- 2 Comments
- 1 Comment
- 3302 Comments
Recent Comments:
Proposed U.S. legislation would provide tax breaks for natural gas vehicles {Autoblog Green}
Jul 10th 2009 3:46AM I favor electrics, too, but I must admit that natural gas is a good clean burning fuel. It is also the only "fossil fuel" that also has a renewable source, that will certainly help maintain supplies for a long time to come.
Not over yet: Senate subcommittee restores DOE's hydrogen funding cut {Autoblog Green}
Jul 10th 2009 3:39AM No, H2 and fuel cells are NOT the only solution to our energy problems, not even close. To begin with, like electricity, H2 isn't an energy source, but an energy carrier that can be made using various energy sources, including fossil fuels like natural gas and coal, or renewables like solar and wind. The problem is that to get H2 from clean renewable sources means making electricity first, and it turns out that the combination of electrolysis, compression for storage and H2 fuel cells is only 24% efficient. The combination of charger and batteries is 85% efficient, 3x more efficient at storing electrical energy than the H2 route.
That makes batteries a better choice for energy storage, and electric vehicles a better choice for the transportation part of our energy problems.
Not over yet: Senate subcommittee restores DOE's hydrogen funding cut {Autoblog Green}
Jul 10th 2009 2:36AM Blencoe still continues to promote that fiction that"Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are the only technology that can be scaled up globally and meet customer needs for driving range, fueling time, cost when mass produced, extreme weather performance, and trunk/passenger space" Blencoe STILL is ignoring the existance of the Tesla Model S, which has room for 7 (5 adults, 2 children), luggage space front and back, range up to 300 miles, 45 minute fast recharge or 2 minute battery swap, cost less than 1/10 of a fuel cell car, and better cold weather performance than any H2FC car. Oh, and per mile fuel cost of driving electric is a fraction of the cost for H2 fuel.
In short, yes, there ARE other technologies that can be scaled up globally and meet customer needs even better than H2 fuel cell vehicles can, and they are arriving years before any H2 fuel cell vehicles will be for sale. Blencoe is trying to prop up the H2 hype, as his company is totally dependent on it.
Not over yet: Senate subcommittee restores DOE's hydrogen funding cut {Autoblog Green}
Jul 10th 2009 2:20AM Yes, I'm aware of that experiment, and how it cost a cool half million dollars for one home. There was a whole row of large tanks in the yard to store the H2 fuel, and an expensive fuel cell using the H2 fuel to make electricity. He managed to snag a fuel cell vehicle on a short term lease, don't know if he still has it, or if he ever got the special high pressure H2 compressor needed to refill the vehicle tank.
Combining the bulky low density of H2 fuel with the low efficiency of a piston engine assures a very short driving range. A Prius was converted to run on H2, at a cost of $70,000, but even with hybrid efficiency it could only get 80 miles per tank. It really isn't practical.
The irony is that if he had used batteries for storage instead, it would have taken less room, been 3x more efficient, and would have been a fraction of that cost. A grid tie solar system of similar capacity would have cost even less.
Not over yet: Senate subcommittee restores DOE's hydrogen funding cut {Autoblog Green}
Jul 10th 2009 2:07AM No, Patrick, the action of Dr. Chu, recommending that H2 funding be cut and efforts be concentrated on battery technology is the one based on science. Dr. Chu did win a Nobel Prize in Physics, which I'm quite sure is not the case of any member of Congress. Also, there was no political advantage in cutting H2 funding, as the squawking by H2 promoters clearly indicates.
The decision of Congress to restore H2 funding is the one based on politics and lobbying.
Not over yet: Senate subcommittee restores DOE's hydrogen funding cut {Autoblog Green}
Jul 9th 2009 11:33PM Sandy, the $4,000 per Kw figure doesn't come for fuel cell vehicle sales, because rather inconveniently, none have ever been sold. It is based on actual sales of real H2 PEM fuel cells to customers, there are other uses of fuel cells besides automobiles. Fuel cells, like batteries, are modular, the price scales fairly consistently with power output.
Most of the fuel cell cost is with the exotic materials needed, and "mass production simply cannot reduce price below the material costs.
I'm amazed that the MIT study is even more unrealistic than the DOE study. Perhaps I shouldn't be, H2 Hypers seem to be all over, and maybe MIT was looking to get a big H2 research grant.
Not over yet: Senate subcommittee restores DOE's hydrogen funding cut {Autoblog Green}
Jul 9th 2009 11:18PM Brose: Cost and efficiency and the physical nature of H2 gas are the reasons why I can be certain the H2 vehicle paths are not the right choice. Both plug-ins and H2FCVs have been tried, but while H2FC has been stuck in expensive prototype mode for 40 years and counting, EVs are actually affordable now and are already in commercial production.
Not over yet: Senate subcommittee restores DOE's hydrogen funding cut {Autoblog Green}
Jul 9th 2009 11:01PM Sandy, the "Partnership for Next Generation Vehicles" didn't involve H2 fuel or fuel cells at all, it concentrated on hybrids and weight reduction. After wasting huge sums and rolling out their prototypes in 2001, Bush Jr. cancelled the project to promote the "hydrogen hyway" instead. No vehicles were produced or sold. The only good that came out of it was that it spurred Toyota and Honda to develop hybrids, which they brought to market before the PNGV trio (GM, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler) displayed their prototypes.
Dr. Chu didn't rely on the echo chamber of all the Hydrogen Promoters, like any good Nobel Prize winning scientist, he did his own research on the subject, and came to the logical conclusion that H2 was nowhere near ready, and batteries were much more promising. With threats on the horizon, he logically assumed the best course of action is to concentrate resources on the most promising technologies, and H2 isn't one of them, and we can't wait years, possibly decades, for H2 researchers to solve all the problems.
Not over yet: Senate subcommittee restores DOE's hydrogen funding cut {Autoblog Green}
Jul 9th 2009 10:42PM TomW, your name wasn't on the list, so Anonymouse wasn't referring to you. Shrug. You may well be a different person than Blencoe, it doesn't matter.
But I did notice that "Grant" used the same phrases and the same rhetorical logic as Blencoe. If it isn't the same person, then it is someone really close to him who has picked up his verbal habits.
Not over yet: Senate subcommittee restores DOE's hydrogen funding cut {Autoblog Green}
Jul 9th 2009 10:32PM Patrick, please explain why we "need H2FC vehicles" that cost several times more than plug-ins, and use more natural gas or 3x more of our limited supply of renewable energy? Is there some obscure advantage of the more expensive less efficient H2 option that hasn't been revealed?
Grant, your "refuting" doesn't really hold up. It is improvements in production methods that have driven down prices in high tech, the material costs are a small fraction of the cost of electronics. But other items, like clothing and cars, haven't dropped in price at all, most of the production cost is in materials and there is little opportunity to reduce manufacturing costs. Most of the cost of H2 fuel cells and H2 storage is in the material costs, "mass production" simply can't lower prices below the material costs. So, unless there are several totally unexpected breakthrougs in materials, H2FC vehicles will remain too expensive to be economically competitive.
EVs and PHEVs can do even better than H2FCVs at reducing GHG emissions, considering that:
1. Most H2 fuels will be produced by steam reforming of fossil fuels, and
2. EVs and PHEVs are 3x more efficient than H2FC vehicles fueled by electrolysis. If you propose making H2 fuel from renewables via electrolysis, I could just as easily propose fueling EVs and PHEVs from the same renewable sources - with 2/3 of that electricity left over, available to displace fossil fuel usage elsewhere. Yes, efficiency really does matter when it comes to our limited supply of renewable electricity.
The notion of powering "light rail" by H2 fuel cells is rediculous. Not only is it several times more expensive to install and maintain than providing power via overhead wires or 3rd rail, it is also much less efficient, raising operating costs to unsustainable levels.
Both H2 and electricity come from the same sources, including fossil fuels and renewables, but going the battery electric route can be more efficient, and is always more efficient when it comes to renewable energy sources.
H2FC vehicles may be competitive to EVs in terms of range and versatility (what the heck is "tighter fueling process loop"?) but H2FCVs are not competitive in terms of cost and efficiency and performance. Cost is the main reason why H2FCV deployment isn't ready, even the proponents think it will take at least 6 more years of development. It would require several breakthroughs in fuel cell materials and H2 storage before production can even be considered. On the other hand, EVs are already affordable, already in production, and several breakthroughs to increase battery capacity and reduce costs have already been demonstrated.
Speaking of "Smart Grid", it was developed by AC Propulsion for use on EVs, and does not require fuel cells at all. Stationary fuel cells are mostly solid oxide cells running directly on natural gas, no hydrogen needed, and are used where the need for quiet operation and small size outweighs the higher price.
Brose: Cost and efficiency and the physical nature of H2 gas are the reasons why I can be certain the H2 vehicle paths are not the right choice. Both plug-ins and H2FCVs have been tried, but while H2FC has been stuck in expensive prototype mode for 40 years and counting, EVs are actually affordable now and are already in commercial production.
