Well, atleast this does further develop electric powertrain components. Perhaps, when a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is ready for production many companies will offer battery electric vehicles at the same time given the transferability of a portion of the fuel cell vehicle research.

The question remains why use electricity to make hydrogen instead of charging a battery.

One contention I take issue with in DiamlerChysler's statement is the notion that since renewable sources are essentially inexhaustible, "scarcity can never play a role in their prices." This is false, as it confounds renewability with throughput.

Consider an example: Hydropower is renewable and generally inexhaustible, in the sense that every season more rains come to recharge the reserviors behind the dams, which supplies turbines with energy. Even if we simplify the situation by ignoring drought years or potential climate change, the fact remains that every year only a certain amount of water (say 'x') is caught behind any given dam, and a certain amount of electricity ( e(x) ) can be generated from that water. If our hypothetical dam supplies a certain isolated town with 100% of its power requirements, scarcity can still result if the population of the town grows and/or their per capita energy consumption rises. If people demand 105 MWH from a dam that can only supply 100 MWH per year, you have scarcity. Prices will have to rise to drive demand back to 100 MWH per year, or alternative power sources will have to be found, in order to deal with the scarcity.

The same thing can be said for any other renewable resource. I will admit that there are so many more untapped wind sites and solar-rich sites, relative to hydro sites, that it will be a long time before we build them out and then find outselves still short on electricity. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that it is physically impossible to run up against scarcity even in a renewable context. I am ignoring the extreme (and thermodynamically interesting) case, where we assume that all sunlight incident upon the earth is captured by some energy harnessing device (mechanical or biological) and put to human use, and assuming that suitable renewable power sites are fairly circumscribed in nature and location.

Most renewables don't tend towards depletion, I will grant. Depletion, as is obvious, is the condition of having consumed all of a non-renewable consumable substance in the world, and being stuck with a zero throughput because there is simply nothing left to retrieve. Full exhaustion of any particular resource serving an essential need is not a likely outcome, since as we tend towards partial depletion, scarcity is likely to become more chronic and prices are likely to go up, meaning incentives to find and utilize substitute resources goes up. The depletion dynamic is important, but quite distinct from scarcity, and I think it does us all a disservice to confound the issue.

And, of course, this talk of scarcity is entirely on top of the simple costs to produce and adequately buffer/deliver power from renewable sources, which are still not inconsiderable.

marcus, that's exactly my question! Why are we going down this road at all, except for the fact that hydrogen 'manufacturing' will probably be centrally located, and therefore controlled by huge corporations. On the other hand, with an electric car you can have your solar panels and run it for as long as the batteries last. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I just don't get it.

It just seems so clear that electric cars are where all these billions should be going in research.

John - I certainly agree with you. I strongly suspect that large corporations have sold our government a false bill of goods.

Anyone who has taken a carful look at Hydrogen and fuel cells comes to understand that *IF* this technology ever comes to pass, it is in the distant future.

BUT - That is where the taxpayers money is being doled out. Many don't consider themselves immoral to be taking it under false pretenses.

The quickest way to go - from where we are at - is alcohol enhanced BioDiesel. We should have started working on it thirty years ago.

I know this is wandering into tinfoil hat territory, but I've long suspected that the big US gov't push for hydrogen is their way of trying to build a lifeboat for the oil companies. EV's are perilously close to going mainstream in a big way (thanks to the latest lithium-ion batteries), and the only way to keep passenger cars from converting relatively quickly to a fuel source that needs no distribution network (other than the electricity grid) is to push hydrogen. If EV's get here first (and I strongly suspect they will), then hydrogen will be relegated to at best a niche status, and most gas stations will be taking a long walk on a short road to extinction.

The issue of where to spend energy is an excellent one. If you measure just BTU/mile, then EV's are far more efficient than ICE, hydrogen FC, etc. Consuming electricity to make hydrogen makes far less sense than does using it to recharge batteries. About the only way hydrogen makes sense, from that perspective, is if you can generate it cheaply via a biological process, so it would no longer be competing for increasingly scarce electrons.

Yes, hydrogen makes little sense but since we are obviously not in great enough numbers to pressure our representatives and senators into putting the money into what we deem more worthwhile research efforts at least you can see that there are still some advantages to their efforts. Lighter, smaller, more robust in wheel electric motors developed for hydrogen fuel cell use could still be used for an all electric vehicle and the ancilliary technology could still be adapted as well.

I still don't really understand it. I mean couldn't hydrogen be made at home using electrolysis of water obviating the need for fill up stations owned by big companies?

Some of the Big Oil companies do see the writing on the wall and are becoming "energy companies" with electrical generating power in their portfolios (Particularly BP and Total, Shell also but they are trying to cover all the bases). Even IF there is lots of conventional oil left its mostly in the hands of National companies. International oil companies will be on the outside looking in. The one with their heads up their buts would be Exxon (they seem to be trying to squeeze out the last bit of profit before they turn out the lights and close the door)

Even if the backers of Fuel cells do manage to force the issue and succeed, their product is starting to sound more like a PHEV(H2) anyway.

Personally I think one of the big car manufacturers will break from the rest of the pack on fuel cells and go with PHEV's and EV's just to steal a march on their competitors. (Kind of like a game of chicken)

Marcus: Stuart Energy is just one example of at home hydrogen.

P.S. I do seem to recall that you can use Solar to create H2 directly ... That might alter the efficiency equation.

I find it helpful to think of it this way: all cars in the future will be electric, with a battery of some sort and an electric motor 100% responsible for driving the wheels. Some of those electric cars will have an auxillary liquid fuel system to extend range and allow for refueling on long trips. Those auxillary liquid fuel systems will be either gasoline/ethanol, diesel/biodiesel, hydrogen, or something else entirely, like zinc or even pressurized air. I don't really care much which of those it turns out to be, since most of these electric cars will have sufficient range on battery alone that most of us probably won't even need the refuelling system at all--it's just a lot of extra complication, an option, if you will. The main question for the vast majority of drivers will be whether you will be allowed to plug your car in at home, thereby shutting down gas stations and throwing oil companies out of business. That's a political question. But no matter what, technologically, I see all roads leading to what can only be fairly called an electric car.

I think the Tesla announcement is the most exciting news of the day, because it will help raise the cachet of electric cars, perhaps to the point where all this "hydrogen car" business can finally be buried, and we can start calling them electrics again.

So to everyone who thinks that hydrogen is some vast right-wing conspiracy to keep us all perpetually enslaved to "Big Oil" due to the fact that it may require production and distribution by large companies, may I ask who you believe will be manufacturing and distributing those super high tech batteries/supercaps that will allow you to drive 300+ miles per charge and that you can afford without taking out a second mortgage on your house? I suppose any old mom and pop small buisiness will be able to do it?
Sorry, I guess I'm too brainwashed by the capitalists or zionists or whomever to see the conspiracy. The fact is that in the near term, the best solution is conservation, biofuels, hybrids, and generally smaller, more aerodynamic designs, as well as the realization that there is no real need for 300 horse power in the minivan or family sedan. The long term still seems somewhat open, although it would seem, at this point, to include electric final drive. Exactly what produces the input power for the inverters seems to be still somewhat up for grabs. Current hydrogen technology sucks from a well-to-wheel effeciency standpoint, but then again, none of the other current technologies seem acceptable from a manufacturability/cost/performance standpoint.
Sorry if that sounded a little abrasive but the fact is that there is no silver bullet, as there is no single villain who created this problem. We've all helped to create this problem, and we all need to spend less time trying to allocate blame on others and spend more time taking responsibility and doing our part to clean up this mess.

>The 700-bar tanks for storing hydrogen,
A 700 bar tank is twice as pressurized as the
the tanks in the Compressed Air car.
http://www.theaircar.com/tecno.html
which is much easier to find and compress than
Hyrdogen. :)

Lou - "I know this is wandering into tinfoil hat territory, but I've long suspected that the big US gov't push for hydrogen is their way of trying to build a lifeboat for the oil companies."

Not really tinfoil hat territory. Remember that it is difficult to brand electricity. Hydrogen can be branded because you will buy it from a pumping station. You know 'Shell Hydrogen is purer and drives further' sort of crap. These companies have spent billions on these brands so it is not really a conspiracy but large corporations protecting their investment.

Consider also that BEVs will only have one moving part in their drivetrain - the motor. Electric motors are extremely reliable and durable, there is no gearbox, no oil changes etc. This has huge implications for the present service industries. Fuel Cell cars are much more complicated and have much more scope for regular servicing so they are much more acceptable for the present car industry and service industry.

I think the oil/car/service companies want to engineer the situation where today you pull into a BP service station and buy petrol and smokes, milk etc and then tomorrow, when Peak Oil starts to bite, seamlessly transition to where you will pull into a BP service station and buy hydrogen, smokes and milk etc. Home charging extremely reliable battery electric cars really upsets this comforting model and are hence actively discouraged. Plug in hybrids are acceptable because they still have the IC motor that has the same sort of service requirements.

I don't think that it is any sort of tin foil hat idea to assume that the major oil companies, the car companies that use oil and the car service industry collude to protect their existance.

We'll just have to see if they can squish Tesla. Lets hope the orders are strong and the financial backing solid.

This 700bar tank would double the range of a particular CNG car. How about the energy needed to compress all these goodies?

Is it the fuel cell or battery? Which one is closer to us? And the myth of aluminium battery, is it for real(for being 20 times better then lithium-ion and cheaper)? And there is near zero effort on other alternative energy storage, like zinc battery?

What is the real aim of the auto makers? Priority on making profit, dont blame them becoz they are not doing charity and their survival depends on it. Only a fool will do research on something that can deny the exsistance of all other technology they processed.

Why hydrogen? Many people can become hydrogen suppliers, but ultimately still the big oils can provide the cheapest hydrogen.

The hydrogen cars simply cannot come fast enough. This is great news. It's the perfect fuel...clean, renewable, efficient. What's not to love?

Which product would best facilitate the collection of highway taxes, hydrogen or electricity?

Lee:
Road taxes squeeze is already happening in Europe. The only real alternative to fuel-based road taxes I see is registration/insurance fee dependent on miles traveled and GVW. Roll-back of odometers would not be big problem: modern on-board computer is not simple thing to tamper with every year. Already bunch of vehicles with satellite navigation system are quite often sending their odometer reading to satellite and further to database.

I seriously think that the "keep the status quo" argument that has been brought up, is true. Big oil, big carmaker, big distribution channel, big service platform would love to see oil last for centuries longer, but now have to admit that time is running out and decide to pick a model that keeps most of the current situation the same. Otherwise they go out of business and/or have to invest a lot of money. Bingo: hydrogen and bio-fuels fit the bill. EV's do NOT ! What's more efficient, or better for the environment, or makes more logical sense is of NO concern whatsoever; we're talking about who's in control and big money here. Personally I don't like this model at all; I would love to see a big carmaker with balls to jump in and start making efficient EV's in large quantities, but that will never happen - because they are part of the pact.

However history has proven that it would be possible to abandon an established technology or way of live and replace it successfully with something else, without destroying the economy altogether. Where one business disappears , including the jobs, another new business will fill the gap and create new jobs. That is; when big oil is gone and the distribution centres and supporting infrastructure , you will have a boom in the industry and infrastructure that is necessary for supplying the new technology and everything that is related. You will have a shift in jobs, not a complete loss in jobs. Although it's not going too happen, I would rather see that, than the oil companies and related platform staying in business. They've had their time, did nothing to improve anything useful in the world, did more harm environmentally, politically and for many fellow human beings in the world, put new (threatening) developments in the fridge and just sat on they're money , hoping the oil would last for another 1000 years, while they could have done so much to develop new technologies and improve live of so many people and save the environment. That politicians support the efforts to save the oil infrastructure is understandable, they practically drink oil with they're breakfast instead of coffee; don't expect anything from them..., they only know one rule; (short-term) economy goes before EVERYTHING else !

Let's hope for a miracle company that jumps in with exceptional (cheap) technology, that they simply can never compete with...

J

Oil industry currently is a minor contributor to polluting environment emissions. No company, industry, or small business to that matter care a bit about anything but their profits. This is the reason why we have massive governmental intrusion in economy, business practice, environmental protection, and socially-oriented wealth re-distribution. Automotive industry is highly competitive, and individual company will sell in a hart beat their old gasoline supplier buddies for next quarter profits in EV vehicles sales, if technology allows it.
The only “small” thing oil companies did during last century is to supply civilization with high quality energy and fuel to propel our prosperity. They did it not for free, and expect other vice would be naïve at best.

"No company, industry, or small business to that matter care a bit about anything but their profits."

I know, neither do politicians, in terms of vote counts and popularity (resulting in real world power). This combination prevents drastic (and necessary) meassures. You can't change our way of living , or consumption profile, without making dramatic - and therefore unpolulair- changes. I'm a realist; I know that the way things are , politicians and companies couldn't have done much else than they have done so far.

Nevertheless politicians, carmakers and oil companies knew from day 1 that oil supplies wouldn't last forever and have done nothing substantial during the past 100 years, to come up with a better solution than ICE. They could have (and should have) started much earlier, if they wanted to. Clearly nobody cared and nobody dared, therefore they lose all credit. Ford and GM for instance, are still producing monsters of cars with 300+ HP where they don't even dare to mention the fuel consumption - in 2006 !! And what the oil companies are doing in the sand-to-oil fields for example is a complete destruction of the environment. Where's the fresh innovative approach ? I feel no need to protect dinosaurs like that in any way, sorry.

just great, in addition they should pop up with a home refuelling station that uses renewable energy like solar or heat from the earth or whatever maybe first of all natural gas, like honda does, so the problem of just having some big energy suppliers would be over,

maybe one like this^^ http://www.world.honda.com/news/2003/c031002.html

The hydrogen fuel cell is just not viable full stop. I was listening to a podcast with Dr. Ulf Bossel who is the organizer of the European fuel cell forum. He has been involved in fuel cell development for a large part of his life and has come to the conclusion hydrogen fuel cells are unsustainable and will never be the future. He is pushing for plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles powered from renewable energy sources. As of next year their forum will no longer research hydrogen fuel cells and instead will concentrate on solid oxide cells that can use fuels other than pure hydrogen. He gave an example that really put's hydrogen into perspective. He said that if you took all the cars parked at a smallish airport, it would take 5 nuclear reactors and enough water to supply a small city just to run them. In many parts of the world, water is in short supply as it is, just think what creating enough hydrogen to run all the cars in the world would do to the water supply!

A combination of multi-fuel PHEVs + pure EVs would use existing + future liquid fuel + existing facilities + existing electricity distribution networks and would avoid the very high cost associated with building and maintaining new hydrogen production and distribution facilities.

For the longer term, we could certainly move away from liquid fuels towards cleaner sustainable EVs.

Contrary to liquid fuel, clean electricity can be produced indefinately in sufficient quantity from the sun, wind, waves, hydro and even nuclear, if and where required.

Except for special applications, why should we use electricity (or other sources of energy) to produce hydrogen and then reconvert hydrogen into electricity for the drive trains? Double and triple energy conversion is non effcient and should be avoided. Secondly, EVs produce less GHG than any other form of vehicles.

Who killed the electric car? GM. Why? The folks at GM soon discovered that the electric vehicles were incompatible with their current combustion engine production system, and thus by promoting electric cars this would be tantamount to a person writing their own death warrant. This is the dillemma that all companies face: when new technology emerges - when "creative destruction" lurks - in the horizon many don't know what steps to take. For example, Microsoft would not support network dependent or browser based system platforms since its entire model is based on selling OS software and applications. So the folk selling or leasing software on the web has a totally different system and posses a real threat to Microsoft; Microsft in the past used its monopoly power to kill such innovations.

Back to the car industry. Hybrid systems look as if they'll be the bridge to fuel cells. By the way a fuel cell is a battery while the storage hybrid system is a battery so you can swap the two with minimal changes to other parts of the vehicle. As for hydrogen, it might make more sense to use that hydrogen to manufacture transportable fuels like ethers(DME) or alcohols, and then use these to power fuel cells rather than struggle to store hydrogen.

Actauly the new tanks also have more room thus they now store 4 kg instead of the old 1.6 kg tank. thats not 2x thats 2.5x capacity increase.

The faqct is they are making fast progress and its STILL targeted for a 2012 2015 timeline so its very likely to meet that target.

Cost wise the fuel is getting cheaper to make. Capacity wise they can now store enough fuel on the car. Cost wise they are replacing the most expensive parts of the fuel cell and strasticaly cutting its material costs AND they are getting the designs ready for mass production ablity and thus getting the production costs way down too. Oh and ys they have greatly improved the eff of the fuel cell car itself so it needs alot less fuel anyway.

And I will be captain obvious as soo many seem to be clueless... the h2 car as envisioned right there will be a fully battery ev car for short ranges depending on battery capacity.. in short for short trips it is an ev car so shut up and sit down.

Joep:
You are right, no credibility to car makers, politicians, and oil companies. Mild hybrids are 15 years overdue, America oil independence is 20 years overdue, cellulosic ethanol is 10 years overdue at least. Oil companies made a move to Iogen quite a long time ago, and then abandoned it when oil prices drop. The reason is probably that oil companies know better then anybody else that there are a lot of oil around, for many decades to come. It wouldn’t be cheap, but this is exactly what they want. It does not mean that we should senselessly waste precious resource and does not diversify the raw stock. Regional oil independence is quite possible to North America, but it was not done due to lack of will – both from American people and their politicians. I am not sure anything serious will be done at this (number 4?) oil crisis.
Yet there are some bright spots. Toyota; and not only for Prius, but for their notorious philosophy of constant improvement to all even smallest details. Clean Air Act, and most recently – clean-up of diesel engine emissions. So it is possible to do something big. What is lacking is strong will and clear vision. I do not see either.

The taxation question is interesting. If hydrogen becomes a widespread road fuel, it can be taxed like gasoline is today. If plug-in electricity provides more and more of our road energy, then we need a non-fuel based revenue stream to make up the money needed to maintain our roads. Depending on how much road energy gets diverted from road-specific sources (petroleum or alternative liquid fuels, hydrogen) to non-road-specific sources (grid electricity, home generated electricity/hydrogen from renewables, or NG combined heat/power/H2 home appliances), this problem will go from a small one to a large one.

As Andrey points out, increased yearly registration fees are one way. Making them variable by the weight class of the vehicle is already done, and can be stressed further. A mileage-based system is also possible, but I can foresee both practical obstacles as well as cultural ones: People have some expectation of privacy when it comes to car use, and might feel uncomfortable with (and object to) strict reporting of their mileage figures.

An option I would add to the above would be to vary the registration fee according to the zipcode or area where the car is registered. Cars registered to addresses in urban centers can be charged more, on account of their taking up more in-demand urban roadway space. Cars registered to rural areas pay somewhat less. The insurance industry already uses zip-codes for certain premium-setting purposes. People with more than one home might be able to cheat by registering their car in the less-costly locale. To some extent, increased inforcement can cut down on this. To some extent, we'll just have to live with the fact that a small number of people will continue to cheat.

Another option I would like to suggest is the increased application of tolls on major limited-access highways/freeways. Those are the most expensive roads to build and maintain, and the easiest to toll. EZ-Pass type transponder systems can virtually eliminate the practical burdens associated with toll collection. The newest toll-lanes in New Jersey can collect tolls as cars zip by at 55 MPH!

Under this plan, customers who want convenience can have their transponders associated with their credit cards or billing addresses. Those who want privacy should be able to buy pre-paid anonymous transponders with up-front cash. Out of town users can go to the few remaining cash lanes.

Zipcode based fees and increased highway tolling are two alternatives to add to the mix. The public might prefer these approaches or prefer an odometer-based one, as Andrey envisions, or a mix. I'd just like to come up with the maximum number of alternatives for us all to consider.

All this is apart from a scheme of externalities taxation, which could be applied across the energy sector. Pollution, cost of foreign entaglements, climate-change mitigation, and all sorts of things can be priced right into the cost of a barrel of oil or ton of coal. That might increase electricity costs in certain markets. It could also affect the price of hydrogen, if FCVs even become big, depending on where the hydrogen came from. But a revenue-neutral approach -- cutting the lower-bracket tax rates -- can mitigate the undesireable social impacts of that.

EV's are a disruptive technology, and there is no doubt that the oil companies, auto companies and government(s) are not anxious for change. Everyone wants to maintain a status quo they benefit from.

The threat to oil companies is pretty clear. In addition to potential lost profit, how do you capture a market for electricity that is produced by solar and wind in every backyard? And as someone pointed out, they depend on people to stop at fueling stations to buy other stuff -- that is where the profits of those operations are, not in the gasoline.

Auto companies would produce the EV's in a second if they would be profitable enough, but they have two challenges. 1) With fewer moving parts and simpler design, how can you maintain high prices per vehicle? Competitors can make them in their garages out of off the shelf parts and bodies supplied by many companies (A la Telsa?). 2) How do you downsize the manufacturing facities and personnel? Production of electric motors is not going to take the production capacity of V8 multi-valve, fuel injected, 6 speeed transmission vehicles. Our corporate and economic mindset is growth, not real downsizing (layoffs yes, but not less income). That is why IBM dragged its feet on MiniComputers and then PC's until the handwriting was on the wall. Car companies will do the same, but adjust when they feel the heat.

As for Government, they are always for the status quo. That is where their constituencies live. That includes oil and auto companies that fund political campaigns and pay corporate taxes, and employees who work for them. Changing the game is hard to imagine, much less embrace. In addition, what happens if we do shift to renewable energy and computer-box-on-wheel cars? Prices come down, costs come down, tax revenue comes down, and (God forbid) we have deflation? The bankers can't have that. We measure our well being in GDP, and the Fed has a 2% inflation target.

This change is frightening. But it is coming, and fast. Farmers are quickly figuring out that they can make as much money planing a wind turbine as they can growing crops, and they can grow crops too. That will bring overinvestment in renewable energy just as the dot.com boom did for internet and fiber optic companies. The electric providers then need a place to sell their product and what better than EV's? This won't happen overnight, but maybe over a decade. As Betty Davis said, "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night."

JM: if you check their sites. BP,Total and Shell are already moveing into the renewable energy sector, both in generation and development of technology. It's going to take decades for gasoline cars to go away and in the meantime these companies will be shifting with the times (unlike Exxon).

So many responses personalizing big business and government. But these are large, impersonal systems. They don't 'care,' they 'operate.' Personalizing them is like using an animist belief system to explain nature. While poetic, its power to improve comprehension and assist change is minimal. These systems don't 'fear' EVs, etc. they simply ignore them because they're not a part of them, e.g. of the oil/energy to new vehicle design process, etc. That in itself is enough.

Never underestimate the power of ignorance & it's ability to halt change for the better. At any level.

So: how will you fix this?

It will be fixed by their lower profits from high fuel consumption vehicle sales and competition from companies like Tesla. This is only brought about by high gas prices which I suspect are only going higher. Eventually climate change will be an influence as well but it will still take some time for the public to votes on this issue. That's my hunch anyway...

Interesting article and equally interesting discussion. I think you are all making valid points. I like the notion that a car with an electric motor could be cheaper to build and maintain. Maybe that allows for smaller companies to jump into the mix and put Ford and GM out of business.

Have there been any articles about plug-in hybrids that also utilize photovoltaics? Sure would be great to drive to work and let the car sit in the sun all day and get just enough of a charge to get home.

Ron,
I don't care if the big companies make money, as long as they provide value. I am a beleiver in the market system. Challenges from Tesla and the other EV startups will force change. It won't happen over night, but the power or profits (or losses) will get us there. Conspiracies don't hold up forever.

Neil,
My response to Ron applies to your comment as well. I am happy that Big Oil is investing in renewables. That just greases the wheels of progress, it does not stop them.

Interestingly, 'the system' in London is driving (no pun intended!) the EV market there. London has high driving fees for non-EV vehicles, but not for EVs. The consequence is that London is turning into the biggest EV car market in the world, and more companies are making cars for that market all the time.

The interesting thing about London is they didn't necessarily say EVs are the way, they are just making it really expensive to drive anything else.

LNG has 2.5 times the amount of energy compared to CNG at 350 bar, how about Liquid Hydrogen compared to Compressed Hydrogen.

Joep writes:

Where one business disappears , including the jobs, another new business will fill the gap and create new jobs. That is; when big oil is gone and the distribution centres and supporting infrastructure , you will have a boom in the industry and infrastructure that is necessary for supplying the new technology and everything that is related. You will have a shift in jobs, not a complete loss in jobs.

People spent the money on other things, though this was less apparent.  Ditto the effect from replacement of petroleum.  I am certain that one of the second-order effects of that will be fewer jobs in the military, as less money for terrorists combines with less importance of Middle East oil to make ideological groups and nations both find their local affairs more compelling.

He said that if you took all the cars parked at a smallish airport, it would take 5 nuclear reactors and enough water to supply a small city just to run them.

Ulf Bossel has long been staunchly anti-hydrogen, but he is a knowledgable scientist. I strongly doubt that he made a statement that is so grossly far from the mark and so easy to refute.

Five nuclear reactors represents about five gigawatts of power. A rough figure for energy consumption in EVs is 750 watt-hours per mile; the average car in the US racks up about 12,000 miles per year. That comes to 8000 kwh per vehicle. There are 84,000 hours in a year, so one EV in average use draws an average of 100 watts. (Obviously much more than that when it's running, but averaged over all the time it's parked, it's aout 100 watts.) So five nuclear power plants would support 50 million EVs.

Typical estimates for a hydrogen FC vehicle running on electrolytic H2 are that it is one third as efficient as a battery EV. So instead of 50 million EVs, our five nukes would support 17 million H2 FCVs. That's some "smallish airport". Let's see about the other part of the statement--water consumed.

It takes about 50 kWh to produce one kg of H2 by electrolysis. 5 GW will produce 100 tons of H2 per hour from 900 tons of water. There are 3,600 seconds in an hour, so we're looking at a quarter of a ton of water per second. That's a modest brook, three feet wide by one foot deep, flowing at the pace of a slow walk. Hmmm, a very small city.

Oops! I'm off by a factor of 10: 8760 hours in a year, not 84,000, so average power per EV is more like 1kW, not 100w. So 5 nukes supports 5 million EVs, not 50 million, or 1.7 million H2 FCVs, not 17 million. Still rather a large parking lot for a smallish airport.

Bossel may be right that we'll never see H2 FCVs, but if so, it will be because there are more economical alternatives, not because it's technically infeasible.

You're off by a factor of 3 on the energy consumption; EV's typically use around 200-300 WH/mile, not 750.

Figure 300 as a safety factor.  12,000 miles @ 300 Wh/mi is 3600 kWh/year, or an average of 411 watts.  Each gigawatt of powerplant would run 2.4 million electric cars.

That's a rather large city's worth.

An important thing to remember that alot of nitwits are totaly missing is the type 4 reactor produces more electricity then older types AND a huge amount of h2 all while using only the same amount of nuke fuel as the old designs. That is why everyone is so interested in them.

Show me a type 4 reactor in operation, then.

DME developments in CHina:
Since DME has an advantage of decomposition at lower temperature than methane and LPG, R&D for hydrogen source for fuel cell has been carried out.

If you would like to know more on the latest DME developments, join us at upcoming North Asia DME / Methanol conference in Beijing, 27-28 June 2007, St Regis Hotel. The conference covers key areas which include:

DME productivity can be much higher especially if
country energy policies makes an effort comparable to
that invested in increasing supply.
By:
National Development Reform Commission NDRC
Ministry of Energy for Mongolia

Production of DME/ Methanol through biomass
gasification could potentially be commercialized
By:
Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and
will be sharing their experience.

Advances in conversion technologies are readily
available and offer exciting potential of DME as a
chemical feedstock
By: Kogas, Lurgi and Haldor Topsoe

Available project finance supports the investments
that DME/ Methanol can play a large energy supply role
By: International Finance Corporation

For more information: www.iceorganiser.com