I guess this might answer the "where are we going to get the hydrogen?" question posed in the last GCC post.

Here comes the nanotechnology.

This isn't for directly hydrogen-fueled cars. This hydrogen has a lot of uses, including synthesizing Fischer-Trosph fuels from biomass or coal.

"We are never going to be driving hydrogen cars around. Its a dead end. Get over it and move on."

Not with that attitude.

Why is it that every time there is a huge leap foreward in hydrogen people are always saying "it's just a scam, electric cars are better, hydrogen will never work" but when a new battery technology comes it's all "see, electric cars are the future". Hydrogen can work just as well as electric, we just need the supporting infrastructure in place. It's 20 years off, but it's coming along.

Amen, Brad. If Edison and Alexander Graham Bell had this posters' attitude, we would all be in the dark, at night, talking only to those in the same room with us.

Hydrogen, in my opinion will be used in, ever increasing more efficient fuel cells, to power our electric cars. It will also likely supplement our ICE engines in the short term before being phased out for BEV. We can only survive by changing from the carbon based society, to the hydrogen.

Just one solution of many being developed. The future is looking bright. I cant wait.

who knows

... when we get a hydrogen tank at ~1000-2000$ (which is possible with mass production )
and hydrogen at about 2$ a kgr from renewable energy

then H will be a true option.

increased Electrolysis efficiency means it might be possible to viably produce hydrogen locally. i.e, on site at the filling station. That dramatically reduces the costs and risks assocaited with a larger hydrogen distribution infrastructure. no pipes, no trucks, just thousand of mini electrolysis stations. all probably located on existing gas station sites.

clean electricity powering efficient electrolysis. H2 goes into a tank, and burned in a hydrogen ICE. (forget fule cells). that leverages as much of the existing infrastructure as is probably possible. and all at a reasonable cost. if this tech (or others) can work the only real challenge left is on vehicle hydrogen storage. high pressure tanks are ok, but something better will eventually be discovered.

all sounds reasonable to me.

The reason to not do that is of course a silling dstation gets its power alot cheaper then you.

Gents -

the electrode above produces 7 times as much hydrogen per unit of macroscopic surface area. That means the hydrolysis units are smaller. The extra manufacturing effort involved suggests they may not be cheaper.

The energy required to produce a kg of hydrogen depends on the efficiency of the process and the cost of electricity. High temperature electrolysis with efficiencies of 90%+ has been around for quite a while.

In other words, in terms of the stated objective of a hydrogen economy, this is a rather small step on a journey that is still very long indeed. More to the point, with batteries improving at a rapid clip, it is perfectly legitimate to ask if it is a journey worth continuing.

I think battery powered cars might be closer to reality rather than hydrogen fuel cell cars, but I think the real objection to a hydrogen economy is the fact that Bush backs it. Given the rampant Bush Derangement Syndrome, if Bush says it, it must be attacked.

Hydrogen has it problems.

1. Storage is difficult and will likely never be as cheap as say a plastic/metal tanks for holding petrol or another liquid/paste like fuel (Like Zn, Al or Mg paste). Pressurization is a energy loss (unless you run a air engine on the decompression, but I have never heard of anyone trying that)
2. Fuel cells are expensive: Sure their working on cheaper nano-nickel PEM fuel cells and CO2 resistant AFC. But other energy storage system like lithium ion and Zinc (metal fuels) already have cheaper cells. The efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells is limited: 50% at best for PEM, 60-70% for AFC., this is great compared to ICE, but lithium ion have discharge efficiencies above 85%.
3. Hydrolysis is inefficient; most hydrolysis processes have horribly low efficiencies, or require very high temperatures. Research like this if it proves true would fix that problem, but 85% efficiency is a very dubious mark, I’ll believe it when I see it. Lithium ion already has above 85% recharge efficiency at room temp, Zinc has slightly better recycling efficiency then standard hydrolysis.
4. Hydrogen has safety concerns, sure it can be argue that hydrogen will be safer then gasoline, but lithium ion batteries are fully enclosed, Zinc and other metal pastes are non-flammable and have no vapor pressure, and both are qualified to run in enclosed spaces (say inside a house), hydrogen is not.

Batteries only drawback is recharge time, Zinc and other metal pastes need to be recycled, which means when fueling up, the used fuel needs to be sucked out and recycled at the station or at a recycling plant.

You got alot of your numbers wrong fuel cells are not 50 eff they are already passing 75. Also the goal was 75 eff electrolysis and this is more then 85 so thats nor horribly low as you stated.

Finaly the tanks are not horribly expensive as a total system as the system cost includes the factor that noth ev and h2 systems dont need transmissions or radiators both rather spendy parts.

The fact is they set goals for a reason and are ahead of all thier goals. That means they are ahead of the timegrame to be able to make a sellable low bolume fuel cell car in 2012.

ALSO recent improvements in h2 ice have lead to ice engines that should be able to get far more miles per kilo then before garanteeing that even IF fuel cells take longer then expected wich isnt very likely given how fast they are improving... h2 itself will come in the 5 to 10 year timeline and should and is ramping far better then expected.

And again as again ive said aiagin and again and again h2 is not about what you seem to think it is. Its about a very vauable segment of the market and providing a fuel for thier cars and trucks. The same segment that now drives 7 and even 4 mpg begemoths and does just fine will do fine on an h2 hummer ultra jumbo.

In my mind efficient hydrogen production by electrolysis has always been the major reason for dismissing the "Hydrogen Economy" as a hoax.

In my opinion, up until now, storage of energy directly into batteries has been way ahead in this area but with this announcement maybe not any more.

From somebody who drives a BEV daily, I find this news startling.

Hydrogen gas ICE have other problems, there not as efficient as FC, they have to burn lean (extra air to prevent knocking/pinging/backfire) that reduces their power to weight ratio and increase NOx production

Hydrogen will have its place in the post-peakoil and globalwarming world, but I believe biofuels, batteries and metal-air fuel cells have better potential and markets. The only thing hydrogen has for it over the rest is massive support... from oil companies that know its a pipe dream and hardest to implement alternative.

tom deplume,

Show me a 75% efficient fuel cell. Only an AFC is close to that efficient and it has CO2 poisoning issues, most fuel cells systems in real world conditions with a variety of parasitic loses do less then 40%!