Roger;

Looking through your pdf file source, it is clear you misinterpreted it. It says "Ultra High Temperature Thermochemical Hydrogen Production". Its "process efficiency" is 40% currently. That means from a certain amount of electricity, 60% is wasted as heat or
otherwise.

****THEY DID NOT SAY ANYWHERE IN THAT ARTICLE THAT THE FIGURE IS FROM SOLAR TO HYDROGEN.*****

I don't see how you got 70-80% efficiency for hydrogen production at room temp, much less 150% efficiency for solid oxides. Surely, you must realize 150% is impossible; it means free energy; you get more energy that you put in. The article clearly states that these "energy-efficient, high-temperature, solid-oxide electrolysis cells (SOECs)" only get 40% currently, aiming to get 45 by 2010. If these get 40%, then how much lower is the room temp hydrogen production?

"you'll get 46% efficiency for the PriusII on H2, vs. 50% for Toyota FCV hybrid. Ain't too shabby for an ICE-hybrid car, eh?" How about 70% + for BEVs?

Say i use your numbers of 50% efficiency for ICEs. Solar is 30%, Electrolyzing is 45% and the ICE is 50%. That 6.75% efficiency from solar to wheel. The BEV is 3 times more efficient using the figures from you.

BTW, You shoudln't be saying that ICEs are approaching 50% efficiency. It is technically incorrect; The only reason the Prius is 37% efficient is that it is a Hybrid. Hybrids already make much more sense than any hydrogen technology. I still maintain that majority of ICEs are 20% efficient.

About the batterie's use of raw materials...As batteries get better (and they will) they could become smaller. And who said theres a shortage of Lithium? Other batteries that shows promise such as Nihm and some new types of lead acid batteries means the use raw materials are spread over different types of batteries.

Thank you, made myself clear?

BTW im not george.

Just felt the need to emphasize one thing.

BEVs ARE 3 TIMES MORE EFFICIENT THAN ANY HYDROGEN POWERED CARS IN TERMS OF WELL-TO-WHEEL EFFICIENCY.

That is, you need 3 times more powerplants to support a fleet of hydrogen powered cars than a fleet of BEVs.

Thats right ladies, *** 3 times ***.

Good luck to you all!

Sunny, when it was stated that hi-temp electrolysis is 150% efficient in term of input electricity, no law of thermodynamic is broken here. It simply means that at higher temperature, less voltage will be required to electrolyze H2O, because the high temp heat will supply the rest of the energy to break down the H2O molecule, beside the precious electrical energy needed.

You're right, BEV is ~3 times more efficient than ICE autos. The thermal efficiency of a conventional auto is ~16%-20%. The Thermal efficiency of combined-cycle electric power plant is ~55%-60%. Transmission loss is ~10%. Efficiency from electricity to wheel in a BEV is ~75%. Multiply 55% by 75% and you'll get: ~41%, which is the over thermal efficiency of the BEV. Much better than the 16% of an ICE auto, but not much more than the gasoline PriusII, and could be less than the hydrogen PriusII at ~46%.

So, none of us is completely wrong. It's the subject matter is complex and it'll take time to look at all angles of the subject. BMW and European community are not wrong when it comes to the hydrogen economy. They are no dummies. There will be H2 filling stations in certain highways in Europe coming soon. Let's keep our minds open and learn.

Roger,

I see what you are saying, but frankly i still don't know where you got that 150% figure from. Looking through all the graphs and tables from your 'INEEL' source once again, all im seeing is 40-45 % efficiency figures (yes, i double checked). Is your 150% electrical efficiency simply conjecture? or what? Perhaps you misread the 'solar concentrator cost' (at $130 per sq meter) for efficiency?

You said that heat supplies some of the energy, im assuming that an outside source supplies this heat? Doesn't heat takes energy to produce as well?

Please enlighten me.

The 150% is with respect to the fact that you put in 1kwh of electricity, and you get out H2 with heat value worth 1.5 kwh. The high-temp heat supplies 50% more energy so that you'll get more hydrogen per unit of electrical energy. Overall efficiency with respect to the total amount of energy input (heat and electricity and waste heat from electrical generation process all combined) is in order of 45-50%. I got this out of another article that I simple forgot where I found it. Try the following link: http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage4890.html and then this following link: http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage5192.html

The bottom line is that H2 will probably be a lot less expensive to produce in the future. The big players in the energy market and automobile producers all are having faith in this. The problem with technology is that no one can predict the future. All promising avenues must be tried with an open mind, and see which one(s) will eventually emerge as the winner(s). Many possibilities may co-exist in the future.

After all these comments, I have only a one word response: Butanol. But ooooooh no. That's too simple. Good grief!