First mass U.S. crossing for hydrogen cars completed

[darndot]

Originally Posted by Ming

[
As firsts go, the event, which ran from Portland, Maine, to the Los Angeles Coliseum, probably would not qualify for the record books. There were stretches without hydrogen fueling stations when the vehicles were carried on flatbed trucks, the longest from Rolla, Missouri, to Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Why didn't make a portable hydrogen fuel station instead of trucking the vehicles?

I believe that Hydrogen is the the wave of the future. Batteries may be used for commuter cars, but I feel the hydrogen will power 80% of the cars.

The nice thing is older cars could be converted to hydrogen. The motor will be ICE still, but running hydrogen. They do this with propane now.

If there is a market for hydrogen there will be stations that sell it. Take for instance, internet access, cell phone coverage, and to a smaller extent E85. If there is money in it somebody will do it.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by darndot

Why didn't make a portable hydrogen fuel station instead of trucking the vehicles?.......

I'd thought that too. Instead of trucking the cars, why not truck the hydrogen to them? Then they actually COULD say that they drove cross country.

[pinyon]

I believe that Hydrogen is the the wave of the future. Batteries may be used for commuter cars, but I feel the hydrogen will power 80% of the cars.

I think EVs are the wave of the future. Whether they be full EV or serial hybrid EV. Now saying that the "range extender" for the EV may be dominated by hydrogen fuel cells at some point may be right, but until that happens I'd take a Volt that would run on E85 or bio diesel to get us out of the imported oil market until the hydrogen day comes.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by D C

Cool! So where is this battery of yours that can store the equivalent amount of energy as a tankfull of Hydrogen in the same space with the same mass?

For 78% of America - there will be no need for more energy (better batteries) to accomplish the daily commute. That is the point. For those occasions that we need to go further than the battery will take us - we can simply use E85 or even just plain old gasoline (infrastructure done). Again - PHEV's are not for everyone or every application - but if 78% of us can use zero gasoline - why would we wait 10 - 15 years and invest BILLIONS of dollars in an infrastructure to support hydrogen. As battery technology improves (this is really only the first or second generation PEHV technology) fewer and fewer people will need to use fossil fuel.

As for your "energy" question – a single grain of sand contains way more energy than the a hydrogen fuel cell can get from a tank of hydrogen (E=MC^2). Does it make sense to try and develop that capability? Should we continue to buy oil from the Middle East until we do?

I’m not trying to be argumentative. I would just like someone to help me understand why we should wait and invest Billions in a hydrogen infrastructure? Why Hydrogen?

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

But that's just it. Yes, currently hydrogen isn't a viable choice. But it certainly could be. Why should we wait ten, fifteen years to even START looking at it, when we can start the process now? It may end up an expensive dead end, or battery power could end up as an expensive dead end.

My point is that it looks like an expensive dead end now. That fact that it would take 10 – 15 years - cost Billions of dollars and is less energy efficient than simple batteries - should explain why we might not want to do it. Again – research is fine and should be done to improve the efficiencies of the fuel cell (only 50% right now) – but we should invest in the technology that will get us off foreign oil fastest – not wait 10 – 15 years. Let’s consider putting much more money into PHEV’s and keep working on other solutions in the lab.

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

Just charging a battery certainly sounds more efficient than the equivalent hydrogen fuel, but that ignores the battery itself. A battery weighs a lot more, and takes up a lot more space than the equivalent hydrogen tank/fuel cell setup. That makes any such battery vehicle less efficient than these fuel cell vehicles.

First of all you have to include the hydrogen fuel cell. It is simply a battery that has to have it’s electrolyte replaced each time it is charged. How much will it cost? How much space will it take up? How much will it weigh?

Second, most hydrogen fuel cell designs rely on batteries to provide the needed high currents to accelerate a vehicle. The GM designs that I have seen use roughly have the battery of the Volt – so 200 lbs worth of batteries for the fuel cell vs. 400 for the volt. Some designs may use more or less.

Lastly, including the weight differences – putting the same amount of energy directly into the battery will result in significantly more range in a PHEV than in a fuel cell car (apples to apples).

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

Right now hydrogen is a better solution (from a basic physics point of view) than battery cars, except for a lack of availability of that fuel. THAT'S why demonstrations like this are put on. To show that it would work. It just needs the infrastructure to be built (and some of it is already in place). Just as the ethanol, electric, and gasoline infrastructures had to be built. They didn't just show up by themselves, overnight, but it was worth it to spend that money to develop them.

Again – hydrogen is not a more energy efficient solution now nor is it likely to be in the near future (given what we know today). You are right that a lot was invested in infrastructure to build out the existing stations – let’s continue to use it with new and existing liquid fuels such as E85 etc. Do you think that gas stations were built using tax payer dollars or private investment? Do you see anyone building hydrogen re-fueling stations with out government subsidies? Could that be because it does not make business sense?

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

Depending on future development, tomorrow, or next year, or in ten years, a hydrogen fuel cell could be the answer - but that will take infrastructure improvements. Or batteries could improve to make them the best choice - but that would take battery technology improvements (and we can't guarantee that will EVER be possible). Maybe the "Mr. Fusion" research will finally pay off, and be the answer. That's why we are involving ourselves in "diversions", looking at other alternatives - NOW, not in fifteen years.

As you point out – no one can accurately predict the future. What we do know today is that 78% of us could stop using oil to commute to and from work with PHEV’s. With no further investment in infrastructure – Now. I am only suggesting that waiting for “hydrogen” or “Mr. Fusion” only prolongs our dependency on foreign oil. We should be investing most of the money we are thinking about investing in a hydrogen infrastructure in PHEV’s. They are the quickest path to energy independence.

[Wolfman01]

Originally Posted by edsuski

A solution that is ten to fifteen years away, (and always will be until we actually start building hydrogen refueling stations) - that will cost BILLIONS of dollars to implement, is a diversion when we have the technology to build and refuel plug-in electric vehicles today. I agree that no one solution will fit every need, but plug-in electric vehicles would allow 78% of us to STOP buying oil to commute to and from work.

Sorry, but that 10 to 15 years away is the same straw man argument that our criminally inept left wing politicians are using to stonewall new domestic energy development. You will never reach a viable point, if you never research the technology at all, simply becuase it "isn't today's solution." Even your making every vehicle a plug in Volt like hybrid would take more than a decade to see it's full potential, due to the market's typical vehicle replacement intervals. As for spending billions on infrastructure development. That equivalent had to be spent to make gasoline available as readily as it is today, back when cars first started scaring horses in cities back in the 1900's. As for spending that money, I'd much rather our government spend those billions on insuring our energy independence, over spending the TRILLIONS they currently are in trying to secure "cheap" oil in the M.E. Contrary to what is spoon-fed to us in our own propaganda machine, we are NOT in Iraq for the goodness of those people. Consider that money a subsidy on oil.

The idea that EVERY alternative should be developed is not rational. Nuclear cars would not consume fossil fuels - should we be developing them? We could investigate cold fusion or zero point energy alternatives. Do you think that makes sense?

It absolutely IS rational. Technological advancment isn't going to suddenly come to a screeching halt. As technology advances, other options become more feaseable. It's called planning for the future. You do plan for your retirement right? It's probably a safe bet that you aren't going to be retiring in the next year or two, so why bother now? Is it irrational to plan for 10, 20, 30 or more years into the future?

We have to start thinking about the problem in a rational way. We should eliminate our dependency on foreign oil first. At least the 22% that comes from countries like Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and the Middle East. Then we can continue to reduce our dependency on other oil and eventually replace fossil fuel (mostly coal and natural gas) for energy generation with solar (including wind), hydro and geothermal sources.

I actually agree with this, and this is actually happening to some extent, despite the rantings of the anti ethanol lobby, anti nuke lobby, anti drilling lobby, and anti hydrogen lobby. Our current largest problem is currently dealing with the ADHD manner that this country tends to operate in, expecting to be able to throw problems into a microwave oven, zap it for a minute, and viola! a solution is cooked up.

Let’s face it - solar is the end game for energy generation. 1366 W of solar energy, per sq. meter, hit the earth’s outer atmosphere. Enough solar energy falls on the planet each day to power it for a year. But until then - it is perfectly fine for the other 22% of us to use a little oil in the form of E85 or even plain old gasoline. We don’t have to wait to do something until it includes 100% of the cases. That is simply a diversion from the solution.

I agree that solar is the end game. Look up Nanosolar on google. They've broken the dollar a watt barrier on panels, and their entire production capacity for the next two years is spoken for, for industrial application. I've heard of price targets for thin film flexible polymer panels to eventually be as low as thirty CENTS per watt. I want some of these buck-a-watt panels for my house.

Eventually, battery technology will improve in energy density and recharge time will be reduced to meet more and more people’s needs. Keep in mind that hydrogen takes significantly more energy to manufacture, compress and store than simply charging a battery. Said another way – one could drive further if the energy to manufacture, compress and store hydrogen were simply used to charge a battery. Today's fuel cells are only about 50% efficient and typically rely on Li Ion batteries to provide the high current levels needed to accelerate a vehicle. Hydrogen does not make sense.

This is where you fall apart. Eventually hydrogen's cost to extract will come down as well, along with storage and range issues will be addressed. With your solar utopia, the energy input will no longer matter, as you will be dealing with plenty free excess energy to obtain your hydrogen. It'll be a similar situation that Iceleand is in currently with their limitless geothermal resources. They have so much energy available just barely underground, that they are able to make all the hydrogen they want, and last I read, this is the alternative energy they are focusing on.

The DOT estimates that 85% of the passenger cars and light trucks could recharge during off-peak hours without the need to add a single wire or power plant to the existing grid. Spending Billions and Billions of dollars on a technology that does not make sense from a physics stand point - and that will not be ready for ten to fifteen years (DOT estimates 2025) only diverts the country from the available solution.

I am aware of this. This does not mean however, that there will be zero need for future updating of the grid. With some 600 million automobiles on the road, to eventually have 100% of them all be plug in hybrids, you will most certainly be forced to spend tens if not hundreds of billions in updating the grid, as well as the power generation infrastructure to handle it. Plug in hybrids are no more of a "free" solution than hydrogen, biomass fuels, wind and solar.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by Wolfman01

Sorry, but that 10 to 15 years away is the same straw man argument that our criminally inept left wing politicians are using to stonewall new domestic energy development. You will never reach a viable point, if you never research the technology at all, simply becuase it "isn't today's solution." Even your making every vehicle a plug in Volt like hybrid would take more than a decade to see it's full potential, due to the market's typical vehicle replacement intervals. As for spending billions on infrastructure development. That equivalent had to be spent to make gasoline available as readily as it is today, back when cars first started scaring horses in cities back in the 1900's. As for spending that money, I'd much rather our government spend those billions on insuring our energy independence, over spending the TRILLIONS they currently are in trying to secure "cheap" oil in the M.E. Contrary to what is spoon-fed to us in our own propaganda machine, we are NOT in Iraq for the goodness of those people. Consider that money a subsidy on oil.

The point is that we do not have to wait 10 – 15 years and spend billions of dollars on a completely new and otherwise complete unnecessary hydrogen infrastructure. We do not have to continue to buy oil from the Middle East if we simply apply the technology we have now in PHEV’s. The more we focus on solutions that are decades away – the longer we buy oil. Energy independence can be accomplished in less than ten years if we focus on that goal. Again – in less time than it will take to roll out hydrogen – we could solve the problem for billions less. Money is a limited resource and we could do a lot of good with that money rather than spend it on a science project that does not make sense. The money we are spending on the war in Iraq could pay for 100% of 85 million Volts. We need far fewer than that to make us energy independent – or we can continue down the decade’s path to a hydrogen economy…..

Originally Posted by Wolfman01

It absolutely IS rational. Technological advancment isn't going to suddenly come to a screeching halt. As technology advances, other options become more feaseable. It's called planning for the future. You do plan for your retirement right? It's probably a safe bet that you aren't going to be retiring in the next year or two, so why bother now? Is it irrational to plan for 10, 20, 30 or more years into the future?

Plan with your eyes open. The solution has to make sense. Energy cost money and consumes resources – even if it is solar based. Hydrogen takes far more energy than simply charging a battery.

Originally Posted by Wolfman01

This is where you fall apart. Eventually hydrogen's cost to extract will come down as well, along with storage and range issues will be addressed. With your solar utopia, the energy input will no longer matter, as you will be dealing with plenty free excess energy to obtain your hydrogen. It'll be a similar situation that Iceleand is in currently with their limitless geothermal resources. They have so much energy available just barely underground, that they are able to make all the hydrogen they want, and last I read, this is the alternative energy they are focusing on.

The energy needed to make hydrogen does not make sense independent of the source. If you get the energy from the sun for “free” (you realize that it really isn’t free) you could still drive farther by simply putting the energy into a battery. You can speculate all you want about the future – it does not change the facts. I’m not saying that we can’t make hydrogen work – I am asking why would we want to?

Originally Posted by Wolfman01

I am aware of this. This does not mean however, that there will be zero need for future updating of the grid. With some 600 million automobiles on the road, to eventually have 100% of them all be plug in hybrids, you will most certainly be forced to spend tens if not hundreds of billions in updating the grid, as well as the power generation infrastructure to handle it. Plug in hybrids are no more of a "free" solution than hydrogen, biomass fuels, wind and solar.

I think you mean 60 million not 600. I’m sure you realize that it will take a long time to reach the 85% mark under which we will need zero infrastructure upgrade. When we do eventually have to upgrade the existing infrastructure, an infrastructure that we are already completely dependent on, we will – how in the world could that be a bad thing. Again, this isn’t infrastructure we are creating to solve a problem incorrectly but rather enhancement to absolutely critical infrastructure that we have already committed to and already invested billions in. Do you get the difference?