Talk on the street – Hydrogen powered vehicles maybe here sooner than expected

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hhydrogen-powered-vehicles-maybe-here-sooner-than-expected/854138/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Talk on the street – Hydrogen powered vehicles maybe here sooner than expected[/font]

By Stephen Vagus – June 9, 2012

[font size=4]Advances in hydrogen fuel cell technology add momentum to the auto industry[/font]

[font size=3]Hydrogen powered vehicles may be coming to the commercial market ahead of schedule. Most major car manufacturers are developing vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells. These vehicles had, initially, been slated for release sometime between 2014 and 2016. Over the past year, however, advances in fuel cell technology have pushed the release of these vehicles closer to actualization. Advanced technology has made manufacture of fuel cells more affordable, leading many automakers to believe that their vehicles are ready for consumers.[/font]

[font size=4]Several automakers plan to release hydrogen powered vehicles in the coming years[/font]

[font size=3]At this year’s World Hydrogen Energy Conference, which concluded this week in Canada, many automakers came to show off their hydrogen powered vehicles. Companies like Daimler – owners of Mercedes-Benz –, Honda, Hyundai and Toyota were in attendance, hoping to generate buzz for their latest hydrogen-centered projects. The automakers made their vehicles available for various ride-and-drive events, which left participants with a sense of how hydrogen powered vehicles function in comparison to their conventional counterparts.

…[/font][/font]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/06/06/hydrogen-powered-vehicles-could-emerge-from-traffic/

[font face=Serif]6/06/2012 @ 7:55AM
[font size=5]Hydrogen-Powered Vehicles Could Emerge From Traffic[/font]

[font size=3]The “hydrogen economy” is taking a back seat to the “green economy,” which essentially means that today’s prevailing automotive technologies are pushing the purest energy forms further down the road. In other words, the latest hybrid vehicles and all-electric cars are already here.

So the use of hydrogen in fuel cells to run cars, buses and trucks are still stuck in traffic. But maybe not for too much longer. A lot of smart people are working to commercialize the effort and to produce ultra-clean vehicles that could run 300 miles before they would need to re-juice. In fact, both the national energy labs as well as the auto companies are laboring, with Toyota saying it wants to have a hydrogen-powered sedan ready next decade.

“The hydrogen economy has a high degree of environmental friendliness,” says Bryan Pivovar, acting director for hydrogen projects at the National Energy Renewable Laboratory, in a phone conversation with this reporter. “But it comes down to questions of economics: Hybrids are here now while fuel cell-powered vehicles will initially emerge in small numbers and then gradually expand.”

The paradox is, however, that no one wants to construct hydrogen fueling stations if hydrogen vehicles are not mass produced, he adds. But they won’t be built until the infrastructure exists. That dilemma is being addressed.

…[/font][/font]

[2on2u]

1. Honda has a plan and they didn't think of it yesterday..... good on them.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/hondas-home-garage-gadget-heres-your-solar-hydrogen-fueling-station/3631

Honda said Tuesday that it has started operation of a next generation solar hydrogen station prototype. This home fueling system is designed to refuel fuel cell electric vehicles.

Here’s the way it works: The single unit fits in a garage and produces enough hydrogen in an 8-hour overnight fill for a daily commute in a fuel cell vehicle.

Honda said it simplified the previous hydrogen station, which required and electrolyzer and compressor to create high pressure hydrogen. The latest version ditches the compressor completely. By eliminating the compressor, Honda’s solar hydrogen station is 25 percent more efficient than the old one.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Oh, the humanity!

Just don't build the car out of fabric coated with nitrocellulose lacquer.

[happyslug]

3. But I notice no one has addressed the two biggest issues as to Hydrogen

The first problem is long term storage i.e, how do you address the lost of 1% per day of any Hydrogen from any storage device?

This loss is NOT through the values but right through the body of any container. Hydrogen is the SMALLEST ATOM and as such can fit between any two other atoms, i..e if you use steel or plastic, the Hydrogen Atom will leak through the wall made of steel (or any other metal) or Plastic (or any other material used contain the Hydrogen). This is worse with Liquid Hydrogen for Hydrogen becomes liquid only with compression AND that makes each atom even smaller.

Hydrogen in the gaseous state has less chance to escape through the walls (In the gaseous state any atom tend to be "Bigger&quot but will still work its way through any container.

The solution has been to only make the Hydrogen as needed (thus minimal storage loss) and then to use it that day or soon afterward (No keeping it for two weeks). Thus what has been proposed is home hydrogen producing devices, used to make the Hydrogen over night, then transferred to a Car for the ride to and from work. This has to be done EACH DAY.

More on Hydrogen Fuel Cell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

More on Hydrogen loss rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_hydrogen#Properties
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MayJun00/MS492.htm

The Second problem is that Hydrogen is NOT a source of energy, it is energy storage system. i.e, the hydrogen is produced using some other source of energy and then pumped into a vehicle for use that day. The present fuel stock for Hydrogen is Natural Gas. Natural Gas is a much BIGGER compound of atoms and thus has a much lower loss through any container (Natural Gas has lasted millions of years below ground, kept in place by clay or salt deposits). Would it NOT be cheaper just to use Natural Gas? If Natural Gas is use, you do NOT have any loss of energy converting Natural Gas to hydrogen and then using the Hydrogen to power the vehicle, you just use Natural gas to power the vehicle (saving one step, and a very expensive step).

Hydrogen Fuel Cells tend to be efficient, but recent research as to Lithium seems to make Lithium batteries a more efficient way to propel a vehicle More efficient in the sense such a system, from the point when energy is expended to produce the electricity, the conversion of that electricity to some sort of storage device (Fuel cell or Battery) to use of the stored electrical power to push the car down the street. i.e. a Natural Gas propel vehicle may use less overall energy, when you look at it from the Natural Gas being removed from underneath the ground to where it is pushing a car down the street.

Hydrogen fuel cells is claim to have 45% efficiency, but Lithium batteries claim 90% efficiency. There are problems with Lithium (Production level is the main problem, second is China is the main source of Lithium at the present time) but you have more with Hydrogen.

Hydrogen main advantage is urban areas with a lot of Car produced pollution. Such areas, Hydrogen fuel cells will produce only water and any pollution made in making the Hydrogen will be in some energy plant (Hydro, Solar, Wind, Nuclear for non-Carbon producing electrical power, Coal and Natural gas if Carbon is NOT a Concern).

These two problems tend to be ignored, for combined they have prevented Hydrogen from becoming the fuel of the future for the last 40 years. It tells you something about future access to oil, when everyone is doing research on exotic replacements for oil like Hydrogen Fuel Cells. Are people in auto making that worried about peak oil? That is what it looks like to me, for hydrogen looks like something people will use for something that HAS to exist and no one really care about the costs (i.e. ambulances and other vehicles tied in with safety and getting people to emergency care when needed).

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Not true

The hydrogen storage question is being pursued by many researchers.
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/storage.html
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_storage.html
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2011/03/14/breakthrough-in-hydrogen-storage/
(I won't bore you with more.)

The efficiency of batteries at storing electricity is pretty good, however, they have a number of disadvantages, when compared to hydrogen:

• Volume—They take up a lot of space.
• Mass—They’re heavy.
• Charging time—Even "fast charging" which degrades battery life takes longer than filling a hydrogen tank.

[happyslug]

5. The Cites you give do NOT make my observation untrue.

The cites you give involve a lot of basic research, something I support, but like most basic research no where near solving the problems I mention.

Now basic Research is important. No one remembers the 18th century researcher who did the first published work on when water turns to steam (and steam into water) at various temperateness and pressures. This was basic research, but without it James Watt could NOT have invented his Steam engine, that would propel the industrial revolution from the early 1700s till it was superseded by the Internal Combustion engine after 1900.

The same type of basic research was done in regards to Electricity from about 1750 to 1850, no one remembers the researchers but they findings lead to the invention of the Telegraph in 1835 and later the Telephone, and finally the Computer. Their research was the base behind the electrification of Sewing machines, Automobiles, Streetcars, typewriters, office data storage devices etc.

On the other hand, some of such basis research can lead up a blind alley, the Sterling engine is the classic example. The Sterling engine has been called the engine of the Future and always will be. Invented in 1816, long after the Watts Steam engine was already in widespread use pumping water out of coal mines, never really challenged the Watts Steam engine, even through the Sterling was more energy efficient. When even higher efficiently was needed after about 1900, the Steam Turbine came into operation and due to it being even more efficient (if used in a large engine) became the dominate steam engine after 1900 and remains so in regards to electrical generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

While I support basic Research we have to be careful the research can be useful within the reasonable future. Your cites tend to concentrate on making Hydrogen leak less through its container's walls using improvements in "Sorption" technology.

Absorption is the incorporation of a substance in one state into another of a different state (e.g., liquids being absorbed by a solid or gases being absorbed by water).

Adsorption is the physical adherence or bonding of ions and molecules onto the surface of another molecule. It is the most common form of sorption used in cleanup.

http://www.cpeo.org/techtree/ttdescript/sorpt.htm

Interesting technology using metal, plastic and Nano-Technology to permit Hydrogen to form a weak physical bond with the "sorption" material used in the container, then draining the Container of the Hydrogen when it is needed.

The problem with this is first, even a phyiscal bond require some energy to be formed OR to break. Such energy is no where near what is needed to form or break a chemical bond, but some energy is needed.

Chemical Bond: Where two or more atoms exchange electrons to form a Compound. When Hydrogen and Oxygen combine they form a CHEMICAL bond and produce water.

Physical bond: When atoms or compounds of atoms exist side by side but do NOT exchange electrons. Water in a glass is an example of Physical bonds. The water can be divided easily into different cups. That division of water is an example of massive break in physical bonds.

Now what the researchers are trying to do is make some sort of physical bond (or weak chemical bond) between the material making up the container and Hydrogen atoms. This would restrict how the hydrogen can escape the container. The problem is, even physical bonds require some energy to break, i.e. you have to pour the water into two different glasses. The energy needed would be greater if it is a weak chemical bond.

The key would be to make sure the Physical bond or the weak chemical bond requires less energy to break then you get when the Hydrogen is released to combine with Oxygen and the subsequent chemical bond are produce to make water. Furthermore the loss of energy MUST be less then the loss of energy by permitting hydrogen to leak out of conventional containers. (and a third factor would be the loss of energy is less then the cost of producing new Hydrogen to replace what is loss through the walls of the Container).

None of these issues are addressed in your cites, for they are basic research cites NOT something anyone thinks is ready for production in the next 10-20 years. Thus, for the forseeable future the issue of loss of Hydrogen through the walls of any container of Hydrogen has NOT been addressed and may never be if the above research fails to come up with a solution that is less energy intensive then just producing Hydrogen.

Another problem with the above research, a better solution may be NOT to produce Hydrogen, instead to use whatever the energy source being used to produce the hydrogen, to produce a larger compound, such as bio-fuel.

Gasoline, Diesel, Oil, natural Gas and bio-fuel all have one thing in common, the thing that makes them usable sources of energy is the hydrogen in them. It is the Hydrogen that produces the power in these other fuels. Carbon is just a side product. Hydrogen is what provides the energy. These larger compounds do NOT produce the energy Hydrogen does, but the fact they are larger permit them to be used on conventional containers without the 1% loss Hydrogen is noted for. Thus why go to Hydrogen, when the alternatives permit almost the same usable energy without the loss hydrogen suffers from?

This problem is compounded by the fact in most of the US, hydrogen is produced from Natural Gas, thus what you save in Carbon by burning Hydrogen, you lose in the process of converting Natural Gas to Hydrogen (and that is ignoring the energy loss in the process of the conversion from Natural Gas to hydrogen, that energy has to come from someplace).

Thus the best solution may be NOT to convert to Hydrogen, but staying with conventional power sources. The two problems I mention are huge, that Hydrogen has a problem with leaking AND the bigger problem, how do we produce the Hydrogen?

I do NOT see Solar, Wind or Nuclear providing the needed power to produce Hydrogen. Thus sooner or later you are looking at Coal and Natural gas. At present rate of increase use of both, they are questions if we can produce the needed electrical power from both AND from Solar, Wind, Hydro and Nuclear power beyond 2050. I be dead by then but a lot of people in DU will not be, thus it is a issue.

Hydrogen will be part of the solution, but so will increase Nuclear, wind, hydro and bio-fuels, but the biggest solution will be a change in life styles (and that is what most people on this board rejects, thus the embracing of Bio-Fuels, Wind and Hydrogen as a solution, for if they succeed no change in life style is needed). Basically Suburbia will have to die. People will have to move closer to where they work so they can walk to work and most imports and exports will go up in price so that most goods will be produced locally unless people are willing to pay a much higher price. Some work will be done remotely, but as the cost of automation drops, more and more people will have to do physical labor for employment. Thus we are looking at a new society to replace the suburban society of today. It will use and need a lot less energy for the cost of energy will increase tremendously and thus force people to adopt either a more dense urban society OR to embrace a more isolated rural existence. That mix of both, which is suburbia, can only exist with the automobile and without the level of energy we are using today, the cost of using an automobile will increase to a point where most people can not afford it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. I believe you are incorrect.

http://vimeo.com/8194089

[NYC_SKP]

12. All other matters aside, can you provide a source detailing energy density of H2, LiIon, Petrol?

I ask because you are my personal most respected resource on these matters.

I'd like to be able to explain to teachers and students in my programs how petroleum became so popular and useful because of it's energy density, and how that property has been a barrier for batteries and for alternative fuels, even ethanol.

For example, how many useful Joules or BTUs are present in 100 pounds of gasoline, diesel, Lithium Ion batteries, super capacitors, H2, etc.?

As any of these reach parity with petroleum, we can declare success, IMO.

TIA

[kristopher]

13. Using that single metric simplifies the issue to the point of no meaning

First you need to establish your goals for a portable energy carrier. There are 3 basic ones involved - climate change, energy security, and cost of transition. We need to get away from carbon without supply interruptions, and do so in a manner that allows people to have transportation.

Hydrogen is a technology that meets some of these needs for some applications, but when you look at the range of major applications you'll find that this isn't a one size fits all area. Heavy equipment, agriculture, heavy hauling, aircraft and ships have different requirements than personal transportation all present unique problems and opportunities that work to shape the selection of the best solution. For example, if we use hydrogen for personal transportation we have to not only develop a distribution infrastructure from scratch, but because of the system efficiency of hydrogen vs batteries, for hydrogen we'd need to build a carbon free generating infrastructure that is 60% larger than we would using electricity and batteries.

On the other hand, ethanol and biodiesel are almost certain to power the agricultural sector because of the symbiotic nature of the endeavor and the resource.

A Cost Comparison of Fuel-Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles
Stephen Eaves*, James Eaves
Eaves Devices, Charlestown, RI, Arizona State University-East, Mesa, AZ
Abstract
This paper compares the manufacturing and refueling costs of a Fuel-Cell Vehicle (FCV) and a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) using an automobile model reflecting the largest segment of light-duty vehicles. We use results from widely-cited government studies to compare the manufacturing and refueling costs of a BEV and a FCV capable of delivering 135 horsepower and driving approximately 300 miles. Our results show that a BEV performs far more favorably in terms of cost, energy efficiency, weight, and volume. The differences are particularly dramatic when we assume that energy is derived from renewable resources.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. Please keep in mind that this assumes the electricity is coming from a renewable resource

If (for example) we start with methane, it’s better to “reform” the methane and use the hydrogen in a fuel cell than it is to burn the hydrogen, to generate electricity which is stored in a battery.

[kristopher]

19. "If we start with methane"?

That's a pretty narrow window, isn't it?

Assuming (just for the moment since it certainly doesn't hold true for most biofuels) your claim is accurate, how much of our energy supply is expected to be derived from methane, is that the best use of our limited supply of methane?

From MIT's Technology Review:

Biofuels vs. Biomass Electricity Findings show that turning biomass into electricity is more beneficial than turning it into transportation fuels.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009 BY TYLER HAMILTON

A study published today in Science concludes that, on average, using biomass to produce electricity is 80 percent more efficient than transforming the biomass into biofuel. In addition, the electricity option would be twice as effective at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The results imply that investment in an ethanol infrastructure, even if based on more efficient cellulosic processes, may prove misguided. The study was done by a collaboration between researchers at Stanford University, the Carnegie Institute of Science, and the University of California, Merced.

There's also the potential, according to the study, of capturing and storing the carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that use
switchgrass, wood chips, and other biomass materials as fuel--an option that doesn't exist for burning ethanol. Biomass, even though it releases CO2 when burned, overall produces less carbon dioxide than do fossil fuels because plants grown to replenish the resource are assumed to reabsorb those emissions. Capture those combustion emissions instead and sequester them underground, and it would "result in a carbon-negative energy source that removes CO2 from the atmosphere," according to the study.

The researchers based their findings on scenarios developed under the Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model (EBAMM) created at the University of California, Berkeley. The analysis covered a range of harvested crops, including corn and switchgrass, and a number of different energy-conversion technologies. Data collected were applied to electric and combustion-engine versions of four vehicle types--small car, midsize car, small SUV, and large SUV--and their operating efficiencies during city and highway driving.
The study accounted for the energy required to convert the biomass into ethanol and electricity, as well as for the energy intensiveness of manufacturing and disposing of each vehicle type. Bioelectricity far outperformed ethanol under most scenarios, although the two did achieve similar distances when the electric vehicles--specifically the small car and large SUV--weren't designed for efficient highway driving.

The potential is even greater for the bioelectricity option because under the EBAMM model, "we did not account for heat as a [usable] by-product, which would make the electricity pathway even more advantageous," says Elliott Campbell, lead author on the study and an assistant professor at the Sierra Nevada Research Institute, part of the University of California, Merced.
Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, conducted a similar but much broader study released in December that focused more on the environmental effects of various energy options...

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/413406/biofuels-vs-biomass-electricity/

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Here’s a technology which probably won’t interest you

http://www.undeerc.org/NCHT/pdf/EERCMH36027.pdf

[font face=Serif]Technical Brief
May 2010
[font size=5]Hydrogen On-Demand[/font]
[font size=4]Simplified High-Pressure Hydrogen Production[/font]

[font size=3][font size=4]The Problem[/font]
Today, hydrogen is typically produced at large centralized locations, compressed or liquefied, and delivered via truck and trailer. Because hydrogen is a very light gas, it is expensive to compress, and the amount of hydrogen transported in each trailer is relatively small (~400 kg). The costs associated with hydrogen compression, transportation, and storage create challenges for small distributed hydrogen applications.

[font size=4]The Solution[/font]
Through the EERC’s simplified high-pressure hydrogen (SHPH) process, by eliminating the compression and large-volume storage steps, the overall process is simplified and less expensive. Lower-cost hydrogen can be produced on-site, at dispensing pressures, thereby reducing costs and safety concerns associated with compressing, distributing, and storing large volumes of high-pressure hydrogen.

…

[font size=4]How It Works[/font]
Hydrogen On-Demand transfers the compression step from the hydrogen product to the reactants, which is especially advantageous with liquid feedstocks like methanol, ethanol, and other fuels (versus natural gas or other gaseous feedstock) since liquids require significantly less energy and lower-cost equipment to pressurize than gases.

…

[font size=4]Benefits[/font]
The ability to produce fuel cell-quality hydrogen on demand from liquid feed streams at high pressure is advantageous because it:

• Eliminates gas compression and reduces hydrogen storage requirements. Because Hydrogen On-Demand produces and purifies a continuous stream of high-pressure hydrogen (up to 12,000 psig), the need for gas compression can be eliminated and hydrogen storage requirements are greatly reduced.

…[/font][/font]

[kristopher]

23. It's interesting, but it doesn't address the questions at hand.

The system efficiency of hydrogen as a storage medium powering our personal transportation fleet is extremely poor compared to the alternatives. If you want to continue reliance on fossil fuels for that application then fuel cells are a great diversion, otherwise the analysis I offered in the two posts above prevail.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. The biggest problem with a battery electric vehicle…

…is that as range increases, the battery electric vehicle becomes a vehicle for transporting batteries, rather than people.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. Did you actually read the graph by the way?

Just curious…

Here’s the source: http://greet.es.anl.gov/results

If you read it, you should have noticed that not only does natural gas reforming score better than grid-charged BEV’s. Hydrogen produced from biomass is dramatically better.

[kristopher]

26. Seriously, you are making that as an argument?

Is that the grid of 5 years ago that is 50% coal or is that the grid of today that is 35% coal? Or of comparing one single renewable source (biomass) while ignoring all of the other renewables sources?

Are we looking for a solution that fits the profile of the grid we want to get rid of or are we looking for the best fit for the grid we must, at great expense, build?


I always appreciate your contributions here, but when the topic is hydrogen you go directly to spin and leave your integrity behind. Why is that?

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. More data which won’t interest you

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

[font face=Serif][font size=5]
Well-to-wheels fuel efficiency.[/font] [font size=3]The efficiency of converting biomass to electricity and to hydrogen is summarized in this chart. To propel a battery EV 250 miles, approximately 1.48 MBTU’s of biomass energy would be required, assuming a 28% efficient biomass combustion turbine. For comparison, only 1.03 MBTU’s of biomass would be required to make enough hydrogen for a fuel cell EV traveling 250 miles. Therefore converting biomass to hydrogen for a fuel cell EV is 43% more efficient than converting biomass to electricity for a battery EV.[/font]


[font size=4]Total system efficiency vs. range.[/font] [font size=3]If drivers will accept shorter ranges between battery charges, then BEVs can be made lighter with less battery storage onboard. The advantage of the FCEV then decreases as shown below:[/font]

If the vehicle range is reduced to 100 miles, then the FCEV has only a slight efficiency advantage over the BEV.[/font]

[kristopher]

27. two questions

1) Are you saying the peer reviewed studies discussed in MIT's Tech Review are incorrect or that your cited website is discussing a system that is more relevant than those peer reviewed studies?

From MIT's Technology Review:
Biofuels vs. Biomass Electricity Findings show that turning biomass into electricity is more beneficial than turning it into transportation fuels.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009 BY TYLER HAMILTON

A study published today in Science concludes that, on average, using biomass to produce electricity is 80 percent more efficient than transforming the biomass into biofuel. In addition, the electricity option would be twice as effective at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The results imply that investment in an ethanol infrastructure, even if based on more efficient cellulosic processes, may prove misguided. The study was done by a collaboration between researchers at Stanford University, the Carnegie Institute of Science, and the University of California, Merced.

There's also the potential, according to the study, of capturing and storing the carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that use
switchgrass, wood chips, and other biomass materials as fuel--an option that doesn't exist for burning ethanol. Biomass, even though it releases CO2 when burned, overall produces less carbon dioxide than do fossil fuels because plants grown to replenish the resource are assumed to reabsorb those emissions. Capture those combustion emissions instead and sequester them underground, and it would "result in a carbon-negative energy source that removes CO2 from the atmosphere," according to the study.

The researchers based their findings on scenarios developed under the Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model (EBAMM) created at the University of California, Berkeley. The analysis covered a range of harvested crops, including corn and switchgrass, and a number of different energy-conversion technologies. Data collected were applied to electric and combustion-engine versions of four vehicle types--small car, midsize car, small SUV, and large SUV--and their operating efficiencies during city and highway driving.
The study accounted for the energy required to convert the biomass into ethanol and electricity, as well as for the energy intensiveness of manufacturing and disposing of each vehicle type. Bioelectricity far outperformed ethanol under most scenarios, although the two did achieve similar distances when the electric vehicles--specifically the small car and large SUV--weren't designed for efficient highway driving.

The potential is even greater for the bioelectricity option because under the EBAMM model, "we did not account for heat as a by-product, which would make the electricity pathway even more advantageous," says Elliott Campbell, lead author on the study and an assistant professor at the Sierra Nevada Research Institute, part of the University of California, Merced.
Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, conducted a similar but much broader study released in December that focused more on the environmental effects of various energy options...

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/413406/biofuels-vs-biomass-electricity/

2) Where is there information on how to meet our personal transportation needs with only biomass and what does that do to our ability to meet needs in the other transportation areas where liquid fuel's energy density is actually required?

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. MIT study which will not interest you in the slightest

http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/kromer_electric_powertrains.pdf

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Electric Powertrains: Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet[/font]


[font size=4]Matthew A. Kromer and John B. Heywood
May 2007 LFEE 2007-03 RP[/font]

Sloan Automotive Laboratory
Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue,
Cambridge, MA 02139
Publication No. LFEE 2007-03 RP

…

[font size=4]8.1 Well-to-Wheel Energy, Petroleum, and GHG Emissions[/font]

[font size=3]

…
[/font][/font]

(These are based on business-as-usual, producing electricity using the current grid-mix, producing hydrogen from natural gas.)

[caraher]

15. You can find those numbers easily

There's a nice chart in Richard Muller's textbook "Physics & Technology for Future Presidents," and he makes essentially the argument you outline to account for the popularity of fossil fuels (though he supplements it with observations on how the current market prices for those fuels also comes into play). You can also pull numbers from Wikipedia, but the 1st chapter of Muller is a pretty good introduction for a non-technical audience with the caveat that he lards it with a significant bias against electric cars that runs beyond the facts.

For the "useful" part you need to factor in efficiencies, which can vary quite a bit. Anything electric will be quite good (>80%) and anything thermal will be quite poor (15-25% for vehicles, 30-60% for power stations - coal, nuclear, gas, etc.).

There are also some excellent critiques of that oversimplified analysis, particularly with respect to electric cars. As kristopher points out, energy density is not the last word. (After all, if it were we'd use nuclear for almost everything!)

[NYC_SKP]

16. Energy density is the point of departure I want to provide to students.

and, indeed, the modifier "useful" means everything. Still, energy content is one of a few key features in calculating the economics and efficiencies of various solutions.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. Hydrogen has about 3x the energy/mass ratio of gasoline, but storage is a challenge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_ignoring_external_components

Here’s some promising research:
http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2011/11/uo-chemists-develop-liquid-based-hydrogen-storage-material

[font face=Serif][font size=5]UO chemists develop liquid-based hydrogen storage material[/font]

[font size=3]EUGENE, Ore. -- (Nov. 22, 2011) -- University of Oregon chemists have developed a boron-nitrogen-based liquid-phase storage material for hydrogen that works safely at room temperature and is both air- and moisture-stable -- an accomplishment that offers a possible route through current storage and transportation obstacles.

Reporting in a paper placed online ahead of publication in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, a team of four UO scientists describes the development of a cyclic amine borane-based platform called BN-methylcyclopentane. In addition to its temperature and stability properties, it also features hydrogen desorption, without any phase change, that is clean, fast and controllable. It uses readily available iron chloride as a catalyst for desorption, and allows for recycling of spent fuel into a charged state.

The big challenges to move this storage platform forward, researchers cautioned, are the needs to increase hydrogen yield and develop a more energy efficient regeneration mechanism.

(NEWS UPDATE, Dec. 12, 2011: The U.S. Department of Energy announced new grants totaling $7 million to support projects involving hydrogen storage. Among them is up to $2 million to the University of Oregon for Shih-Yuan Liu to expand his efforts on the research described here. This UO grant also includes collaboration with the University of Alabama and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Full DOE announcement)

…[/font][/font]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja208834v

[Kolesar]

11. Great writing, especially your point about hydrogen not being a source of energy

Hydrogen was over sold as a solution and it took the research dollars away from the battery-powered car industry. Members of the media did not have any technical expertise to sort out the real physics of the technology.

[NNadir]

7. They've been in showrooms since 2005.

Amory Lovins: Hydrogen HYPERcars to be in showrooms by 2005

Anyway, this is hardly something new. Governor Arnie "Hydrogen Hummer" Schwartenegger put state money, in a state that can't afford to keep its University's open, its parks open, can't afford new text books, into Hydrogen stations.

California has the world's highest per capita number of hydrogen stations.

They don't have decent schools, they couldn't care less about their poor, but they have hydrogen stations.

We're all saved.

Thank goodness.

Yet another link in the long chain of natural gas and coal shell games.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. And Generation IV Nuclear Plants are right on schedule!

http://www.ecology.at/ecology/files/pr577_1.pdf

Surely! They will bring our long awaited nuclear paradise!

[NNadir]

9. Nuclear energy remains, and always will be, the world's largest by far, source of climate change

gas free primary energy.

I write very little here anymore, because the conversation has not changed in any way over the years.

The solar scam doesn't produce one exajoule of energy, dangerous fossil fuels waste, in the form of air pollution still kills 3.3 million people per year while anti-nukes rail against the world's largest, by far, source of air pollution free primary energy, and oh yes, hydrogen cars don't do shit for anyone.

Nuclear is NOT capable of sustaining the car CULTure, and it will NOT thrive in countries where fear, ignorance and superstition hold sway, but it is, and always will be the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy.

It is too late for humanity to have achieved as much as it might have done in the absense of fear, ignorance and superstion. It is not, and will not be a panacea, and it will not save as many lives as it might have done. I have freely admitted as much elsewhere in a diary: Should Nuclear Energy Be A Panacea?

However, your thread was NOT about nuclear energy. It was about hydrogen HYPErcars, which like the solar industry and the wind industry has been an appeal to pop psychology that does nothing more than suck money to produce nothing.

The "hydrogen cars will come sooner than you think" rhetoric comes around like clockwork, sort of like the "solar will soon compete with grid electricity" meme.

As of today, the actual price of solar electricity in the United States, according to the solar industry promotion website solar buzz would be over 60 cents per kwh.

I regret to remind you that some of us, at least, are not living in dollar store science fiction novels or in back issues of Scientific American published in the 1970's.

[Kolesar]

10. You left because you got your ass kicked for your constant flame baiting.

And there was that Fukushima thing, too

[NNadir]

14. Oh yeah. I forgot that just as you know that everyone in Japan was killed by Fukushima,

you also know why I do things.

It is just possible I was just depressed to hear dumb guys report over and over and over and over that nuclear power plants should be shut because they killed no one in a 9.0 earthquake and 15 meter tsunami, while buildings and cars in the same event, where 20,000 people died were absolutely safe and needed no modification.

Or maybe I was sick of not hearing a peep out of easily distracted puerile anti-nukes about the 3.3 million people the World Health Organization reports die each year from air pollution, while they keep hoping that someone, anyone, would die from the big giant radiation scare at Fukushima.

I'm sure that I missed all of your set cheering for more nuclear deaths, and I certainly didn't want to share in your disappointment when the actual death toll from radiation proved to be, um, zero.

Better luck next time, kiddie.

As for ass kicking, you may be confused about the difference between being bored and being banned.

If it is true that you are in fact confused, that would come as no surprise to me. I have yet to meet a single anti-nuke who is anything but confused.

Everything's pretty much the same as it was years ago here, except that when I first wrote here in 2002, the concentration of dangerous fossil fuel waste was around 373 ppm.

Guess what it is now, kiddie...

Don't know? Don't care?

That solar and wind scam - after having sucked several hundred billion bucks into the rabbit hole - is sure doing a great job!

Heckuva job anti-nuke. You must be very proud.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. “…nothing more than suck money to produce nothing…”

Nothing inflammatory there…

Hmmm… http://www.democraticunderground.com/112717209
http://www.evwind.es/noticias.php?id_not=19043

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Photovoltaic solar energy in Germany hits new record level[/font]

june 09, 2012

[font size=3]German utilities say solar power reached a new record level in May when it produced about 10 percent of the country's overall electricity.

The BDEW utility lobby group said Friday the production was up 40 percent on the year because of favorable weather conditions and a continuing boom in new solar panel installations.

Germany decided after last year's Fukushima disaster in Japan to phase out nuclear power by 2022. Renewable energies are set to generate 30 percent of the electricity by then, and 80 percent by 2050.

All renewable energy sources - including wind power and biomass plants - last year accounted for about 20 percent of the country's electricity, but that share appears to be rising as subsidies and investment incentives fuel a boom in new installations.[/font][/font]