EERC director: Hydrogen vehicles nearly available for commercial use

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.grandforksherald.com/articles/index.cfm?id=82476

EERC director: Hydrogen vehicles nearly available for commercial use

Ryan Schuster Grand Forks Herald
Published Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Gerald Groenewold, the director of UND’s Energy and Environmental Research Center, said Tuesday during the Hydrogen Implementation Conference in Laramie, Wyo., that some hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles could be commercially available in as few as four years.

“Hydrogen is not the fuel of the future — it is the fuel of today,” Groenewold said during a press event at the conference. “Depending on the world’s energy situation, certain fuel-cell vehicles could be commercially available in 4 to 5 years.”

Groenewold said the technology is available, but other obstacles remain before fuel-cell vehicles can reach the marketplace.

“We have the technologies to move forward with hydrogen as a viable fuel, but we lack the commercial infrastructure to make it available to everyone,” Groenewold said at the hydrogen conference, which the EERC helped sponsor.

...

[wtmusic]

1. "It's the fuel of today, or 4-5 years from today,

or something like that."

An org that gets $60M from the DOE for hydrogen research is excited about its prospects. Whoop-ti-do.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. OK, so let's see if I've got this straight

You don't trust large corporations and you don't trust researchers who get government funding.

Who do you trust? Some guy down the street who promises to sell you an EV for $2,000?

[wtmusic]

9. I trust that you'll always present the GM corporate line

no matter how impractical.

*sings* "In this crazy world there are so few things, of which you can be sure..." :D

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Or is it the Toyota line?

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUST31284420080606?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&sp=true

Toyota develops improved hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle

Fri Jun 6, 2008 4:18am EDT

TOKYO (Reuters) - Toyota Motor Corp said on Friday it has developed an advanced fuel-cell vehicle that can run for 830 km (516 miles) on a single tank of hydrogen and in temperatures as low as 30 degrees Celsius below freezing (-22 F).

The zero-emission FCHV-adv will be leased to government agencies, among other possible users, in Japan starting later this year, a spokeswoman said.

The new version of the fuel-cell car, which runs on hydrogen and emits only water, increased fuel efficiency by 25 percent with an improved fuel cell unit and other changes to its brake system and elsewhere.

Combined with a slightly bigger fuel tank and a doubling of the maximum storage pressure, the FCHV-adv extended the cruising range from the previous FCHV's 330 km (205 miles), Toyota said in a statement. It has a maximum speed of 155 km per hour (97 mph).

...

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. No, now I remember, I'm in Honda's pocket

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/business/worldbusiness/17fuelcell.html

June 17, 2008

Latest Honda Runs on Hydrogen, Not Petroleum

By MARTIN FACKLER

TAKANEZAWA, Japan — It looks like an ordinary family sedan, costs more to build than a Ferrari and may have just moved the world one step closer to a future free of petroleum.

On Monday, http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=HMC">Honda Motor celebrated the start of production of its FCX Clarity, the world’s first hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicle intended for mass production. In a ceremony at a factory an hour north of Tokyo, the first assembly-line FCX Clarity rolled out to the applause of hundreds of Honda employees wearing white jump suits.

Honda will make just 200 of the futuristic vehicles over the next three years, but said it eventually planned to increase production volumes, especially as hydrogen filling stations became more common. On Monday, Honda announced its first five customers, who included the actress http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/jamie_lee_curtis/index.html?inline=nyt-per">Jamie Lee Curtis.

Honda said even the small initial production run represented progress toward a clean-burning technology that many rejected as too exotic and too expensive to gain wide acceptance.

...

Why do I waste my time?

[wtmusic]

18. Hyundai too?

Hyundai's Fuel Cell: Production Ready by 2005

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_7_181/ai_76855611

I'm so anxious, I'm ready to burst like a 10,000 psi tank of H2. FCVs been "ready in 4-5 years" for the last 20!

:rofl:

[Speck Tater]

3. Once more with feeling...

Hydrogen is not a fuel. It is a carrier of energy; a storage medium for electrical energy used to extract hydrogen from water. As many physicists have pointed out it is MUCH more efficient to use the electricity directly in an electric car than to convert electricity to hydrogen with conversion losses, and then convert the hydrogen back into electricity with a fuel cell, again introducing conversion losses.

Hydrogen "fuel" is a worthless scam.

http://vancouverpeakoil.org/faq/is-the-hydrogen-highway-a-scam-to-keep-us-believing-in-technology/

[Robert Oak]

4. nice call out

I was just thinking today what happened to the hydrogen hype where billions of US taxpayer money were given to a system that really didn't add up while other promising areas go starved of federal research dollars?

[Howzit]

6. And hydrogen is incredibly difficult to contain due to the small molecules that like to

slip though between the atoms in other materials, sometimes causing severe embrittlement.

[Trillo]

7. perhaps it's currently inefficient, but there apparently are hydrogen solar cells.

About Hydrogen Solar Tandem Cells

The Hydrogen Solar Ltd Tandem Cell™ is a self-contained unit which directly splits water molecules into high-purity hydrogen and oxygen using solar energy. It significantly reduces carbon emissions by eliminating the fossil fuels normally used in electrolysis or steam reforming to produce hydrogen.
...
The process is now competitive, on the small scale, producing hydrogen at one third the cost than from PV solar panel-electrolysis systems.

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/10/hydrogen_solar_.html

About the same info:
http://www.hydrogensolar.com/basics.html

Here's one from MITs Technology Review:

Cheap Hydrogen

A new process uses sunlight and a nanostructured catalyst to inexpensively and efficiently generate hydrogen for fuel.

Nanoptek, a startup based in Maynard, MA, has developed a new way to make hydrogen from water using solar energy. The company says that its process is cheap enough to compete with the cheapest approaches used now, which strip hydrogen from natural gas, and it has the further advantage of releasing no carbon dioxide.

Nanoptek, which has been developing the new technology in part with grants from NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE), recently completed its first venture-capital round, raising $4.7 million that it will use to install its first pilot plant. The technology uses titania, a cheap and abundant material, to capture energy from sunlight. The absorbed energy releases electrons, which split water to make hydrogen. Other researchers have used titania to split water in the past, but Nanoptek researchers found a way to modify titania to absorb more sunlight, which makes the process much cheaper and more efficient, says John Guerra, the company's founder and CEO.

more...

[kristopher]

8. The this is the same inefficiency as noted above.

First you make electricity, then you make H, then you have to compress it and transport it. then it gets converted back to what you started with, electricity.

In the end, you have about 25% of the electricity you started with and you can do waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than that with batteries.


However as I always note there are small scale enterprises when such H manufacturing may be sensible as the need for the higher energy density of compressed H is worth the lost electricity.

[Trillo]

12. Batteries generally have a toxic nature.

As such, they represent a disposal issue.

The attractiveness of hydrogen as the storage medium is splitting the water into hydrogen and oxygen, then when H is used, it recombines back into water (almost too easily). This storage represents a rather environmentally "clean" and elegant method: a complete, closed cycle, versus that of batteries.

Maybe batteries can be recycled to an extent, but how costly is that, and are these "costs" figured into stated "efficiencies"?

What perturbs me about H is that its been discussed at least since the 1920s, with many demonstration vehicles built by various folks over the decades. With H fuel cells, themselves costly, efficiencies have been created.

I find myself in agreement with the first commenters post about "now" versus "four years from now".

[kristopher]

16. You are seriously out of date about batteries.

Please consider gathering more information.

[Trillo]

17. You mean like this Battery Toxicity info

http://www.hybridcars.com/battery-toxicity.html
"Lead, Nickel, Lithium—In That Order

The need for more robust battery technologies to power vehicles and their accessories prompted Environmental Defense to conduct a three-month research effort in 2005 to examine environmental impacts related to the extraction, manufacture, use, and disposal of nickel metal hydride batteries, as well as lithium ion—which many consider to be the battery of choice in the next five years. Environmental Defense then compared those impacts to lead acid. "Our initial conclusion is that lead is the worst, nickel is next, and lithium is the least harmful," said Thomas. This will greatly depend on what materials are combined with lithium, and how toxic those materials are. Using cobalt, for example, in lithium ion batteries would be problematic. It will also depend on the emerging recycling technologies.

A search for "lithium toxicity" not including "battery" indicates it is a nervous system toxin when used as a drug.

There is nothing to throw away or recycle with hydrogen as the storage medium, as there are with batteries of any kind. H is produced from varying processes, then when used, it returns to water. Clean and elegant.

[kristopher]

19. H has 75% system losses, that is too much

Your perspective is demonstrated well by your use of the comment below as an "analysis" of battery toxicity. Lithium is platform we will be going forward with until a better material comes along. It is recyclable, it is non-toxic and the most promising anode is silicate.

"A search for "lithium toxicity" not including "battery" indicates it is a nervous system toxin when used as a drug"


Face it, whether you like it or not, H is dead in the water as far as the personal transportation sector is concerned. It is simply to expensive. Now if you want to hand the oil companies another boondoggle like ethanol, then please, maintain your support for an inferior technology.

[Trillo]

20. While the hybrid battery toxicity site says that lithium is

the least toxic of the various battery technologies, it is curious that when one searches for medical information regarding lithium, another story regarding its toxicity seems to be told. Perhaps someone is lying.

I suppose that when one has to mine a material such as lithium, (I believe one source of it is lepidolite), then dispose of that material (as battery) later, whatever is claimed for the electricity in/out efficiency, is only part of the story, as the battery's storage efficiency presumably decreases as it ages.

This happens with laptop batteries. This happens with rechargeable radio batteries. I have a cordless drill that when the batteries are old and have been through a number of charge/discharge cycles, they don't seem to hold much of a charge any longer, this gets worse and eventually leads to a battery module replacement when the tool can no longer be used as intended. I find it hard to believe that these old battery's efficiencies are anywhere near what they were when they were new.

With Lead Acid batteries, when they get old and no longer will turn the starter on a vehicle, I can watch a battery charger's ammeter pump many excess amps into the battery for hours and days, but still the battery will not turn the starter motor. That seems to represent a loss of efficiency of some sort or another. Energy apparently going into the battery doesn't seem to come back out in sufficient quantities versus a replacement battery which works fine.

My point is that if battery efficiencies are only tested with new batteries, and not also with well-aged ones, a skewed efficiency figure is likely to result.

Whether H as an energy storage technology is inferior, superior, or something in between (versus batteries), I'm very happy to see that automotive technology is beginning to change. Getting off petroleum as a primary vehicle fuel will surely help our air quality, regardless of which technology is 'superior' or 'more efficient'. It's fine with me if H fuel-cell and battery hybrid vehicles are produced alongside each other. It will likely be good for all of us.

[lfairban]

57. I got an idea.

Why don't we let the Manic/Depressives handle the mining and recycling.

[kristopher]

59. Cute... nt

[wtmusic]

10. And oil companies are supposed to profit from your scheme...how?

What the hell do you think gas stations are going to pump in decades to come? Electrons?

You think we have a mortgage crisis now, wait until all those oil barons start defaulting on their yachts...

[Indenturedebtor]

13. ZING and hydrogen is shot down again. It's a raquet folks

They just want another fuel they can control. No one wants you putting a solar panel on your house and fueling your car with it. No - you need to get your ass to the hydrogen station and pay up to the big boys.

[Strelnikov_]

22. ..

[Trillo]

33. You have grouped them oddly.

In the blue colors, you have liquefaction, compression, transport/transfer, and fuel cell all grouped separately, but in the other, right column, you group AC-DC conversion (perhaps analogous to transfer), battery charging (perhaps analogous to liquefaction), and battery discharging, all grouped as one.

I just think grouping them this way is skewed, and "shows" a bias.

We used to have several posters here several years back, (4-6 years ago) who regularly posted a graphic showing the electric grid as losing the majority of energy put into it, as well as showing the source of energy as percentage (coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc) of more than 50% if I recall correctly. There seem to be several camps of thought regarding the actual, real losses there are therein. One says > 50% losses, the other says < 10%.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=50239">This thread may have included the graphic, but apparently it is now gone (offsite graphic link that changed), however, there's a lot of discussion regarding the losses. If those figures in the text are accurate, then your distribution loss figures are off by a rather large margin.

[Strelnikov_]

49. "shows a bias"

How, exactly.

It simply tracks the exergy through a hydrogen FCV versus battery electric system.

And the electric grid losses are pretty well established, 90% seems reasonable.

There is nothing controversial here, the efficiencies of all of the downstream processes are well documented.

Following is a link to the original article.

http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

The full paper is probably available at the nearest research university, which is where I obtained my copy Dec. 2006.

[ElectricGrid]

51. Please get over it..

right now you can store more power in hydrogen than you can in the same weight and size of batteries.

[NickB79]

55. With 75% system loss of energy in hydrogen systems, you still come out behind though

Final power storage is irrelevant if you are pissing away gobs of it in the process of getting there.

[IntravenousDemilo]

5. Geh!!! Fossil fuels are expended during the manufacture of hydrogen cells.

Where do people think they get the hydrogen from? And are they going to equip every filling station to handle the cells? Is it really an improvement? On the other hand, consider that every filling station with a gas-pump must have AC...

[DCKit]

11. Exajoules! n/t

[bhikkhu]

21. Reading of California's plan, it sounds good

Even with all the downside.

("By pushing for hydrogen fueling stations and vehicles by 2010, we will almost certainly be using hydrogen reformed from hydrocarbons like natural gas or ethanol (or -- shudder -- gasoline). While the carbon emissions from the reforming process are arguably less severe than those from using coal or natural gas power plants to crack hydrogen from water, they are still far worse than the zero emissions from using renewable power sources to do so. A hydrogen vehicle infrastructure without the larger push towards renewable energy sources still ties us to non-renewable sources of fuel.
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000842.html ).

At some point of knowing that things must change, this seems to be a presently feasible thing.

[monomach]

23. "nearly available for commercial use" BY MULTI-MILLIONAIRES

1. Hydrogen cars still cost right around a million dollars each.
2. Hydrogen is a weak energy carrier when you have to create it with electricity. Just using the electricity to run the car in the first place is much more efficient.
3. With Hydrogen, we'll still have speculators, huge run-ups in price, shortages, etc. Picking Hydrogen to be the new fuel for our economy is simply picking a different master to rummage through our wallets. Who'll have billions pof dollars to build a Hydrogen-pumping infrastruture to replace the gasoline one when gas is no longer profitable? ExxonMobil and BP. That's who. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Hydrogen is for suckers and the people who stand to become billionaires with it.

Batteries are for those of us who don't want Big Hydrogen to replace Big Oil.

[Trillo]

24. You forgot to mention "Big Battery" nt

[kristopher]

25. What a kidder...

Of course you know that batteries (and solar panels) are much different commodities than oil or centralized power generation, right? One of the essential elements that make a "free market" actually work to provide a least cost good is "ease of entry and exit from the market".

Saying "Big Battery" is coming is like saying we are all exploited by "Big Dvd Player" or "Big Shirt"

[Trillo]

26. I didn't say '"Big Battery" is coming', learn to read slower.

Big Battery is not coming, it's been here for years.

[kristopher]

27. Riiiiiiiiiight....

[Trillo]

28. Even solar cells are now part of "Big Energy"

Look at one company who manufactures them. BP Solar is part of British Petroleum.

Back in the late 70s, a professor at one of the U.S. Universities claimed that they could now manufacture solar cells for pennies per square foot instead of dollars, using a new-at-the-time laser manufacturing process. But retail prices didn't seem to benefit from such an advance in the economy of production.

[kristopher]

30. It requires a corresponding shift in infrastructure.

We currently have a grid based on thermal generation, which operates differently than one based on renewables. It is no secret that soalr CAN be manufactured cheaply - that is Gore's (and my) point - but it has to be done in conjunction with a total rethinking of the way energy is produced and distributed.

As for solar cells and batteries forming the basis of another energy "cartel"; they can't. It is really a simple matter of the way competition works (in the case of these mass produced consumer products) or doesn't (in the case of massively expensive energy production and distribution methods).

Whether BP gets in on it or not, there is nothing stopping any other company from entering the market. The only protection afforded a manufacturer would be patented technology, which might make top of the line equipment expensive, but not the basic "everybody has one" technology. I bought a portable CD player (Walkman) for my daughters in 1995 and paid about $300 each for the state of the art. You can buy one today with more features for $5. Of course, no one will even pay that because of the availability and low cost of digital memory.

Same principle will apply to panels and batteries.

Now, "big wind" may be another story...

[Trillo]

32. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, unless you're in the Free Market camp

We currently have a grid based on thermal generation, which operates differently than one based on renewables. ...

Okay, the first part of the paragraph is about the grid design, but what does the grid have to do with renewables?

It is no secret that soalr CAN be manufactured cheaply - that is Gore's (and my) point - but it has to be done in conjunction with a total rethinking of the way energy is produced and distributed.

You're welcome to believe the earth rotates around the Sun, if that's what you want to believe, but there is no or little correlation of grid design to the cost of solar cell manufacture! One deals with distribution of centralized energy, the other the manufacture of decentralized (already distributed) solar generators. Since solar cells are inherently already distributed (point of use in many cases), there is very little need for a grid, unless neighbors want to share their excess (and then the grid owners pay wholesale for the energy and charge the neighbor retail).

This type of Free Market thinking, the spin as connected to logically dissimilar items, must be why all the buzz against NeoLiberal thought. In the old days, a simple formula was Cost of Production + Reasonable Profit for manufacturer's pricing. Today, in the zeal for more and more profit (which there is NONE of anyway without government welfare {and that must go to corporations, never to poor folks, at least according to conservatives}), manufacturers must spin the tales to keep alternative products off the market by muscling control of them (such as patents, but also control of means of production, unreasonable pricing of raw materials, etc.), and by pricing of competing technologies similarly, so there is only the appearance of competition, without there being any real competition at all.

What you seem to be saying is that the corporations must get their ducks in a row in order to 'allow' the sale of inexpensive solar cells. Had this happened back in the late 70s when the then-new laser process was developed, we probably wouldn't today be filling our cars with gasoline, and we likely wouldn't be at war in Iraq!

But like I said, you can believe anything you want.

[kristopher]

34. You aren't taking the total picture into account.

The infrastructure developed around central thermal generation has been managed pretty well over the years on a cost plus basis. The result is an efficient system that delivers dependable power at roughly 2/3s the cost of power 50 years ago. This monetary price comes with external costs that are impossible to *properly* account for in the retailing of electricity.

The traditional approach has been to require renewables to conform to the dispatchability standards of thermal generation; a situation that captures little to none of their value from lack of external costs.

The entire concept of dispatchability is challenged by distributed (solar home style) generation with individual storage capability.

However, the investment required for the products in that type of system can't compete with thermal generation under most current or proposed policy frameworks. In order for the amount of investment required to bring the price down to occur, there must be a restructuring of the policy framework that has developed around the dominance of thermal generation and it's priority on cheap dispatchable power generated centrally.

In my opinion (and others have different takes on this) the best way to achieve this is the type of program Gore is calling for where policy *commits* the direction of development towards renewables in order to ensure the market for renewable products.

This means a commitment, as Gore has called for, to END the system based on centrally dispatched power. A large part of the effort will be the construction of the "Smart Grid" that enables the system to micromanage all of the small connected sources of generation, small scale storage capability (batteries), larger scale generation facilities (wind and solar arrays, geothermal, wave/current/tidal) and larger scale storage/generation (CAES, traditional hydro etc.).

I hope that helps clear things up for you.

PS I'm in the 'reality' camp which recognizes that markets and governments are both needed.

PPS The Earth does, in fact, revolve around the Sun.

[Trillo]

35. Which takes us back round turn to "Big Battery"

and thermal losses as quads in the current distribution system that are greater than the joules put into the system (WTF?). Distribution of centralized power appears to have losses greater than 50%, my calculations (based upon another DU thread referenced above) suggest about 50.6% of the energy put into the distribution system is loss, but we may have sophisticated liars now claiming those losses are only 10% (Instead of 50% or more) in their zeal to prevent competition from using hydrogen as the storage medium instead of batteries, simply by projecting into the future a fantastic grid (that doesn't yet exist, but will undoubtedly be highly profitable for a few).

WHY THE FUCK CAN'T WE GET SOME TRUTH FROM ALL THE CORPORATE MOTHERFUCKERS? When us little people lie in schools, we're expelled forever from that private school.

In a capitalistic system, eliminating competition is probably the very WORST thing that can be done.

[kristopher]

37. WTF are you talking about?

Are you drunk or deranged?

[Trillo]

39. Which corporation are you advocating for?

"WTF are you talking about?" See Post #33 and the other DU thread I linked to, 28.1 quads, a measure of BTU, converted to Joules, versus the Joules of the entire system
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html given as thousand megawatthours, as well as disappearing facts and figures that are to synchronous to ignore.

I'm tired of being badgered by your snarks: "Riiiiight" "Are you drunk or deranged?" and some others over time.

Which corporation are you advocating for?

[kristopher]

40. And that chart is supposed to show what?

You throw up a link and spout a couple of words you probably don't even understand, and that is supposed to have meaning?

You aren't being 'badgered by snarks', you are being frustrated by facts.

H has 75% system losses, it is a boondoggle to devote money to it.
H has no existing infrastructure, developing the infrastructure adds hugely to the cost burden of transitioning away from fossil fuels.
H as a motor fuel for the personal transportation fleet is a centrally controlled system that is modeled on "Big Oil".

Go to bed and sleep it off.

[Trillo]

41. It appears the electric distribution grid has losses FAR in excess of 10%.

This in turn calls into question the so-called efficiency of battery based electric vehicles that are charged from the "currently existing grid". No acknowledgments that batteries lose efficiencies as they age. Etc.

Stop the lying.

[kristopher]

42. You are wrong

You are wrong about damned near everything you have written on this thread.

A simple challenge: show where there is any data to support the assertion that grid losses are above 10%.

A specific example of your bullshit (as if anyone needed more) is this recent post that clearly contradicts your assertion about "no acknowledgments" regarding batteries lifespan. "Fading" is a characteristic of nickle based batteries, not lithium.

Joining the ranks of all-electrics, like Tesla Motors Roadster, the Lightning has further innovated by banking on a lithium-titanate battery, Don't feel bad, I hadn't heard of lithium-titanate either. Forget overnight charging. If you've got three-phase power available, this car can be fully charged in 10 minutes for 200 miles of driving. The batteries themselves have a life expectancy of 12+ years, versus the 3-5 year usable life of other batteries.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=164053&mesg_id=164053

[Trillo]

43. So you believe that accusing me of being drunk is "correct"?

Sorry, I haven't had any alcoholic drinks in, probably 2 or 3 weeks, but after this crap with your and your personal insults and accusations, it's about time for a beer or two.

But that's your habit of projection showing again, saying others are full of bullshit when it's in fact your flaw that you're projecting onto others around you. Saying things like "spout a couple of words you probably don't even understand". Then I tell how to calculate the Joule difference between a reference given in megawatthours and some quads in another thread, so you issue a challenge to show precisely how it's done?

Gee, are insults an effective technique to elicit compliance in others? How about do your own math and googling. It ain't hard. The 28.1 quads of losses are greater than the generating figures given in the .gov reference in a post or two above, when both are converted to Joules.

Now you wish to bring up battery efficiency, when I talked at length about it in an earlier post in this thread! That is known as badgering. It's typical of a corporate shill.

Sleep well.

[kristopher]

44. I'm still waiting for a specific citation supporting your claims.

Your statements that have been shown to be false in this thread include:
the assertion that batteries are unsuitable for energy storage because they are toxic;
that batteries as a commodity are similar in nature to monopolistic enterprises;
that H produced from solar cells somehow avoids the energy penalties associated with electrolysis, compression, storage, transport, and reconversion of H to power (either in fuel cells or ICE);
that solar cells as a commodity are similar in nature to monopolistic enterprises;
and that grid losses are on the order of >50%.

All wrong. Completely.

I've explained patiently and clearly what is wrong with your arguments.

You respond with no evidence and nearly incoherent rantings, so you'll have to excuse my thought that you've probably been imbibing.

In reviewing your posts, I see one area where you might be experiencing some confusion. This is just a guess since you clearly don't understand yourself, but system efficiency of most thermal generation (that isn't the same as 'grid losses') is low. For internal combustion engine automobiles, for example, for every unit of energy you pump into the gas tank, only about 12% is ussed to push the car down the road; the rest is lost as mostly heat. For coal fired power plants, an average of 28% of input energy is actually converted to electricity. For natural gas about 40% is the best they can do. In the case of coal and natural gas, sometimes additional efficiencies can be achieved by using the waste heat for other purposes, achieving (for natgas) a very occasional overall use of up to 60% of the energy content of the fuel.

Grid losses refer to the loss of power in stepping up, stepping down and transmission line resistance for *electricity*.

When considering H the heat losses from thermal generation don't work in favor of your desire to give greater credit to the system efficiency since the heat losses cannot be captured and converted to H.
Going to a renewable that generates electricity does not involve those heat losses (a point that pleases my frugal nature) but it also does nothing to increase the system efficiency of H as a fuel since the calculation starts with the electricity input into the process to create H.

Now, I don't expect an apology for your attitude, but you do, in fact, owe one.

[Trillo]

45. You have provided no citations for your likely false assertions, otherwise known as lies.

"that H produced from solar cells somehow avoids the energy penalties associated with electrolysis, compression, storage, transport, and reconversion of H to power (either in fuel cells or ICE);"

Nope, not me, I never said that at all. Just another lie from you. Oops, did I say lie? Call it a false assertion if it makes you feel better.

Apology from me? For what? You're simply rude and insulting. I'm not about to apologize for your posts. What a maroon!

[kristopher]

46. Poor feller....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=163673&mesg_id=163687

Your statements that have been shown to be false in this thread include:
the assertion that batteries are unsuitable for energy storage because they are toxic;
that batteries as a commodity are similar in nature to monopolistic enterprises;
that H produced from solar cells somehow avoids the energy penalties associated with electrolysis, compression, storage, transport, and reconversion of H to power (either in fuel cells or ICE);
that solar cells as a commodity are similar in nature to monopolistic enterprises;
and that grid losses are on the order of >50%.

All wrong. Completely.

I've explained patiently and clearly what is wrong with your arguments.

You respond with no evidence and nearly incoherent rantings, so you'll have to excuse my thought that you've probably been imbibing.

In reviewing your posts, I see one area where you might be experiencing some confusion. This is just a guess since you clearly don't understand yourself, but system efficiency of most thermal generation (that isn't the same as 'grid losses') is low. For internal combustion engine automobiles, for example, for every unit of energy you pump into the gas tank, only about 12% is ussed to push the car down the road; the rest is lost as mostly heat. For coal fired power plants, an average of 28% of input energy is actually converted to electricity. For natural gas about 40% is the best they can do. In the case of coal and natural gas, sometimes additional efficiencies can be achieved by using the waste heat for other purposes, achieving (for natgas) a very occasional overall use of up to 60% of the energy content of the fuel.

Grid losses refer to the loss of power in stepping up, stepping down and transmission line resistance for *electricity*.

When considering H the heat losses from thermal generation don't work in favor of your desire to give greater credit to the system efficiency since the heat losses cannot be captured and converted to H.
Going to a renewable that generates electricity does not involve those heat losses (a point that pleases my frugal nature) but it also does nothing to increase the system efficiency of H as a fuel since the calculation starts with the electricity input into the process to create H.

Now, I don't expect an apology for your attitude, but you do, in fact, owe one.

[Trillo]

47. Oops, self-delete.

[Trillo]

48. So you're claiming an excerpt of others work, cited no less, as my assertion?

:rofl:

Or are you referring to the title, which I did write?

Nowhere have I claimed there are no energy penalties when using H, including the title and within the post referenced by your provided link, at least that I can find. Perhaps you need to be more specific. You could consider using a direct quote of my words, if you decided to clear the matter up. But it makes little difference to me whether you do or not.

What I have said, to re-paraphrase, is that batteries are toxic to some degree or another (and I've provided citations for those assertions), that distribution efficiencies of the electric grid seem overstated (provided some references for where those came from), that there seems to be a great deal of deception surrounding these things (missing info as well as other clues), that there does seem to be 'carbon free' H (referenced), that the use of H as a storage medium seems clean and elegant as it starts as water and ends as water, unlike the battery issue which requires obtaining materials (probably by mining) then disposing of these materials after they've been 'used up' (for lack of a better term), so it's hard to see how they can be so very efficient (I believe I've read above 90% if not 99%, in the case of lithium types), as well as alluding to the profit in making and supplying batteries (this is all from memory, sorry bout the long run-on sentence).

I find myself wondering if you're bi-polar? I have a tendency to mirror others in discussion forums, and the vacillation you've shown from reasonableness to unreasonableness seems odd, which I have mirrored after finding that being solely reasonable resulted in contempt from you, this makes me wonder if more than one person uses your alias.

Anyway, I don't expect an honest answer from you, but who knows, maybe you'll give one, but maybe not. No matter.

[Nederland]

29. Exactly

The notion that big corporations won't dominate whatever solution proves to work is laughable.

The posters other points are valid though...

[kristopher]

31. see #30. nt

[Nederland]

36. #30 explained nothing

The fact is that energy is big business and will be dominated by big corporations, just like every other big business is. Computers and automobiles for example, are big businesses dominated by a handful of companies. To expect solar or batteries to be any different is laughable. Yes, we will not see a cartel like OPEC created, but OPEC is not what people are referring to when you say "Big Oil".

[kristopher]

38. You really don't care about facts, do you?

To think that "Big Oil" and the utilities are comparable to the manufacturers of electronics and automobiles shows a depth of ignorance that is staggering.

[Nederland]

50. Then please enlighten me

I'm all ears.

[kristopher]

52. See post #30.

It demonstrates the difference between monopolistic and competitive markets. There is nothing complicated about it it; when you deny that competition works when the proper elements are in place, or when you claim that a competitive environment is the same as a noncompetitive environment then you are denying facts.

[Nederland]

54. Semantics

In my experience, when people refer to "Big Oil" they are referring to this:



These companies originated from a competitive environment that once consisted of thousands of oil companies. What makes you think batteries will be any different?

[kristopher]

58. You are being absurd

5 elements of a perfect market


1. All firms sell an identical product.
2. All firms are price-takers.
3. All firms have a relatively small market share.
4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices
charged by each firm.
5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/perfectcompetition.asp

Compare the industries against these benchmarks and it is obvious, that is why I KNOW it will be different.

[Nederland]

61. Good idea

Let's compare oil to the battery industry on these terms:

1. All firms sell an identical product.
2. All firms are price-takers.
3. All firms have a relatively small market share.
4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm.
5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.


1: Oil yes, batteries no.
2: Oil no, batteries yes (to an extent).
3: Oil yes, batteries yes.
4: Oil yes, batteries no.
5: Oil no, batteries yes.

So we have 3 yes and 2 no for each industry. So what is your point?

[kristopher]

63. Like shooting fish in a barrel...

Let's compare oil to the battery industry on these terms:

1. All firms sell an identical product.
2. All firms are price-takers.
3. All firms have a relatively small market share.
4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm.
5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.


1: Oil yes, batteries no.
2: Oil no, batteries yes (to an extent).
3: Oil yes, batteries yes.
4: Oil yes, batteries no.
5: Oil no, batteries yes.

So we have 3 yes and 2 no for each industry. So what is your point?

Let's evaluate your evaluation:
1: Oil yes, batteries no.
The only differences between batteries are the patent protected technologies. When those patents expire there is a rush to generic manufacturing that produces mass quantities of batteries at much lower prices because of the competitive environment. Each technological innovation is a separate "product" to be considered.
So this is properly Yes/Yes.

2: Oil no, batteries yes (to an extent).
Agree with NO/Yes, but there is no "to an extent" to it. The only protection afforded battery makers as an exception is patent protection of intellectual property. Indicates a monopolistic/oligopolistic market for oil, not for batteries.


3: Oil yes, batteries yes.
Totally incorrect. World oil production is tightly controlled by a very few national and corporate entities. To say they have "a small market share is simply false. Compare the number of oil suppliers to the number of companies that manufacture TVs or telephones or automobiles and you'll see what I mean. Another indication of a monopolistic/oligopolistic enterprise.
Oil No/ Batteries, yes.
4: Oil yes, batteries no.
I disagree about batteries. What is there to know except the battery specifications? Compare to medical care for the opposite extreme as this item demonstrates the largest failure of medical care being provided as a consumer commodity.
Yes/Yes

5: Oil no, batteries yes.
This is the biggie that separates the two categories of commodities. Without ease of entry and exit, there is massive market distortion. In this case this clinches the case for the monopolistic nature of oil versus the functioning open market nature of batteries.

Thanks for giving me the chance to make these points.

[Nederland]

67. Response

1) All firms sell an identical product

You are simply wrong here. Batteries vary widely depending on the technology and combination of chemicals used to provide power. A casual look at the Amp/Hour difference between battery types will show you this. On the other hand, oil is oil and every barrel of oil contains the same amount of energy as the next.

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

3) You are simply wrong here. The largest producer of oil in the world is Russia, with 12.8%, the next is Saudi Arabia, with 11.9%, and the next is the United States with 6.6%. Importantly, Russian and US numbers should not even be considered as one number because they actually represent multiple companies. In comparison the largest producer of batteries in the world is Energizer Holdings, which has a 38% market share. The facts are simply not on your side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
http://www.marketresearch.com/browse.asp?categoryid=362

4) You are simply wrong here. Oil is a global commodity whose price is very transparent. In contrast, the details surrounding large battery contracts, such as GM's deal with Compact Power Inc., are hidden.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/05/breaking-gm-awards-two-battery-development-contracts-for-chevy/

Please note that unlike you, who merely asserts things, I provided links to back up my arguments.

[kristopher]

64. What, no response?

Let's compare oil to the battery industry on these terms:

1. All firms sell an identical product.
2. All firms are price-takers.
3. All firms have a relatively small market share.
4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm.
5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.


1: Oil yes, batteries no.
2: Oil no, batteries yes (to an extent).
3: Oil yes, batteries yes.
4: Oil yes, batteries no.
5: Oil no, batteries yes.

So we have 3 yes and 2 no for each industry. So what is your point?

Let's evaluate your evaluation:

1. All firms sell an identical product.

You said: Oil yes, batteries no.

The only differences between batteries are the patent protected technologies. When those patents expire there is a rush to generic manufacturing that produces mass quantities of batteries at much lower prices because of the competitive environment. Each technological innovation is a separate "product" to be considered.
So this is properly Yes/Yes.

2. All firms are price-takers.

You said: Oil no, batteries yes (to an extent).

Agree with NO/Yes, but there is no "to an extent" to it. The only protection afforded battery makers as an exception is patent protection of intellectual property. Indicates a monopolistic/oligopolistic market for oil, not for batteries.


3. All firms have a relatively small market share.

You sid: Oil yes, batteries yes.

Totally incorrect. World oil production is tightly controlled by a very few national and corporate entities. To say they have "a small market share is simply false. Compare the number of oil suppliers to the number of companies that manufacture TVs or telephones or automobiles and you'll see what I mean. Another indication of a monopolistic/oligopolistic enterprise.

Oil No/ Batteries, yes.


4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm.

You said: Oil yes, batteries no.
I disagree about batteries. What is there to know except the battery specifications? Compare to medical care for the opposite extreme as this item demonstrates the largest failure of medical care being provided as a consumer commodity.

Oil Yes / Batteries Yes


5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.

You said: Oil no, batteries yes.

This is the biggie that separates the two categories of commodities. Without ease of entry and exit, there is massive market distortion. In this case this clinches the case for the monopolistic nature of oil versus the functioning open market nature of batteries.

Oil no / batteries yes

Thanks for giving me the chance to make these points.

[kristopher]

65. ...

Let's compare oil to the battery industry on these terms:

1. All firms sell an identical product.
2. All firms are price-takers.
3. All firms have a relatively small market share.
4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm.
5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.


1: Oil yes, batteries no.
2: Oil no, batteries yes (to an extent).
3: Oil yes, batteries yes.
4: Oil yes, batteries no.
5: Oil no, batteries yes.

So we have 3 yes and 2 no for each industry. So what is your point?

Let's evaluate your evaluation:

1. All firms sell an identical product.

You said: Oil yes, batteries no.

The only differences between batteries are the patent protected technologies. When those patents expire there is a rush to generic manufacturing that produces mass quantities of batteries at much lower prices because of the competitive environment. Each technological innovation is a separate "product" to be considered.
So this is properly Yes/Yes.

2. All firms are price-takers.

You said: Oil no, batteries yes (to an extent).

Agree with NO/Yes, but there is no "to an extent" to it. The only protection afforded battery makers as an exception is patent protection of intellectual property. Indicates a monopolistic/oligopolistic market for oil, not for batteries.


3. All firms have a relatively small market share.

You sid: Oil yes, batteries yes.

Totally incorrect. World oil production is tightly controlled by a very few national and corporate entities. To say they have "a small market share is simply false. Compare the number of oil suppliers to the number of companies that manufacture TVs or telephones or automobiles and you'll see what I mean. Another indication of a monopolistic/oligopolistic enterprise.

Oil No/ Batteries, yes.


4. Buyers know the nature of the product being sold and the prices charged by each firm.

You said: Oil yes, batteries no.
I disagree about batteries. What is there to know except the battery specifications? Compare to medical care for the opposite extreme as this item demonstrates the largest failure of medical care being provided as a consumer commodity.

Oil Yes / Batteries Yes


5. The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit.

You said: Oil no, batteries yes.

This is the biggie that separates the two categories of commodities. Without ease of entry and exit, there is massive market distortion. In this case this clinches the case for the monopolistic nature of oil versus the functioning open market nature of batteries.

Oil no / batteries yes

Thanks for giving me the chance to make these points.

[NNadir]

53. That's what Amory Lovins said in 2001 about 2005.

[madokie]

56. Why the big hard-on for Lovins anyway there big guy?

Before 'nnadir' I never paid any attention to him but now that you keep bringing his name up I wonder what it is that he's done or didn't do to you. Did he cost you a job somewhere sometime that you're still sore about? I can see that he is 180 degrees out from where you say you are. Is that it and if it is then what kind of a person is it that will be so madded up as you seem to be towards someone when all they've done is disagree with you, surely thats not it, is it? If you are going to keep ragging on him then maybe you should give us who haven't been following 'you' a refresher course in who or what he is. In the mean time I think I'll make an effort to check him out as what little I have read he seems to be a right fine individual, he nevers goes off on rants and start calling people all kinds of names and such when someone disagrees with him as someone I know does. Fill me in there big guy, I wanta learn. :shrug:

Have a good weekend, I'm sure you've earned it. From personal experience I know its hard work being a, well you know.
Peace

PS Is Lovins making decisions for me that I'm not aware of? Should I be mad too?

[NNadir]

60. Why don't you stick to telling us about your solar swimming pool light?

I'm very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very impressed by your deep and passionate concern for humanity by the grand, grand, grand, grand, grand gesture of your installing a solar pool light.

Pretty fucking Lovinian, I think, and I'm sure why you don't fucking get it.

In fact, I selected this bit of indifference to humanity in a poll about Stalinists that I published outside of the provinces:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/22/221351/414/538/550686">The Most Interesting Chemistry of Lenin's Dead Body.

I despise Lovins because he's a greenwasher for a whole bunch of right wing shit companies, and indifferent ignorant yuppies, partially, but then there's the aesthetic issue of the extra chins, the SUV.

Basically I despise consumerist indifference, in general especially when it kills people. It involves something called ethics. I'm sure you never heard of it, little withered guy.

Got it?

No?

Can't figure it out?

Why am I not surprised?

I have never met a single yuppie consumer piece of shit, NOT ONE, who can imagine that people do anything for any reason other than money.

They don't fucking exist.

I can't wait to read about your hydrogen Hummer by the way.

I'm sure you're very proud of it and risk getting a rotator cuff injury patting yourself on the back. Of course, you have health insurance. Heckuva job.

I hope you got a nice tax break for your swimming pool, by the way. It doesn't look like these guys got much of a break building their swimming pool, but why would you have a single thought about these people. They ain't white.



http://acaringheartuk.org.uk/where_we_work.htm

Then there's the matter of the extra chins, and the SUV:

[madokie]

62. For your info I am a mixed race American.

so stick that up your ass big guy. Chins and suv's is what I judge people by, oh the color of their skin is high on my list too, btw boy. I guess in your case you talk to yourself because you think you need to talk to someone with some intelligence and you have yourself convinced that you are just that person and I sure wouldn't want to be the one to break the news to you otherwise. I could just imagine the rant and raving and pure dee ole ugliness that would go with that one. Boy o boy it sure must be lonely up there where you're at big guy. How about telling us about that sometime, oh forgot there for a second thats what you're doing now is it not?

My swimming pool has nothing to do with tax breaks and everything to do with relaxation and enjoyment, something you don't get nearly enough of I can tell.

'bout forgot is that a couple pics of yourself or is that the famous Amory Lovins there:evilgrin:

I can tell by some of your replys that you've read what I've been doing, since way back before it was even cool too, concerning this mess we have ourselves in today. So how about filling me in on what you've been doing these last couple decades towards that endeavor. I'm really interested in hearing all about it and if you tell me that I'm not smart enough to understand then I will know for a fact you haven't been doing anything except'n of course diarrhea of the keyboard and causing hate and discontent but I'm not so sure any of that fits the bill anyway. So what have you done there big guy, what have you done. Besides nothing at all that is, besides, nothing at all. Oh how I wanta know, yes, you know, talk to me nnadir, even take me to the wood shed if you must but learn me better. OK

I think I'll go take an early morning shower to wash this slime off, then follow it up with a swim and then enjoy some home cooked breakfast. Then head on over to the lumberyard to pick up a few boards needed to build a nice deck with on the back side of our home, you know out there close by that swimming pool. All this done while smiling knowing full well you are as full of shit as a christmas turkey. Yes step right up folks and see the big guy, the little man of so much discourse. I'm sure you're right proud of yourself and the failure you've been. How do I know you've been a failure? By reading what you have to say and the way you say it tells me all I need to know in that regard.


Happy swimming ;-)

Oh and I love you too, yes I do very very much
smoochy smoooooooooooch

edit to add a space before the last big guy

[kristopher]

66. Follow to original pdf to see "why"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x164820