Questions on Hydrogen vehicles

[OnlinePoker]

I saw an item on the news about hydrogen cars coming to Canada in the next year, starting in Vancouver (I think it was Hyundai, but I could be wrong on that). Part of the report showed a large quantity of water coming out the tailpipe which makes sense given that is the byproduct of the engine process. If everybody is eventually driving hydrogen, how will areas that are exceedingly cold in winter going to avoid major icing issues on their highways? Will they just use more salt, sand and gravel every winter? Will fog produced from the emissions create more dangerous driving conditions?

[immoderate]

1. I don't think the volume is significant. Gasoline engines emit H2O also.

Exhaust water mostly evaporates.

Water is about a thousand times more dense than the fuel cell gases. A huge tank of hydrogen gas yields a thimble full of water. It could be directed to a collection tank. Inside the car! Then you can drink it.

But there won't be a lot per mile.

--imm

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Probably not going to be a problem

Since hydrogen fuel cells are just not, in my opinion, a viable energy source, despite wondrous claims.

The main cheap source of hydrogen for fuel cells is natural gas, so we are still burning a fossil fuel to power our cars, and we are getting less bang for our buck since we lose energy in the conversion process.

You can get hydrogen from water via electrolysis, but that takes more energy which is going to come from power plants (more fossil fuel or nukes) which again means more energy loss at the conversion step. Why not simply skip the "creating hydrogen" step and put the electricity straight into your car's battery and run off that? You could use solar to create the hydrogen, but you wind up with less energy than what you would get if you simply charged your battery.

Hydrogen costs anywhere from $5 to $15 per kg depending on whose numbers you believe. A kilo of hydrogen will get you about 80 miles, so that is $0.06 to $0.19 cents a mile, versus $0.05-$0.25 a mile for a conventional ICE (depending on fuel economy). Electric cars like the Leaf or the Tesla cost $0.03 to $0.08 cents per mile depending on electric rates (assuming 3.5 miles per kwh and a rate of $0.10 to $0.30 per kwh).

Battery technology has been slowing improving and will get denser and cheaper over time. The basics of hydrogen fuel cells are not conducive to economic use use barring a MAJOR breakthrough in materials/process.

[nationalize the fed]

6. Honda Solar Electrolysis

You can get hydrogen from water via electrolysis, but that takes more energy which is going to come from power plants (more fossil fuel or nukes) which again means more energy loss at the conversion step.

ITV Presenter Rebecca Broxton at Honda's Swindon UK Solar Park

First green hydrogen refuelling station opens
10/31/14

Solar-powered hydrogen available to drivers at Honda's Swindon UK factory...

...The refuelling station at Swindon uses electricity from a nearby 15MW capacity solar photovoltaic plant to power an industrial electrolyser, which produces hydrogen from water to be dispensed for several applications...
http://www.imeche.org/news/engineering/first-green-hydrogen-refuelling-station-opens

http://www.itv.com/news/west/story/2014-09-03/solar-farm-opens-in-swindon/

Solar Hydrogen station in Connecticut

Battery technology has been slowing improving and will get denser and cheaper over time. The basics of hydrogen fuel cells are not conducive to economic use use barring a MAJOR breakthrough in materials/process.

Battery tech will improve but Hydrogen tech will not? Already there is promising research that shows that platinum probably won't be necessary.

Finding a suitable platinum substitute for fuel cells
4/2/14

In a new study led by Argonne National Laboratory chemist Di-Jia Liu, researchers have identified a new way to synthesize inexpensive, transition metal-based catalysts as an alternative to platinum. These new catalysts offer the promise of substantially reducing the fuel cell cost...
http://www.anl.gov/articles/finding-suitable-platinum-substitute-fuel-cells

And there are people like this:

Jordanian student uses solar power to fuel hydrogen cars
2015-02-02

Sabra : The generator consists, firstly, of a module of photovoltaic cells, which captures the solar energy that is abundant in Jordan, then converts it into electricity to supply the generator with enough power to operate. By incorporating this module we dispense with expensive conventional fuel, and there is no additional cost to generating electricity from the sun. The module has a capacity of 800 to 1,000 watts.

The module is then connected to the home generator, which consists of a tank with sheets of negative and positive cells. The generator also has another part, namely a water source, and must be filled with specific amounts of water before it can be operated.

You then turn the generator on and the solar-generated electricity decomposes the water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. A special part has been installed to separate and store the hydrogen in special cylinders -- made specifically for this purpose -- and the oxygen is disposed of...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112780624
http://al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/meii/features/2015/02/02/feature-02

[Kelvin Mace]

9. I didn't say it couldn't be done

I said it can't be done economically at this time, and probably not in the near to intermediate future.

How much Hydrogen does the Swindon plant produce?

The hydrogen station can produce and dispense 3kg of hydrogen an hour, up to 200kg a day,

Huh? There are 24 hours in a day and the plant can produce 3 kg per hour, meaning 72 kg per day, not 200 kg. But they say "produce and dispense", so maybe the dispensing can only be done at 3 kg per hour, while the plant can make 200 kg. But, I will assume 200 kg of usable hydrogen.

That is enough fuel to drive 16,800 miles. Impressive. So, how much power does it take?

The refuelling station at Swindon uses electricity from a nearby 15MW capacity solar photovoltaic plant

Assuming they meant 15 mWh (15 megawatt hour, or 15,000 kilowatt hours), that is enough electricity to drive my Nissan Leaf 52,500 miles. That means you can travel three times farther with a battery powered car than you can with a HFC car using the same energy. Also, 15mWh of power is the energy equivalent of 454 gallons of gasoline, which my would allow me to drive my Nissan Sentra 15,890 miles.

So, 15mWh of power equals:

15,890 miles in a gasoline ICE.
16,800 in a Hydrogen FCV
52,500 miles in a battery powered vehicle

What about developing more efficient fuel cells using platinum?

Researchers working on the next generation of fuel cells have been facing a platinum conundrum – and it’s one they’re fighting hard to solve.

Platinum, one of the most costly precious metals,

needs more platinum catalyst to function. Scientists have been searching for low-cost catalysts to replace platinum in attempts to make fuel cells more affordable to the public.

These new catalysts offer the promise of substantially reducing the fuel cell cost.

Lots of qualifiers that basically translate into "Some day, we hope to have a cheaper way to make fuel cells".

Your final article about the Jordanian student does not contradict the points I make above, and the numbers don't seem to add up. He says his PV module produces 1000 watts (per hour? per day?). Using the Swindon UK numbers above, they produce "up to" 200 kg of hydrogen using a 15mWh (15,000 kWh) PV array, which according to my math works out to 75 kWh of electricity per kg of hydrogen. If I assume 12 hours of usable sunlight in Jordan and assume he meant 1000 watts per hour (1 kWh) mean he produces 12 kWh of electricity per day, which means it will take him a bit over six days to produce a single kg of hydrogen, which would power a hydrogen FCV for about 84 miles. The same energy would power a BEV for over 260 miles.

The Univ of Florida explains it a bit better than I probably did here:

The use of solar energy to produce hydrogen can be conducted by two processes: water electrolysis using solar generated electricity and direct solar water splitting. When considering solar generated electricity, almost everyone talks about PV-electrolysis. The process works. In fact, it was first demonstrated at the Florida Solar Energy Center in 1983 under funding through the NASA Kennedy Space Center. Though technologically doable, it is not economically viable yet. Besides cost, there is the question of why use electricity, a very efficient energy carrier, to generate hydrogen, another energy carrier, and then convert it back into electricity again for use? In other words, electricity is so valuable as electricity, our most desirable energy carrier, that we may not want to use it for anything other than that. This is especially true if electricity is made from photovoltaics. PV as an energy source matches the air-conditioning peak load of the nation's utilities. One is much better off using PV electricity as electricity since it is too wasteful to use it otherwise.

When will it make sense to make hydrogen from solar generated electricity? The answer is we will want to make hydrogen any time electricity cannot be used - off peak in remote areas, and during seasonal variations. Hydrogen from wind, hydro, geothermal or any other form of solar-generated electricity is valuable when the resource does not match the electrical grid load profile.

If solar electricity via PV-electrolysis-fuel cell does not make sense, what about PV-electrolytic hydrogen? In fact, most of the discussion about PV-electrolysis concerns hydrogen production for use as an automotive fuel. Again, this scenario does not appear to be viable. Consider the case of a hydrogen fueling station dispensing 1,000 gallons of gasoline per day, about one-half of the national average. Note that one gallon of gasoline contains just about the same amount of energy as in one kilogram (kg) of hydrogen. Thus, a fueling station will require about 1,000 kg of hydrogen per day. Using the lower heating value of hydrogen, the electrical energy needed to generate one kg of hydrogen is 51 kWh (using an electrolyzer efficiency of 65%). This means that 1,000 kg/day of hydrogen will require 51,000 kWh per day of electricity. The amount of PV needed to supply 51,000 kWh can be estimated by dividing the kWh by 5 hours/day. Thus, 10,200 kWp or 10.2 megawatts of PV power will be needed for operating a 1000 kg/day hydrogen fueling station. Note that 1 kWp requires approximately 10 square meters in area for PV at 10% efficiency.

These numbers are not an Apples-to-Apples comparison to the Swindon plant because the Florida one is more specific about PV efficiency and correctly distinguishing between watt and watt hours (I am assuming that they meant watt hours), but they are a good rough estimation.

(Clarification: The sentence "Note that one gallon of gasoline contains just about the same amount of energy as in one kilogram (kg) of hydrogen." while true, requires elaboration. An ICE vehicle and a hydrogen FCV use that energy in completely different ways, one more efficient than the other. The ICEV combusts the gasoline converting it to mechanical energy to move the vehicle, with a a huge amount of the energy going to waste as heat, whereas the hydrogen is converted to electricity and used to power an electric motor which is about 3 times more efficient. Thus, while a gallon of gasoline will take me about 35 miles in my Sentra, the same amount of electrical energy would take me 115 miles in my Leaf.)

Bottom line: It takes a HUGE amount of electricity to make a very small amount of hydrogen. For cars, that electricity is more efficiently used by storing in a battery rather than converting it into hydrogen, then converting it back into electricity to run the car.

HFCV

Power Plant-->Hydrogen-->Electricity-->Motor

BEV

Power Plant-->Battery-->Motor

[NYC_SKP]

56. You are, of course, correct. Every H2>BEV study uses biased data or is an outright lie.

This is my area of expertise.

Where H2 vehicles are shown to be more efficient or to have a lower GHG emissions footprint than BEVs, they use the most favorable data for H2 against least favorable data for BEVs.

In the end, your instincts are correct: Why use one energy carrier to produce another energy carrier that then has to be converted back to the original carrier?

Secondly, what's the rush to adopt a model that will REQUIRE us to use specialized for-profit H2 filling stations?

THAT is what I think is really behind all this push to adopt and Honda and Toyota should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm happy to use my household outlet to recharge my battery pack and not have to use the fueling infrastructure exclusively, as ICE car owners do now and as H2 owners will in the future.

[Kelvin Mace]

61. It is amazing how folks can't handle simple math

Also, how they don't read the evidence they use to back up their own arguments which actually disproves their argument. Despite all these arguments that had HFCVs getting 80-90 mpkg of hydrogen, the first real world specs from Hyndai peg the number at 47 mpkg, about 1/3 the efficiency of a BEV.

[NYC_SKP]

62. I've yet to find a chart or graphic comparing BEV w FCEV with an identical common energy mix.

It's embarrassing.

I spent two hours on the phone today with a grad student at a nearby University of California.

Main topic, resistance to renewables and new technology.

My answers: it is fueled by ignorance and myth and misunderstanding, and I explained that the trouble comes from both ends of the political spectrum.

The RW does not have a monopoly on working with bad data.

[Kelvin Mace]

63. No, it doesn't

I have been down this road several times on DU with e-voting conspiracists and arguements about Terri Schiavo's case. While I am not a scientific expert, I work to have an educated understanding of the basics, which is not really that hard to do, so I don't understand why people refuse to make a similar effort.

[happyslug]

3. The water will be hot thus into the Atmosphere it will go

If conditions are right it could fall as rain or snow, but what I means by "if the Conditions are good" it is raining or snowing (100% humility). THe additional Rain and Snow will be quite small, measurable but small.

In other areas the Vapor will form little frost practicals (what my father called Jack Frost) that you see from your breath when it is getting close to Zero Fahrenheit, about -17 Celsius (And you start to see the in the lows 20s, Fahrenheit or about -4 Celsius). AS you near Freezing, the heat from your body keeps the water vapor in your breath from freezing long enough to fall elsewhere, but as temperature drops below freezing you start to see the sun reflecting on those vapors.

At that temperature they will just float around and be carried by the wind. Given most cars are making their own wind by just moving along the highway, these particles should be driven to the side of the Road.

Just a comment that I see no problem with water was a vapor from car exhaust in regards to Winter Weather. It will just add to nay snow or rain that is already falling or be carried elsewhere by the wind as water vapor OR ice Crystals (Depending on the Temperature).

[Kelvin Mace]

4. I admire humility in my rain and snow

If conditions are right it could fall as rain or snow, but what I means by "if the Conditions are good" it is raining or snowing (100% humility).

[longship]

5. First of all, hydrogen is not an energy source.

Since there are no sources of molecular hydrogen on Earth. All hydrogen is combined in other molecules -- i.e., water, H2O, or methane H4C. That means that one has to put energy into making free hydrogen. And of course there is that nasty equation by Boltzmann, S = k ln W, describing entropy.

To separate hydrogen from its molecular partners you will always put more energy in than you get out by oxidizing the hydrogen. One cannot fool the laws of thermodynamics.

So, there is only a hydrogen economy to the extent that there is a clean source of energy in order to generate it. Because there are no natural sources of molecular hydrogen on Earth. None.

[NYC_SKP]

57. ^^^ Exactly. Hydrogen IS, however, a way to stay dependent on fueling stations and to waste energy.

Most people don't know the difference between a fuel as a source of energy and an energy carrier.

Shown the error of their ways, proponents then roll out the old "solar hydrogen generator" as if that's better than just charging batteries with solar.

Not even a month yet in my Volt and I'm loving the way I can go days and days without gas by just plugging in at home to a standard outlet.

True, for longer trips I still need some petrol, but most of the time I don't.

[longship]

59. And the plug-in charging, in spite of its carbon-based generation, is the cheapest and efficient.

("most efficient" -- ran out of headline room)

That is the beauty of electric cars. And that is the economic and environmental reality which so many people do not understand. When your mileage is taken off the electric grid instead of burning gasoline, those are your most energy efficient miles. The alternatives do not come close.

Where I live, a total electric vehicle would make no sense right now. I live in the woods, 15 miles each way to town and it went down to -14F this morning. An electric car would be useless here; I would get stranded in the midst of winter. But a plug-in hybrid would be great here, in spite of the fact that there is little stop and go here in the National Forest.

But hopefully the slow and incremental battery tech advances will bring us all a car which will give all of us vehicles that can reliably run off batteries for a good 200 miles or so, even under conditions here in northern winters. Then, we will have conquered the problem. More or less.

One does not need solar to make an argument for electric cars.

Oh! And the repairs are so much simpler for an all electric.

My best, NYC_SKP.

[NYC_SKP]

60. Thank you. Studies have been conducted indicating lower GHG rates even in coal-heave utility areas.

I don't keep the links handy, but if this is true then you know it's very advantageous if one lives in more climate friendly areas like I do in Northern California.

To be sure, EVs are not for everyone including me, because I have to travel more than 100 miles on many of my trips and the technology and infrastructure aren't quite yet mature enough for that.

But the series hybrid Volt comes mighty close, EV when it can be with that onboard generation for the longer trips.

Take care and thank you for bringing good information to the thread.

[nationalize the fed]

7. Toyota Cold Fuel Cell Testing -30C

Yes Hyundai is coming to Canada with fuel cells first and then Toyota and Honda both. Mercedes in 2017 or 18.

Pretty sure Toyota has thought of this. Very little water is emitted while driving. Insignificant when compared to any rain whatsoever.

Toyota hasn't just slapped together their Hydrogen Car in the last 6 months. They've been working >20 years on it. So has Honda, the Clarity has been driving around since 1999.

One of their cold weather tests in Yellowknife Canada ~30C:

Hot weather testing in Death Valley CA 120F+:

Related:

Tokyo is spending over $300 million to promote 'hydrogen fuel' — here's what that means
Jonathan Fisher Feb. 10, 2015

Tokyo is planning to spend around 40 billion yen — roughly $330 million — to increase the use of hydrogen energy in the country ahead of the 2020 Olympics.

The project is for more than just the Olympics. According to top officials from the Tokyo Metropolitan Government, the goal is to promote the use of sustainable hydrogen energy in Japan.

The plan actually began when car-maker Toyota announced the launch of the first hydrogen fuel cell vehicle...
http://www.businessinsider.com/tokyo-and-hydrogen-fuel-in-2020-olympics-2015-2

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Yes, but HOW is the hydrogen produced?

Again, the EASIEST way is from natural gas, which means we are still consuming fossil fuels to produce it. Far more energy efficient to either burn the NG for electric generation or burn it in the car's engine directly. What about solar? Well, while Canada is has LOTS of fossil fuel, it has a lot less usable sunlight being so far north. Wind power is possible, but you get right back to the point that it takes a LARGE amount of electricity to produce a small amount of hydrogen.

How much?

Electrolysers generate Hydrogen by splitting the water molecule H2O into its constituent elements Hydrogen and Oxygen in a process which is the reverse of the electrochemical action which takes place in a fuel cell. An electric current is passed through the water between two electrodes. Hydrogen is formed at the cathode connected to the negative supply voltage terminal and Oxygen is formed at the anode connected to the positive supply voltage terminal.

The rate at which Hydrogen is produced is directly proportional to the current passing between the electrodes. (Faraday's Law)

The calorific energy content of Hydrogen is about 39 kWh/Kg. Taking into account the process inefficiencies, it takes over 50 kWh of electricity to generate 1 Kg of Hydrogen.

The conversion efficiency of the electrolysers used to create hydrogen is between 60% and 80% depending on the current and the materials used for the electrolytes and the electrodes.

When the prime purpose of the electrolyser is to store surplus electricity generated by solar or wind power for subsequent use in a fuel cell, the "round trip efficiency" of the storage process (electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity) is between 30% and 50%. This compares unfavourably with battery storage where the round trip efficiency, known as the coulombic efficiency in battery parlance, is over 90% for a Lead Acid battery and even more for a Lithium battery.

So, best case scenario, for every unit of energy you expend to get to make hydrogen, you will get half that amount back when you actually use it. If you stick that energy in a battery instead, you will get 90%+ back.

Also, there is this problem:

At that time, the NRC predicts an annual production of 60 billion kg of hydrogen. Webber’s analysis estimates that this amount of hydrogen would use about 19-69 trillion gallons of water annually as a feedstock for electrolytic production and as a coolant for thermoelectric power. That’s 52-189 billion gallons per day, a 27-97% increase from the 195 billion gallons per day (72 trillion gallons annually) used today by the thermoelectric power sector to generate about 90% of the electricity in the US. During the past several decades, water withdrawal has remained stable, suggesting that this increase in water intensity could have unprecedented consequences on the natural resource and public policy.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Evil hydrogen powered cars which use natural gas!

At this point, in the US, most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_elecgen.cfm


“Reforming” fossil fuels to generate hydrogen to power hydrogen vehicles is more efficient than burning fossil fuels to generate electricity to run electric cars.


http://www.cleancaroptions.com/html/natural_gas_system_efficiency.html


http://www.cleancaroptions.com/html/coal_system_efficiency.html


http://www.cleancaroptions.com/html/biomass_system_efficiency.html


When we have a grid which is 100% wind and solar (which will be no time soon) battery cars may be slightly more efficient:
http://www.cleancaroptions.com/html/renewable_energy_efficiency.html

[Kelvin Mace]

14. You are still expending about 50 kWh of power to

generate a kg of hydrogen which contains 39 kWh of power. The best estimates I have seen say that a kg of hydrogen will get you 84 miles. However, the same amount of electricity put into a battery will get you 120 miles a 80% efficient battery and 3 miles per kWh (I am currently managing 3.6 miles/kWh in cold weather).

While researching the topic I found this article from SA from 2009 that shows a Toyota Highlander FCV getting 68 mpkg of hydrogen. Even assuming solar/wind power for producing hydrogen, you are still better off using the electricity to charge a battery than make hydrogen UNLESS you have excess generation capacity that will "go to waste" and no batteries to store it in. You then have to build the VERY specialized equipment needed to distill and then fill up a very pricey composite tank that contains the hydrogen at 10,000 psi.

I just don't see a future for hydrogen FCs as practical beyond some very specialized areas, like space craft, if you overlook that whole "Apollo 13 hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell explosion" incident.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. I believe you’re mistaken

http://www.cleancaroptions.com/html/natural_gas_system_efficiency.html

[font face=Serif][font size=3]Well-to-wheels fuel efficiency. The total well-to-wheels efficiency of converting natural gas to electricity for a BEV and to hydrogen for a FCEV is summarized in this chart, assuming that both the battery EV and the fuel cell EV are designed for 250 miles range. The top row of this chart shows that 1.29 million British Thermal Units (MBTU) of natural gas energy would be required to make electricity in a natural gas combustion turbine to charge the batteries for a BEV to travel 250 miles.

The second row shows that the natural gas energy required would be reduced to 0.86 MBTU’s if a more efficient combined cycle power plant produced the electricity.

Finally, the last row shows that only 0.67 MBTU’s of natural gas would be needed to make enough hydrogen to propel a FCEV for 250 miles. Therefore converting natural gas to hydrogen provides between 1.3 and 1.9 times greater fuel efficiency than using that natural gas to make electricity for a BEV, so a given quantity of natural gas will provide 1.3 to 1.9 times more vehicle miles traveled in a FCEV than in a BEV.



Total system efficiency vs. range. The advantage of the FCEV over the BEV in natural gas utilization decreases for shorter range vehicles, since the battery banks become lighter and less energy is needed to accelerate the lighter BEV. As shown in this chart, a BEV with only 100 miles range would have approximately the same well-to-wheels efficiency (natural gas utilization) as a FCEV, assuming that the electricity is generated by a high efficiency natural gas combined cycle plant. The FCEV would still have a slight efficiency advantage over a BEV charged from an older natural gas combustion generator.



…[/font][/font]

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/thomas_fcev_vs_battery_evs.pdf

[Kelvin Mace]

16. No, I am looking strictly at the amount of power needed to produce 1 kilogram of hydrogen

REGARDLESS of the source.

According to the U.S. DoE it costs $5.60 to produce 1 Gj of hydrogen energy from natural gas. 1 Gj is about 278 kWh. 1 kg of hydrogen is 39kWh. So, 278/39=46.6 kWh. The hydrogen must then be pressurized for "packaging" in a fuel cell. According to the same paper that requires another 13% of the hydrogen's energy content, so (39*1.13)+46.6 = 51.6 kWh of energy total to strip the hydrogen from NG, then pressurize it so it can be placed in your car's tank.

Once in your car, the 1 kg of hydrogen FC provides 39kWh or electricity which is then used to continually charge a small battery packs which then provides power to the electric motor.



Due to energy loss in the system, the end result is that the car gets about 80-84 miles per kg of hydrogen. So, our total energy expenditure 52.7 kWh ours to travel 84 miles (I haven't been able to find a breakdown of energy loss by subsystem in a HFCV, but at least 15%-20% is lost to the battery, 5% to the motor, and an unknown amount to the FC subsystem, but every article I looked at said best case was 80-84 miles. Although, the one real-world article with an actual FCV cited 68 miles).

The same 51.6 kWh of electricity used to simply charge a BEV will yield 38.7 kWh energy to the wheels (20% loss to the battery and 5% to the motor). 42.1 kWh yields 116 miles at 3 miles per kWh.

So, to recap, under normal driving conditions:

A standard ICEV with 25 mpg fuel economy travels 25 miles or .75 miles per kWh (A gallon of gas has 33kWh of energy, so 25/33=0.75)

An HFCV travels 84 miles on 1 kg of hydrogen travels which is 2.1 miles per kWh (1 kg of hydrogen has 39kWh, so 84/39=2.1)

A Nissan Leaf will travel 75 miles on a 24 kWh battery pack which is 3.1 miles per kWh. (25/75=3.1).

This is an apples-to-apples. A single kWh of electricity will take me:

0.75 miles in a gasoline powered car.
2.1 miles in an FCV
3.1 miles in a BEV

Now we can argue about the environmental effects of how that energy is produced which is germane to climate change but not the plain math of how far each of our vehicles move per unit of energy expended. If we produce hydrogen with natural gas as opposed to gasoline (or burning it to generate electricity) the net environmental effect is better, but we are still using a fossil fuel to move object from point a to point b which is still bad and still burning through a finite resource (if we extract the hydrogen from water instead, it is cleaner, but requires a LOT more power, like 60+ kWh). Since our goal is to move to a renewable, unlimited power resource (solar and wind) which has zero GHG emissions and zero resource consumption (after they are manufactured), when all is said and done, a renewable power source powering a BEV is going to outperform a renewable power source powering a HFCV.

In my computations above I used real world numbers for ICEVs and BEVs and "best case" numbers for HFCVs. The one real world test I could find by Scientific American claimed 68 miles per kg of hydrogen, so plugging that number in our HFCV drops to 1.7 miles per kWh, twice as efficient as gasoline, but half as efficient as a BEV.

We might be able to overlook the inefficiency, but when coupled with the massive infrastructure that would have to be built from scratch and the potential calamity of having an accident that ruptures a hydrogen tank at 10,000 psi and the economics stop making sense. Hydrogen power is also one the oil/gas industries like, because it closely mirrors what they currently do, drill for oil/gas, refine it into a fuel, truck it across the country to filling stations.

EV infrastructure is 80% built, since we have all the power lines and generators already in place. My home is my filling station and every night I refuel my car. Switching from gas/oil/coal generation to solar/wind means cutting down on GHG and still not having to build an energy distribution system from scratch. When I disconnect my house from the utility grid to plug in my PV panels, I don't have to run out and buy the hardware to distill hydrogen, I simply plug in my car.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. I believe your view is short-sighted

We don’t have an electricty well somewhere. Our grid is primarily powered by burning stuff.

So, what results is the least emissions per mile?

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdf

[Kelvin Mace]

18. Mmmm, you make my point for me

Look at your own graph. Compare the two little orange slivers that represent BEV100 and BEV300/renewable to HFCV/Wind. BEV from solar/wind beats the hell out of HFCV/wind.

You said I am short-sighted. I am looking at the trend of the power grid into the future, replacing burning finite fossil fuels with solar/wind generation. Under that scenario BEV/renewable is the better deal according to your own chart. In the short term HFCV would be a better deal, except for the little part about there not being any national infrastructure to make hydrogen to power HFCVs (which are not yet available and when they are will only be sold in California), whereas we DO have an infrastructure to power BEVs (which are currently being sold).

When you add this reality to the fact that a BEV is twice as efficient as a HFCV, only one choice makes practical and economic sense.

The cost to build a hydrogen fueling station is, at best, $500,000 according to Car & Driver. But that is for a commercial station, so let's assume a home station will cost 1/10th of that, that would still be $50,000.

For roughly 1/5th of that price I can put up a solar array with the power to recharge my car battery from flat to full with ZERO emission and no fossil fuels consumed.

How will you power your station? From the grid? Then you are burning those fossil fuels again.

How about from solar? Well you need 51 kWh of power to make a single kg of hydrogen. That is going to require an array $6,000 more than mine, on top of the $50K for the hydrogen distiller. Hone-based wind turbines cost about $25 per kWh per month generated. Your hydrogen fueling system is going to need 1,530 kWh per month to produce a single kg of hydrogen per day. So, by my math that works out to over $38,000 for a wind-powered solution.

My system cost cost using solar: $10,000
Fossil fuel needed to operate: Zero
Real world mileage yield: 3.1 miles per kWh
Price of a Nissan Leaf BEV: $37,000 (new), $17,000 (used)
Soonest available date for fueling system: Now

Cost of hydrogen fueling system using solar: $66,000
Fossil fuel needed to operate: Natural Gas
Real world mileage yield: 1.7 miles per kWh
Price of Toyota Miral HFCV: $57,000 (Available sometime this year and only in California).
Soonest available date for fueling system: ?

Cost of hydrogen fueling system using solar: $88,000
Fossil fuel needed to operate: Natural Gas
Real world mileage yield: 1.7 miles per kWh
Price of Toyota Miral HFCV: $57,000 (Available sometime this year and only in California).
Soonest available date for fueling system: ?

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Right now, I’m interested in the bars labeled “US Grid.”

I’m looking forward to the carbon-free grid too!

However, it’s not going to be here, for a very long time.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_elecgen.cfm



http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

[font face=Serif][font size=5]What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?[/font]

[font size=3]In 2013, the United States generated about 4,058 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 39% attributed from coal.

In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were

• Coal 39%
• Natural Gas 27%
• Nuclear 19%
• Hydropower 7%
• Other Renewable 6%
• Biomass 1.48%
• Geothermal 0.41%
• Solar 0.23%
• Wind 4.13%
• Petroleum 1%
• Other Gases < 1%

Learn more:

Monthly Energy Review

Last updated: June 13, 2014[/font][/font]

[Kelvin Mace]

20. It was YOUR chart!

You supplied it as evidence that it supported your claim that HFCVs were the lowest producers of GHGs. I then pointed to YOUR OWN chart and showed you that BEVs using renewable energy were actually THE LOWEST producer of GHGs (by an order of magnitude), and you throw up another chart immaterial to the argument and claim it now proves your point, completely disregarding the refutation of your own claim with your own evidence.

Given the funds, I can pick up the phone TODAY and have a solar array on my roof by month's end that will power my BEV with ZERO emissions and ZERO use of of fossil fuels for the next 25 years.

You can't do that now, since there is NO HFCV available for sale until later this year. It will cost you over double what I paid for my car and will be half as efficient in energy use. You will then have to wait for someone to sell you a home fueling system and then you will spend six to eight times what my system costs and you will still be burning natural gas while I won't.

I really don't know how I can make it any clearer.

Using any energy source, clean or dirty, a BEV will go almost twice the distance of a HFCV on the same amount of energy. That is not theory, not opinion, but empirically proven fact.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Please look at the lines regarding the U.S. Grid mix

That is a projected future mix we’re talking about here.

You’ve made yourself quite clear. I understand you quite well. However, you’re basing your conclusions on faulty assumptions.


If, you use electricity from some source to either charge a battery electric vehichle, or split water to produce hydrogen for a fuel cell electric vehicle, it is more efficient to run the BEV.

However, if the choice is between burning coal (for example) to heat water, to generate electricity to charge a BEV or “reforming” coal to generate hydrogen to drive a FCEV, the latter is more efficient.

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. Actually efficiency is a secondary concern to the US auto buyer

If efficiency was important, car dealers wouldn’t sell so many SUV’s.

Now, tell me, what BEV with a 200+ mile range can you fully charge in 10 minutes?

[Kelvin Mace]

33. Efficiency is more important as gasoline prices rise

when it was pushing $4 a gallon, there were a LOT of SUV sitting on lots, and price for used SUVs plummeted. Gas prices will rise again, and when they do people will be looking for efficient vehicles. And at 3-5 cents a mile, it is damned hard to beat an EV.

And you are correct, there is NO BEV with a 200 mile range that charges in 10 minutes, but for the vast majority of people in the US, you don't need a 200 mile range. I have two cars, an EV and a gasoline Sentra. Unless I go on vacation or have to visit my sister, I start it once a week just to turn the engine over and keep the battery charged. I go to work, visit friends, go out on errands, come home and charge it up each night. Range is seldom an issue.

As soon as I can afford it, it will be charged by the sun.

[OKIsItJustMe]

35. Re: As soon as I can afford it, it will be charged by the sun.

More power to you. No, seriously, that’s great.

However, I believe you will see hydrogen cars outselling battery cars in a decade or so (maybe sooner.)

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/toyota-hydrogen-fuel-cell-technology-simply-better-battery.html

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Toyota on hydrogen fuel cell technology: “Simply a better battery”[/font]

Eric Rogell (@ericrogell)
Transportation / Cars
November 24, 2014

[font size=3]On Monday, November 17, 2014, Toyota invited Treehugger and several other select journalists from around the world to Newport Beach, California, to witness the unveiling of their long anticipated, finally road-ready, hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (FCV), dubbed Mirai.

…

Father of the Prius bets big on FCVs

We had the good fortune and honor to be seated with the Chairman of Toyota Motor Corporation (and father of the Prius), Takeshi Uchiyamada at dinner. During a lively conversation, you see just how passionate and committed the man who made hybrid technology a widely accepted, mass-market reality is about the future of mobility in the world.

…

“Simply a Better Battery”

Chairman Uchiyamada has said that hydrogen fuel cell technology is “simply a better battery.” And that’s what’s so important to understand—FCVs are really just electric vehicles powered by a battery, just like the EVs on the road today. The major difference is they carry their refueling source on board, rather than from a plug in the wall. (So maybe calling them FCEVs would be more accurate.)

…[/font][/font]

[Kelvin Mace]

39. By the numbers

1) You quote three stories talking about how the future is HFCVs, all from Toyota, the only company with a financial interest in selling them, since they are the only company offering one for sale in the U.S. and ONLY in California.

2) There are three hydrogen fueling stations in California at the moment, with 40 planned for the coming year. How many electrical sockets in California are there to fuel an electric car?

3) The production of hydrogen still requires the use of natural gas, unless you are going to extract it from water, in which case you are looking at increasing your electricity needs about 50% (from 51 kWh to 75 kWh) to produce a single kg of hydrogen. (75 kWh of electricity will take my Leaf, a car that currently exists and I drive every day, 270 miles. Whereas the same amount of power would take the Toyata Mirai, which is not yet available (and which will only be available in California), 84 miles (maybe). My Leaf can refuel at home and leaves home with a "full tank" every morning. The Mirai will have to find one of the 43 (3 at the moment) hydrogen stations that will supposedly be available in California sometime this year (maybe) in order to refuel.

3) Are you going to admit that the chart you showed me as proof that from "Well-to-Wheel" HFCVs have the lowest GHG emissions ACTUALLY shows that honor belongs to BEVs using renewable power? And not by just a bit, but by an order of magnitude. In fact, BEVs charged via solar/wind are indisputably the ONLY way to go if your PRIMARY concern is GHG emission.

I expect you will ignore my first two points, but unless you are willing to admit to #3, I will have to assume you are simply trolling me at this point.

[OKIsItJustMe]

40. Absolutely! a battery powered vehicle, powered by (for example) solar is quite clean!

However, the majority of BEV’s will be charged from the grid.


FWIW: At this point, California will probably be the location of most FCEV’s in the US.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2014_releases/2014-04-29_Energy_Commission_and_ARB_H2USA_news_release.pdf

…

Fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen to create electricity to power a car, producing only water vapor or heat in the process. Depending upon how the hydrogen is produced, few to zero harmful emissions are released at hydrogen production facilities. By state law, all of the hydrogen sold through publicly funded hydrogen fueling stations must include one-third renewable hydrogen, which means the potential reduction in greenhouse gases is about 68 percent, the same as battery electric drive cars. The greenhouse gas emissions reductions can be even higher when hydrogen is produced from renewable sources such as biomethane from biomass and landfills or from renewable energy sources such as wind or solar power using water electrolysis.

…

[nationalize the fed]

51. 3 strikes

1) You quote three stories talking about how the future is HFCVs, all from Toyota, the only company with a financial interest in selling them, since they are the only company offering one for sale in the U.S. and ONLY in California.

False. Hyundai is leasing a fuel cell car now, both in CA and Europe. Honda will sell a fuel cell vehicle next year.





Honda is also building Solar Hydrogen stations in Japan and has been working for the last 15 years on Home Solar Hydrogen Refueling.

Honda begins operating next generation solar hydrogen station prototype, intended for ultimate use as a home refueling appliance capable of an overnight refill of fuel cell electric vehicles
http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/SolarHydrogenStation/

Toyota is spending lots of $ to build H2 fueling stations on the east coast.

Toyota Announces East Coast ‘Hydrogen Highway’ for ‘Mirai” FCV

Toyota announced tonight it will work with Air Liquide toward planting 12 fuel cell vehicle refueling stations in five Northeastern states for its new pending fuel cell vehicle, the Mirai.

“Toyota’s vision of a hydrogen society is not just about building a great car, but ensuring accessible, reliable and convenient refueling for our customers,” said Lentz. “I am happy to announce that this vision will expand beyond the borders of California and give customers the opportunity to join the fuel cell movement.”
http://www.hybridcars.com/toyota-announces-east-coast-hydrogen-highway-for-mirai-fcv/

2) There are three hydrogen fueling stations in California at the moment, with 40 planned for the coming year. How many electrical sockets in California are there to fuel an electric car?

False. In September 2013 there were 10 listed at the California Fuel Cell Partnership website.

Burbank, Emeryville, Fountain Valley, Harbor City, Cal State LA, Newport Beach, Thousand Palms, Torrance, Irvine, West LA.

There are more now. By the end of 2015 there are expected to be as many as 59.

http://www.fuelcellpartnership.org/stationmap

Some are powered by on site electrolyzers- West LA, Cal State LA and Emeryville.

Emeryville

Furthermore, talking about "electrical sockets" is misleading because it takes weeks to recharge a BEV via 110 volt common socket. Which also means one has to plan a BEV trip around fast chargers. Unless you want to spend a lot of time sightseeing while your car charges.

3) The production of hydrogen still requires the use of natural gas, unless you are going to extract it from water, in which case you are looking at increasing your electricity needs about 50% (from 51 kWh to 75 kWh) to produce a single kg of hydrogen.

It's ~45-51 kWh for a Kilogram of H2 via Electrolysis. And that number can and will be lower in the future. Because- Tech always gets better.

the electrical energy needed to generate one kg of hydrogen is 51 kWh (using an electrolyzer efficiency of 65%). http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/hydrogen/basics/production-solar.htm

I expect you will ignore my first two points, but unless you are willing to admit to #3, I will have to assume you are simply trolling me at this point.

3 strikes - you're out. Who's trolling?

[Kelvin Mace]

54. If you are going to jump into a complex discussion

at the end, you might want to go back and re-read points already discussed.

To address your points:

False. Hyundai is leasing a fuel cell car now, both in CA and Europe. Honda will sell a fuel cell vehicle next year.

You are correct, my apologies. Of course there is this caveat:

For the first time, retail consumers can put a mass-produced, federally-certified hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in their driveways, with availability at three select southern California Hyundai dealers: Win Hyundai in Carson, Tustin Hyundai, and Hardin Hyundai in Anaheim.

The Nissan Leaf is available nationwide.

Cost of Hyundai FCV? Well, it is only available for lease, for $3,000 down and $499 a month for 36 months, which does include free fuel (12,000 mile annual limit). Compare that to a Leaf which is $2400 down and $199 a month for 36 months (36,000 mile total limit), plus an additional $35 a month for electricity to fuel the car.

Total cost of vehicle lease after 36 months:

Tucson FCV - $21,964.00
Nissan Leaf - $10,724.00 (includes electricity)

Operating cost per mile:

Tucson - $0.61
Leaf - $0.30

You mention Honda and Toyota are planning on building stations this year, but planning is not the same as existing.

BTW, want to buy a used Leaf right now? Hear you go:

http://www.carmax.com/search?AsY=2011-2014&D=90&zip=27260&sY=2011-2015&ASTc=Nissan%20Leaf&Us=15&Q=23cb17f6-06a3-4869-be31-da8ac413eb3d&Ep=search:results:results%20page

Price range of $11,600 to $20,000, WAY less than a HCFV, which you cannot buy.

Which brings me to your second point.

False. In September 2013 there were 10 listed at the California Fuel Cell Partnership website.

No, we are both wrong. According to the actual site:

http://www.cafcp.org/stationmap

There are EIGHT stations OPEN, with 49 "in development".

Again, how many electric sockets are there in California? My house has 26, each of which can "fuel" my Leaf (I live in NC, not CA). Yes, you will bring up that whole range thing, but again, the VAST majority of Americans (89%) don't drive more than 30 miles a day, the Leaf's 70-80 mile range is all that is needed. Everyday when I come how, I plug my car in and every morning when I go to work, I have a "full tank". I do not have drive anywhere special to get re-fueled (Though my Nissan dealership will have a 440v FC installed in April and I am welcome to bring my car there for free electricity if I wish). Yes, I do have to switch to my gasoline-powered Sentra to visit my sister 100 miles away, but in a few years I will be replacing my Sentra with a Volt which will handle my daily commutes on electricity, while giving me range for longer jaunts on gasoline, unless Chevy delivers on its 200 mile Bolt, in which case I may go that route and charge up (since my sister has some of those ubiquitous electrical sockets) when I get there.

Third:

It's ~45-51 kWh for a Kilogram of H2 via Electrolysis. And that number can and will be lower in the future. Because- Tech always gets better.

The site you refer to discussion production in THEORY, not a practical working station in the real world. My numbers came from a real-world working station in Swindon, UK:

The refuelling station at Swindon uses electricity from a nearby 15MW capacity solar photovoltaic plant to power an industrial electrolyser, which produces hydrogen from water...

The hydrogen station can produce and dispense 3kg of hydrogen an hour, up to 200kg a day,

So, a 15MWh solar plant is producing 200 kg of hydrogen per day, which works out to 75 kWh per kg.

But you know what, lets just assume a MAGIC hydrogen station with 100% efficiency which produces 1 kg of hydrogen which contains 39 kWh of potential energy only requires 39kWh of electricity to produce. How far can we go on that 1 kg? The BEST number of I have seen is 90 miles. So, 90 miles on 39 kWh of energy works out to 2.3 miles per kWh compared to the 3.6 miles per kWh I am averaging daily with my Leaf.

So, assuming a MAGIC system that does not and never can exist, a BEV still outperforms a HFCV substantially. When you plug in real world numbers for hydrogen, the reality becomes starker.

Also, did you even bother to read what the University of Florida site you quote from said about the practicality of a HFCV system?

Besides cost, there is the question of why use electricity, a very efficient energy carrier, to generate hydrogen, another energy carrier, and then convert it back into electricity again for use? In other words, electricity is so valuable as electricity, our most desirable energy carrier, that we may not want to use it for anything other than that. This is especially true if electricity is made from photovoltaics. PV as an energy source matches the air-conditioning peak load of the nation's utilities. One is much better off using PV electricity as electricity since it is too wasteful to use it otherwise.

3 strikes - you're out. Who's trolling?

No one, apparently, since the issue was:

"but unless you are willing to admit to #3, I will have to assume you are simply trolling me at this point."

to which OKIsItJustMe replied:

"Absolutely! a battery powered vehicle, powered by (for example) solar is quite clean!"

Thus, he wasn't trolling me, he conceded my point.

To recap: If we are going to discuss the most environmentally friendly and efficient means of transport that currently exists (you can actually buy/lease), a BEV is the hands down winner (assuming renewable energy and using water not NG as a hydrogen source). If we are going to look at a mode of transportation that is affordable, then again, the BEV is the winner. If we are going to look at which technology has an established infrastructure for "fueling" our vehicle, again, BEV. And yes, HFCV tech may improve in the future, but so will battery tech, so no matter how you slice it, a kWh of power will take your further in a BEV than it will will in an HFCV, and by a substantial margin.

UPDATE: I missed this. Hyundai claims a fuel capacity of 5.63 kgs of hydrogen will get you (best case) 265 miles. That means 47 miles per kg (265/5.63=47.06). A kg of hydrogen contains 39 kWh of energy, so according to Hyundai's OWN numbers, their HFCV gets 1.2 miles per kWh of electricity, 1/3 of the average of 3.5 I get with my Leaf. Even using your best case number for producing a kg of hydrogen (45 kWh), the Tucson will travel 47 miles (best case) on that amount of energy, versus 157 miles in my Leaf (current daily average operation) This puts the Tucson FCV on par with any ICEV that gets 40 mpg.

[Kelvin Mace]

32. And as I explained,

the future of the power grid is a choice of either moving to non-polluting renewables, or massive economic catastrophe do to global warming. So, my bet is the former, which means BEVs are the tech of choice, just like it shows on your chart.

[kristopher]

22. A crash course in self-defense for the environmentally conscious.

After quoting these entities involved in promoting hydrogen (they sound a lot like the H advocates here) the article goes on to explain how their arguments are, shall we be kind and say, disingenuous. It follows with a somewhat intimidating graphic that (if you take the time to really internalize it) does an excellent job of clearing away the claptrap by integrating the type of vehicle and it's power rating into the picture.

Advocates quoted:
California Fuel Cell Partnership.

California Air Resources Board

US Environmental Protection Agency

Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A, Inc.

Hyundai Motor America, marketers of the Tucson Fuel Cell

Mercedes Benz, marketers of the B-Class F-Cell

American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Any problem with these statements?

Yes.

They are categorically and unequivocally false.

There are no such environmental benefits attributable to hydrogen either now or in any foreseeable future economic reality. On the contrary, hydrogen is a gross threat to efforts to tackle emissions as a result of public policies based on a false environmental premise and by grossly misleading advertising combined with incentives targeting consumers most at risk of deception by messaging citing the alleviation of environmental concerns as a value proposition.

Much more at article.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/

[Kelvin Mace]

30. Kept trying to drive home this point

to our HFC fanboy, but he refused to see the evidence, even when he provided it to back up their own arguments, just to have it prove mine.

The Toyota FCV is just a gimmick, a "compliance car" that allows them to game the system in California, which is why the car is only available there.

Thanks for the supporting articles.

[nationalize the fed]

52. The whole truth about Julian Cox and the CleanTechnica article

Regarding the article you quoted:

Time To Come Clean About Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles
June 4th, 2014 by Julian Cox - CleanTechnica.com

Critical. Re: Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles/Environment.

This letter deals with the three fundamental flaws in the promotion of Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles that seeks to exploit public concern for the environment and to trigger a profoundly counterproductive use of public funds in paving the way for carbon-intensive fossil fuels to enter the market for renewable energy...

This "letter" by Julian Cox can pretty much be summed up with these paragraphs:

...Will hydrogen also become cleaner over time? No. EVs and FCVs are a fork in the road. One leads to renewables owing to direct compatibility and the other leads to natural gas. Natural gas is a cheap and abundant resource that comes out of the ground with energy potential for self-disassembly into hydrogen and CO2. Steam methane reforming is economically unassailable as a method of hydrogen production by clean but more complex methods.

Hydrogen is a fossil fuel. 95% of US production is from natural gas, most of the remainder from the gasification of coal and it will not change for the better.

The only references Cox makes to solar are in regards to filling batteries Mr. Cox completely leaves out renewable hydrogen from his calculations. He pretends it doesn't exist (or more frighteningly, doesn't know) and then goes on to say that hydrogen can't be produced cost effectively or by ecologically friendly methods,

Now one might think that there is a good reason for this. And then maybe take a closer look at this Julian Cox character to try to find it.

One of the first links to turn up in a search for "Julian Cox + lithium" is Julian's Seeking Alpha "about" page. Isn' t this interesting:

"I lead the first example of a market wide conversion from fuel to lithium battery power as the CEO of a company that I founded and took from an idea to a global leader in its niche with offices in Europe and the US with wholly owned factories in Asia and major customers in over 30 countries.

With Seeking Alpha I have set out contribute the closest thing possible to an insider perspective and a visionary outlook on developments in and relating to the electrification of transport, in particular my commentary has focused on Tesla Motors Inc,. (TSLA)

My interest in Tesla stems firstly because this is a company I understand as its behavior matches my own experience in business to an extraordinary degree. Also owing to what I believe is its pivotal importance. I am keen to understand its interactions with the market still further through discussion and debate with others with varying views and expectations.

My background is divided evenly between science and engineering and brand building and marketing and I am equally comfortable in both the technical and aesthetic arenas but can perhaps serve best as an instigator and translator of engineering and business strategy into meaning in the form of brand value for non-technical persons"...continued
Interests: Energy stocks, Stocks - long, Tech stocks (he doesn't disclose whether he owns any Tesla stock or not)
http://seekingalpha.com/author/julian-cox

Wow! No bias there! ROFL

Now one might wonder what Cox is talking about when he says

"I lead the first example of a market wide conversion from fuel to lithium battery power as the CEO of a company that I founded and took from an idea to a global leader in its niche with offices in Europe and the US with wholly owned factories in Asia and major customers in over 30 countries."

A few clicks reveal the fact that Julian Cox was the "CEO" of a lithium ion battery company called "Flightpower". (He has since sold it-read on to find out why). Flightpower isn't exactly what one might expect when thinking of "a global leader...with wholly owned factories in Asia...". It's a company that sells lithium batteries for remote control airplanes through a website.



A closer look by searching "flightpower julian cox" reveals this biased author to be a bit of a scam artist--here are random quotes from the first search page which was a forum:

Aug 25, 2012 A Whois Domain search indicates that the registrant of the website is a Mr. Julian Cox, who I note from the trader’s website is the company’s CEO. I have his address if anybody wants to write directly to him. I plan to contact consumer.ork.hk and proceed on their advice. Any other ideas,anybody?

I ordered batteries from Flightpower in June , they have not arrived. Agent ignores my emails and telephone calls . I have contacted MoneyCorp TTT . They passed on my complaint to agent. He emailed to say he would sort it but no joy . I suggest we form a group and contact trading standards . I also contacted flightpower USA . They were shocked at lack of service but are not connected to UK agent . I have also emailed FlightPower EU , no reply from them either.

I sent $199.65 USD PayPal payment to Transaction ID: 7S7842233G634252P to Julian Cox [e-mail] in summer.

After that I wrote 4 messages about my order. I have no answer from FlightPower UK and one answer from [e-mail].

I still have no batteries and my money.

Please help to reach Julian or Flightpower UK.

This issue has no connection to flightpowerusa. It is unfortunate that flightpowerusa shares the same name as flightpower.co.uk.

Flightpower.co.uk does not respond to email or phone. Flightpower.co.uk has had my order and payment for goods for 2 months. I seek a response to communication and a statement of action, whether it is either positive or negative.

So far, flightpower.co.uk has only responded to threats on the open forum, therefore I am forced to communicate this way.

Those are just from one thread at one website here: www.rcgroups.com/forums. There are loads more complaints. Search "Flightpower Julian Cox" and you'll see.

When it comes to Hydrogen you can choose to believe a person with the above resume and reputation or you can believe someone like noted award winning environmentalist Amory Lovins. Here's a peer reviewed Hydrogen white paper written by Lovins and his Rocky Mountain Institute that has a much different conclusion than the tripe authored by the fraud Julian Cox:

Twenty Hydrogen Myths

This peer-reviewed white paper offers both lay and technical readers a documented primer on basic hydrogen facts, weighs competing opinions, and corrects twenty widespread misconceptions. Some of these include the following: a hydrogen industry would need to be developed from scratch; hydrogen is too dangerous for common use; making hydrogen uses more energy than it yields; we lack a mechanism to store hydrogen in cars; and hydrogen is too expensive to compete with gasoline. This paper explains why the rapidly growing engagement of business, civil society, and government in devising and achieving a transition to a hydrogen economy is warranted and, if properly done, could yield important national and global benefits.
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/E03-05_TwentyHydrogenMyths

Direct Download (PDF):http://www.rmi.org/cms/Download.aspx?id=6667&file=E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf&title=Twenty+Hydrogen+Myths

Cox is either astoundingly ignorant or a liar. Either way he's a con artist. A cheap 2 bit scammer.

[kristopher]

53. Are you saying the author falsified the data on the charts?

Because unless you can discredit that data Cox is right.

[kristopher]

23. MIT Tech Review: Forget Hydrogen Cars, and Buy a Hybrid

Forget Hydrogen Cars, and Buy a Hybrid

Hybrids are a much more cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions than newly released hydrogen fuel cell cars.

By Kevin Bullis on December 12, 2014


WHY IT MATTERS
About a third of carbon dioxide emissions come from transportation.


If you want to help cut greenhouse gas emissions, you should probably skip the hydrogen fuel cell cars now coming to market and buy a (much cheaper) hybrid instead.

After decades of research and small-scale demonstrations, hydrogen cars are finally rolling into view. These vehicles use electric motors, but their electricity comes not from a battery but from hydrogen, processed in a chemical reaction that takes place inside a fuel cell.

Researchers and engineers have greatly lowered the costs of fuel cells—by as much as 95 percent—in recent years.

That, along with pressure to meet emissions regulations in California, means the technology is finally coming to market. Earlier this year, Hyundai started leasing hydrogen-powered Tucson Fuel Cell SUVs in California. Toyota plans to launch a newly designed compact hydrogen car called the Mirai in Japan this month and in the U.S. next year. Meanwhile, GM, Honda, and others are developing their own hydrogen vehicles.

Carmakers are keen to extol the environmental credentials of these new models. Hyundai advertises that its cars emit no carbon dioxide, while Toyota boasts that its hydrogen cars “leave nothing behind but water.”

But these ads are a little misleading...

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/533186/forget-hydrogen-cars-and-buy-a-hybrid/

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. I actually posted that when it was first published

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112778910

Notice, he does not recommend a battery electric vehicle. For today, he recommends a hybrid.

…

Longer term, instead of using solar power to generate electricity, and then using that electricity to split water, it may be possible to engineer catalysts to absorb sunlight and use its energy to split water. That would make hydrogen generation simpler and cheaper. But for now, the main advantage of hydrogen cars over electric cars is that they can be recharged more quickly. Even the fastest chargers available— for the Tesla Model S—take about 20 minutes to add 130 miles of charge. You can fill a Hyundai’s hydrogen tank, which holds enough for 265 miles, in 10 minutes.

…

Hmmm… solar to hydrogen:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414290111
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1251428

[Kelvin Mace]

31. Yep, SOME day super-efficent

hydrogen generation MIGHT be possible. Also, we might figure out fusion or anti-matter, then we can build starships.

But right now, TODAY, BEVs from renewable energy sources is the hands down winning tech.

In the next 24 months Nissan will double the range of its Leaf, Chevrolet will be producing the 200 mile range Bolt, and Tesla should be shipping the Model 3 with a similar or greater range. Have to travel a great distance? Then a hybrid like the Prius or the Volt is the answer. But for 80%-90% of drivers whose daily travel is less than 50 miles, the current generation Leaf/BMW I3/Focus/iMiev does the job cheaply and efficiently.

[NYC_SKP]

55. Hydrogen as a fuel is snake oil. Claptrap. And I'm sad to see it taken seriously on this board.

Unless and until the market can provide a home H2 charger that can compete with a J1772 charging cable, I'll just stick with my Volt.

H2 is a scam for the people who want to own the next generation of middleman fuel sales outlets.

[NYC_SKP]

58. Apples Oranges. FCEV on wind versus BEV on US Grid Mix? You call that fair?

The only comparison that comes close to being fair would be the distributed nat gas for FCEV compared to Grid Mix BEV.

And if they wanted a truly fair comparison, they'd have compared wind electricity for FCEV and BEV, or grid mix for both, which they do not.

I don't care that it comes from a reliable source that set of data is cherry picked and misleading.

And those who look carefully enough can see that, by far, the two lowest GHG emissions schemes are BEV100 and BEV300 on a renewable mix.

[OKIsItJustMe]

64. “I don't care that it comes from a reliable source…”

How can I respond to that?

[caraher]

65. "... that set of data is cherry picked and misleading."

Perhaps by refuting the rest of the sentence?

[OKIsItJustMe]

66. I don’t see a need to.

(If the source is reliable.)

The fact of the matter is, if the electricity used to charge a car’s battery is generated by burning stuff, it’s not squeaky clean. It’s all very well and good to talk about charging BEV’s using wind and solar, but that’s not the source of most of our electricity. Most of our electricity comes from burning coal and natural gas.

The table was produced using assumptions for what the grid will look like in 2035.

Read the research yourself: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdf

Here’s some more reading: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/14006_cradle_to_grave_analysis.pdf

[caraher]

67. Well, then you've missed the point of the objection

The first link mainly supports the main objection - the data source is reliable, but the comparisons do not use consistent fuel mixes - a misleading parallel drawn from reliable data.

From that source, they list five FCV options. One is distributed natural gas as the energy source, the next two are natural gas and coal gasification schemes, both with carbon sequestration, the next is biomass, and the last wind. For BEVs, it's either the projected grid mix or "renewables." An apples-to-apples comparison should compare BEVs and FCVs using the same energy sources. Why wouldn't they calculate figures for FCVs using the grid they anticipate will be in place in 2035?

Given the huge sensitivity bands they show, it looks like the sure bet, even on their data, would be BEVs powered with renewables. FCVs using wind are the only FCV option that competes, but even that has a huge range of uncertainties suggesting that they would likely perform substantially worse then BEVs with the same electricity mix.

[OKIsItJustMe]

68. No, I haven’t

An “Apples to Apples“ comparison would be (for example) natural gas and natural gas.

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/thomas_fcev_vs_battery_evs.pdf

…

In other words, we need to estimate the total “well­-to­-wheels” efficiency of the vehicle, not just the efficiency of any one component acting in isolation. For example, suppose we have one million btu’s of natural gas. What is more efficient: to convert that natural gas to electricity to drive a battery EV, or to convert that natural gas to hydrogen to run a fuel cell electric vehicle?

Figure 10 illustrates the answer: one would need to burn approximately 1.77 million btu’s (MBTU) of natural gas in a combustion turbine generate the electricity to power a battery EV for 300 miles on the EPA’s 1.25X accelerated combined driving cycle. For a more efficient combined cycle gas turbine generator system, 1.18 MBTU’s of natural gas would be required. But only 0.81 MBTU’s of natural gas would be required to generate enough hydrogen to power a fuel cell EV for 300 miles. On a full­-cycle well­-to­-wheels basis, then, the hydrogen­powered fuel cell electric vehicle is between 1.5 to 2.2 times more energy efficient than a battery EV in converting natural gas to vehicle fuel.

…

[NYC_SKP]

69. OFFS. Here is a page from the study showing assumptions. It is apples and oranges, note CI values.

And, your figure 10 shows only one cherry picked scenario in which natural gas production of H2 compared to nat gas production of electrons to BEV is favorable to the FCEV.

However, where's the wind or solar to BEV vs FCEV chart and data?

It doesn't exist in those studies because H2 would be the loser.

Now here's the page from YOUR linked study that reveals another lie, just look at the Carbon Intensity values. US grid compared to reforming with sequestration? What, where the hell is that happening and how long will we have a reliable steady supply of gas and how much fracking is that going to take.

[OKIsItJustMe]

71. Why are you so impassioned about this?

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096735_how-to-test-hydrogen-vs-electric-cars-a-challenge-to-automakers-in-our-dreams

[font face=Serif][font size=5]How To Test Hydrogen Vs Electric Cars: A Challenge To Automakers (In Our Dreams)[/font]
Feb 11, 2015
[font size=3]The amount of animus between some proponents of plug-in electric cars and those who support hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles is remarkable, and sometimes disturbing.

…

In general, the rough argument for hydrogen proponents says that above some vehicle weight--let's say roughly 2 tons--hydrogen becomes more practical than batteries to power a vehicle with a range of 200 miles or more.

So, hydrogen proponents argue, while battery-electric vehicles are fine for compact cars or passenger sedans, the kinds of trucks, minivans, and SUVs that North Americans buy in increasing quantities are much better suited to hydrogen if a range of 250 or more miles is required.

…

What's needed, we would suggest, is a test in the open market, in which identical zero-emission vehicles could be sold: one powered solely by a battery, the other by a fuel-cell fed from compressed hydrogen.

…[/font][/font]

Environmentally, neither batteries nor fuel cells are dramatically better. Each have their advantages.

In my opinion, hydrogen will emerge as the preferred solution for most people. I may be wrong.

[NYC_SKP]

70. Oh, and by the way, C.E. Thomas who created your 2009 report is in the H2 business.

I'm a little surprised that you'd share that as something unbiased.

Name: H2Gen Innovations Inc
Place: Alexandria, Virginia
Zip: 22304-4806
Sector: Hydro, Hydrogen
Product: The company manufactures low-cost, small-scale hydrogen generators for industrial applications and for the emerging fuel cell vehicle and distributed fuel cell power generation markets.
Coordinates: 31.19224°, 29.88987°
References: H2Gen Innovations Inc[1]
[e-mail]

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. A quick thought experiment

A hydrogen vehicle typically is fueled using pressurized (i.e. not liquid) hydrogen. If you burn two molecules of hydrogen H₂ (using one molecule of oxygen O₂ ) you’ll get two molecules of water H₂O.

Gases take up more volume than liquids. So, imagine the tanks of a hydrogen car filled with water. The volume of liquid water they create by burning all of their hydrogen will be less than that.


Reportedly, the Toyota Mirai has a special H₂O button to release water.


I have a feeling someone may have used this for dramatic effect.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Using numbers…

The atomic weight of hydrogen is roughly 1.
The atomic weight of oxygen is roughly 16.

Therefore burning H₂ produces roughly 9 times as much mass of H₂O i.e. (1 + 1 + 16)/(1 + 1)

The Honda FCX Clarity carries 3.92 kg of hydrogen (let’s call it 4 kg.) So, burning all of it would produce about 36 kg (or about 36 liters or about 9½ US gallons) of water as it drives about 230 miles.

Or, about 5¼ ounces of water per mile.


(Someone check my math…)

[madokie]

12. Thats seems to go with the video of two kids

driving across the desert in a fuel cell car and getting all their drinking water from the exhaust. Doing it to prove the water is drinkable right out of the exhaust pipe. Seemed to be enough for them too.
I don't have a link for the video at hand but it was posted here on DU a couple three or so months ago.

[nationalize the fed]

28. Movie stars take B-Class F-CELL in to Death Valley

Published on Feb 14, 2014

Hollywood stars Diane Kruger (Inglourious Basterds) and Joshua Jackson have driven a Mercedes B-Class F-CELL hydrogen car, on a trip through California's Death Valley. The actors were challenged to survive two days in the desert with nothing to quench their thirst other than the car's emissions of pure water -- used both for drinking and cooking. Typically, humans can only survive 14 hours without water in Death Valley, but after two days of 50 degree heat and 21 litres of emissions consumed, both actors made it out alive and well!

Uploaded on Jan 24, 2012

The technology group The Linde Group has been selected by Mercedes-Benz as the exclusive hydrogen partner for the F-CELL World Drive. This endurance trip will send three B-Class F-CELL hydrogen-powered fuel-cell cars right around the world. Over the entire tour, Linde will be the sole supplier of mobile hydrogen (H2) for the zero-emissions F-CELL models. Due to start on 30 January from Stuttgart, Germany, the trip will take each of the cars around 30,000 kilometres across four continents and 14 countries in 125 days

[madokie]

29. Yup thats the one

[kristopher]

25. "...5¼ ounces of water per mile"

A moderate density for traffic would be about 30 cars per mile.
Using 50 miles per hour gives us about 1500 vehicles traversing the mile per hour.
That's 123 gallons (7578oz) per hour.

At 60 vehicles per hour you have stop and go driving that would probably exacerbate the 'problem'.

Those are single lane numbers BTW.
All predicted on the accuracy of wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_flow

[kristopher]

24. That's a good question

I'd say that the temp, humidity and road traffic conditions required to create a road hazard would not be rare at all, especially at intersections.

I would also think that the technology to spin it into an airborne aerosol wouldn't be difficult or expensive. In short, it would be a minor regulatory issue.

[OKIsItJustMe]

34. Uh… no

Let’s compare those nasty hydrogen vehicles with gasoline vehicles (which are pretty common nowadays.)

A US gallon of gasoline contains about (0.13 × 6.3) or 0.819 lbs of hydrogen. Burning that would produce about 9 times that weight in water. (See earlier calculation.)

That gives us 7.371 lbs of water or about 113 ounces. The average vehicle sold in 2014 was projected to get 24.2 miles to the gallon (a record!) Take that 113 ounces of water, and divide it by 24.2 to give us about 4⅔ ounces/mile. (Only slightly less than the figure for hydrogen.)

So, unless you’re telling us that road hazards from exhaust water are common with gasoline burning vehicles today, I don’t think they’ll be significantly more common with hydrogen-burning vehicles in the future.


You’re just spreading FUD.

[kristopher]

36. Uh...no to your no.

I wrote

"...the temp, humidity and road traffic conditions required to create a road hazard would not be rare at all, especially at intersections.

I would also think that the technology to spin it into an airborne aerosol wouldn't be difficult or expensive. In short, it would be a minor regulatory issue."

An internal combustion engine's exhaust system performs the function I'm specifying which is why what isn't a problem for it might be a matter that would need to be addressed with HFC systems. I mean, based on your "button" photo, your 'release' comment and the focus on drinkability, it seems an HFC delivers liquid H2O as a standard feature. My comment about mimicking the vaporization process in an ICE along with the look at volumes related to traffic seems to be the only comment in the thread that actually addresses the question in the OP.

If you think the conclusion that the potential problem is nothing more than a minor regulatory issue constitutes FUD then you'll want to consider having either your reality meter or your attachment to H2 recalibrated.

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. You're suggesting regulation is needed to solve a problem which does not exist.

…

I'd say that the temp, humidity and road traffic conditions required to create a road hazard would not be rare at all, especially at intersections.

That’s what I call “FUD” as in “These cars will create a road hazard!”


Contrary to what you suggest, liquid water is not pouring out of the tailpipe The fact that there is a tailpipe (and not a thin tube) should tell you something.


http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1095985_2016-toyota-mirai-first-drive-of-hydrogen-fuel-cell-sedan/page-2

[font face=Serif][font size=5]2016 Toyota Mirai: First Drive Of Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Sedan Page 2[/font]

[font size=3]…

And finally, there's an occasional exhaust whoosh as the car exhausts water vapor out the tailpipe under the rear valance.

…

That water vapor, by the way, is also collected in a condensor holding tank, depending on the car's operating parameters and the temperature outside--the goal is ensure it doesn't freeze inside the stack.

When the Mirai is underway, it may dump that water. There's also a button on the left underside of the dash that lets the driver do that, presumably in a place where a small stream of water won't freeze.

…[/font][/font]

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/first-drive-2015-toyota-mirai/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]First drive: 2016 Toyota Mirai[/font]
[font size=4]The hydrogen-fueled Toyota Mirai will change the way you think about transportation[/font]

By Andrew Hard — November 22, 2014

[font size=3]…

The compressed, gaseous hydrogen fills two carbon fiber-wrapped resin composite tanks under the rear seats in about five minutes, mingles with oxygen (sucked in by the car’s air intake), and through the miracle of chemistry, you have energy.

That energy powers the electric motor under the hood, and the waste product, H2O, dribbles out underneath the car. For those who are worried (or excited) about spraying the motorists around you, fret not: the Mirai produces only about half a bottle of water over its 300-mile range.

The system can be purged via the ‘H2O’ button located to the left of the steering wheel. I dare you not to press it.

…[/font][/font]

http://www.hybridcars.com/2016-toyota-mirai-first-drive-video/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]2016 Toyota Mirai FCV First Drive – Video[/font]

by Jeff Cobb November 27, 2014

[font size=3]…

…

Most drivers will soon become familiar with the well-equipped, refined interior. One addition is a button to the left of the steering wheel to let the driver force compressed air through the fuel cell stack to purge water before parking. This prevents drips on the garage floor and freezing in winter.

…[/font][/font]

Follow any conventional car on a cold morning, and you will see water vapor coming out of the exhaust, and, yes, liquid water dripping onto the road surface.

[kristopher]

38. .

[quadrature]

41. first.... electric cars

the only positive for hydrogen cars is.
storage of excess hydrogen.

and we are a long way away from that.

keep in mind that solar PV will produce
electricity when it is needed,
so why store it?

[OKIsItJustMe]

42. “PV will produce electricity when it is needed, so why store it?”

I’m sorry?

I’m a big fan of solar power, but I tend to turn on electric lights when it gets dark.

[quadrature]

43. PV will lower the demand on the grid, 99% of the time...

so there is little utility in storage.

I don't see that changing for decades.

[OKIsItJustMe]

44. I really don’t follow your reasoning

PV lowers demand, when the sun is shining.

Here’s an encouraging story from the Energy Information Administration about wind and solar in California:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=19111

[font face=Serif]December 9, 2014
[font size=5]Increased solar and wind electricity generation in California are changing net load shapes[/font]



[font size=3]As more solar and wind electric generating capacity is added in California, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the electric grid operator for most of the state, is facing an increasingly different net load shape. Net load—the total electric demand in the system minus wind and solar generation—represents the demand that CAISO must meet with other, dispatchable sources such as natural gas, hydropower, and imported electricity from outside the system.

Wind and solar plants do not incur any fuel costs to generate electricity, and, when available, they are among the first resources that grid operators use. Utility-scale solar has exhibited particularly significant growth in the past year, with hourly solar output reaching nearly 5 gigawatts (GW) by the end of September 2014. This amount represents more than 10% of the system's 2014 year-to-date hourly peak demand, and it is more than two-thirds higher than the peak hourly solar output level in 2013.

…[/font][/font]

I was quite pleased by how well California is doing. But the yellow bump in the graphs represent solar. Not too surprisingly its contribution is during daylight hours.

[quadrature]

45. OK... here is the question.

what does a hydrogen car get you as a benefit,

that you don't get with battery type electric car?

please be specific, thanks.

[OKIsItJustMe]

46. The key advantages I see are

1. 5 minutes to fill a tank with a 300 mile range. This is what people are used to. This is what they want. (This is what will sell them.) Honestly, until battery electrics can provide similar performance, I don’t think they will sell well. With the Toyota Prius’s name recognition in “green” circles, if anyone can sell a BEV, Toyota should be able to. But, Toyota’s RAV4 EV was an utter failure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV Elon Musk says they can eat a meal, or go shopping while their car charges. Thanks Elon, but I just want to get home.
2. Weight. A hydrogen tank is basically hollow. A battery is basically solid. Increasing the range means increasing the weight, a lot, and increasing the use of raw materials. (The Tesla S carries around half a ton of batteries.)
3. Price. (Yes, I know that’s hard to believe.) Over time, the price of the fuel cell system just keeps dropping. Projections I have seen show the trend continuing.
4. (As you have alluded to) storage. Wind and solar fluctuate. That’s reality. If a wind turbine is generating more electricity at the moment than there is demand for, that electricity can be stored as hydrogen. That hydrogen can then be used to supplement electric supplies later, can be sold to power vehicles or both.
5. More efficient use of fuels. (If you’re going to burn something to boil water to generate electricity, you’re better off using a fuel cell.)

I think batteries are just fine for small cars, traveling (relatively) short distances. (I’ve dreamed of buying a LEAF for commuting.) However, for larger vehicles, or longer distances, I think fuel cells win out (and clearly a lot of major auto manufacturers agree.) When the Department of Energy cut funding for fuel cell research, and placed a heavy emphasis on BEV’s, the auto manufacturers just kept going.


http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/fuel_cell_vehicles

[font face=Serif][font size=5]BU-1206: Fuel Cell Vehicles[/font]

[font size=3] The fuel cell as a propulsion system is in many ways superior to batteries, as it needs to carry less energy storage devices by weight and volume compared to a vehicle propelled by batteries alone. Figure 1 illustrates the practical travel range of a vehicle powered by a fuel cell (FC) compared to lead acid, NiMH or Li-ion batteries. One can clearly see that lead- and nickel-based batteries simply get too heavy when increasing the size to enable larger distances. In this respect, the fuel cell enjoys similar qualities to the IC engine in that it can conquer large distances with only the extra weight of fuel.

Figure 1: Driving range as a function of energy storage. The logarithmical curves of battery power place limitations in terms of size and weight when increasing distances between charges. In comparison, the fuel cell and IC engine share a linear progression.

Note: 35MPa hydrogen tank refers to 5,000psi pressure; 70MPa is 10,000psi.

Courtesy of International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 34, 6005-6020 (2009).

…

Hydrogen is commonly derived from natural gas. Critics might well ask, “Why not burn natural gas directly in the IC engine instead of converting it to hydrogen through a reformer and then transforming it to electricity in a fuel cell to feed the electric motors?” The answer is efficiency. Burning natural gas in a combustion turbine to produce electricity has an efficiency factor of only 26–32 percent, while using a fuel cell is 35–50 percent efficient. We must keep in mind that the machinery required to support the clean FC is far more expensive and requires additional maintenance over the more simplistic burning process.

…[/font][/font]

[quadrature]

47. #1, #5, are dubious

1) charging a battery-electric car at home at night,
avoids a weekly stop at a fuel station.

5) the efficiency claims of fuel cells
is completely bogus.
they claim 83% efficiency, but the real
electric output efficiency is around 30%,
.. the rest, about 50 of that 83, is heated water.

note, 30% is still decent, but not worth it,
given all the other requirements of fuel cells.

[OKIsItJustMe]

48. #1, #5, are dubious — In your opinion

Charging a battery-electric car at home at night, avoids a weekly stop at a fuel station.

It may come as a shock to you (it seems to come as a shock to a lot of BEV supporters) but many people simply cannot plug a car in at night. (i.e. they do not own garages.)


So, tell me, why do you think BEV’s don’t sell better?

[quadrature]

49. BEVs, are not selling better, because they cost too much for what you get.

that is the nature of new stuff.

example, I like the idea of a Chevy Volt.
but. you pay 35k for a car that compares
to other ICE cars at 20 or 25K.

you have to start somewhere.

[OKIsItJustMe]

50. That’s certainly part of the problem (they cost too much.)

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2015/01/22/ev-goal-million/22176225/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Official: U.S. will not meet 1 million EV goal in 2015[/font]

David Shepardson, The Detroit News | 10:49 p.m. EST January 22, 2015

[font size=3]Washington — Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said Thursday the United States will not meet President Obama’s goal of getting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by the end of this year, and said hitting the target could be a few years away.

“We’re going to be a few years after the president’s aspirational goal of the end of 2015, but I think that we are within a few years of reaching that goal,” Moniz said in a Detroit News interview after an appearance at the Washington auto show.

In his 2011 State of the Union Address, Obama renewed a call he made as a candidate in 2008: to get 1 million plug-in electric vehicles on the road by 2015. But sales have been far slower than expected — about 280,000, including 120,000 in 2014.

Automakers have been forced to cut prices on many EVs and have scaled back expectations on sales. But automakers are unveiling a number of electric vehicles. General Motors Co. announced last week a concept EV — the Chevrolet Bolt — that will be able to go up to 200 miles on a single charge.

…[/font][/font]