Seems Hydrogen Car talk is a way to kill Hybred and Gore's reseach

[papau]

car results (it was up to about 70 miles per gal when Bush killed the research). Guess we need high demand/high price oil.

http://www.neftegaz.ru/english/analit/comments.php?id=1284&one=1

© Joseph J. Romm
LA Times

snip
A recent Energy Department report noted that transportation fuel cells were 100 times more expensive than internal combustion engines. Historically, even the most aggressively promoted energy technologies, such as wind and solar power, have taken 20 years just to see a tenfold decline in prices.

The most mature onboard hydrogen storage systems — using ultrahigh pressure — contain 10 times less energy per unit volume than gasoline, in addition to requiring a significant amount of compression energy. A National Academy of Sciences panel concluded in February that such storage had "little promise of long-term practicality for light-duty vehicles" and urged the Department of Energy to halt research in this area. Yet this kind of storage is precisely what the AQMD plans to put in its hydrogen hybrids.

Another problem with hydrogen is in how it is made. Although people seem to view hydrogen as a pollution-free elixir, hydrogen is just an energy carrier, like electricity. And, like electricity, it is no cleaner than the fuels used to make it. For the next several decades, the National Academy panel concluded, "it is highly likely that fossil fuels will be the principal sources of hydrogen." Making hydrogen from fossil fuels won't solve our major environmental problems.

It's possible, of course, to make hydrogen with renewable electricity, such as solar and wind power, but that is a lousy use for renewables, since they can directly displace more than four times as much carbon dioxide from coal power compared with using that renewable power to make hydrogen for vehicles. And these savings can all be achieved without spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a new hydrogen infrastructure and hydrogen vehicles.

As one 2002 British study concluded, "Until there is a surplus of renewable electricity, it is not beneficial in terms of carbon reduction to use renewable electricity to produce hydrogen — for use in vehicles, or elsewhere." That surplus is, sadly, a long way off, given that Congress hasn't been willing to pass legislation requiring that even 10% of U.S. electricity in 2020 be from renewables like wind and solar.

Finally, delivering renewable hydrogen to a car in usable form is prohibitively expensive today — equal to gasoline at $7 to $10 a gallon — and likely to remain so for decades in the absence of major technology advances.

For at least several decades, hydrogen cars are exceedingly unlikely to be a cost-effective solution for global warming. Until we achieve major breakthroughs in vehicle technology, hydrogen storage, hydrogen infrastructure and renewable hydrogen production, hydrogen cars will remain inferior to the best hybrids in cost, range, annual fueling bill, convenience, roominess, safety and greenhouse gas emissions.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FloridaPat]

2. When Bush went for hydrogen cars, I immediately went to the

internet and did a search on them. I could not believe Bush was for conservation. He wasn't. Hydrogen is extremely explosive. In case of an accident involving one of these cars, the explosion would be very big. The general concensus of people were that they could never be used on cars. It was another red herring by Bush. Make people think you're for conservation but keep those gas guzzling cars on the road.

However, one thing I did find was a company that sold hyrdrogen producing machine so you could make your own hydrogen at home and not bother with a gas station type set up.

[nickinSTL]

5. From what I've read

and seen, hydrogen is NOT highly explosive.

At least, not more than gasoline fumes.

The Hindenburg, which is usually cited as 'proof' of the explosiveness of hydrogen, went up like it did because of phosporous (I think, maybe magnesium) paint being used.

When hydrogen explodes, the fire goes directly upwards, in a stream, not in a ball like gasoline. Therefore, hydrogen exploding in your tank would actually be safer, as long as the tank isn't underneath the passengers.

That said, I suspect that the original post is correct, and that Bush is attempting to use hydrogen to kill more realistic programs, as he hasn't ever done anything positive in the way of conservation, to my knowledge. I doubt he is with the hydrogen idea, either.

[gbwarming]

12. That Hindenburg pseudoscience was paid for by the National Hydrogen Assoc.

And although several TV shows were made, none of the claims about the covering stand up to scrutiny. It's true that the Hindenburg didn't detonate, but the Hydrogen certainly burned.

That said, I mostly agree with you about the safety. Hydrogen is very flammable - it has a very wide flammability range in air and requires very little energy to ignite - but most other fuel vapor can collect at the floor and may have a better chance of reaching detonable concentrations. The high pressure tanks used to store H2 in almost all H2 vehicles are VERY strong and safe. The only area where I feel H2 is at a disadvantage is in refuelling - handling 3000-10,000 psi gas is, I feel, inherently more dangerous than dispensing liquid fuel. But the real problem with Hydrogan isn't safety.

[Divernan]

3. Bush is the master of the "talk is cheap" political agenda.

nt

[leveymg]

4. They plan to produce automotive H2 from, (did you guess it right?), oil.

No getting away from the monster oil companies. Hybrids and electric commuters were just too much of a good thing, I guess.

[veteran_for_peace]

6. Fuel Cells are the future

Is having hydrogen around safe?

Yes. In fact, hydrogen can actually be safer than gasoline. For one thing, hydrogen is a very light gas, and so if there is a leak, it tends to drift upward very quickly, even through tiny cracks in a roof, and disperse into the upper atmosphere where it is harmless. Hydrogen is also completely non-toxic; it is impossible to contaminate anything with spilled hydrogen. Gasoline, in contrast, is a liquid, and it forms puddles (which can burn quite easily) and seeps into the ground when it is spilled. Gasoline is also very poisonous, so spills must be cleaned up at great expense to avoid poisoning ground water supplies. Finally, we have all seen the devastating effect oil spills have on natural habitats. Though not completely free of danger (as is true with any flammable material), hydrogen is a relatively safe fuel.


What are the advantages of using fuel cells?

Fuel cells are clean, highly efficient, scalable power generators that are compatible with a variety of fuel feed stocks and can therefore be used in an assortment of power generation applications. In particular, they offer several advantages over other technologies:

Fuel cells produce electricity without combustion, which means that, unlike internal combustion engines, they generate little (if any) noise, vibration, air pollution, or greenhouse gases and operate at high efficiencies over a wide range of loads.

In small consumer devices and for powering zero emission vehicles, fuel cells, unlike batteries, avoid the need to replace the cell or undergo a lengthy recharging cycle when its fuel is "spent".

Additionally, since fuel cells store their fuel in external storage tanks, the maximum operating range of a fuel cell-powered device is limited only by the amount of fuel that can be carried.

In distributed power generation applications, fuel cells reduce the load on the grid and also eliminate (or reduce) the need for overhead or underground transmission lines, which are expensive to install and maintain, and result in power losses/efficiency reductions.

Since fuel cells are scalable and can be installed on site, they reduce the need for large power generation plants (and the environmental impacts of such large scale plants).

[papau]

7. Fuel cells may well be the future for the grandkids - but we need a

solution for the next 40 years also.

And it appears hydrogen is not that solution.

[veteran_for_peace]

8. Think back to 1960.

When JFK challenged the country to put a man on the moon. We need leadership and investment from the federal government to give companies the incentives to invest in this technology. California is already taking the lead in developing the infrastructure for the mass production of fuel cell cars. It needs funding from the federal and state levels.

[gbwarming]

11. I am not in favor of coal powered, "fuel cell" cars.

The hydrogen infrastructure you are asking for will result in greater emissions from coal fired powered plants, either directly if the H2 is produced via electrolysis or indirectly if natural gas usage is shifted away from electricity generation to H2 production. There is no excess renewable capacity for the foreseeable future and there is no excess natural gas capacity. There are no new nuclear plants on the horizon and no new hydroelectric sources to be tapped.

Fuel cells are great - they can have very beneficial effects as replacements as conventional and backup power generation, but I agree with the OP. Fuel cells for automotive use are a delaying tactic. It's a good idea to continue research, but real benefits can be had NOW through:
1. Increased cafe standards, including elimination of separate standards for light trucks and personal vehicles over 8500gvrw which have been exploited by automakers to circumvent even the stalled standards we now have. Hybrids are one way to reach these, but so are more reasonable engine choices.
2. Possibly much higher gasoline and diesel taxes
3. Incentives for scrapping guzzlers (when replaced by economical vehicles). Increased fuel taxes might have the same effect.

The culture and urban planning has to change in the long run or we will again lose through increased population and vehicle miles traveled whatever we gain in efficiency.

[jpak]

17. H2 fuel-cell systems for electrical grid applications are closer than

many might think...

The Schatz Solar Hydrogen Project (operating since 1991)

http://www.humboldt.edu/~serc/trinidad.html

...and the Chewonki Hydrogen Project (coming soon to Maine)...

http://www.chewonkih2.org/

...a prototype wind/PV hydrogen storage system for off-grid appiclations...

www.eere.energy.gov/ hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/30535z.pdf

Ballard Energy has recently tested a stationary 250 kW PEM fuel cell (1997)....

http://ieee.ca/millennium/ballard/ballard_applications.html

....and the gas products industry routinely stores and distributes hydrogen today...

http://www.airproducts.com/Products/LiquidBulkGases/HydrogenEnergyFuelCells/YourIndustry/HydrogenGenerationAndDelivery.htm

www.cleanair.org/Energy/Venki_Raman.pdf

I don't think we will be seeing too many H2 cars in the near future, but we will be seeing hydrogen used as a storage medium to level intermittent electrical output from renewable energy sources in the next 20 years (or less).

[NNadir]

18. I'm especially enthused by the 7 kW Shatz system.

That could light almost 70 one hundred light bulbs ignoring the enormous inefficiency of the 1.5 kW (enough to light 15 light bulbs) proton exchange system hydrogen making system.

I am so relieved that the greenhouse effect has been solved by the creative thinking of the folks at Humbolt University. And here we were thinking that this was a serious problem calling for serious thinking.

The Humbolt people are way ahead of the people in Maine, who are thinking about possibly demonstrating the possibility of maybe someday building a system that may demonstrate that possibly a system could be installed. (I'm sure that the failure to mention a capacity is just a demonstration that only small minded small thinking folks bother with trivial matters like numbers.)

By the way, you may want to eliminate this link: www.cleanair.org/Energy/Venki_Raman.pdf

It contains the word "nuclear," which everyone is afraid of, even people who have have dated women who once worked radioactive materials and spent weeks of panic cleaning up their hoods.

We all know that as long as there are nuclear plants on the planet, it is certain that everyone on the planet will die.

I happen to live in reasonable proximity to Air Products manufacturing plants. I often see the compressed hydrogen trucks running down I-95 at 70 mph tailgating people in Priuses. It always thrills me to think of it, since all trucks have a 100% of probability of crashing in highly populated areas at exactly the time of day when there is the maximal probability of killing the maximal number of people.

To be perfectly honest the hydrogen trucks scare the shit out of me, but I am comforted by the fact that if one of these trucks crashes and explodes, no one will give a shit. It won't even be a footnote filler on page 10.

People won't give a shit because they'll be too busy focusing on the possibility of realizing the tiny probability of the minuscule possibility of something with the word "nuclear" in it might happen somewhere someday even though it has not happened anywhere because those who claim to know the probability of the slightly possible events that have actually never occurred are scared shitless out of their tiny vanishingly small wits of what could be if what might happen conceivably was a possibility of occurring.

[jpak]

19. The Schatz project was built with 1980's technology

and purposely over-engineered to provide a margin of safety for system function.

The 7 kW PV array provides electricity to the aquarium during the day as well as electricity for hydrogen production (which is ~85% efficient BTW) to provide power at night.

It also had 100% system availability and required NO human operator - for years.

...and there were no trucks involved with hydrogen handling or storage (it was a stationary system).

Nice try though...

[NNadir]

20. Yeah so? It's next to worthless.

Except for a localized esoteric use, it's worthless.

Here's a clue for you: Global climate change is not some game that's happening some day off in the future, and its not going to impact cute little aquariums only. If it's "1980's technology" why even mention it in this context? Who the fuck cares?

This isn't a game for middle class twits with middle class 1980's fantasies and fears and solar powered fish tanks. Global warming is happening NOW, it's happening globally and it requires SERIOUS responses on a macro scale. This serious matter involves the lives of billions of people and billions of other living things.

[jpak]

21. You can buy a PV array for your house today.

You can buy a solar hot water heater for your house today.

You can buy a hybrid electric car today.

You can take mass transit or carpool (or *gasp* walk or bike) to work today.

You can buy an energy efficient refrigerator that uses 514 kWh a year today.

You can buy a new energy/water efficient washer and dryer (or *gasp* use a clothes-line) today

You can replace old energy inefficient windows with high-e low-u energy efficient windows today.

You can upgrade your heating and AC systems today.

You can buy compact fluorescent light bulbs for your entire home today.

You can install a low-flow shower-head in your bathroom today.

You can wrap your hot water heater with fiberglass insulation today.

You can install an extra 12 inches of fiberglass insulation in your attic today.

You can recycle your glass and aluminum today.

You can grow your own fruits and vegetables, buy organic food products, or chose a vegetarian/vegan diet today.

There are a lot of things you can do to prevent climate change today...

...or you can wait around until ChimpCo and the GOP pass their energy bill to subsidize new nuclear power plants that won't go on-line until 2015....

on edit: ...or you can "Think Globally Act Locally" like all those anti-nuclear-anti-environment hippy bumper stickers used to say.

[cprise]

9. Fuel Cells are 'futuristic'

...they aren't necessarily 'the future'.

As you pointed out, hydrogen fuel cells have a number of *theoretical* strengths.

But in the forseeable future they are little more than a ray of hope for keeping coal futures profitable.

And even if fuel cells eventually become a viable solution, there is no reason why you could not in the meantime sell battery-powered cars to willing city-dwellers.

Personally, I predict that as hybrids become more popular, consumers will start opting for models that are increasingly battery-heavy, containing smaller (and eventually no) combustion engines. Most people simply do not need to travel more than 120 mi. per day on a regular basis, so eventually they will start trading off range for the appealing characteristics of electric-drive (high acceleration, better handling, low noise, low maintenance, low TCO).

[Viking12]

10. Well phrased.

You're more than likely correct and I would love to see us proven wrong but I doubt we will.

The National Academy of Sciences
The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs (2004)

http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309091632/html/R1.html

Not a very promising outlook.

[Strelnikov_]

15. Here Is A Report Comparing Hydrogen And EV

And I think your points are excellent.

I think people need to accept lower speeds, size and weight to maximize affordability and energy conservation from EV’s. Past EV’s tried to provide the features, speed, acceleration and range of conventional internal combustion powered vehicles. These required massive banks of batteries.

As an alternate to conventional EV’s, consider the Twike from a conceptual standpoint.



http://www.twike.ca/

25-50 mi. range, 50 mph speed, for a stated 300 mpg (gas equivalent) energy consumption. Basically, a four seasons, geometrically stable electric motocycle. Add an efficient 5 HP internal combustion energy burning ethanol or biodiesel, the range becomes limitless, and you have one hell of an efficient way to move people from point A to B. (And currently a quick way to separate you from your money, at $18,000/ea.)


Carrying the Energy Future
Comparing Hydrogen and Electricity
for Transmission, Storage and Transportation
P. Mazza and R. Hammerschlag, June 2004

http://www.ilea.org/downloads/MazzaHammerschlag.pdf

[Strelnikov_]

13. The Following Report Ruled Out Fuel Cells

in their analysis of mitigation options.

And that is 10-20 x, not 10-20 %, in cost that the authors reference.

Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management.
Hirsch, Bezdek, Wendling, February 2005

. . .

A lynchpin of the current DOE hydrogen program is fuel cells. In order for fuel cells to compete with existing petroleum-based internal combustion engines, particularly for light duty vehicles, the NRC concluded that fuel cells must improve by 1) a factor of 10-20 in cost, 2) a factor of five in lifetime, and 3) roughly a factor of two in efficiency. The NRC did not believe that such improvements could be achieved by technology development alone; instead, new concepts (breakthroughs) will be required. In other words, today’s technologies do not appear practically viable.

Because of the need for unpredictable inventions in fuel cells, as well as viable means for on-board hydrogen storage, the introduction of commercial hydrogen vehicles cannot be predicted.

[seasat]

14. What about the alchol based fuel cells?

They promise a higher efficiency than internal combustion of the alcohol. They're a couple of years off for large scale fuel cells required to operate a vehicle but they sound promising to me.

MTI Micro

[NNadir]

16. Hydrogen is not a form of energy but a type of energy storage.

Let's cut to the chase in this incarnation of this thread:

Hydrogen is NOT a form of energy. It is a type of energy storage. Irrespective of its merits or demerits as a storage system its use has nothing to do with the production of energy whatsoever. The problem of how to store energy has bearing on its efficiency and use but at the end of the day the issue not how to store energy but how to produce it cleanly and safely.

[rfkrfk]

22. can the rest of the world, help any?

I understand completely, why, for the 96 percent of
the human race, those who do not live in the US,
that the most important issue of their life is...
Bush is a turd.
If the ‘rest of world' would divert one-tenth the
effort currently expended in protesting Bush,
towards other goals, they could...
build fuel cell cars, stabalize global warming,
cure Aids, and end world poverty.
Ok, rest of the world, how about it...Do something without talking
about it for 47 years before not doing something.
If Honda would uncrush their electric cars, or build new ones,
I would not complain.