 2012 Bruegel was claiming that the realistic horizon for overcoming the technological barriers to mass hydrogen transportation would be 2015 - but earlier this year, Hyundai launched a hydrogen car with excellent technical parameters, which could travel for almost 600 km with one fueling. In the beginning of next year the Koreans will try to make a breakthrough with the new Tucson Fuel Cell at the markets of South California, where the hydrogen station grid is about to get expanded. 1000 such cars will be produced for next year, which will then be followed by a 10,000 series. The response from the competition is expected to follow promptly. And thus, the snowball effect would kick in.

Japan is planning to have about a hundred hydrogen stations by 2015. 40 will be around Tokyo, where a so called "hydrogen highway" is now being formed (similarly to other countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Canada). The first mega-plant in the world, worth 300 million dollars, will be supplying the fuel, also expected to be completed in 2015. An industrial consortium called HySUT is in charge of these projects, among its members are Honda, Nissan and Toyota.

While we are about Japan, Toyota is planning to start serial production of hydrogen cars in 2015. Presently, the production cost of a single car has dropped to 100,000 dollars. Of course, even if that cost is halved in a couple of years, the market will still initially be relatively small, and will probably need some financial support in its starting stages. Meanwhile, Honda is now working in collaboration with GM, aiming to develop more advanced hydrogen engines by 2020. And in 2015, Honda will launch its own mid-size hydrogen automobile. In turn, Nissan is planning to enter the mass market by 2017.

Even though it is a South Korean company that is leading the way in this industry, the Ministry of Knowledge Economy (note the name!) believes that other countries are already one step ahead in this race. So they have recently initiated a 100 million dollar fund that will encourage mixed public-private partnerships on various hydrogen projects. The South Korean government is subsidising hydrogen energy systems for homes: currently the price of such an installation is 40,000 dollars, 50% of that being subsidised by the national budget.

Japan is expecting to have 2 million hydrogen cars by 2025. By 2030, the city of Seoul will be meeting 10% of its energy needs from hydrogen. There is already a 2.4 MW hydrogen energy plant operating there. By the end of next year, the capacity of the hydrogen energy cells in South Korea will be multiplied 100 times. Besides, right now they are building the first "hydrogen town" in the world. Meanwhile, at the opposite side of the Pacific, California is planning to complete 70 hydrogen stations by the end of 2016.

So far the main objection to hydrogen technology was that it is too expensive. But today, a more thorough analysis suggests that it would be even more expensive if the ascent of the era of hydrogen is artificially postponed any further. Every day the EU imports carbon fuels worth 1 billion euros - and that is roughly the amount it will have invested in its hydrogen strategy by 2020 (with the help of business). According to the notable Stern Review, the price of inaction regarding carbon emissions constitutes a permanent loss of 5% of the global GDP; upon further review, posibly more. Granted, in several industries where status-quo special interests are deeply rooted, those companies which are delaying innovation will inevitably become defunct and disappear, as soon as hydrogen is introduced at a mass scale. The countries which fail to recognise the prospects of the new fuel will remain off the grid, and will have to make enormous expenses for imported hydrogen technologies, instead of investing in research now, developing them themselves, and trading them.

Because the so called "free" market is actually woven out of "market failures" and deffects, hydrogen would reveal its advantages as an energy source of the future only in case of a serious public support. Today the hydrogen economy enjoys a 10% annual growth, but that is extremely insufficient, given the scales of the carbon fuels. Still, there already are hydrogen-fueled yachts, motorbikes, even tractors. In Germany and South Korea, domestic appliances converting natural gas into hydrogen are being sold on the market. And some among the more industrious drivers are using the so called "Brown gas generators", in essence hydrogen cells providing additional power to the car engine and cutting the consumption of conventional fuel by 20-60%.

Despite the enormous resistance from powerful special interests and all the setbacks and delays, we are witnessing the gradual birth of a new industry that will launch modern humanity to the next level up the energy ladder. There is tremendous scientific and technological potential in it. It now looks as if all the prerequisites for success are in place.

But of course there is something more to be desired. An additional pinch of salt to spice up the mix. The politicians and entrepreneurs will have to recognise the dire need of overhauling the energy paradigm as a whole, and creating a more flexible, more effective and cleaner energy system that would integrate the use of fossil fuels with hydrogen-trapping and storing technologies. Each country and each company will have to develop its hydrogen strategy, and support it with sufficient resources - only then will hydrogen rise as a Phoenix from the ashes of the history of science and technology, to save the world - not just from a global energy crisis, but potentially from the moral, social, economic, and intellectual crises that the latter could bring, if things are left as they are for too long.

Comments

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>> There are plenty of examples of technologies that have been much better than the mainstream ones, but never got their chance anyway.
How they know they were better I wonder.

>> Because the so called "free" market is actually woven out of "market failures" and deffects, hydrogen would reveal its advantages as an energy source of the future only in case of a serious public support.
It's good authors agree people don't need it unless forced.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

This is not what the authors say. What they say is that it would be able to overcome the obstacles that have been put in front of it only after a well coordinated effort. Like I said, there are powerful and well organised interests that are opposed to the new technology. I think this indirectly answers your former question as well.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

Sure, a conspiracy theory explains almost anything.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

While your sarcasm has been noted, a conspiracy theory is something that exists entirely in the realm of wild speculations in lack of any substantial evidence whatsoever.

There is no need of a conspiracy. Just business as usual.

In fact, as demonstrated above, the major car manufacturers are already redirecting their research efforts toward this new technology. For some reason I have always imagined that it would be big oil companies who would seize the opportunity and use their resources to redirect their business accordingly, and become the driving factor behind the shift - because public subsidies alone obviously will not be able to do the whole job, and neither should they. So it is a matter of time until the big players at the energy market get on board, as soon as this particular industry reaches a point where direct involvement would become profitable for them, as opposed to being perceived as a rival. No one wants to lose their business position, after all.

It is a matter of pragmatic weighing of options, and using the tools they have at their disposal to make the best of the emerging situation. Not some romanticised conspiracy, where some secret cabal of shadow figures in dark suits sit in a cigar-smoked room behind closed doors and whisper plans of ruling the masses between themselves or something like that.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

Of course, like a biodisel was a truly pragmatic weighing of options.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Ok thanks for your input.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

All right, here's some food for thought for ya. The town of Gabrovo, located in Upper Central Bulgaria, used to be the hub of the textile industry on the Balkans in the 80s (in the last years of communism) and the early 90s (the first years of democracy). Some of the most innovative and modern facilities both for constructing textile machines and textile itself were stationed there. These enterprises were what had traditionally made the town a major urban center in the region ever since the mid 19th century, to a point where it became the biggest and most prosperous part of Upper Central Bulgaria.

Enter democracy, and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. These industries were already making efforts to adapt their production to the new realities of Eastern Europe, trying to secure some of their traditional markets for the decades to come. And for a time, things were looking promising.

What happened next? A bunch of US companies stepped in, promising substantial investments in the area, and vowing to continue developing the traditionally strong textile industry in the Gabrovo district. But, as soon as they took over the major machine plants and textile enterprises there, people witnessed with bewilderment how those began to be shut down one after another. There were literally heaps of machines being piled at the scrapheap and cut to pieces, the whole industry virtually destroyed within a couple of years. The government of Ivan Kostov, now widely known as "the guy who sold us out to the West" (long story) authorized this mid-day robbery of what was one of the trademark industries of the Bulgarian economy.

Now the town of Gabrovo barely has 1/3 of the population it had back then, unemployment is rampant, most of its young labor force having fled either to the city of Sofia, or even abroad, in search of greener pastures. No trace of our textile-machine industry and textile production. Now Bulgarians buy crappy junk that passes for "clothes" either from neighboring Turkey, or from US brands that have been outsourced to Thailand, India, China and Bangladesh.

But of course that's not a conspiracy. It's just the "free market". Right?

And this was just one of many examples of technologies and industries being either suppressed or outright decapitated from the position of financial and economic power by the big fish. And don't even get me started on our arms industry, which for a long time used to be among the leading on the planet, only to get tossed at the scrapheap in a similar fashion, after that same Ivan Kostov agreed with the demands of the West that, in order to become a NATO member, my country would have to fulfill some pretty severe conditions - like erase its entire arms industry, and become completely dependent on our Western "brothers" from France, UK and the US.

I say yay for non-conspirative free-market!

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

That is the Bain Capital model of capitalism: you don't create any wealth- you just steal it from another company.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

There was no theft. There was a well-planned, deliberate decapitation of a potential rival industry, and taking over the thus emptied niche. It could also be argued that this is a new, "modern" form of colonialism.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes. I see. That is a different kind of evil than what Bain Capital commits.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

In a way reminds me of the Economic Hit-man scenario (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/409250.html).

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

At least some of the canal boats here run on hydro f-cel for a couple of years now, and I think during some of the canal parties only non-polluting boats are allowed:

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

If hydrogen was ever used to replace oil as the transportation of choice, we still have a lot of work to do. It is hardly better than gasoline. Energy density is much lower, so onboard hydrogen storage needs to be improved upon. The car essentially has to be designed in such a way that the throttle is always running at a constant rate (essentially consuming a constant amount of hydrogen) as opposed to energy on demand like gasoline. This requires a great amount of work to be done with batteries and other electricity storage devices. A vast amount of research still needs to be done on catalyst, as a minor imperfection in the hydrogen fuel can cause the complete destruction of the fuel cell, destroying expensive and rare materials.

These issues don't even begin to touch the problems associated with the production and logistics of widespread hydrogen use.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a bunch of excuses to scrap the whole thing and revert to whatever stage we're in at the moment - or I could be reading it wrong.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Much of these problems are hardly "excuses." They are things that are really keeping hydrogen from being commercialized. You can build a car that works, but that doesn't mean it is practical enough for a consumer. Much of these problems have had billions of dollars thrown at them with not much progress. It is essentially why funding has dried up in recent years.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is hardly a surprise that a new technology features a number of downsides and needs a lot of improvement while it is at its initial stage of development. I find it hard to recall of a technology that has had a perfect start right from the onset - which hasn't stopped them from being developed eventually, nevertheless.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

These aren't just downsides that need improvement. They are major stumbling blocks that need a solution before they are really ready for commercialization.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

The hydrogen vehicles in most serious production are hydrogen FUEL CELL vehicles, not hydrogen internal combustion, so I have no idea where you are getting that the throttle has to be wide open all the time. A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is an electric car but instead of charging from the main electrical lines, it has an on board power station that makes electricity for the electric motors. Several major Marques are confident enough to bring them for consumer sale by 2015. While they will not be sales leaders for some time, what is it that you know that they don't?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

He's talking about fuel cells.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Then I do not think he's correct about the THROTTLE being open constantly. If he's talking he's talking about how the fuel cell generates electricity that's different than how the driver controls the electric motor that makes the wheels go. Reviews of the Clarity, for example, agreed it drives like an Accord.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

No, I'm talking about fuel cells. They run efficiently in a very narrow set of operation conditions, and if you operate out of those conditions you can seriously degrade the efficiency or even damage the fuel cell. Essentially, you need a large amount of electricity storage in order to operate the vehicle. A vehicle with a fuel cell will operate essentially the same way as a plug in electric vehicle. It runs off the batteries, the fuel cell just charges those batteries.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Right. What I'm not understanding is your description of the THROTTLE. In standard car talk that is how the driver controls the power the vehicle is making for the wheels. In a standard car, you do that by burning more fuel. In a car with electric motors, you still use the throttle pedal to send more power to the wheels.

Are you referring to the rate at which the fuel cell uses hydrogen to make the electricity? What I am confused about is simply how you used the term throttle in your first comment. Can you clarify?

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

In standard car talk, the throttle is the device that controls the flow of fuel to the engine. In a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, the fuel is hydrogen, and the throttle controls the flow of hydrogen to the fuel cell.

In a fuel cell vehicle, the "gas pedal" doesn't control the flow of fuel much at all. All it does is send a signal to computer, which then sends setpoints to a set of dc/dc converters that will satisfy the electricity demand required by the drivetrain. I don't think referring to those dc/dc converters as the "throttle" is proper at all.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

In standard car talk throttle controls the flow of fuel yes, but throttle response is all about how the vehicle responds to your input requesting more power to the wheels.

So you're talking about consumption of the hydrogen in the fuel cell, not about how power is delivered to the wheels via driver controls. In other words, a fuel cell powered electric drive train works in a way that drivers will be familiar with from the driving experience point of view.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

throttle response

Only in a gas vehicle. The throttle is really just a valve that control fluid flow. There is no throttle in an electric vehicle.

a fuel cell powered electric drive train works in a way that drivers will be familiar with from the driving experience point of view.

It will operate in the same way an electric vehicle would, but my point was that fuel cell vehicles depend on battery technology much like an electric vehicle would.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Okay, I get you are being technical in that regard.

But I don't think automotive enthusiasts or their press are radically changing their vocabulary here when the driving controls remain essentially unaltered. In a gasoline powered engine, you push the pedal harder and the engine uses more fuel to convert into power that goes to the wheels. With an electric vehicle, whether all the electricity is stored in batteries or generated by a onboard power station or a combination of both, the same pedal being pushed harder makes the motor use more electricity to send more power to the wheels.

What you are saying is the fuel cell makes electricity at a steady rate and some needs to be stored in order to be used. Fine -- in an electric car with just batteries, you charge depleted batteries at a steady rate too. Remember, a fuel cell car IS an electric car -- one that generates electricity on board instead of charging from a wall socket.

But the driver's experience is basically like a standard internal combustion engine, although with only one gear.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

This article comes to mind:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/18/scientists-produce-bio-crude-oil-in-less-than-60-minutes/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/12/18/scientists-produce-bio-crude-oil-in-less-than-60-minutes/)

The question I have is: if this stuff has even near the same emissions as 'real' crude oil, is it really a good idea to use it instead?

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

So far the main objection to hydrogen technology was that it is too expensive.

No, actually, this is not the main objection. The main objection I hear is that it is actually not a fuel. Rather, it is an energy conduit.

Oil, coal, and all the other forms of captured solar energy from prehistoric times are fuels. Pull them out of ground; light them on fire; energy released! Hydrogen, by contrast, must be produced using energy, preferably one of the common sources like those I cited just before typing "light them on fire." (If you're lucky, like we are here in the Pacific Northwest, you can use falling water trapped behind a dam; but such situations are rare. Using solar or wind is also an option, but until a majority of electricity is powered thusly. . . .)

Once you have hydrogen, yes, many things are possible, just as you said in the OP. Ah, but are they better than alternatives . . . like simple battery electric?

No. Not yet, at least.

Hydrogen is a tiny molecule. Building containers for it are therefore tricky to the point of Wow. The hydrogen losses from containment vessels in practice makes the trickle losses from batteries look admirable. Therefore, if one needs to power an application with electricity, it is far, far, far more efficient to do so using batteries.

In fact, a bit of your timeline should be revised:

And the hydrogen industry itself experienced a slowdown, once the initial enthusiasm of the 90s had evaporated in the 2000s.

Not so. That initial enthusiasm, according to all the development and promise, was in the battery-electric field, not the hydrogen. People never stopped tinkering with hydrogen, and the enthusiasts going into actual business in the field—like me—never dismissed it, knowing that it would be a good compliment to battery electrics. But it was always farther in the future than most cared to admit.

That changed with the election of GWB. Trust me, I saw this first-hand.

The California Air Resources Board gave up on its all-electric mandates, effectively killing electrics in this country for ten years. French battery maker SAFT killed a battery plant based on this, as did other firms. So many other projects, with promising words leaked from insiders, died on the vine.

And in return, W himself toured a GM facility with a fuel cell vehicle, one that was just decades away from completion/practicality. This distraction allowed GM to crush the battery electric cars that were practical now, and continue selling gas guzzlers fueled by W's friends for another 8 years at least.

I don't want to rain on anyone's passion, but in a nutshell, hydrogen hype retarded battery-electric transport by at least ten years. It was used as the distraction to continue burning carbon, and may be implemented as such yet again. Yes, one day it may make more sense than batteries. I'm not young enough to hold my breath waiting for that magic time to arrive.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Question from a car enthusiast: do you see potential in a car like the Volt but instead of using a gas engine to make more electricity, using a fuel cell once the on board batteries are depleted? I've been quite hopeful that range extended electic vehicles are an important part of the future, and while so far we've only seen gasoline powered generating stations, I can think of no limitations on using a fuel cell. I'm thinking of a 200miles range Tesla adding another 100 miles with a fuel cell.

The current problem with most production electric cars is not the drive, the handling or the capability...it's that you need a conventional car as a back up for emergencies unless you are driving a Volt. The Leaf is a fantastic little thing but most useful as a weekday runabout for errands.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Hydrogen has a similar problem. Range is limited because storage is limited. You either have a decent range with the fuelcell, but have little storage space in the car for things like people and cargo, or you have a limited range. This can be a major problem considering how hard it is to find a hydrogen refueling station.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

In 2009, Car and Driver got close to 200 miles of range out of the Honda. Far short of Honda's promise, but not bad at all when compared to most battery electrics on the market today.

Once upon a time there wasn't a fueling infrastructure for internal combustion engines either. California seems well positioned to be a test market for fuel cell cars, as is Europe. It doesn't have to be capable of doing a cross country drive to be viable for the way most people drive.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

200 miles isn't very good. It's alright, but in terms of what people expect, it just isn't there yet (or gas prices aren't high enough for people to be okay with it).

It doesn't have to be capable of doing a cross country drive to be viable for the way most people drive.

Eventually it will have to, otherwise it will never become mainstream. The short range will be a problem.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

200 miles in 2009 with the first commercially available vehicle.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

The problem with hydrogen storage, it pretty much already reached its limit with traditional compressed storage. You can either go with very cold temperatures, -400 F, so you can store it as a liquid or make the tank bigger (which would worsen fuel economy). The cryogenics option is really expensive and isn't really commercially available yet. There are other options, but they are a ways off.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

No, the current problem with our society is that we neglected our walkable communities to the point where too many feel they need a car, even for short trips. The very idea of a "road trip" has become embedded in too many brains as a right of citizenship rather than an expensive indulgence. (I admit I suffer that entitlement delusion as well.)

That's what GM fucked up with the Volt; they tried to appeal both to the new paradigm of electric drive within short ranges (99% of trips) without compromising the American Dream allure of unlimited "freedom" on our extensive series of road ribbons. I have a friend at work now very, very disappointed in his for this reason. He wanted to use gas as little as possible, but the Volt needs to run fuel through the injectors simply to prevent them from gooing into varnish. This forces him to use gas when he doesn't want to (he's on the first tank after over a year).

I told him to consider a Leaf, which would have done everything he's done with the Volt, but without the additional worry and maintenance. He didn't listen, and now he admits I might have been right.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

You seem to be asking the car to do something that is far ahead of the community design. Sure, one fed into the other, but speaking as a parent of young children who is lucky enough to live in a city, if I were in the suburbs, I'd be very wary of having the family car plugged in and unable to do much if we ever repeated my daughter waking up at 3 am with 105 degree fever and neck pain. You're talking about needing to change communities before the people with resources to own vehicles are going to be very willing to own one car without range extension capability.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

You're talking about needing to change communities. . . .

Yes. Yes I am. I am doing so because there will (eventually) be no option. When these communities must be re-arranged is up not to owners but to the fuel market that will force the home owners' hands.

The suburbs are a chicken-and-egg problem. We built these communities to be dependent not just on gas for motive power, but for cheap gas to be available. If it isn't available, the community must change. That's a problem that can't be inexpensively engineered away.

With enough battery capacity, 'burbs are extendable. I'm personally of the opinion that extending the viability of a 'burb is akin to letting a junkie string along a habit rather than force withdrawal and recovery—wasteful and unnecessary, when one adds up all the costs involved in extension. But that's just me.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

No, actually, this is not the main objection. The main objection I hear is that it is actually not a fuel. Rather, it is an energy conduit.

This objection is a bunch of bull. No serious person has ever suggested that we use hydrogen as a energy source to power everything. Much of everything is a "energy conduit." You don't put coal in your computer. Someone converts that coal into electricity, essentially wasting 2/3rds of the energy, so you can turn on your lights. It is no different. You don't put oil into your car. You convert it into products, wasting a lot of the energy, so you can run your car. Energy conversion is required in pretty much everything except for heating.

Not so. That initial enthusiasm, according to all the development and promise, was in the battery-electric field, not the hydrogen. People never stopped tinkering with hydrogen, and the enthusiasts going into actual business in the field—like me—never dismissed it, knowing that it would be a good compliment to battery electrics. But it was always farther in the future than most cared to admit.

Battery research is alive and well. I'm not sure about the rest of this, as a fuel cell vehicle still requires a large set of lithium-ion batteries, the same ones that are required in a electric car. Any advancement in battery technology is not only an advancement for electric cars, but also fuel cells. You can't have a fuel cell vehicle without batteries, but you can have an electric vehicle without fuel cells. Your theory that GWB killed batteries by going the fuel cell route makes little sense.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Energy conversion is required in pretty much everything except for heating.

While technically correct, the details prove the devils. Yes, one must refine oil for both fuel and lubricant. That crude that starts the process, though, is cheap (relatively). For hydrogen, one must take perfectly good electricity—which, as you point out, has already been converted from other forms—and convert it once again. The losses converting it and re-converting it back to electricity by the fuel cell drastically eats up any losses from the simple chemical or mechanical battery alternative. Factor in the extremely expensive rare-earth metals needed for an even half-way decent fuel cell, and the attractions of hydrogen get less sparkly.

That's why the conduit. Why convert electricity to and from hydrogen when batteries both simplify and (in most cases) improve the efficiency?

Battery research is alive and well. . . . Your theory that GWB killed batteries by going the fuel cell route makes little sense.

Not GWB personally, but his corporate cronies who really weren't interested in batteries anyway. They were making bank on the SUV craze already in progress. After his election, and with his well-known ties to the black goo brigade, research and investment shriveled to a husk of its more robust self when Gore was the projected winner. Why should be obvious. What bank would invest in batteries for cars when the president has such close connections to the oil industry, therefore making such cars nothing but hobbyist pursuits? That's exactly what happened. The flood of research and promise dried to a trickle.

I never said batteries were "killed," only specific projects related to furthering the availability and technical ability of future batteries. With some digging, I can back up that observation.

Any advancement in battery technology is not only an advancement for electric cars, but also fuel cells.

Exactly! When one further postulates that advancements in either take market share away from gassers, you can see why what happened happened the way it happened. Battery cars were essentially put on hold for 8 years, so as not to impact Detroit profits. When the need for them finally did materialize, the short-sighted bastards had to get a bailout just to stay in business. GM pissed away it's lead for better stock margins. No executive in that company deserves a job of any kind.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

The losses converting it and re-converting it back to electricity by the fuel cell drastically eats up any losses from the simple chemical or mechanical battery alternative.

The entire point is that you get something in return. Electric vehicles are great, but you can't stop at a electricity station for 3 minutes, fill your batteries up, and then drive for another 300 miles. With hydrogen, you can theoretically do that. Hydrogen is a replacement for gasoline, not a replacement for electricity.

That's why the conduit. Why convert electricity to and from hydrogen when batteries both simplify and (in most cases) improve the efficiency?

Because efficiency isn't the factor that needs to be considered.

Exactly! When one further postulates that advancements in either take market share away from gassers, you can see why what happened happened the way it happened. Battery cars were essentially put on hold for 8 years, so as not to impact Detroit profits.

Battery cars were being developed in Detroit, and sold. I'm missing the cut into profit those electric cars created. Why would it be any different when batteries where more expensive and had less energy density?