This would be a solution if electrical energy were not a problem to make in very large quantities, and the only other answer was simple minded extensions of our present technology.

Alternatives have advances so far however, that thesis is not going to be, or even is true today.

Even if it IS psuedo-scientific hooie, for you true believers, don't forget the exhaust of a hydrogen engine is 100% very powerful GHG gas, called H2O. That vapor is some 16 times more powerful than a CO2 molecule as a GHG on a molecule by molecule basis.

Conversion to using H2 would multiply the GHG "problem" by one and a half orders of magnitude...

Its funny, I only had to read the last post as far as "the exhaust of a hydrogen engine is 100% very powerful GHG gas, called H2O." before I knew it was Stan.

Stan, while you are correct that water vapor is some 16 times more powerful than a CO2 molecule as a GHG this is only a problem if it stays in the atmosphere. Water vapor tends to condense out of the air as rain. For this to NOT happen we would need the greenhouse effect to be a lot stronger than it is now.

If we were to switch to hydrogen it would mean we would stop using oil and coal, without oil and coal we would no longer be putting CO2 into the air. Without extra CO2 in the air to keep the atmospheric temperature high it only takes one cold day anywhere on the Earth's surface to lose the greenhouse effect from the water vapor.

In short; water vapor is only a GHG as a "force multiplier," It is a short term GHG that only becomes a long term GHG if you already have enough long term GHGs like CO2.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian* spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
-Alexander Pope (1688-1744),

How would you stop using coal if you switch to Hydrogen? Producing electricity with gerbils on exercise wheels?

We would use MORE coal if every vehicle were switched to Hydrogen.

BTW - we still use plenty of oil in making those lightweight plastic parts you see all around you right now.

well this is bullshit;
H2O of hydrogen cars will have the same effect on atmosphere that has the shower of everyone in the morning;

it could have a local effect on the city with dense (hydrogen) traffic leading to fog in certain conditions;

what really changes the H2O content of the atmosphere is the temperature of air;
if CO2 heats up the atomsphere more H2O could be in the air and this again raises the temperature of atmosphere;

this solution fe combined with photovoltaiks it could be a great solution;

batteries are not that economical and enviroment friendly; (at least until no real option)

using a battery car with my own solar power daily to make 25miles (10kwh), i need
at least 20kwh of lead batteries to store my solar power during the day, which should cost me about 3000$ and they have to be replaced after 1000cycles (3-4 years)

with this solution i will produce and store my hydrogen during the day in a simple CNG tank; i hope that this machine would work for more then 10 years;

and then i don't need costly batteries in my car;
(saving again 10-15000$)

-------
hydrogen loss in high pressure tanks is about 1-3% /day;
in liquid tanks you can reduce them to near zeor for a few days;
http://schmidt-walter.fbe.fh-darmstadt.de/WBZ/kfz1.pdf

at low pressure and normal temperature hydrogen loss is lower then 1% day;

---------
and again:
no need for heavy,costly batteries
no need for heavy e-motors

don't forget that with every 100kgr more car weight, you increase your fuel consumption for about 0.3-0.8 liters;

with this solution you can save 75kgr of weight; if the low pressure tank will weigh about 25kgr; (maybe he will even weigh less)

Burning gasoline in an automobile makes water vapour.
C8H18+12.5O2-->8CO2+9H2O

1 gallon of gasoline burned makes 1.1 gallons of water vapour.

A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle will produce about as much water (liquid and vapour) as a large gasoline sedan does now. And it won't be mixed with other pollutants when it's emitted from the car.

So ask yourself: is water vapour in the city a problem now?

No.

James

Making transport H2 from the terawatts of 100% wasted surplus electricity every night seems to be one of the ways to flatten the curve. Electric batteries, oxygen concentrators, air pneumatics and home CNG pneumatics are other ways. Diversification is a good thing.

I've argued often that PHEV is the most advanced technology with the most advantages and benefits, and downplayed hydrogen fuel cell as far too complicated and offers only limited application.

I'll state again that the #1 advantage of PHEVs is the economic incentive they create to drive less. Less expensive electricity that offers a driving range of under 30 miles or so, encourages drives of shorter distances which support development of local economies, whereby in time more destinations become accessable without having to drive. Following this logic, combustable hydrogen that offers zero-emission driving range of only 25 miles offers the same critically important advantage.

I can see combustable hydrogen as a viable fuel in this application, but the basic vehicle must be PHEV to gain the full list of technological advancements. The only way to reduce human impact upon the natural environment is to reduce by at least half our driving and transport of all kinds. To assume that we can continue business-as-usual is nonsense. "Poor boo-boo, gotta give up the special widdle car."

Patrick; Electricity doesn't need to be produced from burning coal. The ITM company in the article wants to use solar+wind+wave energy. Where I live 99% of the electricity comes from hydro dams. Iceland is converting to hydrogen using its vast resource of geothermal. In France 70-80% of their electricity comes from nuclear power. Even when you do use coal there's always CCS.

Its a cheap way to make a car that can be recharged as often as needed and go to the store and around town.. all on far cheaper then ga electricity stored as low pressure h2.

And with a mid pressure tank it could go 75 miles and still be rather cheap.
Perfect for a solar home.

I just want to punctuate my above post's charge that even with a practical application of combustable hydrogen, "the basic vehicle must be PHEV in order to gain the full list of technological advancements" which begin and end with electric motor drive, (not merely electric assist), and the ability to generate and store electricity on the vehicle. And the batteries need not provide a driving range beyond 30 miles or so.

We drive too much, too far, for too many purposes, at too high cost and impact. We transport goods too far. No matter how far we fly there is no escape from the drek and ruin of motorist urbania.

ITM Power reports other interesting news. They say that the current market price of the hydrogen electrolyser is $2000 per kW but that they can produce it at $164 / per kW. They also say they will start up production of 10MW of electrolysers per year beginning before summer 2008. That is 1000 units of this 10kW electrolyser. See http://www.itm-power.com/technology.html and http://www.itm-power.com/290607.pdf So presumably they can produce the 10kW unit for about $1700. They will probably sell it for $5000 because it would still be only 25% of their competitors price at $20000 for such a unit.

This is very good new in my opinion. I would not dare to drive a retrofitted hydrogen car ICE car with void guaranties. However, I think a factory build car with a small half a kilo hydrogen tank at the relatively low pressure of 75 bar should be very safe. It would not cost more than maximum $2000 and possible as little as $500 extra to build this hydrogen capability into a regular car. So max $7000 (2000+5000) and possible as little as $3000 (2500+500) for the ability to be selfsupplied by co2 neutral fuel for 80% of your driving. This is great and it could be at our car dealer in less than 5 years.

Fuel cost? You need 66kWh to do 1 kg of hydrogen at 60% efficiency. This is $6.6 for a kilo at normal tariff c10 kWh and at of peak tariff it would be c5 kWh or $3.3 per kilo. As a rule of thumb 1 kg of hydrogen can replace 2 gallons of gasoline that cost $6 (2*3). That is the production price of this electrolyse hydrogen. It is cheaper than the gasoline equivalent.

This is great news. Can’t wait to here the final price of their 10kW unit when it go on sale next year.

Forgot my identity for that post. Sorry.

Oil well -> Gasoline ICE Car (83%) -> Wheel (25%): Total = 21%

Steam Powerplant (38%) -> grid (93%) -> Li-ion Battery (86%)-> wheel (~85%): Total = 26%

Combine Cycle Powerplant (58%) -> grid (93%) -> Li-ion Battery (86%)-> wheel (~85%): Total = 39%

Combine Cycle Powerplant (58%) -> grid (93%) -> High Efficiency Hydrogen Electrolyzer (70%) -> Compression & Storage (ignored) -> PEM Fuel cell (55%) -> Electric motor to wheel (~85%): Total = 18%

Combine Cycle Powerplant (58%) -> grid (93%) -> High Efficiency Hydrogen Electrolyzer (70%) -> Compression & Storage (ignored) -> ICE Car (25%): Total = 10%

Steam Reforming Hydrogen (80%) -> transport (98%) -> Compression & Storage (ignored) -> ICE Car (25%): Total = 20%

Steam Reforming Hydrogen (80%) -> transport (98%) -> Compression & Storage (ignored) -> PEM Fuel cell (55%) -> Electric motor to wheel (~85%): Total = 37%

Conclusion: What a waste of power it is to make hydrogen form off-peak electricity compared to a charging a Li-ion battery.

Source?

Just google:
"Tesla Roadster efficiency" (86% grid to battery, 80-90% battery to wheel)
"Combine Cycle Powerplant" (Number range between 55-60%)
"Power line transmission efficiencyy" (7%,)
"Hydrogen electrolysis efficiency" (50-70%, or http://bioage.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/15/qsi1.png)
"Steam reforming Hydrogen efficiency" (70-90%)
Its not meant to be a scientific report simply a point to make.

Here's some sources:
http://www.greyfalcon.net/hydrogen.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png

As for Steam Reformed Hydrogen.
It's nice, but it's not that nice.
As compared to say CNG, Diesel, or a Hybrid.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png

On top of which, the Honda FCX is cheating by using crappy acceleration ;D

its not everything about efficiency;

its cost that matters ....

such a battery car costs you 15k more ...
and you have to displace the battery after 3000cycles

batteries with over 15000 cycles (nanosafe altairnano)
are still vaporware

As if FCV aren't "bleeding-edge technology" as well? Have you seen the cost of a PEM fuel cell? Hydrogen is just such a problematic answer: its not efficient even when using expensive fuel cells, its not easy to store and its a highly flammable gas. Why not alkaline fuel cells for 1/10 the price and 30% more efficiency then PEM (if your worried about CO2 poisoning just change the electrolyte fluid ever few thousand miles, NaOH is cheaper and cleaner then motor oil!) and why not Zinc instead of hydrogen (in a zinc-air fuel cell): zinc paste can be stored in a bladdered plastic "gas" tank instead of a carbon-fiber 5-10k psi tank, nor can zinc paste leak freely or burn.

James, some counterpoints:

1) Tesla's old LiCoO2 batteries cannot handle fast charging but several new lithium chemistries can. The A123Systems cells in the DeWalt 36V tools charge in 1 hour. AltairNano 10 minute recharge has been independently demonstrated, though their cells remain somewhat shrouded in mystery. IMHO PHEVs will dominate and make fast charging a non-issue, since they can "recharge" in five minutes at any of 200,000 existing gas stations.

2) PHEVs also solve the range problem.

4) 60% efficiency is no lab experiment. GE has installed their H System commercially since 2003 and other vendors have competitive combined cycle offerings. Older and cheaper single cycle natural gas powerplants still dominate, though, so systemwide efficiency is nowhere near 60%.

6) Gas pipelines need compression stations every 50-100 miles, resulting in overall energy losses not so different from long distance electric lines. H2 losses would be worse due to lower volumetric energy density. As for electricity, the Pacific Grid Intertie HVDC line is 800 miles long, and even longer HVDC lines exist overseas. We could put powerplants near the natural gas source and run HVDC lines, but we'd still need pipelines to transport gas for heating and industrial uses. Instead of building two transmission infrastructures, we just make the pipelines a little bigger and put the powerplants at the destination.

PHEVs can deliver roughly the same benefits as H2 with zero infrastructure investment and no huge leaps in technology. I support continued H2 research, but PHEVs have a huge headstart.

Ben,

Nice work on the well to wheels chains.

Your FCV efficiency numbers are a few years old. Tesla doesn't update their website so often when it comes to correcting misinformation, so you can't trust what they have on their site. They still claim over 250mile range for the roadster in the places on their site where they talk about efficiency, but we all know that's not true anymore with the durability and crash countermeasures they had to add.

Honda has reported tank to wheels efficiency of 60% for their new FCX. http://world.honda.com/news/2007/4070108FCXConcept/) Daimler Chrysler (with Ballard Fuel Cell Stacks) is suggesting even better numbers than Honda for their next car, and GM has been making huge strides in fuel cells. FCV technology is very young - it has a lot of opportunity to get even better! And remember that FCVs ARE EVs, so they are making advances on motors, controllers, power electronics, control systems, etc.

If you use the 60% Tank to Wheels figure in your chain, there is not so much difference between the EV and the FCV in terms of well to wheels efficiency, especially if you get hydrogen from SMR, which is where most of it comes from today.

EV is not for everyone, and it won't be anytime soon. Lithium Ion batteries are not without their own problems (quick charge, energy density, fire risk, manufacturing base, life cycle durability, cost, to name just a few).

EVs do have a role to play, especially in inner city commuting, but they are not perfect. I had one for a couple years, and I wish I could have one again, but it won't work for me.

James

So FCV can get better (or actually become a commercial product, which EV are already be it limited) but EV can't get better? 3rd party checked 10min recharge and 15,000+ cycling reliability Nanosafe and A123 lithium ion power EV can overcome the range and refueling problems of EV. Still I think Zinc is the ignore superior alternative to hydrogen.

oh that was me commenting, anonymous is nice and all on 4chan but not here.

Doggydogworld,

Thanks for the good counterpoints. A few counter-counterpoints...

1) I agree that 1hr charging is possible for PHEV, but not through a 110V cord. A special charger will be required. The AltairNano experiment was done by AeroVironment with a 225kW battery charger. You would need your own electrical substation to do that. I don't have that at my garage...

2) I agree, PHEVs will come, and they solve the range issue, and they will dominate in the near term (hopefully). But they still use gasoline (or ethanol or diesel or whatever else you want to burn and put in the air). I love the concept, though, and I can't wait for the first well integrated product, designed from scratch and meant to be a PHEV.

4) I think GE has only fired up one commercial H-System... Another should be coming on-line in California in 2008. http://www.gepower.com/corporate/ecomagination_home/press_release.htm
But I think you will agree with me that it is disingenuous to suggest that if you plug in to the grid today that the electricity is 60% efficient from natural gas.

6) Does anyone have real numbers to compare gas pipeline to HVDC transmission? That would be interesting.

Thanks,

James