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