Hydrogen-fueled cars on tour—"a case of putting the chicken before the egg"—How I love that quote!

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news/business.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-08-16-0021.html

Hydrogen-fueled cars on tour

Vehicles make pit-stop in Chester as part of national campaign to tout alternative technology

Saturday, Aug 16, 2008 - 12:08 AM Updated: 12:42 AM

By LOUIS LLOVIO
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

Hydrogen-powered cars are off the drawing board and ready for the highways. But chances are you won't see one anytime soon.

…

The problem is, even if the cars were available, there is almost nowhere for them to refuel. Virginia has one station, at Fort Belvoir in Northern Virginia. In the U.S., 61 stations can refuel hydrogen cars. Of the 61, almost half -- 26 -- are in California, said Roy O. Kim, spokesman for the tour's sponsor, the California Fuel Cell Partnership.

Because of the shortage, manufacturers who could mass produce the cars don't. Gas station owners won't start supplying hydrogen until there is a demand.

This is a case of putting the chicken before the egg, said Alleyn S. Harned, assistant secretary of commerce and trade in Virginia.

…

[itsrobert]

1. How many gas stations were available when the first Gasoline Power Car

was selling?

Sometimes you do put the cart before the horse. Build them and sell them than the rest will follow.

[HamdenRice]

4. There was somewhat interesting but disappointing documentary that touched on this

It was about the first team to try to drive across the US in an automobile. A big problem for them was having enough gas to get to the next station. A bigger problem iirc, was simply lack of passable roads.

The trip was surprisingly recent, though, maybe the early 1900s.

[sam sarrha]

5. the coal used to make the H2 produces over 8 times the pollution, no to mention the

environmental catastrophe.. of biblical proportions see #3

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Ummm...

http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/facts/production_envt.pdf

CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN HIGHWAY NETWORK

Hydrogen Production Methods and Environmental Impacts Fact Sheet

Hydrogen has the potential to unlock a new energy future for California—a future based on secure, local, and renewable energy sources that reduces harmful air pollutants, and is accessible and affordable to all Californians. This transition won’t happen overnight but over time it can help create a sustainable transportation future for California.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, however, it is most often found in combination with other elements such as water or fossil fuels like natural gas. Separating hydrogen from these molecules can present a number of challenges. Like any fuel, hydrogen takes energy to produce, creating the potential to increase pollution or rely on fossil fuels and other unsustainable resources. When hydrogen is produced from a variety of feed stocks including renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar power the emission impact can be zero it is used in a fuel cell vehicle. This is the long-term vision of the California Hydrogen Highway Network (CaH2Net)

…

Electrolysis of Water

Electrolysis of water is a common method of producing hydrogen, and it involves using electricity and a catalyst to break water apart into hydrogen and oxygen. Additional energy is then required to compress the hydrogen into a high-pressure gas or cool the hydrogen into a liquid that can be stored and dispensed into a vehicle.

How the electricity is generated is key to electrolysis equation because it can be produced using fossil resources (i.e., natural gas and coal) or renewable resources like solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and, biomass. When using renewable resources the emissions can be zero. However, when hydrogen is produced using the current mix of sources on the California grid, particulate matter (PM) emissions and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be greater than those associated with gasoline on a well to wheel basis. California recognizes that using renewable resources for electricity production will help improve air quality, which is one reason why the State is requiring utilities to increase the amount of renewable resources used for grid-electricity production to 20% by 2010 (The California Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). The goals of the CaH2Net are to use renewable resources to produce hydrogen that exceed the State’s 20% RPS requirement. This is because, for electrolysis to be a viable and sustainable method of producing hydrogen, it must employ more clean renewable electricity than what the grid alone currently provides.

…

(According the the fact sheet) even if the H₂ is produced by the "reformation" of natural gas, greenhouse gas emissions are %50 lower than a gasoline powered car.

[sam sarrha]

16. "Electrolysis of water".. will require Nuclear power

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. I would find that devastating… if it were true… but it's not.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=50438

October 31, 2007

SMUD Solar Array To Power Its Fuel-Cell Electric Vehicles

Sacramento, California

A new solar array on the SMUD campus will soon provide enough electricity to generate hydrogen for SMUD's small fleet of fuel-cell electric vehicles and provide clean electricity to the grid during peak power demands.

The recently completed photovoltaic (PV) array delivers 80 kilowatts of power produced by the sun, which is enough power to provide hydrogen for about 14 fuel-cell vehicles. Construction on the hydrogen fueling station will be done by the end of the year. Until then, the solar power generated by the panels will feed into the http://www.smud.org/">SMUD grid.

Designed as a demonstration project, the solar-powered fueling station will fuel the seven fuel-cell electric vehicles that SMUD is testing in a partnership with BP, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler. As the solar panels make electricity, an electrolyzer at the station will use that energy to separate water into hydrogen to make clean fuel for the vehicles. The amount of hydrogen produced at the site will be kept low for safety considerations.

In addition to the fuel-cell vehicles, SMUD is also testing battery electric vehicles and a plug-in hybrid vehicle that gets 100 miles per gallon. SMUD also uses numerous conventional hybrid vehicles as well as several flex fuel vehicles that can use ethanol fuel or gasoline.

[sam sarrha]

19. what do these fuel cells contain for fuel...??

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Do you know anything about the "Hydrogen Cycle?"

http://www.imr.salford.ac.uk/hytrain/energy/index.html

…

An Idealised Hydrogen Cycle

1. Water is split into hydrogen and oxygen by the process of elecrolysis, using electricity generated from renewable energy sources
2. The oxygen is released into the atmosphere, whilst the hydrogen is stored and transported
3. Oxygen from the atmosphere is re-combined with the stored hydrogen in a fuel cell, producing electricity and water vapour
4. The water vapour is released back into the environment, where it can become part of the cycle once again

…

[sam sarrha]

27. do you know anything about the conservation of energy, how much it costs to produce the hydrogen,

and what pollution is produced by Coal/nuke/efficiency of production and contenious INHERENT LOSS of H2 in transportation and storage.. efficiency of cell and motor, loss to Resistance and drag.. whatdoyahave left..?

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. Clearly, you haven't really read anything I've posted in this thread

As much as you would like to claim that hydrogen needs to be produced by burning coal or uranium, this simply is not the case.

Any electrical source is sufficient. Hydrogen advocates prefer solar, wind and other similar sources. MIT is claiming close to 100% efficiency in converting electrical power to hydrogen.

Efficiencies of battery EV's and (hydrogen) fuel cell EV's are comparable.


Please, do me the courtesy of checking out/responding to some of the many links I've provided, rather than simply making unsubstantiated claims.

…
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes. (short pause)
A: No it isn't.
…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

[kristopher]

31. Let's say you're right about the 100%.

Off grid home produced energy for transportation: H2 to battery comparison.

Hydrogen:
Direct from solar DC elec 100kwh > electrolysis (100%) 100kwh > compression (90%) 90kwh > fuel cell (50%) 45kwh > vehicle (90%) 40.5kwh

Direct from solar DC elec 100kwh > electrolysis (100%) 100kwh > liquification (65%) 65kwh > fuel cell (50%) 32.5 kwh > vehicle (90%) 29kwh

Battery:
Direct from solar DC elec 100kwh > Battery charging (90%) 90kwh > vehicle (90%) 81kwh


K: "Hydrogen is too energy expensive."

OK: "No it isn't."

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. What do you know about metal hydride storage?

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_progress07_storage.html

Charging them is exothermic.

Check out video segment #1 here:
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/video/watchonline.htm

Getting the hydrogen out is easily accomplished.

[OKIsItJustMe]

34. Liquifaction %90!

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress06/iii_b_1_shimko.pdf

III.B.1 Combined Reverse-Brayton Joule Thompson Hydrogen Liquefaction Cycle

…

Technical Targets Technical Targets

We believe that liquefier power requirement of 3.6–5.0 kWh/kg is possible. Under this scenario, the cost of electrical energy is likely to be approximately 50% of the current $0.99/kg – which is close to the targeted cost. An overall energy efficiency of 90% is possible, which is significantly more efficient than the targeted 87%. Addition of turboexpanders is, however, expected to raise the capital cost by $0.05–0.08 /kg. This would have a marginal impact on the overall cost, as the operating electric cost will be reduced by about $0.50/kg.

Approach

The simplest liquefaction process is the Joule-Thomson Expansion cycle (Figure 1). The gas to be liquefied is compressed (by compressor K-101), cooled (in aftercooler E-100 and heat exchanger LNG-102) and then undergoes is enthalpic expansion across a throttle valve (VLV-100). If the gas is cooled below its inversion temperature in a heat exchanger (LNG-102 in Figure 1), then this expansion results in further cooling – and may result in liquid formation at the valve outlet. For hydrogen, this temperature is -95°F. It is obvious that this cycle alone cannot be used for liquefaction of hydrogen without any pre-cooling of hydrogen below its inversion temperature.

A modification of this cycle in which liquid nitrogen is used to cool the gaseous hydrogen below its inversion temperature is sometimes used along with Joule-Thomson Expansion to liquefy hydrogen. However, this modified cycle is still limited in overall efficiency as the primary thermodynamic process used for cooling is Joule-Thomson Expansion.

Joule-Thomson expansion is inherently inefficient, as there is no work done during expansion. The advantages are that the expansion requires no moving parts and a simple throttle valve can be used for liquefaction. The industrial gas industry departed from using Joule-Thomson as a primary process in liquefaction of atmospheric gases in the 1960s. Turboexpanders or expansion engines are now used at most industrial gas plants to provide the necessary refrigeration for liquefaction. The expansion across a turboexpander is ideally isentropic, i.e., some useful work is done in expansion. Depending on the pressure ratio across a turboexpander, this useful work may be as high as 130 Btu/lbmol (for a pressure ratio of six). Turboexpanders cannot tolerate any liquid condensing at the outlet as the turbine wheels often rotate at up to 170,000 rpm. Therefore, a clever combination of isentropic and
isenthalpic expansion is required to generate a practical efficient process.

We propose to use a combined reverse-Brayton Joule-Thompson (CRBJT) expansion cycle (or a modified Claude cycle) to combine the benefits of highly efficient isentropic expansion and the highly reliable Joule Thompson expansion cycle. Figure 2 shows a schematic for the simplest version of the CRBJT cycle.

…

[kristopher]

36. Ok, why don't you break it down

Why don't you break it down for us. Show the overall system efficiency that can be deployed now. Any near term technologies not able to be deployed now should be clearly identified and calculated separately.
We can start with an alternative to the cost of platinum in the PEM for fuel cells. Seriously, I'm listening if you can make the case. Fuel cells are compatible with V2G technology, so batteries have no particular advantage there; either one could help stabilize a renewable grid.

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. Naturally, this requires pulling together a lot of disparate information

Before we go too far, at this point, battery manufacturers, and auto manufacturers are not keen on V2G. Essentially, they're having enough of a time making sure their batteries will bear up to "normal" use without the extra cycling V2G would require.

And… I have to get some sleep.

However, let's look at fuel cells for a moment.
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage9019.html

Nisshinbo Creates Platinum-Free Carbon Catalysts for Fuel Cells

Publication Date:20-July-2008
10:00 AM US Eastern Timezone
Source:Asia Pulse

TOKYO-- Nisshinbo Industries Inc. (TSE:3105) has worked with the Tokyo Institute of Technology to develop the technology to use carbon instead of expensive platinum as the electrode catalyst for fuel cells.

The company hopes to have a practical version of the new catalyst ready in fiscal 2009, and will start by commercializing a product for the electrodes of residential fuel cells. Later, it will develop and commercialize a version for automotive fuel cells.

In a fuel cell, the catalyst promotes the oxidation-reducing reactions at the electrodes that lead to the generation of electricity from the hydrogen fuel and oxygen in the air. Platinum is now used as the catalyst, but high demand and unstable supplies from main producer South Africa have driven prices sky-high. A 1kw-class residential fuel cell uses several grams of platinum and a 150kw-class automotive fuel cell uses around 60 grams, which at current prices adds 400,000 yen (US$3,762) to the cost of a car.

The carbon catalyst promises to remove this cost barrier, which along with the needed infrastructure for hydrogen filling stations is a major roadblock to the adoption of fuel cells for homes and cars.

…

In the meantime, here's something to wrap your brain around:
https://www.llnl.gov/str/Mitlit.html

…

URFC-Powered Electrical Vehicles

In a 1994 study for automotive applications, Livermore and the Hamilton Standard Division of United Technologies studied URFCs. They found that compared with battery-powered systems, the URFC is lighter and provides a driving range comparable to gasoline-powered vehicles. Over the life of a vehicle, they found the URFC would be more cost effective because it does not require replacement.²

In the electrolysis (charging) mode, electrical power from a residential or commercial charging station supplies energy to produce hydrogen by electrolyzing water. The URFC-powered car can also recoup hydrogen and oxygen when the driver brakes or descends a hill. This regenerative braking feature increases the vehicle's range by about 10% and could replenish a low-pressure (1.4-megapascal or 200-psi) oxygen tank about the size of a football.

In the fuel-cell (discharge) mode, stored hydrogen is combined with air to generate electrical power. The URFC can also be supercharged by operating from an oxygen tank instead of atmospheric oxygen to accommodate peak power demands such as entering a freeway. Supercharging allows the driver to accelerate the vehicle at a rate comparable to that of a vehicle powered by an internal-combustion engine.

…

'Night now!

[kristopher]

38. I'm not too worried about the auto mfgs.

They couldn't find their ass with both hands if they needed their diapers changed; the functionality and economics of v2g is strong enough that it has a definite place in the future. The auto market is going to be more open to new entrants than anytime in the past 60 years, IMO.

I don't think the cycling is as much of a problem as longevity and it looks like both issues are pretty well matters of past concern. The real hurdle is energy density and recharge time; I don't know of anything that shows promise of delivering both. On the other hand, if the NW-Si proves out, the range on a single charge should overcome the time needed to recharge them.

The carbon replacement for platinum sounds promising, but again, the devil is in the details so we need a little more information to make a judgment. Most importantly, of course, is there an efficiency penalty? I look forward to hearing more from you on this when you have a little extra time.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. how much is a case of eggs, anyway?

two chickens in a pot is worth one in the Bush?

OF COURSE the hydro-car is a fucked up idea. that is the solution that Bush promoted in the first place.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Hydrogen cars far predate Bush's rise to power

The first time I saw it seriously discussed was on NOVA in http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/listseason/06.html">1979 (Jimmy Carter was President back then.) At that point, they were primarily suggesting that H₂ be used in internal combustion engines, they proposed storing the hydrogen safely using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydride">metal hydrides. I fell in love with the idea!

GM actually had a prototype fuel cell vehicle in http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/gm-electrovan.htm">1966! (Johnson was President back then.)

George W. Bush is not a good reason to dislike hydrogen as an energy storage medium.

[sam sarrha]

3. this is a scam to push H2 from COAL, propaganda.. here is where coal comes from.. link>>

http://www.chimpsternation.com/forum?c=showthread&ThreadID=1293

http://www.wesjones.com/death.htm

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mountain+topping+++coal&btnG=Google+Search

[elocs]

6. Hydrogen is not an energy source--it's like a battery.

Here's a good article about hydrogen which confronts some of its basic problems, with footnotes:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4541

From the conclusion:

At some point along the chain of making, putting energy in, storing, and delivering the hydrogen, you’ve used more energy than you get back, and this doesn’t count the energy used to make fuel cells, storage tanks, delivery systems, and vehicles (17).

The laws of physics mean the hydrogen economy will always be an energy sink. Hydrogen’s properties require you to spend more energy to do the following than you get out of it later: overcome waters’ hydrogen-oxygen bond, to move heavy cars, to prevent leaks and brittle metals, to transport hydrogen to the destination. It doesn’t matter if all of the problems are solved, or how much money is spent. You will use more energy to create, store, and transport hydrogen than you will ever get out of it.

The price of oil and natural gas will go up relentlessly due to geological depletion and political crises in extracting countries. Since the hydrogen infrastructure will be built using the existing oil-based infrastructure (i.e. internal combustion engine vehicles, power plants and factories, plastics, etc), the price of hydrogen will go up as well -- it will never be cheaper than fossil fuels. As depletion continues, factories will be driven out of business by high fuel costs (20, 21, 22) and the parts necessary to build the extremely complex storage tanks and fuel cells might become unavailable. In a society that’s looking more and more like Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil”, hydrogen will be too leaky and explosive to handle.

Any diversion of declining fossil fuels to a hydrogen economy subtracts that energy from other possible uses, such as planting, harvesting, delivering, and cooking food, heating homes, and other essential activities. According to Joseph Romm “The energy and environmental problems facing the nation and the world, especially global warming, are far too serious to risk making major policy mistakes that misallocate scarce resources (3).

When fusion can make cheap hydrogen, reliable long-lasting nanotube fuel cells exist, and light-weight leak-proof carbon-fiber polymer-lined storage tanks / pipelines can be made inexpensively, then let’s consider building the hydrogen economy infrastructure. Until then, it’s vaporware. All of the technical obstacles must be overcome for any of this to happen (18). Meanwhile, we should stop the FreedomCAR and start setting higher CAFE standards (19).

There will be no one simple solution to our energy problems, no one magic, silver bullet that will allow us to continue our energy sucking lives unabated. No one thing will ever replace the cheap energy that oil has given us until now. We cannot afford to put our eggs in one basket, but we need to use many approaches and use what works best in different situations and locations. Many energy alternatives have downsides and we need to honestly confront them and work to improve them. Some things are not as great as they appear to be at a glance without looking into the details, and the devil is in the details.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Hydrogen economy

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

Hydrogen economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The hydrogen economy is a proposed method of deriving the energy needed for motive power (cars, boats, airplanes), or for off-grid electrical applications, by reacting hydrogen (H2) with oxygen, the hydrogen having been generated by a number of possible methods, including the hydrolysis (splitting) of water. If the energy used to split the water were obtained from renewable or nuclear power sources, and not from burning carbon-based fossil fuels, a hydrogen economy would greatly reduce the emission of carbon dioxide and therefore play a major role in tackling global warming. Countries without oil, but with renewable energy resources, could use a combination of renewable energy and hydrogen instead of fuels derived from petroleum, which is becoming scarcer, to achieve energy independence.

In the context of a hydrogen economy, hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a primary energy source (see nuclear fusion for an entirely separate discussion of using hydrogen isotopes as an atomic energy source). Nevertheless, controversy over the usefulness of a hydrogen economy have been confused by issues of energy sourcing, including fossil fuel use, global warming, and sustainable energy generation. These are all separate issues, although the hydrogen economy affects them all (see below).

Proponents of a world-scale hydrogen economy claim that hydrogen is an environmentally cleaner source of energy to end-users, particularly in transportation applications, without release of pollutants (such as particulate matter) or greenhouse gases at the point of end use. Analyses have concluded that "most of the hydrogen supply chain pathways would release significantly less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than would gasoline used in hybrid electric vehicles" and that significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions would be possible if carbon capture or carbon sequestration methods were utilized at the site of energy or hydrogen production.¹

Critics of a hydrogen economy argue that for many planned applications of hydrogen, direct distribution and use of energy in the form of electricity, or alternate means of storage such as chemical batteries, fuel plus fuel cells, or production of liquid synthetic fuels from CO2 (see methanol economy), might accomplish many of the same net goals of a hydrogen economy while requiring only a small fraction of the investment in new infrastructure.² Hydrogen has been called the least efficient and most expensive possible replacement for gasoline (petrol).³⁴ A comprehensive study of hydrogen in transportation applications has found that "there are major hurdles on the path to achieving the vision of the hydrogen economy; the path will not be simple or straightforward".¹

…

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Hydrogen future doable, experts tell Congress—Best-case scenario: cars free from oil by 2050…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25719194/

Hydrogen future doable, experts tell Congress

Best-case scenario: cars free from oil by 2050, and few carbon emissions

MSNBC
updated 2:35 p.m. ET, Thurs., July. 17, 2008

A transition to vehicles that run on hydrogen — and independence from oil as well as a sharp drop in carbon emissions — is doable but that best-case scenario requires nearly $200 billion in funding and further breakthroughs, National Research Council experts said Thursday in a report requested by Congress.

While stressing the "best-case scenario" nature of their report, the experts concluded that hydrogen could be the key driver of a shift away from fossil fuels and emissions tied to global warming, with other clean technologies and biofuels helping in that transition.

"The benefits of hydrogen would be less in the early years but have a dominant effect" in the longer run, panel chairman Mike Ramage, a retired ExxonMobil executive, told reporters. "Hydrogen is a pathway to a sustainable energy future."

In their report, the experts concluded that "deep reductions in oil use, nearly 100 percent by 2050 for the light-duty vehicle fleet," are possible. "Achieving this goal, however, will require significant new energy security and environmental policy actions in addition to technological developments."

…

You can read their book on-line:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12222#description

Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies:
A Focus on Hydrogen

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) could alleviate the nation's dependence on oil and reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas. Industry-and government-sponsored research programs have made very impressive technical progress over the past several years, and several companies are currently introducing pre-commercial vehicles and hydrogen fueling stations in limited markets.

However, to achieve wide hydrogen vehicle penetration, further technological advances are required for commercial viability, and vehicle manufacturer and hydrogen supplier activities must be coordinated. In particular, costs must be reduced, new automotive manufacturing technologies commercialized, and adequate supplies of hydrogen produced and made available to motorists. These efforts will require considerable resources, especially federal and private sector funding.

This book estimates the resources that will be needed to bring HFCVs to the point of competitive self-sustainability in the marketplace. It also estimates the impact on oil consumption and carbon dioxide emissions as HFCVs become a large fraction of the light-duty vehicle fleet.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Cheap way to 'split water' could lead to abundant clean fuel

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/31/energyefficiency.energy

Cheap way to 'split water' could lead to abundant clean fuel

Alok Jha, green technology correspondent
guardian.co.uk,
Thursday July 31 2008 19:05 BST

Scientists have found an inexpensive way to produce hydrogen from water, a discovery that could lead to a plentiful source of environmentally friendly fuel to power homes and cars.

…

Hydrogen is a clean, energy-rich fuel that many experts believe could become important as nations attempt to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The gas can be produced by splitting water but current techniques are expensive, use harsh chemicals and need carefully controlled environments in which to operate.

Daniel Nocera, a chemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has developed a catalyst made from cobalt and phosphorus that can split water at room temperature, a technique he describes in the journal Science. "I'm using cheap, Earth-abundant materials that you can mass-manufacture. As long as you can charge the surface, you can create the catalyst and it doesn't get any cheaper than that."

…

Batteries could do the job but they cannot store anywhere near as much energy per unit mass as chemical fuels. Nocera's technique would allow the storage of excess energy from sunlight during the daytime. "You could imagine, during the day you have a photovoltaic cell, you take some of that electricity and use it in your house, then take the other part of that electricity for my catalyst, feed the catalyst water and you get hydrogen and oxygen."

…

[kristopher]

11. Energy density is only ONE element of the problem

Batteries are showing that they can do the job. The nanowire SI lithium now in the manufacturing development stage can store and deliver about 800 miles per charge in an EBox frame.

The problem with hydrogen is that it is only viable if you aren't worried about efficiency. We would need to AT LEAST DOUBLE the renewable generating infrastructure for transportation if we use H instead batteries. So if you are hoping to get your energy for home and transportation from solar panels on your home, you'll have to dramatically scale up your home PV system (or the MIT mystery system) over what you could get by on with battery electric. Since it is going to push the limits of our capabilities to build out the amount of renewable generating capacity for a system based on batteries, it makes little sense to add 20%-30% to the total infrastructure required when there are still technological hurdles just to get to that deficient point.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Wait a moment…

If you have to cart around big batteries, that's also inefficient. (That's why energy density matters.)

As for the MIT "mystery system" which part of it is a mystery to you?

[kristopher]

14. I know why density matters.

But I also know it isn't the only consideration, see my earlier post. With all due respect, I think you are perhaps unrealistically wedded to the idea of H as a result of past hopes.

As for the MIT system, it lacks all detail. We have no idea of how efficient the system is nor, really, even how it works. The press release was excruciatingly vague.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. This press release you mean?

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

You may want to read the Science article itself:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1162018

Or, listen to a podcast:
http://podcasts.aaas.org/science_podcast/SciencePodcast_080801.mp3

(It really should answer all of your questions.)


Moving immediately to battery-powered vehicles is almost impossible. We need a way to bridge the gap:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/chem-solar-0620.html

…

For solar energy to have a very significant impact on world energy use, it must also yield a liquid fuel that can power cars and other vehicles. To achieve that, hydrogen fuel could be further processed into hydrocarbons such as methanol.

"We want to really emulate photosynthesis, and not just split water into protons and electrons, but turn hydrogen into the chemical currency of liquid fuel," says Peters.

Carbon dioxide can be added to hydrogen to generate hydrocarbon fuels and then released as it's burned, so the entire process is carbon-neutral, notes Peters.

All of the researchers are committed to making solar power a reality, because, as they say, there is no other choice.

…

[kristopher]

18. Re MIt: no quantification of efficiency increase (if any)

You say that "moving immediately to battery powered vehicles is almost impossible". That isn't true. There are three curves involved, the curve that plots individual use patterns of vehicles, the capacity/cost curve for batteries, and the rate at which vehicles are replaced. These all work together to argue that a transition to battery electric is possible (and desirable) starting NOW. For example, my wife and I have well established driving habits. Our mileage is split about 80/20 between a mid-size sedan and a 1/2 ton pickup. In 2011 or 2012, we expect to replace the sedan with an EV. If the vehicle delivers (as it is expected to) 120-150 miles/charge, that combination should meet our needs for a number of years. I'm fairly confident that our use pattern is fairly typical and that high fuel prices will prompt many to do the same as we intend. As battery technology improves and the price drops, the penetration for EVs should increase at a pace that, for a number of years, will probably exceed manufacturing capacity. There are few things that drive development faster than a market where demand outstrips supply.

Your recommendation that we invest scarce funds to develop a massive H infrastructure for "transition" simply doesn't make sense. Those funds are much better spent on urgently required upgrades to our grid and building a permanent renewable generation infrastructure.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. Charging and discharging a battery is not 100% efficient

Did you read the Science article?

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=209900956

EE Times:

MIT claims 24/7 solar power

R. Colin Johnson
(07/31/2008 2:00 PM EDT)

PORTLAND, Ore. — Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have combined a liquid catalyst with photovoltaic cells to achieve what they claim is a solar energy system that could generate electricity around the clock.

A liquid catalyst was added to water before electrolysis to achieve what the researchers claim is almost 100-percent efficiency. When combined with photovoltaic cells to store energy chemically, the resulting solar energy systems could generate electricity around the clock, the MIT team said.

"The hard part of getting water to split is not the hydrogen -- platinum as a catalyst works fine for the hydrogen. But platinum works very poorly for oxygen, making you use much more energy," said MIT chemistry professor Daniel Nocera. "What we have done is made a catalyst work for the oxygen part without any extra energy. In fact, with our catalyst almost 100 percent of the current used for electrolysis goes into making oxygen and hydrogen."

Nickel oxide catalysts are currently used to boost the efficiency of electrolyzers, and they worked equally well in MIT's formulation, Nocera acknowledged. He added that the toxicity of nickel oxide forces the use of expensive, hermetically-sealed water containers. MIT's patented catalyst formulation is "green," Nocera said, and can be used in inexpensive open containers.

…

[wtmusic]

24. No, but over 3x as efficient in a vehicle.

"The efficiency of the fuel cell storage unit itself is realistically estimated at around 36% under normal driving load – leading to a dismal overall power-grid-to-wheels efficiency of less than 25%. That is, less than a quarter of the power used to produce the hydrogen is ever actually used to propel the car.

Batteries are a clear winner in the grid-to-wheels efficiency battle. Conventional Lithium-ion batteries charge at about 93% efficiency and operate at about the same efficiency, leading to an overall efficiency of over 85%. For the same energy input, you’ll get three times the power out of a battery than out of a fuel cell."

http://www.gizmag.com/go/8236/

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. Well, that's certainly an interesting claim, and quite at odds with this…

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell3.htm

Fuel Cell Efficiency

P­ollution reduction is one of the primary goals of the fuel cell. By comparing a fuel-cell-powered car to a gasoline-engine-powered car and a battery-powered car, you can see how fuel cells might improve the efficiency of cars today.

Since all three types of cars have many of the same components (tires, transmissions, et cetera), we'll ignore that part of the car and compare efficiencies up to the point where mechanical power is generated. Let's start with the fuel-cell car. (All of these efficiencies are approximations, but they should be close enough to make a rough comparison.)

If the fuel cell is powered with pure hydrogen, it has the potential to be up to 80-percent efficient. That is, it converts 80 percent of the energy content of the hydrogen into electrical energy. However, we still need to convert the electrical energy into mechanical work. This is accomplished by the electric motor and inverter. A reasonable number for the efficiency of the motor/inverter is about 80 percent. So we have 80-percent efficiency in generating electricity, and 80-percent efficiency converting it to mechanical power. That gives an overall efficiency of about 64 percent. Honda’s FCX concept vehicle reportedly has 60-percent energy efficiency.

…

As we've already seen, MIT is claiming near 100% efficiency in converting electrical energy to hydrogen.


OK so what about battery cars?
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell4.htm

Gasoline and Battery Power Efficiency

T­he efficiency of a gasoline-powered car is surprisingly low. All of the heat that comes out as exhaust or goes into the radiator is wasted energy. The engine also uses a lot of energy turning the various pumps, fans and generators that keep it going. So the overall efficiency of an automotive gas engine is about 20 percent. That is, only about 20 percent of the thermal-energy content of the gasoline is converted into mechanical work.

A battery-powered electric car has a fairly high efficiency. The battery is about 90-percent efficient (most batteries generate some heat, or require heating), and the electric motor/inverter is about 80-percent efficient. This gives an overall efficiency of about 72 percent.

…

Doesn't look anywhere close to 3x. (Someone's numbers must be off.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. Okay, here's a 2006 report…

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/40921.pdf

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure
Demonstration and Validation Project

Initial Fuel Cell Efficiency and Durability Results

Keith Wipke*, Cory Welch*, Holly Thomas*, Sam Sprik*, Sigmund Gronich**, John Garbak**

The objective of the U.S. Department of Energy’s “Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project” is to conduct an integrated field validation that simultaneously examines the performance of fuel cell vehicles and the supporting hydrogen infrastructure. This paper provides initial results in the form of composite data products, which aggregate individual performance into a range that protects the intellectual property and the identity of each industry team, while showing overall industry progress toward technology readiness. Technical insights from the project are fed back into DOE’s research and development program, making this project a “learning demonstration.” Key results to-date include fuel economy, driving range, fuel cell efficiency, and initial fuel cell durability projections based on voltage degradation.

…

7. CONCLUSIONS

The Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project has now completed five quarters of operation with the data being delivered to NREL’s Hydrogen Secure Data Center for analysis. This includes 63 vehicles and 10 project stations. Aggregate results, called composite data products, have been developed to report on project progress. Results on fuel cell system efficiency indicate the four teams ranged from 52.5% to 58.1% efficient, very close to DOE’s target of 60%. On the metric of vehicle driving range, current storage technologies only allow between 122 and 223 miles (dynamometer range) for these four vehicles, but actual on-road driving range between refuelings is found to be shorter than the theoretical range due to lower on-road fuel economy, limited infrastructure, and driver comfort with running out of fuel.

Relative to the 2006 DOE fuel cell stack 10% voltage degradation target of 1000 hours, the highest projection was at 950 hours with the average of the four teams being over 700 hours. There is a wide distribution of refueling rates, but 18% of the refueling events demonstrated a refueling rate higher than DOE’s 2006 target of 1 kg/min.

The project is scheduled to continue for another 3 years, with a significant amount of additional data yet to be collected. Future analysis and results anticipated include: fuel cell cold-start up times and energy, hydrogen production cost and efficiency, 6-month updates to previously published results, and new composite data products that will be generated based on the insights learned from analysis of the data.

(Advances have been made even since then.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. And here's a paper on the latest results

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/43325.pdf

…

5.1 Fuel Cell Operation and Impact on Efficiency

Results published from this project in 2006 showed that the range of fuel cell net system efficiency at 1⁄4 power from the four Learning Demonstration teams ranged from 52.5% to 58.1%, which is very close to DOE’s target of 60%. Recent analysis has focused on examining the regions of most frequent operation and their overall impact on energy usage. Since a fuel cell system’s peak efficiency is normally at low powers (typically 10% to 25%), we evaluated the fuel cell system operation from a number of different perspectives to better understand whether the unique performance characteristics of the fuel cell system were being maximized. As reported in the last progress report, a significant amount of time is being spent at low fuel cell system power. In fact, the teams’ average amount of time spent at <5% of peak power was over 50%. However, for overall vehicle fuel efficiency, the amount of energy spent at various power levels and the efficiency at those power levels is the critical metric. We found that much of the fuel cell energy (about 40%) is expended at fuel cell power levels between 20% and 50% of peak power (Figure 3). This matches up very well with the peak fuel cell system efficiency points (at ~25% power) previously discussed. Only about 20% of the energy is expended at powers <15% of peak power, indicating that low power efficiency is not as important as the percentage of time spent there would imply.

5.2 The Impact of Short Trips

Recently there has been much public attention on the potential for plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles (PHEVs) to improve the United States’ oil-dependency situation without waiting for fuel cell vehicles to be commercialized. The Learning Demonstration vehicle data were evaluated to see how these early fuel cell vehicles were being used (mostly in fleet operation) and what impact these real duty cycles would have on plug-in vehicles and potentially future plug-in versions of these fuel cell vehicles. We first looked at the amount of energy consumed by all Learning Demonstration vehicle trips (Figure 4) and found that almost 40% of the trips required less than 0.5 kWh of energy to be produced by the fuel cell system. This indicates that a battery would not have to be very large to handle several plug-in FCV trips for the Learning Demonstration vehicles, provided that the battery could also provide the peak power required and survive the larger swings in state-of-charge. However, this is not the entire story, and if the assumption is that PHEVs will primarily be recharged slowly during off-peak/night times, then these data need to be analyzed with both the daily miles traveled and the amount of time between trips in mind.

We also performed these additional analyses and found that an effective 20-mile electric range would electrify about 1⁄2 of the Learning Demonstration fleet’s daily miles traveled. However, this would satisfy only about 1⁄4 of the national daily average miles traveled. We also found a large number of Learning Demonstration vehicle “hot-starts,” with about 60% of trips occurring within one hour of the previous trip. While this could be beneficial for fuel efficiency, it could also indicate that not all of the short trips could necessarily be electrified because there may not be sufficient time to recharge the battery from the grid in between trips, even if day-time opportunity charging is used. The bottom-line is that a thorough analysis of actual vehicle target-market duty cycles must occur for the benefits of PHEVs to be understood, preferably through using actual PHEV fleets and recharging behavior. Such an evaluation is envisioned through DOE’s current solicitation for a PHEV Learning Demonstration (see DOE’s Web site for details:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/business/solicitations/#00360 ).

…

[kristopher]

32. See post #31. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. Related to the MIT announcement

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20080731-02

News Release

Media Contact: Sarah Wright
Communications and External Relations
865.574.6631

ORNL researchers analyze material with 'colossal ionic conductivity'

OAK RIDGE, Tenn., July 31, 2008 — A new material characterized at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory could open a pathway toward more efficient fuel cells.

The material, a super-lattice developed by researchers in Spain, improves ionic conductivity near room temperature by a factor of almost 100 million, representing "a colossal increase in ionic conduction properties," said Maria Varela of ORNL's Materials Science and Technology Division, who characterized the material's structure with senior researcher Stephen Pennycook.

…

"The new layered material solves this problem by combining two materials with very different crystal structures. The mismatch triggers a distortion of the atomic arrangement at their interface and creates a pathway through which ions can easily travel," Varela said.

…

Unlike previous fuel cell materials, which have to achieve high temperatures to conduct ions, the new material maintains ionic conductivity near room temperatures. High temperatures have been a major roadblock for developers of fuel cell technology.

…

[4dsc]

22. Skip the middle man, go all electric

If I am not mistaken, isn't the hydrogen used in these cars make an electric motor run that powers the car?? So won't it be much better to just eliminate this small problem and just go all electric??

[wtmusic]

23. What are you going to do with all the filling stations?

Honestly, some are so shortsighted

(:thumbsup:)

[Canuckistanian]

35. Wonder how much hydrogen goes for these days?

Is there even a standard price? I suppose you have to buy it by the pound (or Kg).