Honda has a good record of not over-promising.

They think the time frame for routine FC vehicles is roughly a decade away. The hype from others about 'real soon now' just seemed ??? to me.

My estimate is about 2014 based upon astonishing skill and intensive research. The Honda estimate can't be as good.

;)

Have a good 2007.

By 2018, we should be seeing 40% new flex bio-fueled vehicles on the road delivering 40-60 MPG service. Ten years down the road of PHEV and BEVs will deliver 150 MP Charge vehicles at a cost of around $1.00 per gallon equiv electrical energy (dependent on charge rate.)

The H2 infrastructure, H2 production/storage economics will need to be on a fast track to support Honda's mass market prediction. So far - we don't see these numbers.

Honda has their own refueling station that can provide H2, electricity, heating and cooling for your home, right in your garage. Now where you are going to get the H2 when you are out on the road is another matter. Making SNG out of biomass and coal is possible. The SNG delivery to fueling stations via the present NG pipes is possible. The fueling station would reform SNG for H2.

H2 fuel cell cars have been a decade away for the last 40 years. In 2018 they will still be a decade away.

Think fuel cell powered cars are a pipe dream. go to www.ecotality.com check it out

Do the math!! 2007 Prius $22,175 MSRP, adjusted for inflation a
2018 Prius is $32,450. What's the mileage for a 2018 Prius ?
I'd say 80mpg is very doable. The Chrysler ESX3 was doing 72mpg with a cost premium of $7,500 in 2003! This doesn't include additional batteries for Plug-in.
Where the F is the benefit of a Fool-Cell?

The Chrysler ESX3 was part of the PNGV program. Ford and GM also had diesel hybrids capable of 70 mpg in 1999. If you are worried about the supply of lithium, how about the supply of platinum for FCs?

H2 is not an energy source, as many have pointed out.

It is also vital to note that converting electricity to H2 through electrolysis, and back to electricity through a fuel cell is very inefficient.

In the end the following fact is undeniable.

IT WILL NEVER BE MORE EFFICIENT TO GENERATE H2 FOR FUEL CELLS THAN IT WILL BE TO CONNECT ALTERNATIVE POWER GENERATION METHODS,(such as Solar, Wind, Wave,ect.) TO A HIGH CAPACITY EV.

Even with gen 4 nuke plants and intermediate breeder reactors it makes more sense to transfer the electrons straight into EV batteries via the grid.

As for H2 generation via Nuclear heat, how much could we generate? Enough for 200 million Fuel Cell cars?

Many advocates of the hydrogen economy will point to my favorite critter, algea, as a potential source of H2.

It is true that high efficiency algea bio-reactors could generate enough H2 for fuel cells, but that still dosn't solve the infrastrucuture problem.

Transporting H2 will require massive investments in new pipelines and other modes of distributuion.

Also, H2 will leak from tanks over time.

In the end an electricity/bio-mass infrastructure makes more sense and is already further along than H2.

For those what will point to the alternative energy generation infrastructure and cry, "that will also cost a fortune!" I say this:

Yes wind power, in order to maximize winds from the plains and texas, would cost $1 trillion, (from some book or article, anyway it will cost a lot.)

And solar, wether nano-solar paint or extrememly efficient panels also will cost a lot, as will gen 4 nuke plants.

But those are things that we will need in the future, if just to keep the lights on.

They could then also be used to charge super dense batteries in EVS.

Thus building an alternative energy infrastructure kills 2 birds with one stone,(3 since it also solves Global climate change).

A H2 infrastrucutre is not something we definetly will need,(since H2 is an energy storage method, alternative energy generators will need to be built regardless).

Thus a hydrogen economy is something that is a pointless waste of money.

As was pointed out above, platinum will never be a cheap metal, and mass production of FC stacks will only increase the price.

EVs can be made cheaply, (The Mitshubishi Miev will sell for $18K) while FCVs will never be able to sell for anything near such a price.

Roger - "I see no problem in the H2 economy."

I see a huge problem that of why bother? On the Tesla website is an analysis of wheel to well efficiency and fuel cell cars are much less efficient than battery electric cars.

As hydrogen is an energy carrier it is vastly worse than the present very efficient energy carrier of electricity. Why build a new one with less efficiency? As you have seen in previous posts the Altair Nano battery packs are being delivered and only need to be mass produced. The electric drives, which a fuel cell car will use anyway, are ready for mass production today. What is the biggest single advantage of H2 that would justify waiting until 2018 for a car?

"Initial H2 infrastructure can consist merely of a truck-tanker with compressed H2 at ~8000 psi,"

To get H2 to 8000psi you would need to use approx 20% of the energy stored in the hydrogen. To liquify it takes 40%. Can you imagine how many trucks, using hydrogen to power them, it would take to service the normal car fleet?

You would prefer this to a battery electric cars charging at home or at a parking stations and being a part of a wider V2G network enabling a vast expansion of renewable power?

A fuel cell car is a hybrid electric car anyway with a fuel cell as a range extender. Why not support battery electric cars and IC petrol electric cars now and promote their expansion, and in 2018 when the fuel cells and tanks become viable we can replace the IC hybrid cars with fuel cell hybrid cars if thats what people really want. Most people with normal driving habits, of less than 20km per day, can use battery electric cars and people with the need to often drive long distances can use fuel cell hybrids.

DS,

U r right! Just adapt the Prius III to run on H2, and you can avoid the uncertainty regarding "fool cell". However, I would respect the opinion of Honda's CEO regarding the future of fuelcell, since Honda has been known to deliver on their promises! Why H2 instead of petroleum? Petroleum may not be sufficiently available in a few decades, while global warming is accelerating!

Adam, Andre, and Ender,

Altairnano batteries are recently sold at $75,000 for a 35kwh pack. And the data on its shelf life isn't even known. What if it will deteriorate after 5-10 years like most rechargeable batteries now-available, regardless of use? When will the price go down enough to make this affordable?

Careful analysis of H2's source-to-wheel efficiency will reveal that it will be quite comparable to BEV's overall efficiency, when H2 is produced, stored and distributed by the most efficient means available. The energy used to compress H2 by the isothermal process is only about 10% of its total energy. This energy is not loss but is largely stored in the tank itself. (have you heard of compress-air motor?) This energy is potentially recoverable to provide additional power to the car. The H2-tanker example I've illustrated represents a low initial investment more appropriate when there are only a small percentage of H2-vehicle around. With more H2-vehicles around, the gas stations will have commercial incentive to have H2 pipeline installed, or NG reformation equipment built-in. Honda plans to offer home-produced H2 from NG reformation of NG from pipeline. Kinda like having an electric charger for your BEV's at home!

All the info that you've read regarding the inefficiency of H2 are misinformation by those with an agenda to promote other forms of alternative energy, or by those who have not kept up with the latest in developments.

If I were in the car business, I would consider getting into the biofuels business. Car companies are just too dependant on oil to leave it to speculation and manipulation. I would get all the car companies together and start a consortium to invest in biofuels that distribute through independant dealers. They could provide fuel at a resonable price to take the uncertainty out of purchasing a car.

Wow! I wish we could bottle the heat energy being generated in some of these comments and use that to power my car, it would probably drive it for a week! Now I don’t know about most of you but I read these postings for informational value and because I hope for a cleaner environment tomorrow, having said that I think some of you are WAY too partisan toward a particular solution and way too quick to drop on disagreement. Lets face facts. Given the high cost of reliable, long term electrical storage a full up electric is probably not the car that wins next year, next ten years maybe, but not next year, and given the technical challenge of storing and transporting hydrogen that ain't happening soon either. So do we give up on R&D for these two technologies?
My answer, at least, is of course not. There are enough specialized energy usage applications within the transportation sector that each of these might have an application somewhere (just as live steam or compressed air engines have a specialty use in fire/explosion hazard areas,) both Hydrogen and full up electric will continue to make sense. To my mind full electric vehicles make sense if the battery life, charge cycle, and materials (toxicity and weight to power ratio) problems can be licked. Of course that assumes that we're going to be generating the electricity from something other then fossil fuels, otherwise we're simply moving the pollution source. Likewise Hydrogen is just fine, if someone can show a good way to transport it and store it that addresses the loss problems. Again I assume that production is NOT from fossil fuels but is instead from high temperature steam extraction rather then from fossil fuel cracking, otherwise (as many of you have noted) we're simply moving the problem elsewhere in the production chain. I do caution those that advocate electrical vehicles though to consider the sorry state of the US electrical grid (the only one with which I am familiar, other nations might also be frelled as well) The electrical infrastructure and generating capacity are often at limits, without major investment in this “delivery” method, full electric vehicles stand as little hope as do Hydrogen cars.
In the short term hybrids and bio-fuels are the answer, especially cellulosic based bio-fuels or non-food based bio-fuel sources (algal based bio diesel for example). Increased use of renewable electrical production with stop gap investment in pebble-bed nuclear plants, even better applications software and communications infrastructure to allow more telecommuting and less actual commuting might help.
But for the long term don’t disparage any technological development no matter how wrong headed you think it is, I guarantee we’ll need and use it somewhere. If it’s impractical the marketplace will kick it to the curb. (Can ships be powered by really large batteries across oceans? Can Airplanes that have strict weight to size ratios? Transport comes in many sizes.)

Larry

Correction to above: Need 5 stages of 6:1 compression ratio each to get to near 8000 psi: 6^5 = 7776. Quite a bit of heat will be needed to be removed at intercooling after each stage, but if fewer stages than this and you're thermally overstressing your compressor, plus, your lubricant won't hold up at temp. above 400 degrees F.