Hydrogen has its uses. You and I might prefer a PHEV as a more efficient way to use generated energy but that's because we see the car as 'transportation.' But let's face it, there are people out there who see a car as something else; call it 'image' call it 'lifestyle' - whatever, you're not going to see a hybrid Ferrari or a Porsche with a battery pack. Where's a reason BMW researched liquid hydrogen fueled cars. They know their customers want to hear the engine purr. An electric whine doesn't cut it in some people's minds.

Given the driving patterns of most people; if you can give a car a CO2-free range of 25km you've got the GW thing beat. Let's not argue either/or, let's use both and just get it done.

The same can be said of the domestic brands; What do you call a Ford pick-up without the throaty roar of a V8?
A Nissan.

The great thing about being alive now is seeing how this all works out and watching history that will be taught for centuries.. as it happens.

I personaly think things like this will lead to big things over the next 200 years.

Of course, advanced batteries like nanotech lithium or NiMh are still extremely important now and in the future of transportation, in the form of battery packs for HEV's. Imagine the amount of money to be made by battery mfg's if 600 million to 1 billion cars in the world will one day sport a 1-2kwh battery pack? And investors in Lithium and Nickel and rare earth minerals will also be laughing all the ways to the bank as well. So, cheer up, battery enthusiasts! even if we can manage to produce a large amount of transportation fuel from renewable wind and solar energy, the advance batteries will still be crucial for this revolution. A123, Altair Nano, Cobasys, Panasonic, etc. will one day be the equivalent of Intel, AMD or even Microsoft.

But, just imagine how neat it would be if we can synthesize most of our future transportation fuels from wind and solar energy, with a little help (heat) from waste biomass or coal combustion in power generation plants? Adios, amigos OPEC!

Well, whaddayaknow. Finally got some feedback from my uncommon view. Unfortunately, you science fiction pretenders missed most of it and focused your mental faculties instead on unbunching your panties.

A PHEV need not provide battery operation driving range at speeds above 35mph or driving distance more than 20 miles. Limiting PHEV battery operation range and speed is an advantage - an economic incentive to drive less, rocket scientist wannabees.

Driving less affects development patterns whereby more destinations become accessable without having to drive. Walking, bicycling become better travel options and mass transit more practical to arrange.

Economies that depend upon and accommodate all modes of travel, (the least efficient being any kind of car), are inherently local and regional. The breakthrough that must follow full implementation of PHEV-related technology (plug-in, V2G, photovoltiac rooftop panels, standardization of vehicular NiMh batteries and electronic controls, conversion to PHEV industries, etc), will be landscaping. People walking more often need better sidewalks, streetscapes and other such places to walk.

Stuff that in your science fiction pipe, smoke it and see what you can dream up, boys. Is a technological breakthrough in landscaping like actually necessary? Absolutely! Got any ideas how to turn asphalt-poisoned roadways and parking lot drek into more natural settings once the real problem of too many freaking cars is solved?

Well well Wells!
It's kinda like the tea pot calling the kettle black!

Most of us here in GCC share your ideal of reducing automobile use, reducing urban sprawl, more public transportation etc. BUT, these are ideals to be decided by the public at large and not by us engineers and scientists! We have solutions to help end the oil addiction and to control global warming TODAY! But we are not dictators who can force the public to abandon their cars, their opulent lifestyle, and their oversized houses in the suburb.

Meanwhile, we still have the responsibility to help the public to find the most sustainable way to poison our planet.

Meanwhile, I'd like to recite our most wise and revered vice president Dick Cheney, who once said: "The American way of life is not negotiable!" [sarcasm] This, apparently, is a viewpoint shared my the majority of the public at large.

Roger. Save the quote, "We have the responsibility to help the public find the most sustainable way to poison our planet." Recognizable sarcasm. I'll just assume the rest of your post is also sarcasm. My claim that plug-in hybrid technology as paramount is in no way dictatorial - it is a choice that the public cannot hear amidst the clamour of high-tech pipe dreams.

Most GCC participants do not incorporate low-tech considerations into their convoluted endorsements for high-tech psuedo-fixes. Maintaining current levels of motoring guarantees overwhelming growth of motoring and energy/fuel consumption. Factor that in.

The production of hydrogen at centralized facilities eliminates the means that consumers may use to reduce their own consumption. Household production on a smaller scale, though it may not offer an extended driving range, is comparitively low-tech. The even simpler technology of storage batteries in a plug-in hybrid drivetrain enables energy conservation to a much greater degree.

This high-tech vs low-tech argument is like California's High-speed rail project. Arbitrary legislation mandated its top speed reach 200mph. Such speeds require expensive electrification, special transets and complete grade-separation. If the legislative mandate instead required a top speed of 150mph, cost is cut in half, and freight rail can also use the new rail on a limited basis. Thus, it is likely that high-tech nerds and policy wonks have doomed the rail project's current effort. Thanks a lot, nerds!

Wells,
U r an astute observer!
But blame costly technologies more on greedy Big Business that use big money to corrupt governments at many levels. Why did Bush Adm invade Iraq, put up missile defense after he antagonized N. Korea, Iraq, and Iran on purpose to give him reason to develop missile defense tech, and push for inefficient ethanol? To please Big Defense and Farm lobby.

And U r right also on the Microsoft nerds who kept pushing ever more complex OS so that they and all the software and hardware makers have chance to cash in on the sales of new softwares and hardwares when the old ones won't be compatible anymore!

And cars are getting heavier and heavier, ladden with all the gizmos and doo-dads that most consumers don't know what to do with! Any fuel-saving technologies gained are wasted on porky luxo sedans, SUV's and minivans weighing 5000-6000 lbs.

The Chinese and Indians are no longer happy going to work on their bicycles, as more and more are using polluting motorbikes and cars...greatly increase the risks of cancers and other diseases.

Of course, everyone else have got to feed themselves and their families and thus have to put up with the rat race!

Blame it on HUMAN NATURE, Wells! GREED, VANITY, One-upmanship, selfishness, or just plain basic instinct toward competitive survival in this dog-eat-dog world!

But the ability to synthesize our fuels from renewable energy in the post-petroleum era will be crucial to sustain our world as we know it! This will be our new reality. Anything else would be fantasy.

Look Roger, if you take objection to being called a nerd, don't prove yourself one with tangiential retorts and conspiracy theories about agribusiness, defense contractors, Microsoft, China's trend toward motor vehicles, human greed and vanity and Bushco fascism. Your attempts to make fun of my views are insipid.

I support bio-fuels when utilized in the Plug-in hybrid drivetrain, whereby combustion efficiency is maximized, battery operation furthers fuel economy, and offer many other important advantages and benefits which have apparently gone completely over your head.

I've presented many logical arguments in defense of Plug-in hybrids here and receive the least replies. Posters here are far too entranced with high-tech gizmos that only increase automobile dependency and corporate control. This is not a game, boy.

Wells,
then, you'll be happy to read this latest article on GCC: Ford and Edison cooperating on plug-in-hybrid.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/ford-and-edison.html#more

Time will tell how PHEV will fan out. It'll hinge upon the ability to mass produce durable battery at cost competitive with other method of energy storage. It'll also depend on availability of critical raw material to produce hundreds of millions of ~10kwh battery packs or greater. It'll also depend on what percentage of the public would want to give up some cargo space or a spare tire, and incurring excess weight, for the larger PHEV battery pack, vs a smallish HEV battery pack like that in the Prius II.

Meanwhile, I see no way out of being able to synthesize transportation fuels from renewable energy, or having practical methods of storing electrical generating fuels from renewable energy (eg. solar photosynthesis) for rainy days, (preparing for many rainy days in a row, literally) when all oil, gas, coal, and even nuclear energy will be exhausted. Peace :)

and even nuclear energy will be exhausted.

This won't happen for millions of years, if then, if fuel cycles with breeding are adopted.

Roger. Regarding durable batteries; NiMh Rav4 battery packs exceed 100,000 miles, and their utility extended with low-demand household use, which I must repeat will prove invaluable in an emergency or grid failure.

Regarding consumer preference; nevermind any presumed limit to crass materialism, the PHEV offers limited battery operation of 20 miles or so, (as I have consistently stipulated as an economic advantage), and entails a smaller battery pack that takes up less cargo space, particularly when mounted low on the frame, most likely under the seatspace, lower trunk space, etc.

Regarding battery production; raw materials for NiMh batteries are more available and practical than exotic materials used in fuel cells. Also, battery recycling has been a viable industry for decades.

Regarding the production of fuels via renewable energy, PHEVs discourage long-distance driving thereby reducing the demand for fuel to the point within renewable energy capacity.

I find the article on the Denver hybrid battery/fuel cell bus more interesting and promising. The batteries supply most of the driving energy, and the fuel cell extends the driving range of the batteries. I believe the use of hydrogen will require frequent maintenance.

This new and hypothetical process to synthesize hydrogen through nukular power is a ruse. The entire scheme is too complex, too costly, and offers too little incentive for various conservation measures; oh, but it's really totally like cool and everything.

Paul,
You may be right, but this is a moot point since we are trying to limit the spread of nuclear weapon proliferation. The fewer nuclear plants there will be, the less chance for bomb-grade material will fall into the wrong hands. Getting permit to build a nuclear plant and decommissioning an old nuclear plant both are very daunting and expensive tasks, the latter will generate radio-active materials everywhere, the stuffs that can leak into your water supply and grazing, farming areas, like in France! And everyone remember Chernobyl or 3-mile island.

At the same time, a few percentage of desert area will be sufficient to supply most of our energy needs. Solar thermal electricity is promising and soon to become competitive with fossil fuel generation if one factor in the cost of global warming or cost of carbon sequestration in coal-fired plants. HVDC (high voltage DC) electrical line has very low-loss transmission at a loss of 3% for every 1000 km, thus can power most of our country for under 8% loss. The ~$600 billions USD pumped into Iraq and Afghanistan so far can build a lot of solar electric capability. At $2,000 USD/kw, that money will buy 300 Gw of power. The exportation of solar plants and solar technology to the Middle East will do wonders for our manufacturing jobs and technological base, instead of exporting wars, violence and deaths.

Wells,
Massive adaptation of PHEV will not achieve gain in efficiency over HEV if you still use chemical fuels (coal, gas, oil, H2) for electricity generation, or using chemical fuel generation capacity to backup unreliable solar and wind. Well-to-wheel efficiency of BEV or PHEV is not superior to HEV. If you still use chemical fuels to make electricity, might as well use it to run your high-efficiency HEV, to avoid loss in electrical transmission from plant to home socket.

Now, breeder nuclear electricity will advance the case of PHEV over that of HEV, since electricity will go directly to PHEV without having to thru H2 or HC fuel route. But, nuclear energy to electricity has ~40% efficiency, whereas nuclear energy to H2 can be as high as 50% as stated in this article, enough to compensate for the less-efficient H2 to wheel vs battery to wheel step. But, again, the concern for nuclear proliferation will make this "nuclear option" a moot point!

Only ~1 million HEV's built so far, and the price of Nickel has escalated 3 folds. This forces Toyota to look into Li-ion to replace NiMh. Imagine a ten to 100 folds increase in numbers of HEV's, with ~1-2kwh battery packs. Imagine replacing these with 10-20kwh battery packs, a further 10-fold increase! What will that do to the price of Nickel and rare earth metals?

Roger. Mass production of batteries and their recycling are standard industry practice, and not likely to be outsourced to slave-labor 3rd World states when fuel costs for shipping become prohibitive. Neither is it justifiable that market forces of supply and demand dictate increased costs, as mass production is likely to reduce costs.

We should not try to parse effiency standards to some hypothetical maximum point of perfection. California's hi-speed rail project is likely to be rejected because of its arbitrary legislative mandate to reach an unecessary top speed that doubles the project cost and limits the new rail's practical use.

PHEV technology creates advantages and benefits beyond the question of well-to-wheel efficiency. I have listed these advantages numerous times here, but you have NOT given them the least consideration.

The advantages of PHEV exceed those of BEV and HEV under all energy production configurations.

Wells,

I am delighted that you deigned to grace our pages with your "bon mots" and your Ph.D in changing Human Nature and creating a non-bourgeoisie "New Man".

I just offer the point that it has never happened yet; and all your buddies who appoint themselves to lead the development of the "new man" seem to have failed.
Of course, we humans are just too stupid to see the revealed truth of a way to organize society that is dialectically perfect. I'm sure that I and most here don't share your view that we must liquidate or Gulagize the miscreants who won't reform or agree to walk... while you ride.

Your views are quaint.

It all serves to make the point that there are still people like you, that really do believe humanity is really pretty stupid. It is really quaint too, to think that and that we have need of guidance from such genius as you display.

Stan. Bug off. Thanks.

You may be right, but this is a moot point since we are trying to limit the spread of nuclear weapon proliferation.

Judging by the success rate of the effort to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, and the time scale I mentioned (millions of years), this seems to be a pointless objection. And, breeding isn't going to be needed soon anyway even if the world goes whole-hog nuclear; once-through cycles with improved uranium supplies and/or fuel elements incorporating thorium can be used for a long time.

Decomissioning has led to nuclear materials getting into water supplies in France? I doubt any significant amount has done so, but perhaps you could provide more evidence. Understand that the global human dose from radioisotopes in phosphate fertilizers is, each year, about half the total integrated human dose from Chernobyl, so contamination from nuclear plants could be quite bad before it begins to compare with contamination we're already accepting.

Well, Paul, which technology would you want the developed countries such as ours to export? Nuclear tech and a large world-wide shipments of nuclear fuel, or large-scale solar thermal plants, or small scale solar panels on large number of rooftops? Thank God, N.Korea has now agreed to shut down their nuclear plant, after so much international objection and coaxing and threat! Can we hope the same from Iran, which is making the western civilization quite nervous? What if Saudi, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Libya will follow suit, once the nuclear technology is so widely available?

No, the UN must get its act together to be much tougher on nuclear proliferation, and that means abandoning nuclear energy altogether as the eventual goal, and put the Genie back in the bottle and throw it away into the sea!