You are all missing the boat here. The real use for h2 is in to the Fischer-Tropisch process. Wind produced electricity to electrolysis to h2.This h2 combined with co2 captured from coal fired production plants can make affordable high quality fuel. The bonus is that it is a 100% co2 neutral process. It consumes the same amount of co2 as it produces. No need for fuel cells, transmission lines, new engines or fuel transportation systems. F-T fuels will run in any diesel or jet engine made today. When co2 credits are used the fuel can be produced for under $2 a gallon
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/a_proposal_for_.html

Eng-Poet,
I've shown calculations here repeatedly that when you produce H2 using the most efficient means available vs. BEV when charged with the most efficient electrical generation efficiency, THE SOURCE-TO-WHEEL EFFICIENCIES OF H2-HEV AND BEV ARE COMPARABLE.

DO NOT COMPARE H2 PRODUCED BY ELECTROLYSIS AT NORMAL TEMPERATURE WITH BEV, BECAUSE THIS IS THE LEAST EFFICIENT WAY OF GENERATING H2! (and most costly, too)

Now then, let's use H2 produced by high-temp electrolysis using electricity and heat from a high-temp nuclear reactor, or a solar thermal energy or gasturbine plant's heat coupled with wind electricity. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/ineel_hightempe.html#more
This link reports that the overall thermal efficiency of H2 generation via the high-temp route is 50%. By contrast, electrical generation via steam turbine is 40%. Honda FCX has a reported efficiency of 60% per Honda website. BEV has a generally-accepted efficiency of 70-75% wall to wheel. So, H2 via high-temp to wheel is 50%x60%=30% source to wheel. BEV: 40%x75%=30%. See the point?
If you manage to dispense H2 at the source of production, then you can avoid the loss of efficiency in H2 transportation. This is true for local gasifier within 4-5 mile average distance to end-users. Or, in the nuclear case, H2 pipelines at a 50-mi radius from the nuclear station to dispensing statins would result in neglibible distribution efficiency loss, clearly less than the 8% loss in electricity transmission.

Now, let's say an ICE-H2-HEV at 45% efficiency using H2 generated at 50% efficiency, .45x.5=22.5%. Let's now add the electrical transmission loss to this picture: .4x.92x.75=27.6%, so BEV wins this time. But, have you added the wattages lost to cabin heating in winter time? In a ICE-HEV or a FCV, cabin heating is free, and in North America, winter temperatures last typically 3-5 months, depending on where you live.

Now let's say H2 is generated via biomass or coal gasification. Considerable heat is required for this, bringing down the efficiency to ~60%. However, with heat recyling first into high-temp electrolysis and then, the lower-temp heat for electricity production, the efficiency of entire process will be >80%.
Now, coal-fired or biomass-fired power plants has efficiency of 40%.
For H2-ICE-HEV, .6x.45= 27%, or .8x.45=36%
For BEV, .4x.75=30%, or with electricity transmission loss, .4x.92x.75=27.6%.

Eng-Poet, the exact percentages is not important. The take-home message is that H2 as energy carrier for transportation is comparable in efficiency with BEV and any other forms of energy. Note that gasoline-ICE at the present has an accepted efficiency of ~16%, so BEV clearly wins, but not against an ICE-HEV whether running on gasoline or H2.

Winds: I think you need to clarify that your process (or algae to biodiesel) still requires the release of the carbon from the original coal even if it is used as a carrier in between.
If you use the power for electricity (or H2 Roger), then you can still sequester the CO2. If you wish you can use the CO2 for algae which you can burn in a power plant and recycle the CO2 again. I recognize that airplanes will still require a liquid bio-fuel.

Roger Pham compares a far-off hydrogen production system, to be supplied with heat by nuclear reactors which don't yet exist either, with today's battery-electric vehicles.  But when people bring up this point, he talks out of the other side of his mouth as he does above:

If you would produce H2 right at the point of dispensing to end-users, you will be able to overcome the inefficiency of H2 transportation and distribution. Do not use the liquid fuel model to base the Hydrogen economy on.

DS's comment above is absolutely spot-on.  Hydrogen is one of several ploys to distract us from getting efficient and going electric (E85 is another).  We already have 90% of the infrastructure for the electron economy; it's paid for, you can use it today.  Roger Pham wants you to wait indefinitely for hydrogen that's as cheap as gasoline - and in the mean time, why not fill up on Saudi Arabia's best?  You have no alternative!

It's time for you to be honest, Roger.

The only part of the F-T process that is needed to produce syn fuel from a green source of hydrogen is the iron catalyst phase. No coal is needed, no Co2 output. As far as the efficiency of electrolysis there are companies with products on the market that claim in the 80% range http://www.protonenergy.com/ Using this information, efficient wind produced electricity = $2.50 kg h2 , captured co2 under $0.50 kg and F-T efficiency comparable to http://www.rentechinc.com/ numbers. Add in a little Co2 credit and you have a Co2 neutral fuel under $2 a gallon. It is better than any fuel on the market today. It can run in planes, trains & automobiles, trucks and tractors too without any modifications to them or the supply lines that feed them. Ask Adolf Hitler. I call this a short bridge to an h2 economy. Everyone should be happy. The oil companies can still refine and distribute the product and we produce the h2 in this country from multiple green sources. Oh I forgot! The only loser’s foreign oil

Tellme everyone what do YOU expect as gar as biofuels and ev over the next 50 years REALY?


What is the low end and high end LIKELY adoption and usefulness of ev? Biofuel?

Are you CERTAIN they can do 100% of the job? Can they do everything or just everything you care about?

Will you stake a billion ormore peoples lives on it?

Eng-Poet,
The easiest way right now to end petroleum dependency is to gasify biomass and supplementing coal as needed to produce syngas (H2 and CO) and then convert that to liquid fuel products via F/T to power our existing vehicles.
You would wanna build the gasifiers in a distributed fashion of at least one gasifier plant every 100 square miles, so that the H2 from these plants can be dispensed to cars without having to build an expensive H2-infrastructure later on. This way, the H2-filling infrastructure will be mostly built by the time H2 automobiles will be around in large numbers. H2 is non-polluting and is more efficient to produce than liquid fuel conversion of syngas via F/T, that's all.

I do not advocate a do-nothing approach to end petroleum dependency. This is a matter of national security and must be implemented immediately. We are also waiting for PHEV's to be built in large numbers, as well. Biodiesel from oil crops or algae is also a welcomed addition, for now.
Indeed, we can reduce our petroleum dependency in the near-term while planning for a squeaky-clean and efficient future H2 economy at the same time, without major duplication of efforts. Peace :)

do you not think that why we are being lead down the hydrogen garden path is beacause it is so easy to tax , unlike electricity which would be almost impossible to separate road use from industrial and home use .
But maybe that is too simple . I am sure you have seen" who killed the electric car " in that movie a Toyota fool cell engineer is asked when we might be able to buy this type of car , he replies that it is in he´s opinion, ten years away from reaching the marketplace !this is too late , another ten years of the ICE will be enough to set the planet into terminal decline , I am sorry for all those companys etc that invested large sums of cash and time going down the h2 route , but what we need is a fix now not in ten years , BEV tech is just about there .
There is a company just 3km from my house here in italy making a BEV fiat panda , ok at the moment it is a bit expensive but they are making them by hand in small quantitys and the battery costs a about $12000 per car , but it is an complete unit chargers controllers etc all in one box, it is rated at 20kwh more than enough for a small car . this car has just been tested at the EU reaserch centre here in northern italy and was found to be more than adequate, 120km range ,8hour charge costing here in italy 3 euro , this car is here now all it needs is a major company to make it in large quantitys to get the price down .
I think what we need now are real solutions , not window dressing ,BEV is the only way forward for a quick fix !

If you would produce H2 right at the point of dispensing to end-users, you will be able to overcome the inefficiency of H2 transportation and distribution. Do not use the liquid fuel model to base the Hydrogen economy on.

Maybe he was proposing lots of small high temperature nuclear reactors at gas stations? :)

What about water vapour emissions as a GHG?

Others have addressed the issue of water vapor in the troposphere (summary: evaporation/condensation controls the humidity level. and utterly dominates production of water vapor from combustion).

But there's also water in the stratosphere. This comes from both leakage through the 'cold trap' at the tropopause, as well as oxidation of methane in the stratosphere. Hydrogen that persists until it can reach the stratosphere will also add water there. The effect there of greatly increased H2 leakage will have to be quantified.

I would also worry about H2 leakage in the troposphere causing a reduction in hydroxyl radicals, increasing the atmospheric lifetime of methane.

andrichrose,
There is no telling when or whether batteries will be produced in enough quantity for large-scale PHEV or BEV use. The quickest way to overcome petroleum dependency is to produce synthetic gasoline or diesel fuel to use in current vehicles from waste biomass or coal, as I've just posted. Then, let the consumers later decide whether H2 vehicles will be for them or not.

H2 from biomass or coal gasification will be much cheaper and more energy-efficient to produce than liquid fuel via gasification and then F/T synthesis. H2 may cost 1/2 as much as F/T synthetic product per energy unit. Right now, per DOE website, H2 costs 32 cents per lb, or ~70 cents per kg as gasification product from coal when sold on-site.
Anyone is free to choose which method of propulsion to use, be it liquid fuel, BEV, PHEV, or H2-ICE-HEV, or H2-FC-HEV, depending on his/her internal bias, fear, or suspicion, etc.

I think that we will continue to disagree on this subject, but I hope that the intellectual discussion will be worth the occasional bruise on the ego of being proven wrong once in a while.

And he's doing it AGAIN!  Roger Pham dodges:

The easiest way right now to end petroleum dependency is to gasify biomass and supplementing coal as needed to produce syngas (H2 and CO) and then convert that to liquid fuel products via F/T to power our existing vehicles.

Available biomass energy in the USA:  ~2 billion dry tons * 15.8 million BTU/ton = 31.6 quads (you're in trouble right off the bat).

Efficiency of biomass-to-liquids:  38.5% to liquid products, yielding 12.2 quads of liquids (and another 4.0 quads of gases).

12.2/26.1 = 47%.  Your "quickest route" won't even get halfway there.  It's a road to nowhere.  And how much would this half-measure cost us?

You might want to try another line of work, Roger.  There are some where the ability to lie is an asset.  Talking about energy isn't one of them.

Easy does it folks. He did say "supplement with coal" (heavily). Still, biomass to liquids doesn't sound any better than biomass to electricity. And then you're going to be burning the liquid fuel in a low efficiency ICE. (To be honest I don't see too many alternatives for transport trucks)

Eng-poet: do you have a number for household socket to wheels efficiency for EVs? I've been working with the Tesla supplied 86%. (probably a bit high) Roger claims as low as 70% (sounds very low)

So let's use Roger's figure of 70%.  If we converted 1.7 billion dry tons of biomass (26.9 quads) to charcoal at 53.5% efficiency and then to electricity in DCFC's at 80%, we'd get 11.5 quads of juice out.  93% transmission and 70% wall-to-wheels yields 7.48 quads.  (This ignores the energy yield from the carbonization process.)

The US burns about 17 quads of gasoline in vehicles which average ~15% efficient:  2.85 quads output.  6 quads of diesel at 35% yields 2.1 quads of output.  The sum is less than 5 quads, which the biomass-to-DCFC system could supply handily from only 1.7 billion tons (which is 85% of 2 billion tons of biomass which cannot even supply half our motor fuel needs through BTL).

The future of ground transportation is electric.

I agree with engineer- poet , why go out of the way down some h2 blind avenue , when we are tripping over technology that is almost there , and with a well sorted distribution network . I just guess that over here in europe politicians will have to come up with some more inventive ways to tax us rather than sitting around on there fat behinds waiting for the road fuel taxes to come in .

It isnt so much what fuel thats important as what kind of car that fuel results in.

In the case of biofuels nd gas I think we all can see cafe standards rising through the roof and rather draconian regulations comming into force soonish. The end result a car that sucks to drove but gets you there.

Ev.. if we arevery lucky battery packs will hit 12k in a few years and 4-5k in 5-10 years. Lux ev cars and trucks will likely have 4 or more packs and I xpect at least a few ev suvs with 8 packs luirking silently behind you.

H2 What kinds of cars do h2 systems create? Sports cars. Basicaly everything that needs power beyond what regulated fuels allow but that isnt totaly dependant on a battery. In short eveyrthing else. Wich just so happens to likely include alot of PROFITABLE car lines.

But availablity! If sports cars are basicaly banned from gad and bio then ev and h2 will be thier ownly fuel and yes gas stations will open h2 and ev slots to fuel such cars. Bcause lux and recreational cars are a huge market for gas stations and for car makers.

The question is wich type ev or h2 will dominate that market... or will they jjst share it near 50 50. The car makers hedge there bets by working on plug in hybroid h2 cars a marrage of both and a system able to convert cheaply to either in more or exclusive proportions.

Heck if things go the way I expect we might even see truckstops with pure 100% veg oil pumps.

Eng-Poet,
Thanks for reminding us about the very highly efficient DCFC, with an overall efficiency of ~70%. (DCFC cell 80%-overall system 70%). Now please kindly inform us about the cost and availability of DCFC. Surely, something that good and hardly mentioned in the mass media must have some hidden drawback to it? For sure, DCFC must not be portable enough to be put into mobile vehicles, since it is mostly mentioned as stationary electrical generator.

So, for mobile application, you must rely on the battery, which will be years before sufficient number can show up in the automobile fleet. It'll take time to perfect the technology, set up manufacturing plants, gathering the raw material...etc. And there is mention recently that the world's lithium yearly production capacity may not permit a large number of PHEV packs to be built. See : http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=1180

Whereas, for BTL supplemented with CTL, current vehicle fleet can now take immediate advantage of this petroleum sustitution. Plan a gradual increase in petroleum tax while keeping tax low on BTL or CTL product will provide commercial incentive to set up gasification and F/T plants. The higher cost of BTL and CTL will encourage more HEV to replace current non-hybrid fleets, and over one or two decade, one can see the efficiency of the automobile jump from 15% to 30% or even higher, if I have my way, to 45% with super-duper H2-burning, direction injection ICE-HEV, or all the way to Honda's exotic FCX with a quoted efficiency of 60%!!! Wow. Now, the DCFC with efficiency of 70% coupled with wall-to-wheel efficiency of BEV will result in 50% efficiency, well, more or less comparable with Honda's exotic FCX technology.

Still, DCFC is an excellent idea for the future, along with biomass carbonification. I hope that you would push this scheme further with GE, GM, DOE, NREL, and all the powers that be! I'm learning new stuffs everyday.

John Cooper says that the commercial work on DCFC's has been farmed out to Direct Carbon Energy, so you will have to ask them about the current state of the art.  Note that Cooper's previous line of research (zinc-air fuel cells) went to Power Air Corporation, which is working with OEM's at this time.

You are correct that DCFC's are better aimed at stationary powerplants (and possibly marine propulsion).  This is why I am always talking about batteries.  However, DCFC's can do a very good job of eliminating the need for both combustion powerplants and fossil fuels to feed them.

There is about 250 billion tons of recoverable lithium in the oceans.  There are other schemes for capturing it.  At a high enough price, the amount of terrestrial mineral deposits becomes irrelevant.

Lithium is not a sine qua non for PHEV's and BEV's.  There is also sodium nickel chloride (ZEBRA), zinc-air, the two (not one) carbon-backed lead-acid variants and the dark horse, the EEStor ultracap.

One nice feature of the DCFC, in addition to its extraordinary theoretical efficiency and potentially low capital cost, is that it naturally produces nearly pure CO2 as an output stream without the need for an air separation plant. This will reduce the cost of carbon sequestration.

I just wish the blasted aleins would attack already so we could steal power cells and fusion tech from them already! Sheesh lazy damn aliens.

Eng-Poet: don't forget the MIT carbon nanotubule enhanced ultracap. (Didn't BASF also apply for a patent in this area?)

Has anyone thought of using the earth to compress hydrogen? More precisely, what stops a company from running two cables down into the ocean 10,000 feet and supplying the cable with wind powered elecrtricity, thereby producing hydrogen from the ocean at a pressure of 4454 psi. The hydrogen would be collected at depth and piped, at a collection pressure of 4454 psi, up to a surface collection station and further into existing high pressure gas distribution infrastructures.

sorry forgot to complete the email address.
Anyway, what came first the chicken or the egg? Guess what. We found out and before long you will also know.

A lot of rabbling is going on about hydrogen being a viable source for powering internal combustion engines. We have found the solution. Keep tuned to your news and you will find out soon. No fuel cells, no storage tanks, no excess us of electricity, no fossil fuels only 1 liter of distilled water to power a car or truck 600-700 km.

the laws of chemistry and physics did change in the past and they are also changing now. Today!