Green Car Congress: Ford Announces Hydrogen-Electric Plug-in Hybrid Drive and Airstream Concept

« GM Introduces E-Flex Electric Vehicle System; Chevrolet Volt the First Application | Main | Toyota Touts the Maximum Tundra; Pledges E85 Version in 2009 »

Ford Announces Hydrogen-Electric Plug-in Hybrid Drive and Airstream Concept

7 January 2007

The Ford Airstream Concept.

Ford has developed an electric-drive crossover concept car in conjunction with Airstream—the Ford Airstream Concept—that is powered by a hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid drivetrain—the HySeries Drive.

The HySeries drive in the AirStream Concept combines a lithium-ion battery pack with a compact fuel cell system as a range extender—the fuel cell’s sole function is to recharge the lithium-ion battery pack as needed.

Overview of the HySeries Chassis.

(This series-hybrid electric drive design approach is similar to that taken by GM with its E-Flex family and the Chevrolet Volt. Earlier post.)

The new fuel cell, supplied by Ford partner Ballard, operates in a steady state, allowing a reduction in the size, weight, cost and complexity of a conventional fuel cell system by more than 50%. This approach also promises to more than double the lifetime of the fuel cell stack, according to Ford.

The Ford Airstream Concept can travel 25 miles in battery mode—depleting the battery’s state of charge to about 40%—before the fuel cell begins operating to recharge the vehicle’s 336-volt lithium-ion battery pack.

With the hydrogen-powered fuel cell, the range increases another 280 miles for a total of 305 miles.

The Ford Airstream Concept can travel at speeds of up to 85 mph. An on-board charger (110/220 VAC) can refresh the battery pack when a standard home outlet is available

The concept uses 4.5 kg of hydrogen stored in a 350-bar hydrogen tank. The HySeries Drive delivers the combined city/highway equivalent fuel economy of 41 miles per gallon.

This powertrain is already on the road and driving in a Ford Edge prototype. Ford scientists and engineers created this vehicle with partial funding from the United States Department of Energy. The vehicle will be shown for the first time at the Washington, DC, Auto Show on Jan. 23.

January 7, 2007 in Fuel Cells, Hydrogen, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (183) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/7407002

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ford Announces Hydrogen-Electric Plug-in Hybrid Drive and Airstream Concept:

Comments

GM Volt sounds more practical and sustainable but I like the direction of the thought train.I think plug in partners,james woolsey,the governator and an ecclectic collection of groups have turned the U.S. auto industry in a positive direction.I signed the plug in petition asking U.S. automakers to produce plug in vehicles.
There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.Green and independent is taking hold.Saving the planet tomorrow is important to me but my attention is riveted to independence today so that my three children in uniform dont die defending energy security.For my reasons I have become an energy conservation zealot.You may have arrived at the same point for different reasons.I am hoping we use this rare common ground to advance our childrens future.Sign the petition,e-mail automakers and encourage plug ins.If we encourage an electric future we can work on greening the electric source.an achievable goal I believe.

Posted by: earl | Jan 7, 2007 6:56:14 AM

To Ford, where does the hydrogen come from?

If from natural gas, whats the point? Why not just burn natural gas in the car engine?

Ford does not seem to be quite getting it, does it?

Posted by: John Baldwin | Jan 7, 2007 7:19:36 AM

It is good to see that Ford is on the bandwagon to electric drive trains. It is growing proof that the US auto industry has seen the handwriting and it is renewable. The goals are to become self-supporting through sustainable energy policy. There are many paths to get us there - a serial fuel cell hybrid is one that Ford believes will fly. They do need to get better mileage for all the technology involved. H2 infrastructure will be expensive and competing against low cost all-electric.

What we hope for is independence from the need to fight over turf with resources. Of course to avoid simply moving the struggle to our own soil - we must lower consumption of fuels (CAFE!!), AND transition to sustainable resources.

Posted by: gr | Jan 7, 2007 7:25:52 AM

The GM series hybrid Volt seems more practical for now. In the future, fuel cells with liquid fuel reformers could happen.

Posted by: SJC | Jan 7, 2007 7:28:37 AM

Hi John Baldwin,

One advantage of this approach is the absense of NOX emissions from a fuel cell.

Posted by: donee | Jan 7, 2007 7:43:42 AM

Another benefit of hydrogen is that its future friendly. In the coming years companies are trying to generate hydrogen out of renewable power like Solar or wind.

Some scientists are even thinking to lay down a hydrogen grid just like electric grid, which will supply hydrogen to homes and keep the electric grid superconducting.
And many other things you can do with it.

Also, hydrogen has very high calorific value, meaning you can get very high amount of energy from the same quantity of hydrogen than conventional fuels.

And the cleanliness benefit.

Companies do a lot of research before making technology!

Not just ford but others are also going for fuel cells.

Posted by: Mridul Kashatria | Jan 7, 2007 8:39:13 AM

John Baldwin:
You SHOULD ask, where WILL the hydrogen come from?

"If from natural gas, whats the point? Why not just burn natural gas in the car engine?"
Because that will not move us toward a more sustainable hydrogen economy, it will just shift our maladaptive fossil fuel usage onto natural gas, instead of other hydrocarbon fuels.

"Ford does not seem to be quite getting it, does it?"

The same could be said about you.

Posted by: Bike Commuter Dude | Jan 7, 2007 10:11:35 AM

Likely ford doesnt have a genset handy right now to slap in place of the fuel cell for early applications.

Also note the two cars are not the same size.

Assuming ford can get its hands on a compact genset and find a safe place to put a 7 or so gallon fuel tank this concept car could be rather less concept more fact in just a few years.

Both companies are both working on conventionalas they call it mechanicalhybrids and these new direct eletric motor hybrids.

Have to assue its both a government project that sparked it AND the fact high power compact and cheap electric motors are showing up. These new motors are fully capable of replacing an engine and at the same time should also be replacing the transmission as well.

Posted by: wintermane | Jan 7, 2007 10:31:48 AM

Mridul, I must correct your mistake.

Hydrogen is not future friendly.

Generating onsite hydrogen from renewable energy sources makes no sense.

The energy required to electrolyse H2 from water, and compress it into a tank,(or cool it into liquid form) will always require more energy than can be regained through fuel cell.

It makes more energy to use renewable sources to charge super energy dense batteries.

As for the Airstream vs the Volt, the volt has the benefit of being able to run on cellulosic or algea based ethanol, or algea biodiesel.

The Airstream gets worse mileage equivalent, has a lower range, and will probably cost more due to the fuel cell stack.

I think GM has designed the better concept car. Now the question is: will they build it and when?

Posted by: Adam Galas | Jan 7, 2007 11:02:35 AM

OMFG Lame!!!

Posted by: DS | Jan 7, 2007 11:20:31 AM

Another nice concept car. Will it see production?

Is it possible that they are using the hydrogen/fuelcell the way it should be used, as a long term storage battery that can be recharged?

Posted by: mds | Jan 7, 2007 11:23:05 AM

Why GM calls this car a concept? What is so earthshattering did they put into it? Locomotives use this type of hybrid systems and don't call themselfes concept.
I hope all oilmen (half of reps congress) will be put to jail for making USA so much dependant on their energy. Everywhere its called monopoly, its just through institution of stock holding its really hard to track those who has conflict of interest by holding those shares. Bottom line is this kind of CONCEPT (lol) could be on roads for a few years by now and called plugin hybrid. Why Bush sends young boys to fight for energy when solution is on the surface is beyond me.

Posted by: Alex | Jan 7, 2007 11:31:20 AM

Ford's Airstream concept suffers needing to engineer around a large onboard gaseous hydrogen storage tank. Being a serial hybrid however, did give Ballard a much freer hand in making a practical fuel cell range extender.

If Ford was determined to use a fuel cell, a high temperature, self-reforming ceramic unit running methanol, DME or sulphur-free diesel would have made this a nearer term possibility, not to mention something they could sell to the Army. Of course, as has been pointed out here, you could run a compact diesel genset on those fuels at fractionally less efficiency and orders of magnitude less cost as well.

Posted by: Ron Fischer | Jan 7, 2007 2:39:07 PM

Whether SOFC or PEM, a fuel cell as an extender like the genset in the GM Volt is a good idea. The Chrysler NECAR had a PEM and reformed methanol on board. Reforming ethanol, gasoline or diesel is not all that difficult. The compressed hydrogen is a logistical Catch-22.

Posted by: SJC | Jan 7, 2007 4:07:25 PM

Hi John Baldwin
WTW (well to wheel efficiency) of CNG car on Mix European Driving cycle is around 15 % (the result of 88 % upstrem eff. multiplied 17% car eff. ) while the WTW of a CH2FCV (compressed H2 fuel cell vehicle) is 34% overall (the result of 63 % steam reforming and compression multiplied 55 % car eff, )!!!That means that starting with the same amount of Natural Gas (at the well) , the FC car will run for a double range!
Hi Winterman.
Unfortunately such a battery not exists, otherwise already now will have EV.
And how long is the recharging time? Keep in mind that the faster, the lower the eff.
And what happ if you want to drive from Milan to Rome in a day?

Posted by: Paolo | Jan 7, 2007 4:13:34 PM

It is good to see Ford and GM thinking about building something besides huge gas guzzeling SUV's. The only question I have is what have they got in the showroom today.

Nothing but big old gas hogs.

When these guys build a car that is better quality and higher mileage than my Prius, I will buy it.

For now I am not going to hold my breath waiting.

Posted by: KJD | Jan 7, 2007 4:16:22 PM

This shows how Ford, instead of showing their new fuel hogs, had to rush something to the auto show that they could "WoW" display now. It must be obvious to the more casual observer that this is far future, if even ever, and not near future. What is their true near future concept? Me thinks it will be an on-board small flex-fuel ICE genset in place of the H2 tank; just like GM.

Posted by: Lad | Jan 7, 2007 4:31:30 PM

When talking about h2 you have to use current generation eff numbers not the old ones. The newer h2 generatords are ALOT better then the old models. They makemore h2 and do it cheaper.

The result as has been popping up in stories here and there is that h2 stations in japan now LOWER peoples monthly bills by a large fraction.

In many parts of the world there is some form of fuel tha an h2 station could use to make h2 thats cheaper then conventional methods. As the tech progresses more of the world falls into that range.

Posted by: wintermane | Jan 7, 2007 6:44:13 PM

That's right, Wintermane. I agree with you 100%

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 7, 2007 8:30:40 PM

H2: great when made from the right source stock. I'd run my chemical rocket on it any day ;-) Gaseous storage: bleah.

Also, externally reforming liquid fuels above the complexity of an alcohol into triple 9 purity H2 is complex and expensive (especially onboard). GM & the refiners got to the point with their onboard reforming experiments where they were talking about ultra-refined "gasoline-like" fuels. These would be designed for clean partial oxidation reduction into syngas (mainly CO and H). But then there would still be carbon monoxide to scrub away, the bane of platinum-based anodes and cathodes...

SOFC is simple by comparison, but suffers from heat-cycling related failures. The literature discusses matching thermal expansion profiles of all layers in the designs (old tubular would seem particularly bad in this regard).

I'm still curious why DMFC isn't considered? Perhaps freezing problems with a hygroscopic fuel like methanol?

Posted by: Ron Fischer | Jan 7, 2007 9:47:09 PM

"Companies do a lot of research before making technology! Not just ford but others are also going for fuel cells."

I don't think that we can call Ford (or "others") the smartest companies around. Just because a whole bunch of people do something, doesn't mean they've planned for it. Companies CAN be stupid, and it's shown over the past decade (and will continue to show) as Toyota surpasses GM and Ford to become the largest car company on the planet.

So much for research..

Posted by: Adam | Jan 7, 2007 10:35:03 PM

John Baldwin -- You do ask the obvious question -- where does the hydrogen come from. I will comment on your 'answer' -- burning natural gas generates less CO2 than burning gas but only 3o% less. It still makes a very substantial contribution to greenhouse gasses compared to a fuel cell. It's the burning of the fuel that is dirty.

Fossil Fuel Emission Levels
- Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input
Carbon Dioxide Pollutant
Natural Gas--117,000
Oil--164,000
Coal--208,000

Source: EIA - Natural Gas Issues and Trends 1998

Posted by: Al Mayberry | Jan 7, 2007 10:45:37 PM

This is without a doubt the biggest excersice in futility I have seen lately. 25 miles electric (golf cart range) and 280 miles hydrogen (where is the hydrogen coming from?). Hydrogen is NOT an energy source, it is simply the most energy dense energy carrier (by mass, not by volume!). It takes a massive amount of energy to obtain hydrogen (unless you get it from fossil fuel which defeat the purpose). The entire planet needs sources of CLEAN energy not Hydrogen. With an electric dominant hybrid with 100 to 150 mile range, our society can drive over 80% of all miles travelled in electrical mode while the other 20% can be taken care by biofuels and fosil fuels as a last resort. This is simply a publicity stunt on the part of Ford

Posted by: Freddy | Jan 8, 2007 5:24:32 AM

Do fuel cells work efficiently enough in reverse? If not, what would it take to make a fuel cell that does?

What I'm getting at is why would you put hydrogen into your vehicle if there was a pluggin method that could transform mains power and water(or equivalent liquid) over a catalist back to hydrogen for storage in your car? Like a closed system similar to a lead acid battery.
Or is the process possible but not efficient enough or what am I missing? I know heat would be generated, but surely that can be overcome.

Posted by: NooGums | Jan 8, 2007 5:43:29 AM

Now Ford is on the right track. This is just the sort of powertrain I have been dreaming about, if the hydrogen generation can be economically produced and stored. Now if they only intoduced a Cobra shaped small two seat no frills commuter type of car, for under 15K, with this powertrain, my dreams will have come true. How about a governor or limitor to limit top speed to increase range? Congrats also to the US Dept of Energy

Posted by: Mark A | Jan 8, 2007 6:55:25 AM

There are reversible PEM fuel cells and they get cooler when generatiing H2. This is possible, but the generation of H2 is not that efficient. Batteries have a round trip efficiency (charge/discharge) of about 70%. A reversible PEM might be 60% efficient in creating H2 and 40% in using H2 to generate electricity, which gives you a round trip efficiency of .6 x .4 = 24%. Obviously 24% is less than 70%, so it would be better to use batteries.

Posted by: SJC | Jan 8, 2007 8:18:34 AM

Hi Paolo,

"WTW (well to wheel efficiency) of CNG car on Mix European Driving cycle is around 15 % (the result of 88 % upstrem eff. multiplied 17% car eff. ) while the WTW of a CH2FCV (compressed H2 fuel cell vehicle) is 34% overall (the result of 63 % steam reforming and compression multiplied 55 % car eff, )!!!That means that starting with the same amount of Natural Gas (at the well) , the FC car will run for a double range!"

This is definitely wrong. Not the 17% figure, it can be right, but the 55% one. This is an effciency a PEM fuel cell ALONE can barely reach in ideal conditions, so if you consider now motor efficiency, real driving conditions and transmission losses there is absolutely no way you can get a 55% car efficiency. And, to be fair you should compare efficencies between hybrid vehicles, since all sensible FC vehicles are and will be hybrid ones.

"Unfortunately such a battery not exists, otherwise already now will have EV.
And how long is the recharging time? Keep in mind that the faster, the lower the eff.
And what happ if you want to drive from Milan to Rome in a day?"

Charging time is not an issue any more for batteries, if you can get a powerful enough charger and the newest technologies (see Altairnano or Toshiba achievements for instance). Of course it is not commercially available now, but we're talking about future vehicles, right ? The only real issue remains energy density, which is still too low for very long trips without recharging.

Posted by: François | Jan 8, 2007 9:09:15 AM

Please gentlemen, do not pay any attention to any of the stories that comes out from Detroit! If any of these ridicoluos car company had any serious intent to come out with alternative non-ICE power-trains we already would have had a multitude of them in the market for years. GM had it...the EV1 and they simply trashed it! When we went [Nasa says] to the moon we were the first because we wanted show the world we were the superpower and the space race was a big thning for our country, but we are not willing to be the first in new ZEV technology because we are such a bunch of sissies and because the Saudis have us under their tight fist/control. We are a like sick puppies...or junkies for that matter...in this case addicted to [like the moron of a so-called president we have] oil!

The Japanese automakers are not better than ours...they are simply smarter and more forward thinking then their US counterparts. Europe is somewaht the same, however due to the nature of the European topography many small engine cars are sold by the million every year. Here we got the HUMMER! Can anybody see the difference?

We can build 2 maybe 3 perfectly nice little car using the material coming our of a disgusting looking Hummer and all other SUVs. Why is the US governement not interested in showing any sign that the US wants to be a t the forefront of alternative [transportation] technology? Ooops..but that is BRAZIL???? A "third world country" making major advancement in ethanol based powertrains? OH MY GOD...the US lost again this time against samba and bossanova hehehehe...

The whole TRUE point is that unless in this country ther's a major public revolt in terms of pushing Detroit and W-D.C for an immediate change in gasoline consumption and massive V8/12 crappy engines we are doomed!!! Unless, small new [EV] car companies such as Tesla, Phoenix, Pearmotors etc... are properly supported by the US people in emerging as the ONLY way to the future and freedome from oil!
Why are we [not me] buying crappy Detroit made cars that everyone knows they are sooooo badly manufactured and do not last that long...it's all in the marketing...how many truck owners actually roll in the mud or drive to mountain ranges etc...how many Hummers have you seen getting actually dirty of dirt road??? Me..NONE!!! But I see them every day going to the gym, the supermarket, the school, the air salon, the restaurant, the movie theater etc... do we really need that car to go to those places or the need of it is because someone [GM] told us so...so why can they do the same for EV, or HEV etc...

Whenever you buy a Detroit product you only help those guys, the R party and OPEC making so much money on you!
Also remember that the US alone burns 1/4 of the entire world gasoline/oil usage and that's not a thing I want to be proud of...

Point of this writing?

DON'T EVER BELIEVE IN WHAT DETROIT TELLS YOU...NEVER EVER!!!

Unfortunately or very fortunately, it will come a time when Detroit will not exist anymore as we know it and most likely GM will be a "silly" subsidiary of Toyota and Ford a subsidiary of TESLA ;o)

FS, Ph.D

Posted by: Fred | Jan 8, 2007 9:50:05 AM

If the W2W efficiency of ICE is 15% then the W2W for PEM fuel cells might be about 24%. This kind of efficiency can be done using diesel hybrids. Look at the PNGV program, where they got 70 mph in a 5 passenger sedan. There are many things we can do without fuel cells. In the future we can replace the series hybrid ICE with a fuel cell and do even better.

Posted by: SJC | Jan 8, 2007 9:53:18 AM

If part of the grid build out to clean energy includes algal oil production utilizing flu gases - there is the potential to convert these bioreactor systems to H2 production. Combined with high temp electrolysis there appears to be a path to renewable H2 production for applications that would run efficiently (Roger mentions trucking and aero).

H2 may emerge as a vertical segment fuel for heavy lifting until the cost of PEMs and infrastructure come down. In any case since it is so clean H2 remains an alt fuel in play.

Posted by: gr | Jan 8, 2007 11:21:46 AM

...and please read this:

http://jumpstartford.com/media_center/news_article/?uid=2230

Posted by: Fred | Jan 8, 2007 12:07:40 PM

Fred, honestly what kind of vehicle do you drive? Would be interesting to know. You are talking the talk, but are you walking the walk?

The US automakers have been producing vehicles that us, the US consumers have been wanting. With the relatively sudden rise in gas prices, us fickle consumers, have somewhat shifted our wants to smaller hybrid, different, green cars. The automakers are changing, but are unable to turn as quickly as us fickle consumers. Most new car ideas have a 2-3 year gestation period. Looks like they are doing nothing, when in fact their ideas are maturing and evolving. Witness Mitsubishi's MIEV program. Its probably in its third developing year. Very promising

The EV-1 was cancelled due to the low demand for it, plus the fact that it cost twice as much to make, as it was offered for. Thats good business sense to eliminate the losers in your businesses. Batteries just werent up to the task in 1996, or in 2007 for that matter. But progress is happening. That whole WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR debate is a Hollywood invention which is full of half thruths and made up facts. But if it has a positive impact on our future transportation needs, good. Otherwise its just fluff that should be easily overlooked.

Posted by: Mark A | Jan 8, 2007 12:37:20 PM

Very likely even 10 yearsafter h2 cars are mass produced people will be here saying its impossible and blah blah blah.

Sometimes the future does come.

Posted by: wintermane | Jan 8, 2007 1:38:57 PM

Well-to-wheel efficiency of PEM-FC cars only 24%? The latest Honda FCX is quoted by Honda at a whopping 60% tank-to-wheel efficiency. If one multiply that by the 70% efficiency at steam reformation of natural gas, the W2W efficiency should be 42%. If the heat of steam reformation of natural gas is recycled by steam turbine for electricity production, then the W2W efficiency would be higher.

But, yeah, Ford PHEV and FCV combination makes little sense at first, since if u already have the superclean and super efficient H2-capable vehicle, why need PHEV feature?

Oh, yeah, to prolong the life span of the Fuel cell, which tends to degrade quickly with each on-off cycle. Continous-use PEM FC can last 40,000 hrs, but intermittent use in a car application will bring this down to under 4,000 hrs. For short trips, just use it as a BEV, don't even bother to turn on the FC and wear it out.
Also, the PHEV feature allows significant reduction in the size of the FC stack, which would be a major reduction in vehicle cost.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 8, 2007 5:45:44 PM

Mark,

I actually drive a Toyota Rav 4 EV! How about you my friend? A Hummer perhaps?

And just to clear the facts, Mistibishi/Miev project is NOT an American based company/developemt...I thibk it is Japanese...what do you think?

So the Who Killed the EV was just a big farse to you...unfortunately that is exactly what's happening in this country, there are way too many people thining the way you do! The facts are that if Detroit was SERIOUSLY committed and promoting non-polluting vehicle we would probably not be talking abou this...what do you think?
Also it seems that you are a victim like many other millions of Americans of Detroit marketing and advertising giant that tells you what to drive and to shut-up about any other potential "good" propulsion.
Is GM plan to expand its alternative fuel/EV fleet? NOT!
But GM is VERY prepared to expand its line of disgusting HUMMERS...wanna buy one?

Get real Mark or get a job at GM or Ford if you do not work for them already!

FS PhD
PS: BTW, there's no point in even trying to explain the real happening facts to people like you...have you seen the WKTEC documentary at least or are you just talking out of your gas-pipe???

Posted by: Fred | Jan 8, 2007 6:35:41 PM

I saw this vehicle on the Auto Show video tonight. It is truly a very ugly creation. I have no idea what Ford was thinking when they did this, but they need to sober up..and quick!

Posted by: SJC | Jan 8, 2007 7:08:35 PM

Face it, if Ford and GM had wanted to get away from oil they could easily have lobbied the California Air Resources Board to have a PHEV mandate instead of a ZEV mandate... starting back in 1995.

I was working for Ford when those CARB regulations were written in 1990-91. Ford had "sustainer" engines for PHEV's running in test cells at the time; I saw Wankels and gas turbines. It would have been relatively easy to make a PHEV-20 at the time; the sustainer engine could have been much cleaner than average (given that it would not have had to deal with throttle transients and such), and quite a few miles could have been driven in ZEV mode. The technology was there in the Scientific Research Lab off of Oakwood in Dearborn, but nobody would let it get to showrooms.

What depresses me is that Ford is still stonewalling by sticking with the dead-end of hydrogen!

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 8, 2007 8:00:11 PM

SJC:

70% battery charge/discharge efficiency you refer to is for Ni-Mh batteries. Li batteries have in excess of 90% charge/discharge efficiency. This is one of the reasons why mainstream BEV and even PHEV vehicles require Li batteries. Another reasons for Ni-Mh being unsuitable for BEV and PHEV applications are: very high rate of high-temperature self-discharge, and pretty shallow cycle (no more then 50%) necessary to allow long battery life. For hybrids these limitations are not of such importance.

Engineer-Poet:

New automotive technology is universally key-components limited. In case of PHEV critical elements are battery, power electronics, and inexpensive traction motors. All of three key elements are only recently coming into age. EV1 disaster has its roots in strange decision of GM to rush into production vehicle with underdeveloped key elements. Same is happening with fuel cells, as I see it.

Posted by: Andrey | Jan 8, 2007 9:22:45 PM

Wait a minute, Eng-Poet, what is running in a test cell in a lab is quite remote from the practicality of the market place. Face it, as recently as 6 months ago, even Toyota declined any future plan for a PHEV, and even now, they only vaguely announce that it's an on-going research. Clinton Adm's PNGV program had PHEV in the plan, but it went to naught! Why? Bcuz gas was so cheap, who would want to pay twice the price of the same car in order to double the gas mileage but then has to pay two or three times higher cost per mile due to the high cost of the battery?

Battery has been, and still is, too expensive for its limited number of charging cycles. The cost-per-mile from cheap gas in the 90's was 2-3 times less the cost-per-mile from battery electricity. Lead-acid was out of the question due to its bulk and weight, leaving no room for payload. NiMH was barely available, still was very expensive back then, and then Cobasys decreed that thou shall not make any battery cell larger than 10Ah, thus keeping BEV and PHEV out of the market place, and started suing every NiMH makers...

Why don't you look at the facts instead of blaming Ford for makings appropriate business decisions? And NO, Hydrogen is not the dead-end!
Hydrogen is the future!!! Ford is making a smart decision with this FCV-PHEV hybrid! It will solve the high-cost of the fuel-cell stack, making squeaky clean and ultra-efficient personal transportation a reality in the very near future! (a 12 kw PEM FC stack to sustain the range for this vehicle will cost 1/10 the cost of a 120kw FC stack required for a typical FCV!)

This will fulfill CARB's ZEV mandate in a big way that will be practical for the public, in comparison to the BEV that suffers from short range and long charging time.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 8, 2007 9:47:43 PM

Okay, Roger, if hydrogen is the future you should be able to tell me how it can be supplied (and from what original energy source) and how the $1 trillion cost of a new hydrogen infrastructure can be paid for.

Electricity has the advantage that it's already got a production and distribution system, and enough off-peak capacity to handle all our transport demand. Batteries are more efficient than PEM fuel cells, and a fraction of the price. You've got to show that hydrogen has some advantage which outweighs this.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 9, 2007 6:08:25 AM

...and GM's Lutz is the usual moron thinking that no one will ever take Detroit down!

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070109/AUTO02/701090364

Posted by: Fred | Jan 9, 2007 12:10:35 PM

Eng-Poet, you've asked the right questions, and Ford Airstream concept has the answer for you. With 25-mi electricity range, you can charge twice daily and drive for 50 miles/day without need for a fill up.

However, if you need to make a long trip, then fill up the 4.5 kg H2 tank, and you can go over 300 miles. By the way, the 41 mpg number listed in this article is not correct. 4.5kg for 280 miles will give 62 mpg equivalence of gasoline! Where to get the H2? If this vehicle will go on sale, along with the Honda FCX and the GM Equinox, etc... then you should be able to find H2 at many local gas stations. The gas station simply provide a parking space for a H2 tanker truck with built-in H2 filling spigot. When the H2 tanker truck is empty, another one will replace it! H2 from wind is estimated at $3.00 /kg (gallon of gasoline equivalent) from wind, and $0.79 if from coal gasification, per a recent Popular Mechanic article. You can go twice as far from H2 as from gasoline for the same amount of energy, or at least equal in comparison to the Prius, or any BEV.

What trillion-dollar infrastructure cost with H2? You simply pay as you go. The infrastructure will be upgraded slowly over a decade as more and more H2 vehicle will come on board. Let's say if it'll cost $1000 USD of infrastructure expense per H2 vehicle, then one million vehicles will cost 1 billion dollars, and 100 million vehicles will cost 100 billion dollars! A lot less than the money spent on Iraq war so far! And this will buy us energy security, whereas what did the Iraq war bought us?

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 9, 2007 12:15:45 PM

However, if you need to make a long trip, then fill up the 4.5 kg H2 tank, and you can go over 300 miles.

At what pressure? How big is the tank, and what would it be made out of?

Where to get the H2? If this vehicle will go on sale, along with the Honda FCX and the GM Equinox, etc... then you should be able to find H2 at many local gas stations. The gas station simply provide a parking space for a H2 tanker truck with built-in H2 filling spigot.

Again, at what pressure? How much energy is required to fill the truck? What are the energetics of the whole H2 production and transport process?

H2 from wind is estimated at $3.00 /kg (gallon of gasoline equivalent) from wind, and $0.79 if from coal gasification, per a recent Popular Mechanic article.

Even stipulating these numbers, you still haven't dealt with the transport issue.

You can go twice as far from H2 as from gasoline for the same amount of energy, or at least equal in comparison to the Prius, or any BEV.

Lost me there, unless you're talking about a blimp: energy is energy.

Posted by: cidi | Jan 9, 2007 2:16:23 PM

I don't see trucking or piping H2 to a station. Perhaps reforming NG to H2 at the station, but then you have all those high pressure tanks driving around. True, fuel cells can be more efficient than ICEs, but they can reform liquid fuels onboard. Or run cars with ICEs and FCs with NG and make it SNG from biomass and sequestered coal.

Posted by: SJC | Jan 9, 2007 3:06:04 PM

Well, let's see, Roger:

The heat of combustion of hydrogen is 70600 cal/mol; this is a yield of 147.7 MJ/kg. If produced from electricity at 70% efficiency, it would require 58.6 kWh of electricity to make 1 kg of hydrogen. At even 5¢/kWh for wind electricity, you're talking $2.93/kg in electricity alone to make your H2. Then you have the energy cost of compression. I don't see this coming out at less than $5/kg from renewable resources.

PEM fuel cells top out at about 60% efficiency, for a throughput of 42% if you ignore compression losses (probably 35% with them included). To get one kWh of energy to your motor, you're going to need 2.8 kWh into your electrolysis plant. This really disadvantages renewable energy.

But as you note, it is not disadvantageous for coal. I'm almost certain that this was the intention behind hydrogen cars all along.

Lithium-ion batteries are about 95% efficient end to end; even lead-acid is about 70%. Replace your hydrogen FC with batteries and you cut your energy requirements by 50-60%.

Hydrogen loses the efficiency comparison, but how about infrastructure?

Roger says that it'll come from a hydrogen tanker. Above ground? Sounds like a nice flammable target for some terrorist with a rifle; this is not going to be acceptable. And the horribly low density of hydrogen means two more penalties:

you'll need many, many more tankers than for liquid fuels, and
the tankers will spend a huge amount of energy hauling their own dead weight around compared to the small mass of fuel they can carry.

Efficiency and cost take another two big hits right there.

I'm convinced that hydrogen cars are just a way for the oil companies to channel research money and people's energy into avenues which will cannot threaten their business; it's going to come way late if ever, and if it does come they're going to own that business too.

Something I noticed is that all the discussions of the Chevy Volt are being trolled heavily by people with nicks I've never seen before. XOM astroturfers trying to nip another threat in the bud? That would make sense, because electricity is something that the oil companies do not control and never will.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 9, 2007 5:26:46 PM

Eng-Poet,
Please kindly research the net or whatever sources to find out what is the highest efficiency of H2 generation vs. the highest efficiency of electricity generation, and then compute it from source-to-wheel efficiency for both H2 and electricity, as I've posted here many times before, and you'll see for yourself that overall efficiency for H2V and BEV will be comparable, within the same ballpark.

Ha Ha ha... H2 tanker target for terrorist with a rifle? Ha ha ha!
Please be informed that a H2 tanker with Kevlar fibers re-enforcement to withstand 8000-psi pressure would be just as thick as any vehicular armor and can easily withstand even a rifle round. Now, can you say the same for a much thinner steel-walled gasoline tanker? The rifle round would go right thru it! Ha ha ha! I got you there! Gasoline tankers have been terrorists' target in Iraq, with devastating consequences! Now, must we stop driving our [gasoline] cars because gasoline tanker is highly vulnerable?

Do this thought experiment: pay for $20 worth of gasoline at the pump, and set the nozzle open so that the fuel will be spilled all over the gas station. Now, move away and throw in a Molotov cocktail bottle, and what have we got? An inferno of fire and explosion, that may even engulf a whole neighborhood block due to more ruptured fuel lines spilling out the fuel, and all the fuels from all the parked cars...

Now, try this with a H2 fueling station, and what have we got? The H2 would immediately rise skyward like a homesick angel, and nothing will be left behind to engulf you. H2 gas is so light that it would float up very fast before it can even accumulate in dangerous concentration. There have been studies done comparing a ruptured gasoline tank and a H2 tank. Concrete results, not speculations, have shown that H2 tank rupture would be much safer. The flame would shoot skyward well above the leak area, but would not engulf the whole car nor would it burn the occupants like a gasoline fire would.

Many more tankers of H2 would be needed than would liquid fuel? H2 tanker is only the initial step when there are few H2 vehicles around. With more H2 vehicles, direct pipelines connecting local H2 producing plants to gas stations will be set up to transport H2 more economically. Intra-city H2 transportation by tankers within 15-mile radius would consume but 1-2% of energy within the H2. Electrical transmission suffers from 8% loss.

The whole world is preparing for the H2 economy. Almost every auto mfg's are planning H2-capable vehicles. When will you see the advantages of H2 as transportation fuel?

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 9, 2007 8:06:32 PM

The whole world is preparing for the H2 economy. Almost every auto mfg's are planning H2-capable vehicles. When will you see the advantages of H2 as transportation fuel?

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 9, 2007 8:29:47 PM

The density of liquid hydrogen is about 0.07; a gallon-equivalent takes about 14 liters of volume, 3.7 times as much as gasoline. You are going to need about 4 times as many gallons of tankage to serve the same needs.

Gas is probably worse. I don't have figures for the density of H2 at 8000 psi, but the DoE's benchmark for practicality of a hydrogen storage system is 6.5% by weight. If you can hit that, a 60,000 lb trailer would carry a whole 3900 lbs (about 1750 kg) of hydrogen. By comparison, 7000 gallons of gasoline only weighs about 43000 pounds and doesn't require as much material to hold it; you would again need about 4x as many tanker-loads of hydrogen as gasoline to serve the same demand. That's if you can hit 6.5 wt%.... falling short requires a lot more.

Shipping hydrogen by tanker is a non-starter. We'd be better off with ethanol. And some auto company projects are outright jokes; what else would you call a BMW V-12 which produces a mere 260 horsepower on hydrogen?

I notice that you have stopped talking about hydrogen production, probably because you cannot defend your position if you do. Well, I'll tell you what would change my mind about it: if we got a cheap artificial photosynthesis system which produced hydrogen, I'd look for the best way to use it. But cramming other energy sources into the Procrustean bed of the "hydrogen economy" is narrow-minded to the point of intellectual blindness.

We already have the basis of an electron economy, and electricity is already delivered to far more places than would ever allow gasoline. It has none of the drawbacks of hydrogen. It's time to go with it.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 9, 2007 9:48:22 PM

cidi,

Your questions should be addressed to the designer of the Ford Airstream concept. But I'll try:

4.5kg of H2 at 350-bar tank (5000psi). Now you figure out the volume of the fuel tank as a homework assignment. The tanker can be filled with 8000 psi of pressure. The energetic of H2 compression is simple: isothermal compression in 4-stage compressor with 4-stage intercooling. Energy recuperation of compressed H2 in the vehicle using waste heat from the engine or FC to approximate or exceed the efficiency of isothermal expansion at ambient temperature.

You can go twice as far for the same amount of energy when using the Ford Airstream Concept in the FC mode as compared to an equivalent non-HEV gasoline vehicle. So, for H2 priced at $3.00/kg (equivalent to 1 gal of gasoline), you would pay a lot less for fuel using the Ford Airstream than you would now. Now, isn't that exciting already?

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 9, 2007 9:51:36 PM

Eng-Poet,

Yes, Hydrogen production is the key to the viability of the H2 economy. H2 can be produced very simply, cheaply and efficiently from waste biomass (corn stover or corn stalk) via gasification, unlike the difficulty of cellulosic ethanol production. This means that H2 can be produced very near the point of consumption, due to its simplicity of production. Thus, you don't transport the H2 over long distance. You transport the energy-dense biomass via trains or trucks or ships as ready feedstock for gasification into H2 at near the point of consumption. Ditto for coal energy. If you would calculate the souce-to-wheel efficiency of H2V vs BEV from waste biomass or coal, H2V would fare quite well.

Now, ethanol can't be transported via pipeline due to its corrosive potential, and cellulosic ethanol is too complex and too expensive to produce anywhere, thus making the argument stronger for H2 from waste biomass vs cellulosic ethanol.

Now, you can't go wrong with BEV or PHEV...if and when nanolithium battery will be sold at reasonable cost and in large quantity. But, with H2-ICE-HEV in compressed tank as storage, you have the technology for all this TODAY!
Energy security, much cleaner city air quality, no more oil spills, AND the most potent chance to fight global warming...Go with H2V today, or with BEV in the near future!

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 9, 2007 10:09:37 PM

4.5kg of H2 at 350-bar tank (5000psi)... The tanker can be filled with 8000 psi of pressure. The energetic of H2 compression is simple: isothermal compression in 4-stage compressor with 4-stage intercooling. Energy recuperation of compressed H2 in the vehicle using waste heat from the engine or FC to approximate or exceed the efficiency of isothermal expansion at ambient temperature.

Here are the issues I have:

Containing any substantial amount of anything at 5000 psi is not trivial, 8000 psi even more so. Make it out of something cheap, like metal, and it will be extraordinarily heavy and subject to embrittlement. Make it out of something fancy, like carbon fiber, and it will only be very heavy and extraordinarily expensive. Either way, you'll be carrying more container than fuel.

Isothermal compression is dissipative, and compressing to 1000s of psi will dump a lot of heat into the environment. Obviously you won't get that energy back in expansion.

You can go twice as far for the same amount of energy when using the Ford Airstream Concept in the FC mode as compared to an equivalent non-HEV gasoline vehicle...

That makes more sense. But a diesel HEV is very nearly as efficient as a FC EV without the H2 production and transport issues. The former has a well-established infrastructure and a current price premium of $7K-8K. The latter does not have infrastructure and a current price premium of $800K.

Posted by: cidi | Jan 10, 2007 2:12:51 PM

Gasify biomass to SNG, pump it to stations via existing NG pipelines and put it in bifuel cars as CNG. Burn it in ICEs or onboard reform to H2 for fuel cells. Much easier to carry CNG than H2 and it comes by pipes that we already have.

Posted by: SJC | Jan 10, 2007 2:45:21 PM

All right, Roger, you think biomass is the answer to making hydrogen?

The Billion-Ton Vision came up with 1.3 billion tons of available biomass (if crop yields increase and some are bred for greater stalk/leaf growth). 1.3 billion tons at 45% carbon by weight is 585 million tons of carbon. If you can get 1.5 moles of hydrogen out of a mole of carbon, that 585 million tons is divided by 8; call it 73 million tons of hydrogen.

73 million tons is 66.2 billion kilograms, the equivalent of about 66 billion gallons of gasoline. The US consumes 140 billion gallons of gasoline each year, and another 60 billion gallons or so of "distillate" (diesel, heating oil and whatnot). Your scheme won't even cover a third of that.

Mine will cover it all, and replace a billion tons/year of coal and a quarter of US natural gas consumption. If you think you can beat that, you are going to have to sharpen your pencil and (horror of horrors!) replace your illusions with learning.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 10, 2007 5:20:59 PM

Cidi, SJC,

The Ford Airstream can further streamline (no pun intented) the H2 distribution problem. If charged at home daily for ~25 mi battery range, the vehicle can run 600-900 miles before needing a fillup. A sprawling city of 1 million people with a radius of 10 miles would only need one H2 gasification plant located centrally with filling station built in to it. Driving 10 miles for a one-way distance for a monthly H2 fillup is no inconvenience at all. The H2 fillup trip can be grouped with shopping or other activities in the central part of town. This will eliminate any cost or efficiency losses associated with building a H2 distributing infrastructure. Larger city can have more than one H2 gasification plant. H2 produced in a gasification plant can be stored in large tanks underground, whereby the geostatic pressure of the ground help reduce the cost of the storage vessels. The heat released from gasification and H2 compression can be used to produce electricity via Sterling engines in a small station, or steam turbines in larger H2 plant, thus increase energy efficiency by a large margin.

Isothermal compression followed by isothermal expansion via expanders can recup most of the energy used in compression process except the friction loss inherent in the compressor or expander. This loss can be much less than the loss in electrical transmission from power plant to home socket.

Diesel fuel, if synthesized from waste biomass or coal, would be a lot more expensive and a lot less efficient than renewable H2. You'll need to gasify the feedstock to produce syngas, then use F-T synthesis with many steps to produce liquid hydrocarbon, and then you'll have to refine this hydrocarbon soup into the product that you'll need. With H2, you can do it much simpler, cheaper and in far fewer steps.
Furthermore, diesel exhaust is known to be polluting and harmful to health. Diesel engines designed to meet stringent emission standard need expensive exhaust treatment. H2-ICE engines can be simpler. No fuel pump, no HC, no CO, no PM trap and far less NOx to worry about.

With the FC-PHEV like the Ford Airstream, no expensive H2 infrastructure will be needed, and the battery reduces the size of the FC stack to 1/8-1/10 that of a FCV, while making it more durable due to far fewer on-off cycles. Thus, the $84,000 USD projected price of the Honda FCX in 2018 can be reduced down to $30,000 USD in this practical Ford approach, once the battery and FC are mass produced. The 800,000K that you have in mind is for concept FCV's built in a handful number with hand-made PEM fuelcell stack, lacking the production efficiency of automation. Honda President has predicted a 10-fold reduction in the price of the FCX in mass production. I have respect for Honda in their ability to deliver their promises. Exciting stuff, ain't it? :)

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 10, 2007 9:14:43 PM

If you've got $30,000 to spend on a powerplant, you can buy today's Li-ion cells and get 250 miles or so of range in a smaller car. Note that this is today's retail price! Hydrogen fuel cells can't compete without huge subsidies.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 10, 2007 9:32:58 PM

Eng-Poet,

Your idea of removing carbon from the air via plants and store it as charcoal in the ground is a great idea! Brilliant! But, a lot of H2 and electricity co-generation can be produced during the process of charcoal production. Enough of H2 and electricity to run a lot of FC-PHEV like the Ford Airstream!

WRT the 66 billion kgs of H2 powering FC-PHEV's or FC-HEV's having over twice the fuel efficiency of a typical non-HEV gasoline vehicle, this number can certainly replace the 140 billion gallons of gasoline used today.

More H2 can come from wind or solar energy (high-temp electrolysis). In fact, only 0.05% of desert areas in the world can supply all world-wide electricity if produced with 30% efficiency typical of solar thermal or concentrated solar PV. Transmitting this electricity via HVDC lines will incur only 3% loss every 625 miles. The entire continental USA or Europe can receive desert solar electricity at under 10% transmission loss. Thermal energy storage via molten salt can allow electricity production for 6-8 hours after sun down. Surplus solar or wind electricity can be used to produce H2 efficiently via high-temp electrolysis when coupled with concentrated solar heat or waste heat from power generating plants locally near the point of consumption.

With more desert solar electricity coming on board to relieve waste biomass energy source, more of it can be turned into charcoal for carbon sequestration in order to reverse global warming, as well as serving as stragetic energy storage for thousands of years. (ie. nuclear winter wherein no sun for a long time!) Brilliant idea than can really reverse global warming!

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 10, 2007 9:38:39 PM

Your problem, Roger, is that you're wedded to the idea of some kind of chemical fuel and you think hydrogen is just the cat's pajamas. Sure, a system such as the one I proposed could be tuned to recycle all its carbon and only emit hydrogen and oxygen. The problem is that hydrogen is lossy to transport, heavy to store and very expensive to use at high efficiency; the money required to do that would be better used to buy more batteries (so that the fuel cells and whatnot can be stationary SOFC's or MCFC's) and a little liquid biofuel for the remaining backup needs.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 10, 2007 10:22:39 PM

Ah, Eng-Poet, just keep an open mind. H2 technologies are being improved and refined at a rapid pace. I've just discussed above a way to avoid having to transport or to store any large amount of H2. You can see that Ford is also working on this. H2-ICE-HEV is a potentially affordable but very highly efficient use of H2. Ford and BMW are working on direct-injection H2-ICE, among others.

The low energy density of H2 is a blessing in disguise. It forces auto mfg's to make vehicles extremely fuel-efficient no matter how cheap the price of H2 will be. Why? H2-fuel-efficiency is the only way to ensure that the vehicle will have sufficient range to satisfy public demand. No fuel tax, no CAFE, no gas-guzzler tax, no carbon tax etc...need apply here. The public will end up paying a lot less for fuel if H2 or battery electric are used, due to the low energy density of both energy media. Proposing liquid fuels with high energy density for FC or ICE, and you will have destroy the motive for extreme vehicular energy efficiency. Once the fuel price drop due to efficiency of production, there goes energy conservation. Monstrous SUV's will again reign supreme!

Vehicular battery is most practical in smaller size and capacity, just enough for a HEV, or at most, a PHEV battery capacity of half a day's worth of commuting, because it can be charged twice. Larger battery pack is impractical due to the inherent cost, weight, bulk, and limited world's reserve of key materials such as nickel, lithium, lanthanum, cobalt, etc...

The world would be better served if you would spend more time refining and selling your carbon sequestration idea to the world instead of wasting time disproving the efficiency and feasibility of H2 as transportation fuel. Your idea has a real chance of reversing global warming that has not been publically considered nor debated before.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 10, 2007 11:10:26 PM

The vehicles which have the most room to spare for bulky H2 or CNG tanks aren't small, efficient cars. They are the big SUV's and pickups, which can stick them around the frame rails and in other places where they're hardly noticed.

You ought to check yourself to see what else you've got backwards.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 11, 2007 4:07:08 PM

Eng-Poet,

Honda FCX's, both generations, are pretty compact to me. The GM Equinox and Ford Airstream don't look that big. Certainly a lot smaller than Ford Expedition or Chevy Surburban, or Dodge Ram full cab!

But, look at the wonderful mpg numbers that all these H2-vehicles posted. Won't you get even just a little excited about these numbers? :)

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 11, 2007 8:13:18 PM

Roger, (and others)
I am excited about all of these Hydrogen FCV's being developed. I have read an awful lot of negativity regarding the subject of Hydrogen and how "it'll never work". I think we have to think more "future minded" on that topic. There is too much "Now" thinking regarding this. I look at the Cell phone as an example. The technology for Cell phones has been in existance for decades, however there was no infrastructure. Then a few manufacturers started making some big, cumbersome models for the super-rich, and making a small infrastructure available in places such as NYC and LA, (remember Gordon Gecko of the movie Wall Street?). Slowly they caught on. The price came down. The technology improved. The infrastructure grew and is still growing. Now, some of us probably have elementary kids with these things. I can envision a Hydrogen world blooming in a very similar fashion. Now, I'm sure there will be hundreds of posts saying "that's an apples to oranges comparison", and "the cell phone infrastructure will be far cheaper than a Hydrogen infrastructure". The Hydrogen infrastructure will be expensive---no question. But once it's here, it's here. And we'd have a greener world for it too. Let's see the forest through the trees on this one.

Ponder this...wonder if the shoe was on the other foot. Wonder if the Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle was invented first, and we all grew up in a world where the Hydrogen infrastructure was in place. Everybody drives Hydrogen cars. Then, all of sudden, one day, somebody invented this elaborate, problematic, complex thing called the internal combustion engine that ran on a substance called oil that had to be mined from the ground. There is no infrastructure for distributing this substance. When you burn it, it smells bad. It's messy. The motor itself is complex, and less efficient then our FCV's. There are far more moving parts with these new motors...you get the point? I think in such a world, a gasoline powered ICE would be an extremely tough sell, wouldn't most of you agree? Especially since you would already have an arguably better and cleaner system already in place.

I am hopeful for a Hydrogen world, or BEV world too if that would come about. I think either method or both would help to clean up the mess we have made as an irresponsible steward of the environment God has given us. I'll get off my soap box now, but that's my 3 cents.

Posted by: Schmeltz | Jan 12, 2007 6:09:39 AM

People balk at the $50k per pump that it takes to dispense E85 in fueling stations. How much would it cost to compress and dispense hydrogen and who is going to pay for it, let alone transport it? It is usually more realistic to see how we can gradually transition from what we have to where we want to be that to hope for some "moon shot" home run hit that will change everything in a very short time.

Posted by: SJC | Jan 12, 2007 8:51:49 AM

Is the fuel cell car a pipe dream? Go to WWW.ecotality.com.

Posted by: Ray Morse | Jan 12, 2007 11:49:46 AM

Why should I get excited over hydrogen anything, Roger, when the capital cost to run it on e.g. wind power (or my own solar panels) makes it a hobby for millionaires only? A PHEV Prius or Chevy Volt lets me play with it practically out of the box. On top of this, I get a lot more miles per kWh with the PHEV than anything which uses hydrogen.

Why should I pay more to get less? Why should I be enthusiastic about something that's grounds for deep cynicism?

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 12, 2007 4:31:27 PM

Clarification: The Chevy Volt may run on E85 or even E100, so it may be feasible for users to make their own fuel from e.g. fruit waste. It'll also run on plain gasoline from any pump (just a lot less of it). The Ford fuel-cell concept has no fueling infrastructure in most of the country, and probably never will.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 12, 2007 4:34:09 PM

Thanks, Schmeltz, for sharing the insightful "what if..." perspective. The reason that we are stuck with the "smelly" and polluting petroleum fuel for over a century is that we haven't got the technologies to handle H2 production and utilization until recently.

With increasing advancements in the field of H2 production and utilization, the day will come when we will have to ask ourselves: "What are we waiting for? Let's move on to H2 as a squeaky-clean fuel that is renewable from any primary energy sources, be it biomass, coal, solar, wind, hydrostatic, or nuclear...etc." Once the adaptation to H2 will be made, there will never be a need for another switch-over again to any other energy infrastructure. Of course, battery-electric energy would best co-exist with, in order to complement, any new energy infrastructures in the future.

By contrast, if ethanol E85 or methanol M85 is used as gasoline replacement instead, for example, we will still need new FFV's or dedicated E85-vehicles, new pumps, new storage vessels, and new transportation vessels, as ethanol cannot be transported over pipelines, being corrosive as it is. FFV usage is a stop-gap measure only, as FFV's cannot maximize the fuel economy gain from gasoline as a dedicated E-85 vehicle can offer. Grain ethanol offers no energy saving over fossil fuel, and cellulosic ethanol technology is nowhere developed enough even to be seriously considered.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 12, 2007 4:47:24 PM

"Why should I pay more to get less?"

You can pay $3.00 for a kg of H2 that will give you a ~62 mi ride in the Ford Airstream, or $2.25 for a gallon of gasoline that will give you a~32 mile ride in a typical gasoline vehicle of similar size. The price of H2 will like go down when more and more solar, wind or biomass energy will be harnessed and turned into H2 at less and less production cost. I suppose the same can be said for battery electricity.

The main issue here is not choosing whether H2 or battery electricity, as both will complement each other and should co-exist, even in the same vehicle. The main issue here is to move away from petroleum dependency while reducing global warming at the same time.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 12, 2007 11:32:13 PM

Show me where I can get a kg of hydrogen from any renewable source for less than $5. Have you forgotten where, in this comment, I showed that the energy cost alone of a kg of H2 from wind power is about $3... if you can get electricity for only 5¢/kWh?

The "hydrogen will save us" mentality is dangerously disconnected from reality (as is the "ethanol will save us" mentality). The proof is in the refusal to face up to contrary facts.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 14, 2007 8:08:05 AM

What about just carrying around a tank of water and using technology that has been around for more than 100 years to split it into hydrogen and oxygen just before or while it is burnt in the engine?

Forget batteries that wear out and packaged hydrogen that is going to be sold to you to put in the car and produce a low 41 mpg when you can make it practically for free and drive at 75-300 mpg on enviro-friendly technology that has been in existence for a century.

Anyone who is willing to believe it does not work would not have thought you could tap into atomic energy or that you could even make a car. Doubters and pessimists are always willing to kill something before it is proven and takes root.

This is not making energy, it is using energy that already exists in nature but must to be properly accessed.

Hydrogen production or other uses of energy from water are more than the basic inefficient electrolysis that the closed-minded professional theorists say do not work for transportation while others succeed in producing power from the hydrogen and oxygen in water.

Water energy production involves a combination of the advanced techniques such as using high volts/low amps along with a pulsed frequency and a electric current generator, and there are also simple chemical reactions and electrolyte reactions to produce hydrogen.

What about using modified currents and plasma spark plugs for water explosion? This method has reportedly been used by an inquisitive mechanic to power his car at 300 mpg on water.

The information is out there and anyone can try it, but woe be to the one who makes a product from it. It seems evident from past history that you will have trouble with the oil men if you try to make a working vehicle or device and sell it for public use. Years ago, my elderly chemist friend said he knew a man that had invented a vehicle that ran on water, but that he was assasinated before he could successfuly market it.

This will not be suppressed forever and through modern communications, eventually the whole world will know it can be done and someone in a truly free society will successfuly deliver it to the public.

Posted by: Think Through | Jan 14, 2007 10:42:33 AM

Think,

You need to go back and take some physics classes.

Posted by: SJC | Jan 15, 2007 8:11:59 AM

The oxymoronically-pseudonymmed "Think Through" rails about "closed-minded professional theorists", when the theory has been constrained by several centuries of data saying that energy is conserved. Further, anyone able to prove that energy is not conserved would win a Nobel prize (as the discoverers of radioactivity did in 1903). Finally, energy-poor nations like Japan and Israel would not only give a legitimate discoverer asylum, they'd probably make them fabulously wealthy.

The use of the pseudonym "Think Through" by someone pushing such a pathetically shallow conspiracy theory is, to say the least, ironic.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 15, 2007 4:25:49 PM

Think Through, There is no actual energy in water (unless it's gravitational potential or kinetic). Any scheme you have heard of that had a demonstration probably involved a metallic substance (magnesium etc.) which, when oxidized by the oxygen in water releases the hydrogen (itself only a carrier) which can be burned or fed through a fuel cell. Con artists often demonstrate "motors running on water" by putting powdered metal into the tank first.

Posted by: Neil | Jan 15, 2007 4:38:14 PM

You have to like the sound of any plug-in hybrid from US Ford, but a bit of congruence would really help their case, as well as the bottom line. People ask where's the hydrogen coming from - well for a start its a perfect storage by-product and energy carrier for wind power [electrolysis of water], the fastest growing energy source in the world. So when is some sinking car company going to get it that mass-manufacture of wind turbines is also their opportunity? They're closing US car factories when wind turbines are essentially just gearboxes, and they are virtually tooled up for a mass-production line. With the money they waste on another set of failed muscle cars, they could have a perfect partnership with profitable knowledge-rich manufacturers like Vestas, Gamesa or REPower. And you have to ask- why dont they spare us the concept cars and import their own fuel-efficient European Ford cars -many get 40-50mpg already with petrol or common rail diesel engines! This is a company whose left hand doesnt know what the right is doing.

Posted by: John Stanley | Jan 15, 2007 11:15:09 PM

Eng-Poet,

High-temp electrolysis of water has twice the electrical energy efficiency of room-temp electrolysis. Using the waste heat from a gas turbine power plant, or low-cost concentrated solar heat, and the energy cost of a kg of H2 will be ~$1.50-$2.00 using whole-sale cost of wind electricity at $0.05/kwh. Adding amortization cost of electrolytic plant, surcharges, tax, and profit, and you can sell H2 at ~$3.00/kg. From coal gasification, H2 can cost as low as $1.00/kg.

Think through,

Anyone who claims to be able to run a car solely on the energy of water is either deranged or a con-artist. Water is the end product of H2 combustion with O2, after the energy is already released as heat of combustion. It takes a lot of energy to split water back into H2 and O2 again, no matter what techniques used to achieve this. Heat energy alone can do it, but it would take very high heat above 2500 degrees C to split water. At high heat of 800 degrees C, water can be split using half as much electrical voltage as at room temp, because the heat supply the other half of the energy required. There is no free lunch!

Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 16, 2007 6:41:59 PM

FS Phd.

So you consume fossil fuels!? You running sniveling dog and betrayer of people power. Traitor to your doctorate in marxsh*it economics; the only true economic science, that will be proven right in one of the next hundred or so so countries to try it.

You should be using natural people power, fully recyclable.

And a means to keep all the masses employed while you do away with all unnatural conspiracy conglomerations of running dog capitalist pigs called stock companies.

The correct dialectical method, to meet your transportation needs, should be supplied by fully natural, fully organic, fully recyclable, Sedan Chairs for the useless proletariat masses to lift up and carry you around on.

Thank You.

FS Ph.D
Full of Sh*t Piled Higher and Deeper

Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jan 19, 2007 11:27:09 AM

I like what Phoenix Motors is doing. They're using Altairnano Technologies lithium ion batteries in trucks and SUVs. The batteries are good for 12 years and 250,000 miles. They recharge 95% in less than 10 minutes. The trucks get 125 miles per charge. Altair has done a lot with their batteries: extended the explosive potential to 550 degrees, and done work on the terminals which chemically coats over during charge and discharge, impeding the battery's efficiency. If I can go 125 miles in an SUV, get a battery to recharge in less than 10 minutes, it's like stopping for gas and going to the bathroom.

Posted by: Don Hayes | Feb 5, 2007 5:21:50 PM

I think GM has no choice but to build and market the Volt.
It would be really nice if it held its value as does the vehicle I now happen to own and am really happy with.
It is 2 years old and retained 90 percent of its value.
I have $5000 in equity in it after 2 years of payments.
Also, I would not mind if the Lithium Ion Nano-phosphate battery only lasted 6 years, since I would not be burning 1,000 dollars worth of gasoline a year. If that traction battery had a 7 year warranty and was pro-rated only after the first 4 years, I'd bet that manufacturing costs would drastically come down to the point where the cost of the battery by then would not at all be a major concern as it might be at this time.
Dan Petit.

Posted by: Dan Petit | Feb 11, 2007 11:12:58 AM

I may be a bit off topic but Detroit will never get it. They still cling to the concept that a huge heavy vehicle is the platform for everyones choice of transportation. Saturn, in 2000, introduced a car (the Saturn 2000SC) with polymer fenders, door skin, and trunk lid that weighed in at 2400 lbs. With it's coventional gas engine it got 40 mpg (I have one so I can verify the figures as absolute fact). I can drive 1047 miles on 26-1/2 gallons of gasoline.
Weight is the enemy of economy. Hydrogen technology is too far away. What about Bio-diesel, ethanol or Bio-butenol? It can all be home grown, here in the USA. Farmers could be put to work freeing us from the stranglehold of imported oil. And then we must ask why Saturn killed the electric car. It's all about corporate greed and contempt for the average US citizen.

Antoni

Posted by: Antoni Scott | Feb 14, 2007 5:42:08 AM

Hydrogen power may have its applications but powering cars with hydrogen fuel cells is like hammering a nail with the following gizmo.

Connect a hammer to a large mechanical arm and connect the arm to steel spike in such a way that when you hit the steel spike with a sledge hammer the mechanical arm swings the hammer to strike the nail. Now position the hammer and mechanical arm apparatus so that it is ready to strike the nail you wish to drive in. Now grap your 20 lbs sledge hammer and move over to where the steel spike is connectted to the other end of the mechanical arm. Now strike the steel spike repeatedly forcing the mechanical arm to swing the hammer repeatedly until the nail is completely driven in.

Hydrogen is created by a process that requires energy. More energy than if you just charged your batteries with the electric from the grid or renewable energy like solar panels. The end result of the hydrogen fuel cell cycle for vehicles is taking electric to create hydrogen to create electric. Add to this the energy needed to compress or store the hydrogen in a small enough container to be incorporated in a vehicle and the inefficiency increases. Add to that the fact that a hydrogen fuel cell that is used to charge batteries is an inefficient process and just like the gizmo above you have gone the long way to accomplish a simple task--recharge batteries.

The push behind fuel cells is the false premise that battery powered electric vehicles do not have sufficient range, sufficient power or speed, and cannot be recharged quickly.

For those of you who may not believe that viable electric cars ever existed, or that the technology is simply not available to eliminate oil dependency today I offer the following two links.

http://www.portev.org/commentary/living_in_the_past.htm

http://www.solartoday.org/2006/nov_dec06/near_zero.htm

Another argument used against having electric vehicles charged overnight, really about two hours, soon to be 5 minutes, is that the power plants burn coal and that results in more pollution. 80% we would need to charge an American fleet of electic vehicles is already produced every night. That energy simply goes to waste since we are all asleep and have till now no use for it. The power plants do not shut down, and the coal burning does not stop just because we are asleep.

Bottom line, fuel cell technology is being pushed forward for passenger vehicles for two reasons in my opinion. First, it leaves the oil and automobile industries unchanged for the forseeable future. They just keep showing us concept vehicles and telling us they are working on it. Second, when the change to electric drive vehicles finally is forced the oil industry wants to ensure you still need them and they will gladly sell you hydrogen or a hydrogen refueling center for your home-which you can just plug into any electric outlet to easily produce hydrogen!

Ethanol and Biofuels are solutions are even more flawed. They require a refinement process that is extremely inefficient, a vile polluter, and the crops needed to make this go suck the life blood out of the earth requiring huge amounts of chemicals to restore the earth--unfortunately these very chemicals also destroy our water table. Ethanol and biofuels are the greatest slight of hand ever committed against the people of the world. It is like giving methadon to an addict, it really does not address the addiction, it just makes the selling of the drug to the addict legal.

Posted by: Garry Holmberg | Mar 4, 2007 4:45:26 AM

I am not sure I can blame the Auto companies for pursuing Hydrogen. We all know the amount of energy it takes to produce is a net loss when it gets to the car. Unless there is a process in the future that will change this. Well, the government is putting their money towards Hydrogen so I guess that is the reason the auto companies are putting their money in the same pool.
The Government want Clean Coal and Nuclear to produce Hydrogen so guess what, that is were the money is. Interesting how the market seems to be leaning toward Biofuels. I read an article on Butanol I think it is called and if the details are correct, that holds some promiss. I run Biodiesel my self because I believe in it and the possiblities.

Good luck to all.

Posted by: Paul | Mar 5, 2007 5:11:10 PM

you know what amazes me? It amazes me that so many of the posts on this topic sound like it is an all or nothing scenario. Oh no, don't make today's cars EXTREMELY more eficient. Don't use today's technology IN CONJUCTION with advanced drive trains. have you guys heard of the aptera, afs trinity or the hypercar? At least there ideas are to use as much as possible to make more of the motive energy availible to move the occupants of the car and not the car itself. I see that a small diesel or gasoline generator powering batteries and super caps(instead of the other way around, e.g. the prius(I know, the prius doesn't use super caps)) in an aerodynamic light body would bring down the usage of gas/diesel quite a bit and would set us up for segueying the power plant to the fuelcell or biodiesel or happy thoughts even. The point is the big automakers don't give us what we need and it seems not many people can do their "world changing" in steps instead of jumping of a cliff and hoping they can fly.

Posted by: KryptKpr | Mar 9, 2007 8:27:21 PM

After seeing President Bush promoting hydrogen and reading the above article, it becomes clear that corporate america will shove purely electric cars to the side for this insidious hydrogen-electric "hybrid".

First of all, the hydrogen hybrid will, as it is currently being marketed, still require drivers to go to "fuel stations" to pump their fuel for the week. Apparently, corporate america doesn't like us plugging in our cars overnight and saving a trip to the pump. The Ford Airstream boasts that the hydrogen fuel cell increases range to 305 miles, but Testla's purely electric car gets 250 miles on a single charge. So who needs the extra 50 mile range? Just plug in the Testla overnight and save the trip to the pump, not to mention of tank of compressed explosives under the chassis.

Secondly, another thing corporate america likes is a car that only gets a limited efficiency of 40 miles per unit of fuel, such as the Ford Airstream. The Testla electric car eliminates the concept of "fuel" altogether. The hydrogen hybrid keeps us shackled to a system of supply and demand of fuel and a ritualistic dependency on the weekly trip to the fuel station--until someone makes a home hydrogen generator. I wonder if people like Bush have thought of that.

Sorry if I sound like a Testla salesman, but after checking the specs of the Testla roadster with this article, I found it hard to see why we should promote hydrogen when pure electric technology is more than adequate--and even if some people have trepidations about the range of pure electric cars, the technology is constantly improving. I'm sure few will find fault with pure electric cars in the coming years--except for those who fear a shift in the power struggle of energy production from petroleum companies to utility companies.

Posted by: Paul | Mar 13, 2007 11:22:40 PM

There are some ideas that you guys are not getting. In case you haven't noticed, during the summer months electricity demand spikes, typically resulting in brownouts as power plants are unable to produce the amount of electricity demanded by our society. The frequency of these brownouts and blackouts will only increase. Our power grid is in need of a serious over haul, and while you are correct that charging BEVs over night would even out the load on power plants and therefor make the whole system more efficient, you fail to acknowledge that when people plug in their ev, it is not timed with the reduction in typical demand. there would be a period of time where the demand for electricity would go through the roof as commuters arrive home to plug in their cars. The benefit of hydrogen is not that it is the worlds ideal fuel, it is just one with fewer global drawbacks that current fuel sources. Hydrogen can be produced on any scale, in any location, and it is very safe to store (leaks go up, not down)hydrogen is a byproduct of some industrial processes, and could be captured at manufacturing plants and additional energy costs would only be needed to compress and/or cool it for storage and transport.
One of the ideas mentioned earlier by someone proposed an interesting idea of using tanker trucks to provide temporary infrastructure...someone should pursue marketing that idea. Who cares is we still need "gas" stations? We would not be dependent upon countries in unstable regions, or be filling the pockets of our enemies. I am no fool, and I do know that infrastructure, and storage costs money. You doubters need to see the bigger picture here. in the end who loses? not the consumer. with hydrogen, a consumer can purchase their own H2 processing equipment and make their own fuel (from renewable resources ideally) depending upon how interested they get, they can turn it into a business. which would make the whole market more competitive since anyone could do it.
The main reason for people being reluctant to purchase BEVs is range. this is not to say that there have not been significant strides in improving this (Tesla has done an amazing job, I would love to get my hands on their car.) 250 miles per charge is very good. However, there are many people who do have to make trips longer than this, and are unwilling to have to be on the lookout for a place to charge after 200-225 miles of driving. When I can drive my pickup for 450-500 miles before filling up. Thats right, I drive a pickup. I am a college student, and I cant just say that I want to go purchase a $25k+ econovehical, and they won't do the jobs that I need my truck to do. FCVs are the stand in that would allow this extra range, especially when coupled with batteries. Just because something is not easy to attain today, does not mean it is unobtainable ever. The first Gasoline engines were not nearly as efficient or powerful as they are today, but they realized it was more productive to use that system than it was to use the horse, mule or ox to do the same work. The same can be said for electric drive trains (interesting note, around the turn of the century electric vehicles were produced, but lost out to gasoline because of range) they are making vast strides in improving efficiency and range, but the R&D needs a market and the money associated with it.

Posted by: Josh C | Mar 14, 2007 10:41:55 AM

Josh C contradicted himself at least once:

He said that pure electric vehicles would put undue strain on the power grid, however,

he also said that people can make their own hydrogen at home...

Well, guess how hydrogen is made? Yep, it's made with electricity. So how is hydrogen going to reduce the demand on the power grid?

Want to know how to really reduce demand on the power grid? Get rid of oil refineries and other petroleum related infrastructure...this would reduce the demand on the power grid significantly.

But even that aside, all we need to do is make more "green" electricity plants to counteract any potential spike in electricity demand. Electricity plants such as windmill technology, dams such as the Hoover Dam, and industrical-sized solar panels.

On an individual scale, people can put solar panels on their homes to generate electricity for their electric car. In fact, some electric car owners in California already do this--they make enough electricity to power their cars with enough to spare that they can sell electrical power back to the utility company.

So the idea of brown-outs because of excess demand on the power grid makes no sense.

Posted by: Paul | Mar 15, 2007 10:12:17 AM

A different Paul posted the following comment:

"Well, the government is putting their money towards Hydrogen so I guess that is the reason the auto companies are putting their money in the same pool."

Don't you think it is the other way around? Currently, the president is a former oil company executive. His secretary of state was a vice president in Citgo.

The auto industry and the oil industry are lobbying for government to pursue hydrogen. Perhaps in the early 20th century, corporate america took its lead from government but anyone with eyes can see that today it is just not the case.

Posted by: Paul | Mar 15, 2007 10:30:03 AM

Just wanted to congratulate Eng_Poet on his posts.
You've clearly done your research whereas Roger Pham is just posting propaganda.

Eng-Poet is obviously more informed than Roger Pham and demonstrates a far superior intellect.

Keep up the good work, Eng-Poet

Posted by: Paul | Mar 15, 2007 11:10:35 AM

CUDOS to the LOT

I like the cool "food for thought" I am just going to put in my $0.25 (slightly less than 2 cents for you way intellectuals)
1st point- Things don't actually have to work to sell- i.e. CELL PHONES etc...
2nd point -Clearly americans are not efficient or economic so forget anything that makes good sense completely.
I am just thinking.....Golf cart and soler panel- must be some reason golf carts use batteries and you can plug them in at home and recharge them (realizing of course this is somthing every rich jerk owns and he surely doesn't want it to be subceptable to a gas war) I think I vote for the NO MORE $LAVE TO THE POLITICIAN$ ROUTE- "BATTERIES AND WINDMILLS FOR ME" I think we should all take this stand- wind and solar power is cheap and very available, we-the american consumer should pull our heads out of our asses and ride the sun and waves to a free and clean tomarrow!!

Posted by: Mike | Mar 16, 2007 1:37:30 AM

The problem lies with this. A hydrogen production system could be programmed to only produce hydrogen during off peak hours, whereas it could cause “too much” of an inconvenience to set your car to charge during off peak. I am was not speaking of current ev owners since the reason that they do it is to reduce their impact on the environment, and they are more willing to “inconvenience” themselves and charge their car during off peak times. I was referring to the general population who is unwilling to make changes that would in any way impact their life style. They would be more likely to plug their car in when they get home around 6-7, when there is a peak already due to everyone arriving home and turning things on, or plugging in their car. I know that you can power a home (or at least most of it depending on your demands) using roof mount solar panels. However, during the day, when your car is not their, is when the panels will be producing power, and you could capture this with batteries, I admit, but then you have to charge your car batteries with the power stored in your home battery pack, and the size of your home battery pack would have to be significantly larger to be able to handle the amount of power required to recharge a car (a car will commonly use enough power to run a hundred or so homes in any given day) All that I was pointing out was that people are unlikely to succumb to the inconvenience that would be required to use the current system.

Paul, do you realize that there is a serious lack of areas that are capable of becoming a dam to produce power on the scale of Hoover dam? They flooded a canyon to build a body of water large enough to produce power. I think you need to do a little more research before you decide to bang away at the keyboard. We all know that green power sources are a better alternative, and things like if we covered something like ½ the area of Arizona with solar panels we could power the country. Good job at reminding us that there are other options.
You are also wrong about brown outs being nonsense. The problem is not only one of production, but of distribution. When does demand become a problem? Summer. Why is that? People want to draw more power because they want to be cool. What does an increase in power do? It heats up all electrical components in series with the load. Need a simple analogy? Take a 14 gauge extension cord… plug in a 1500 watt heater. Will the heater work? Yeah it will. For pretty much as long as you want it to. Now try this... plug 2 of those 1500 watt heaters and turn them both on. For this little experiment, you will probably trip a breaker of blow a fuse if you plug it into a standard outlet, so you should really go find a 30 amp outlet to even try it. It is not likely that you will be able to. Even if you could, you might be able to get both heaters to run for a while, but how about you hold on to that 14 gauge cord while you are running them. It is going to get really hot. There is an interesting thing about hot materials, they become less conductive (increased resistance) and more power has to go through them just because of the increased load. This creates a kind of cascading problem.
The grid needs to be rebuilt before everyone can plug in their car.

An interesting idea that has been proposed to solve this problem involves the production of hydrogen and electricity at, sorry guys, a nuclear reactor. I am not going to go into detail about how this works, but they would bury essentially a large cable (1m diameter if I recall) with liquid hydrogen running through the middle, through a conductive pipe, that would also be insulated. Here is where we can recognize some benefits. We can create a super conducting main feed line, this would allow us to push a huge amount of power through it, have minimal losses, and be able to put power production where we want it, ideally, the middle of nowhere in the case of nuclear reactors. You can also realize your dream of covering several hundred square miles with solar panels, since now a system would be in place to efficiently move that much energy around. More benefits: the power plants can run at a nearly continuous capacity, since they can vary what they are producing depending upon the demand. When power demand is low, make more hydrogen (and compressing and cooling and that fun stuff that you would accuse me of leaving out)

There, I admitted that I left something out, and I think I clarified myself. If you want more info about this hydrogen/electricity co production idea, the project name is supergrid, and there is information about it on gov’t sites. This is not just some delusional pipe dream.
http://www.epriweb.com/public/000000000001013089.pdf

Posted by: Josh C | Mar 19, 2007 1:35:42 PM