Hydrogen - the answer or hype

[goblue]

http://motortrend.com/features/consu...gen/index.html

Check this article out for an in depth review of why hydrogen is much farther off than most people think.

I'll lead off the debate by stating I think hydrogen will be a huge flop. Its described in the article, but as batteries get better, theres a progression from mild hybrids to full hybrids, then "plug in hybrids" (first 50 miles on battery alone, then functions like a traditional hybrid when the charge is used up), and finally back to electric cars when batteries can give 300-400 miles of range.

Hydrogen is highly explosive, very expensive to make (even after accounting for economies of scale), and will require a brand new distribution network.

Electricity already has the best distribution network there is, and wouldn't it be great if every gas station disappeared.

[GeMiNi THRaSHeR]

Even though I read that article like 4 months ago, I'll bite...

Hydrogen is expensive to make now but will be around the same price to buy as gas in a few years, if oil continues this trend of inching up in price each year.

Really though, just saying a hydrogen infrastructure will be a flop is the easy way out of thinking about this whole thing too much. Enough money put into something will make anything successful. And our gov't isn't about to spend the kind of money its willing to on this project without a definate successful plan. The nations biggest brains are working on this as we speak, they know more than us and have more resources than you think at their expense.

A hydrogen economy will be successful if a few hurdles are cleared, such as creating a definate way to transport it at 10,000 or so PSI without it being combustable (remember, gas is explosive too ) and figuring out a way for the gov't, EPA, and automanufacturers to corrolate together on the project, which is the tallest hurdle of all. I suggest you do some reading on Project Supercar to find out what I mean by that.

Honestly though, I hope we keep battery driven vehicles around too. Theres huge potential there as well, just a little more waste (which we may eventually find a solution for as well). One thing is for sure though, we're going to have to get out of the oil industry for use of transportation altogether soon. Aside from hydrogen, we don't have many alternatives right now. Anti-matter is being researched extensively, and may end up replacing hydrogen down the road as our main transportation infrastructure.

[ThugsoldierX187]

Originally Posted by GeMiNi THRaSHeR

Really though, just saying a hydrogen infrastructure will be a flop is the easy way out of thinking about this whole thing too much. Enough money put into something will make anything successful.

I have to agree with that. especially the money business. but you have to admit no matter how expensive it is consumers love it. The toyota prius is the most sold car for like a year now i think last year too im not sure. people want economy cars. the civic used to do it, and still does. but if you say hey here's a car with moderate luxury, an mp3 player, blah blah blah and it has better mpg than a civic. why wouldn't people flock to it? hell i would...nah i wouldn't...but its tempting.

[Ming]

Hype. No matter how awesome the vehicle, if you can't refuel just about anywhere (in the middle of the desert at an old gas stand on your way to Las Vegas), its the equivalent of the EV1.

[iluvcamaros]

It takes the use of fossil fuels to produce hydrogen so it's not helping the enviroment any. Like Gemini Thrasher said they can only store it at high pressures, on tv they said scientists were try to find a low press way of storing it. So until they can produce and store it efficently hydrogen is a long way off. Probably not in any of our life times.

And does anybody want to be driving around mini-hindenburgs?

[Swahili]

I don't have time to read the whole article but I'll give you my .02 Sure hydrogen isn't all that practical now, but give it time. It may take 20, 30, 50 years even. And maybe by then someone will have thought of something new. Infrastructure and whatnot, ease of refilling shouldn't even really be thought of until the technology for making it legitimately working in cars is somewhat more successful. All the obstacles have to be overcome, and economically viable too. But, it's essential to continue work in this area and field because as most scientific and some technological advacements are found, it is by accident. Keep working away on this, and someone will stumble upon some form of reusable energy that is clean, and the world will be better off.

[quinnp12]

speaking as someone who has been involved with the fuel cell research, it has a lot of potential. and there are other ways of getting hydrogen without using fossil fuels, they, like the rest of the technology, are not economical yet.

and the hindenburg did not burn because of the hydrogen. it was the cloth that burned. trust me, hydrogen is really explosive when it burns

[SolsticeMan]

Originally Posted by quinnp12

speaking as someone who has been involved with the fuel cell research, it has a lot of potential. and there are other ways of getting hydrogen without using fossil fuels, they, like the rest of the technology, are not economical yet.

and the hindenburg did not burn because of the hydrogen. it was the cloth that burned. trust me, hydrogen is really explosive when it burns

You're right that the hindenburg did not burn because of the hydrogen. It actually wasn't the cloth that burned, but the cloth coating which was a cellulouse nitrate/acetate mixed with AL powder (similar to how you might make solid rocket fuel, believe it or not). The mix made a type of laquer that was extremely flammable. Additionally, the diesel fuel, once the hindenburg started to burn, continued to burn for another 10 hours. The hydrogen was pretty much burned in less than a minute after the gas bags were breached.

Hydrogen, in the presence of oxygen burns quickly in a nearly colorless-light-blue flame. If you mix hydrogen with oxygen and then touch it off, well, you better have earplugs... I've made gallons of hydrogen in years past - it's fun to play with.

Worse than that is gasoline. Take just a half-coffee-cupful and toss it on a brush pile. Fumble around for a match. Remember you left a lighter in the garage - go get it. Come back and stand, oh, about 15 feet away from the brushpile. Light the lighter with intention of starting the "edge" of your brushpile.

Watch the magic "hand of flame" reach out from the brushpile, engulf your lighter and your hand.....
.... get back up off the ground, look at the nonexistent brushpile, the debris around the yard, and ask out loud, "What the <BLEEP>?!?!?"

The safety aspects of hydrogen are not the issue. At issue is storing and carrying around the equivalent energy content of 15 gallons of gasoline in the form of hydrogen at ambient temperatures and pressures in a practical manner. It's hard to beat diesel fuel or gasoline for chemical energy storage.

[goblue]

All interesting points.
The question I have is should we spend the money. I saw this somewhere else too, the technology exists now to put an 80% charge on a very large battery at 240V in 15min. So, while thats longer than filling the tank with gas, how many of us drive 400 miles without taking a 15 min break. For long trips, maybe the nation's freeways should be electrified, that would be a much smaller hurdle to overcome than finding a stable storage medium for a highly explosive gas. As I recall, there are methods of moving electricity through induction that can't shock you. Think of the savings for long haul truckers alone.

The public loves it because the concept of a 10,000psi tank strapped 2 feet from their child hasn't sunk in yet. I think thats the biggest hurdle. Currently a tank of that pressure has to be stored in a room made of reinforced concrete. If this hurdle is overcome soon, then maybe this has a chance.

Economically, $3 per gas equiv gallon is made from gas - so that doesn't solve anything. Even with economic projections of an entire nation using it, you get $6 gallon gas making it green, and that price will go up as oil becomes more expensive, many power plants use oil, nat gas, etc. (I've seen that price quoted in many other places)

I agree there's a number of experts saying yes this is a good idea. However, this thing is in its infancy, and for every scientist that says this is the future, you can find another that says not so fast - maybe there are better options. Also, even the experts are wrong more often than they are right. Though obviously they do get it right more than the average joe.

Personally, I threw this out there in loaded terms to spark something. I agree with Gemini that we need to research all these mediums and let the best one emerge. One might be best for consumers, another for commercial trucks, etc. I just am tired of our politicians and many people I know and discuss this with saying its around the corner with no idea of the hurdles. The way I see it as a potential flop is timing, all the hurdles have to be overcome before battery tech gets good enough. Sort of like VHS and Betamax.

This is an area where we as average consumers can have real impact. Look at it this way, theres a ton of people out there who want to take away large vehicles and put is all in Priuses. An affordable alternative fuel source that doesn't harm the environment will be the only way to ensure we can drive what we want, long term. We need to encourage government money to be spent on these areas.

[Hudson]

By passing the current cost issue (which will be overcome in time with the economies of scale) and Hindenberg-like IMAGE that people have of hydrogen, the infrastructure issue can be easily overcome. What if those mom-and-pop (rare nowadays) gas stations opened a pump that MADE hydrogen on site? A simple converter (theoretically) that used solar energy to break apart water through electrolysis to make hydrogen. The only thing necessary would be running water...no fuel truck and the only supplier is the local water company.

But back to the "explosive" issue: a little more than 100 years ago, people could not imagine trusting a vehicle powered by an engine that used exploding fuel! "That's putting a bomb right on the car!" And yet, the internal COMBUSTION engine finally won out over steam power (another highly dangerous engine, at that time) by 1910. Hydrogen can easily follow suit and replace petroleum. And I feel it will happen in the next half century. Fuel cell cars are already in (very limited) production on no less than two continents.

Hybrid power is the stepping stone between ICE and fuel cell vehicles. Unless there's a huge breakthrough (which is possible) in electricity storage, full electric vehicles will remain a novelty. Their range is too short and their charging (despite the above comment about 15-minute charge times) takes too much time. Fuel cells provide quick fueling, the ability for a broad infrastructure, and the potential for excellent driving range. By using the strong points of electric vehicles (high-torque electric motors and simpler transmissions) while eliminating the negatives (range and charging), fuel cell are the current direction for vehicle power.

I've driven full-electric, gas-electric hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles, and they all have points to recommend them. The GM Impact (full-electric) was the most enjoyable but the Honda FCX (fuel cell) has the potential to make the biggest difference.

[SolsticeMan]

Originally Posted by Hudson

...the infrastructure issue can be easily overcome. What if those mom-and-pop (rare nowadays) gas stations opened a pump that MADE hydrogen on site? A simple converter (theoretically) that used solar energy to break apart water through electrolysis to make hydrogen. The only thing necessary would be running water...no fuel truck and the only supplier is the local water company...

Uhnnnhh, Yeah. You've obviously never homemade hydrogen, or you're not an engineer or scientist. A simple check on energy balance shows the problem with using solar energy to do such a thing. Sorry, this is fresh in my head 'cause I just went through a detailed analysis about four months ago. A summary example:

A typical car probably averages 22 MPG over a year, and at 15,000 miles per year, it can be calculated, using energy contained in gasoline, that it uses about 5 kWh for that year of operation. (Keep in mind my generator at home is a 6.5 kWh to put it in perspective - IF it were completely efficient, I'd basically have to run my generator 24 hours per day just to sustain my one average car. Not very useful, but let's continue).

Lets just say an H2 powered car is twice as efficient, so it consumes 2.5 kWh average over a year period.

I'll spare you the gritty details, but H2 generation is really rather efficient - 70% of electrical energy is converted into the energy of hydrogen gas. So to support my one H2 powered car, I need to average a power generation of 2.5 / 0.7 = 3.57 kWh. Let's round it up for a little bit of headroom to 4 kWh.

Let's see, the sun tends to average a radiant energy of between 3 - 6 kWh/m^2 during the average day. Current solar cells have a 12% efficiency (which is darn good), so solar cell output is expected to be about 0.36 kWh per square meter (using the low estimate). Just to support our one little car, you'd need eleven square meters of solar cells (at about $3000/square meter installation cost or $33,000 just for one car's hydrogen needs). That's a solar array of a bit more than 10'X10'.

Hydrogen gas generation: pretty darn expensive, the last one on this link operates in the 650kWh range, but the machine costs $325,000. IF this one ran 100% of the time, theoretically it could sustain 160 cars per year - BUT if you are really just using solar, you have to modify expected output down by a factor of around FIVE! (for daylight hours only 1/4 of the day, and knowing the operation of the machine is only at peak output - it can't sustain producing 650 kWh 100% of the time) and so can probably only sustain 35 cars per year. A machine as such would require a solar cell array that is 1800 square meters (about 140 feet by 140 feet!), cost in the $4M-$5M range to install.

http://www.hydrogenappliances.com/hy...eneration.html

That's just for an "average" car energy sustenance. We haven't even talked about the energy needs for a hydrogen H2.

It's much easier to use gasoline.

[Hudson]

It was a theoretical concept. In order for ANY of these ideas to work, fuel cells will need to be less expensive, batteries would need to be more efficient, and minds would need to be changed. All of these things will take time and effort. But the idea still remains, changing the infrastructure for car refueling can be done...and could make a radical change. It won't happen...the current infrastructure is makes billions for oil companies. But some great entrepreneurial mind could upset the whole thing.

[sncrducrx]

How do we get hydrogen?
The easiest and potentially cleanest way is called electrolysis: Dunk electrodes in water, apply electricity, and you get hydrogen gas bubbling off the negative electrode and oxygen from the positive one. But electrolysis is only as economical and clean as the electricity going in,

Ok so if all the Cars in america were fuelcell powerd.What would the demands for electricity be? Would there be a massive increase in demand for electricty? How would we meet an increase in the demand for electricity used to extract hydrogen from water? HMMMM COAL!thats it, we build Hundreds of Coal burning powerplants to generate electricty to run Hydrogen extraction plants!

[goblue]

Originally Posted by Hudson

Hybrid power is the stepping stone between ICE and fuel cell vehicles. Unless there's a huge breakthrough (which is possible) in electricity storage, full electric vehicles will remain a novelty. Their range is too short and their charging (despite the above comment about 15-minute charge times) takes too much time. Fuel cells provide quick fueling, the ability for a broad infrastructure, and the potential for excellent driving range. By using the strong points of electric vehicles (high-torque electric motors and simpler transmissions) while eliminating the negatives (range and charging), fuel cell are the current direction for vehicle power.

Lithium Ion batteries have the power output, they are currently just too expensive. Remember, the EV1 ran on lead acid, many hybrids now use Nimh.
thats progress. If cost is the only barrier, as this article and others about Lion batteries allude, then its only a matter of time. 400miles initial range, +300 after a 15 min charge, thats totally acceptable.

[GeMiNi THRaSHeR]

LITHIUM! Thats it. I was trying to think of the name of that the other day when I was having a discussion about this, but couldn't think of it. Thank you. Yea those things are suppose to dramatically improve hybrids in a few years. I can't wait.