ITM-Power Claims Polymer Membrane Breakthrough in Hydrogen Electrolysers

[Maetrix66]

So, basically, what you are saying is that this is breaking down another of the 100 or so inefficiencies of fuel cell technology.

1 down, 99 to go!

I think that the end result of all os this R&D is that eventually, we will charge up a battery overnight, and use the stored electrical charge, in addition to filtered tap water, to provide propulsion. I never see fuel cells as being able to produce enough energy to be self sustaining as well as drive a vehicle, but I think they may end up serving to extend the range of EV's.

But that's just my take on it.

[steve333]

Originally Posted by HotCarNut

Still doesn't solve hydrogen's biggest problem: lack of infrastructure. The true obstacle is the billions (and possibly trillions) of dollars that would have to be spent to build an infrastructure (manufacturing, transportation, new filling stations, different automotive designs, supplier setup, safety standards, etc). At the end of the day, the cost of the fuel cell is minor.

Oil companies should be forced to pay for it.
The choice-
A windfall profits tax or
Put Hydrogen pumps in every gas station

Its in their best interests to put in pumps that they can make some money from when oil consumption drops.

[steve333]

Originally Posted by edsuski

The basic problem continues to be that it takes more energy to make hydrogen than it would to simply charge a battery (per mile driven). The physics simply does not make sense. It is not that we can not make a hydrogen fuel cell work as a battery in a car - the question is why would we want to? Again - it is less efficient than a battery. The infrastructure to refuel does not exist and, by conservative estimates, is at least ten years and billions of dollars away (assuming we actually start). In stark comparison, the infrastructure to refuel plug-in electric vehicles is 100% deployed to virtually every home and business in America. The infrastructure to power the range extenders (gasoline, E85, etc.) in plug-in electric vehicles such as the Volt are also 100% deployed (may only be needed along freeways/highways in which case it is "over deployed").

Plug-in electric vehicles, like the Volt, will make America energy independent. Hydrogen is a diversion from the solution. A great science project - but still a diversion that continues to keep us hooked on foreign oil.

You do realize that millions of people do not have access to an outlet with which to charge the car?
Apartment dwellers for one. And there are a heck of a lot of them! Not every home has a garage either.
Electric will never be the whole answer, just a part of it for those with access to outlets.

[Rocket 88]

Originally Posted by steve333

You do realize that millions of people do not have access to an outlet with which to charge the car?
Apartment dwellers for one. And there are a heck of a lot of them! Not every home has a garage either.
Electric will never be the whole answer, just a part of it for those with access to outlets.

It is a reasonable point, but it seems like this problem would get resolved if plug in technology became common place.

If you have a car you are parking it somewhere. Where ever that is just needs electricity.

People in homes without garages could use something similar to an extension cord. People in aparments either park in a garage, lot or on the street. In all three cases a device like a parking meter could provide a means to pay for an electical hook up.

[ronald mcretard]

Originally Posted by edsuski

But the whole point is that less energy - from whatever source you choose, can be used to charge a battery directly and you will get more range per W-hr using a battery than a fuel cell. Of course, you realize that batteries can be charged by any source including Coal, nuclear, hydro-electric, wind, solar etc. etc. Today, the storage capacity is somewhat limited to, in the case of the Tesla, 200+ miles or 40 miles in the Volt - after which time you will need to recharge the battery or simply utilize a range extender (i.e. the Volts ICE), but keep in mind that 78% of the people in America drive 40 miles or less each day (14,500 miles per year).



I think we have to be careful how we use the term "efficiency". A fuel cell is simply a battery that needs not only energy input, but essentially a change of electrolyte to work. Batteries take energy in and convert it into chemical energy for storage (they recharge their existing electrolyte). Fuel cells take energy to "energize" their electrolyte (make hydrogen) and that new electrolyte needs to be supplied to the fuel cell which then depletes both the energy and the electrolyte in operation - at about 50% efficiency. You can't simply plug in a fuel cell and recharge it. You have to "recharge" the electrolyte first and then add it to a fuel cell (in the form of hydrogen). It is then burned with oxygen and recombines to make water that is tossed out the tail pipe. Converting that same water back into hydrogen is far less efficient than simply charging a battery.

As for storage - The energy per Lb of hydrogen vs., for example, a Li Ion battery system (including the fuel cell) may be higher as you require the system to be able to travel greater and greater distances - but keep in mind that 78% of the commuters travel less than 40 miles per day to and from work. This means the 78% of us could STOP buying oil from the Middle East and save about 80% on our automotive fuel bills at the same time. Of course, as batteries increase in capacity (energy density) and/or reduce the time needed to recharge - fuel cells will continue to make even less sense.

Oh - and by the way - the infrastructure to refuel plug-in electric vehicles is 100% done with ZERO additional investment needed until after 85% of the passanger vehicles and light trucks are plug-in electric. Hydrogen infrastructure - 10+ years (minimum) and billions of dollars away. Hydrogen is simply a diversion to keep us dependent on oil....

I don't understand this mode of thinking. You seem like a smart person, so why are you discouraging advanced research?

Hydrogen has a lot of potential benefits over battery electrics. The most obvious being a quick fill-up time. I don't see quick battery charging any time soon (because of safety concerns - you need either a huge current or a huge voltage and neither is particularly safe).

Plus, who knows what the cost comparisons will be 10 years from now? Maybe we will hit a wall with battery technology but fuel cells will continue to improve and get cheaper. My point is you are dismissing it to easily.

Also, why are you saying hydrogen will keep us addicted to oil? That makes no sense to me. When alternative sources of renewable electricity are available (solar, wind), you can make hydrogen with no oil input... hell, you could make it right in your garage...

[KingElvis]

Originally Posted by JeffInDFW

Disclaimer: This is not my area of expertise, so I really am asking here!

The article says "This membraine separates hydrogen from oxygen". So it seems to me like this vehicle would not be buying hydrogen. Hydrogen and oxygen.....would this be something where you put water in the tank and this membrane separates the hydrogen and oxygen allowing you to burn the hydrogen and off gas the oxygen???

When 'air' - that is atmosphere not oxygen alone - combines with hydrogen, the result is they combine to produce water, which goes out the tailpipe - and electricity, which powers the Electric motor.

So you just put in hydrogen, not 'oxygen' too. Liquid or pure oxygen would be ultra dangerous for people to handle.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by ronald mcretard

I don't understand this mode of thinking. You seem like a smart person, so why are you discouraging advanced research?...

I apologize if I was not being clear enough with my thoughts. Let me try to be clearer.

Please keep in mind that I do not want to discourage "research" (or debate). Research is generally conducted in laboratories and/or on proving grounds. "research" is usually scrutinized by the scientific method and more often than not, makes sense from a basic science and financial point of view. What we are seeing with respect to hydrogen fuel cells, for automotive applications, is not basic research but rather advanced marketing of the idea. GM alone has built over 100 test vehicles that are developed enough to be given to the public and driven on public roads. Governments have spent billions of our tax dollars on promoting this "idea" when it doesn't seem to make sense from a simple physics point of view. It simply takes more energy to make hydrogen (especially if it is done with water as most people seem to think it will be done) than it would to charge a battery to drive as far. It also does not seem to make sense from a financial sense because it is not a viable business plan until you have the ability to refuel the vehicle. By the most conservative estimates it will take ten plus years and billions of dollars to provide the needed infrastructure.

If it is true that 78% of the commuters in America drive less than 40 miles per day (14,500+ miles per year) and that a 40 mile range can be accommodated with existing battery technology that has the infrastructure to be recharged in virtually 100% of the homes today - why do we need hydrogen? If you are part of the 22% of commuters that happen to drive more than 40 miles per day you can always use the internal combustion engine (ICE) in a "Volt like" vehicle to extend your range. It will run on a variety of flex-fuels such as E85 or even regular old gasoline. If you extend the commute by 50% to 60 miles a day (22,000/year) it would seem like you could cover over 90% of the drivers in the country. The result would be that 78% of the country would need ZERO gasoline to commute to and from work and the next 12% would use very little (60 - 150 MPG). Don't restrict your thinking to the corner cases where people want to drive across country or commute 250 miles per day to and from work. They can still use a flexible fuel to do that. The other 78% - 90% will use zero or very little oil. That small amount of oil usage will continue to go down as we find improvements in battery energy density and/or reduction in charge times and, maybe most importantly, can be supplied domestically - without the dependence on foreign oil.

Originally Posted by ronald mcretard

Hydrogen has a lot of potential benefits over battery electrics. The most obvious being a quick fill-up time. I don't see quick battery charging any time soon (because of safety concerns - you need either a huge current or a huge voltage and neither is particularly safe)....

You state that "Hydrogen has a lot of potential benefits over battery electrics." But you only list one - "quick fill up" times. I truly do not want to discourage discussion. Exactly the opposite - please articulate the other "benefits" when you have a chance.

Let’s look at the often claimed benefit of "quick fill up times". Of course what you are thinking about (I assume) is the need to recharge for as long as 6 hours to completely replenish a 40 mile range. Now as we have stated - 78% of Americans drive less than 40 miles per day. So for this group - recharging over night, during off peak times, should not be an issue. People driving further (an exponentially decreasing number as the needed range increases) will simply use a flex fuel to extend their range and then recharge over night as usual as well as occasionally (maybe once every other month) stop at the local gas station to top off the flex fuel (including just plain old - widely available - gasoline). To recharge a plug-in electric vehicle it will take several seconds to plug in your car each night (lets say 15 seconds to connect and 5 seconds to disconnect) - at least until a smart guy like yourself develops an automobile docking station that you simply drive into at night. This will amount to 140 seconds (2 1/3 minutes) of your time per week to fill up a plug-in electric vehicle (assuming 40 miles per day – those of us who commute half that distance will need to recharge half as much)

Conversely to refuel a hydrogen fuel cell today - some people would have to drive hundreds of miles to find the nearest hydrogen refueling station (since there are only a few cities in the country that have any – I know this isn’t a fair way to debate) and even if they were in one of the test markets and the station just happened to be "on their way home" from work it would take far more than 2 1/3 minutes to pull into the station, get out of the vehicle, negotiate the payment, insert that refueling hose(s), fill the hydrogen tank and then remove the hose and get back into the car and drive away. I think you get my point - normal fill ups - even after we had spent the billions of dollars to put the hydrogen infrastructure in place, and continued to burn oil for the next ten years while we did so, would take longer with hydrogen than with plug-in electric. Remember - across country trips would use the flex fuel extenders and have the same 300-400 mile range of the average automobile today.

Originally Posted by ronald mcretard

Plus, who knows what the cost comparisons will be 10 years from now? Maybe we will hit a wall with battery technology but fuel cells will continue to improve and get cheaper. My point is you are dismissing it to easily.....

Maybe - but maybe not. Are you willing to bet billions of dollars of your tax money on it and continue to depend on oil from the Middle East until we know? What I am suggesting is that we have the technology available TODAY to accomplish energy independence and significantly reduce pollution while saving the consumer roughly 80% on his/her vehicle fuel cost without spending billions of dollars putting an "oil like" hydrogen infrastructure in place. Oil like because it will likely be made in refineries, shipped to stations in tanker trucks and dispensed through pumps into automobiles. I’m sure this is very attractive to the existing oil companies.

Or we could simply use the existing 110V plug in our homes/garages/car ports or charging stands for our friends in apartments and refuel our cars while we sleep. The cost of fuel cells is not the issue. Our ability to “Make it work” is not the issue. The issue is – does it really make sense to do it?

Originally Posted by ronald mcretard

Also, why are you saying hydrogen will keep us addicted to oil? That makes no sense to me. When alternative sources of renewable electricity are available (solar, wind), you can make hydrogen with no oil input... hell, you could make it right in your garage...

This is a common misconception. The most likely sources for hydrogen are hydrocarbon fuels such as natural gas, petroleum products etc. What almost everyone thinks about is water. However - extracting hydrogen from water takes a lot more energy to do than if you were simply to charge a battery. Said another way - the exact energy used to perform hydrolysis on water, compress the hydrogen gas to 5 or 10 thousand PSI for storage in a vehicle - would result in significantly more mileage if you were simply to charge a battery in the first place. Again - batteries are not likely to work for across country trips, at least not until we get the energy density up to the point where we can have 400 mile range and recharge in 10 minutes or less. As you pointed out - fast charging would take lots of current (almost 500 amps) but on the other hand - maybe you would simply drop one battery pack off and pick up another that was fully charged in an automated fashion, much like driving through a car wash?

As long as people can convince the public that they are “working on the clean renewable solution” – in this case the hydrogen myth – that happens to be 10 plus years away (the DOT estimates it will take until 2025 to have the needed infrastructure) we will continue to buy oil form the Middle East and make some huge multinational energy companies very rich. I am simply suggesting that the longer we stay dependent on oil – the more money these companies and countries will make. This just might be the motivation to “convince” the public that hydrogen (or any other long lead-time solution) is the “right” one. We have a solution today – why wait?

Please - what are the benefits of hydrogen?

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by steve333

You do realize that millions of people do not have access to an outlet with which to charge the car?
Apartment dwellers for one. And there are a heck of a lot of them! Not every home has a garage either.
Electric will never be the whole answer, just a part of it for those with access to outlets.

Let’s think about this for a moment. My wife and I pay about $400 per month to drive about 350 miles per week (two vehicles - about 25 miles per day). If we used plug-in electric vehicles - even in Southern CA (expensive electricity) we would pay only $56 dollars for the electricity. That would save us almost $300.00 per month. I think that we could get a plug installed by an electrician next to where we parked our cars (O.K. not everyone in the country - but most of us) for less than what we would be saving in a three month period.

Besides -might the local electric company consider subsidizing such installations in order to collect an additional $50 (remember you are still saving $300) from you each month? I think they would. My point is that getting electricity to your car at night is much easier to do than developing a nationwide hydrogen infrastructure. Most of us already have a plug in our garage, car port or within range of our driveways (where is that nice thick extension cord?). I think to save $300 per month - a lot of us will figure out how to solve the problem..... How about you Steve – how would you solve the problem?

[slowinthefastlane]

Originally Posted by HotCarNut

Still doesn't solve hydrogen's biggest problem: lack of infrastructure. The true obstacle is the billions (and possibly trillions) of dollars that would have to be spent to build an infrastructure (manufacturing, transportation, new filling stations, different automotive designs, supplier setup, safety standards, etc). At the end of the day, the cost of the fuel cell is minor.

The infrastructure is really the same as an electric car.

If you have a water connection and an electrical outlet in your garage, then you have your own filling station. May not fill up the car very quickly, but it should produce enough hydrogen to fill it up overnight.

Hydrogen is a very lightweight battery, plain and simple. It's a way to portably store a lot of energy. Sure, it may require a lot of energy to produce it, but electric cars have a lot of energy waste, too - they need to haul around hundreds of pounds of battery weight.

Hydrogen is also nice in that it can be produced from several different sources - electricity, biomass, petroleum, etc.

[slowinthefastlane]

Originally Posted by edsuski

Or we could simply use the existing 110V plug in our homes/garages/car ports or charging stands for our friends in apartments and refuel our cars while we sleep. The cost of fuel cells is not the issue. Our ability to “Make it work” is not the issue. The issue is – does it really make sense to do it?

You could do this with hydrogen, too. Create a device that takes electricity from a socket, water from the tap, compresses and fills the car. If you have solar panels on your roof, the device could be creating hydrogen all day, storing it in a tank in your garage, waiting for you to connect your car.

BTW, the energy required to charge an electric car won't necessarily come "while you sleep" from a 110V outlet. The Tesla roadster will require more than 24 hours to charge on a standard 110V outlet. Half that if plugged into a standard 220V dryer outlet, and less than half that if plugged into a high-amperage 220V outlet (which will require a panel upgrade in your house). That's just to power a roadster. A full-sized car will require more energy.

Originally Posted by edsuski

This is a common misconception. The most likely sources for hydrogen are hydrocarbon fuels such as natural gas, petroleum products etc. What almost everyone thinks about is water. However - extracting hydrogen from water takes a lot more energy to do than if you were simply to charge a battery. Said another way - the exact energy used to perform hydrolysis on water, compress the hydrogen gas to 5 or 10 thousand PSI for storage in a vehicle - would result in significantly more mileage if you were simply to charge a battery in the first place. Again - batteries are not likely to work for across country trips, at least not until we get the energy density up to the point where we can have 400 mile range and recharge in 10 minutes or less. As you pointed out - fast charging would take lots of current (almost 500 amps) but on the other hand - maybe you would simply drop one battery pack off and pick up another that was fully charged in an automated fashion, much like driving through a car wash?

Electrolysis could be accomplished through nuclear power, solar power, wind power, etc. Hydrogen doesn't have to come from petroleum.

A hydrogen tank is a battery. A very light battery. The energy density is very, very high if compressed. Taking the Tesla as an example again, its battery pack weighs almost 1000 lbs. There's a large amount of energy loss just hauling around that 1000 lb battery - not to mention the energy loss in charging the battery due to its internal resistance (given off as heat during the charging process), and energy loss to keep the battery at an optimal operating temperature (the Tesla's battery is heated and cooled). Once you take all of these things into account, electrolysis doesn't seem so bad.

The fast charge scenario of battery swapping likely won't work with 1000 lb batteries either. We'll need massive improvements in battery technology to get the weights down.

The question is, which will happen first - will battery tech improve or will fuel cell tech catch up? The next few years will be interesting indeed.

[ronald mcretard]

edsuski, I mostly agree with you regarding the fact that PHEVs will work fine for most of the population. But what about specialized vehicles that need a longer range or a quick fill-up time? Some examples would be tractor-trailers that travel hundreds of miles in a day, taxis and delivery trucks, and Greyhound buses. You could even throw trains in there I guess.

None of those examples would require extensive infrastructure (tractor-trailers would only need refill stations on major highways and depot centers, taxis and delivery trucks only at centralized locations, etc.) and they require the ability to re-fuel in minutes, not hours.

Again, I agree BEVs make more sense for you and me, but you have to keep in mind that a range of solutions will be required. The reason gasoline has such a strangle-hold on us is because it works for EVERY situation. There will not be another such solution for some time.

As far as your argument against government funding, I can think of much bigger money pits but I won't bring them up here, you can probably think of many yourself. My thinking is that this type of research is worth the risk.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by ronald mcretard

edsuski, I mostly agree with you regarding the fact that PHEVs will work fine for most of the population. But what about specialized vehicles that need a longer range or a quick fill-up time? Some examples would be tractor-trailers that travel hundreds of miles in a day, taxis and delivery trucks, and Greyhound buses. You could even throw trains in there I guess.

None of those examples would require extensive infrastructure (tractor-trailers would only need refill stations on major highways and depot centers, taxis and delivery trucks only at centralized locations, etc.) and they require the ability to re-fuel in minutes, not hours.

The bottom line is that plug-in electric vehicles are not for every application. There may be applications that hydrogen makes sense for - passenger vehicles is not one of them. As for the use of electric vehicles in transporting goods – some trains today use diesel engines running at their most efficient speeds to drive electric generators and power electric motors.

Keep in mind that we do not have to stop using all oil. We should try to stop using foreign oil. As I'm sure you realize - our dependence on foreign oil has caused a lot of problems for America. We do have a significant amount of domestic oil that could easily power specific applications that do not lend themselves to batteries - at least not until we improve the technology.

Originally Posted by ronald mcretard

As far as your argument against government funding, I can think of much bigger money pits but I won't bring them up here, you can probably think of many yourself. My thinking is that this type of research is worth the risk.

I think that the government helping to fund our energy independence is one of the most important things government can and should do. The debate is what technology makes the most sense. Today - plug-in electric vehicles make the most sense. Hydrogen simply delays or independence and continues to funnel billions of dollars over seas. Thank for the discussion.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

The infrastructure is really the same as an electric car.

If you have a water connection and an electrical outlet in your garage, then you have your own filling station. May not fill up the car very quickly, but it should produce enough hydrogen to fill it up overnight..

Not even close. I'm sure you have electricity in your garage and probably water as well - if not, grab a bucket and bring in some water. If what you say is true - go ahead and convert that water into Hydrogen and compress it to 5 - 10 thousand psi. Let us know how that works for you. The needed infrastructure to support hydrogen fuel cells is, according to the department of transportation, not going to be available until at least 2025. If this is the way you want to go – we can simply continue to buy oil form the Middle East until then. Or – we could spend the billions we are currently wasting on hydrogen fuel cells and the 10’s of billions we would need to build the hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure on making plug-in electric vehicles and end our dependence on foreign oil in less than a decade.

Besides - the point is not weather it is possible to do something, we "could" send a rocket ship to land on the sun but it would not make a lot of sense - would it? Hydrogen takes more energy to make than it would take to simply charge a battery to drive the same distance. 110V outlets exist in virtually every home in the country therefore the infrastructure is 100% deployed today...

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

Hydrogen is a very lightweight battery, plain and simple. It's a way to portably store a lot of energy. Sure, it may require a lot of energy to produce it, but electric cars have a lot of energy waste, too - they need to haul around hundreds of pounds of battery weight..

Hydrogen is a fuel - not a battery. When you make the hydrogen in your garage - see if you can get it to light up a light bulb.

Hydrogen is essentially burned in a fuel cell and exhausted out the exhaust in the form or water. A hydrogen fuel cell not only requires more energy than a battery, it is also only 50% efficient and requires replacement of the electrolyte to operate. On the other hand - Li Ion batteries simply convert electrical energy into chemical energy and then release that energy to the electric motor. All that is needed to recharge the battery is energy - the electrolyte is reused. Of course - the energy required to drive a mile in a plug-in electric vehicle is less than is needed to do the same in a Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (all things being equal).

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

Hydrogen is also nice in that it can be produced from several different sources - electricity, biomass, petroleum, etc.

Any source used to make energy to make hydrogen can be used to charge a battery - only the amount of energy needed is significantly less.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

You could do this with hydrogen, too. Create a device that takes electricity from a socket, water from the tap, compresses and fills the car. If you have solar panels on your roof, the device could be creating hydrogen all day, storing it in a tank in your garage, waiting for you to connect your car..

The problem with this, beside the fact that in home hydrogen generating machines do not exist and are likely to be very expensive, is that it takes more energy to make hydrogen than it would to simply charge a battery. The basic physics does not make sense. Read that last sentence again please.

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

BTW, the energy required to charge an electric car won't necessarily come "while you sleep" from a 110V outlet. The Tesla roadster will require more than 24 hours to charge on a standard 110V outlet. Half that if plugged into a standard 220V dryer outlet, and less than half that if plugged into a high-amperage 220V outlet (which will require a panel upgrade in your house). That's just to power a roadster. A full-sized car will require more energy..

Actually, the Chevy Volt will charge using a standard 110V outlet in 6 hours. 78% of us in America will be able to commute to and from work without buying any gasoline. People who commute farther will need to use the built in range extender and some form or flex fuel. The first Tesla does not have a range extender.

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

Electrolysis could be accomplished through nuclear power, solar power, wind power, etc. Hydrogen doesn't have to come from petroleum. .

The source for hydrogen molecules is often a petroleum based substance. I realize that most people think of hydrogen as coming from water – but the reality is that electrolysis requires quite a large amount of energy and is even less efficient.

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

A hydrogen tank is a battery. A very light battery. The energy density is very, very high if compressed. Taking the Tesla as an example again, its battery pack weighs almost 1000 lbs. There's a large amount of energy loss just hauling around that 1000 lb battery - not to mention the energy loss in charging the battery due to its internal resistance (given off as heat during the charging process), and energy loss to keep the battery at an optimal operating temperature (the Tesla's battery is heated and cooled). Once you take all of these things into account, electrolysis doesn't seem so bad..

As stated in an earlier post – hydrogen is a fuel not a battery. Hydrogen is burned in a fuel cell and converted into water. If you think a battery gets warm when you charge it – just wait until you see the temperature of a gas that you compress from 15 psi to 10,000 psi. Remember PV= nRT

[slowinthefastlane]

Originally Posted by edsuski

Not even close. I'm sure you have electricity in your garage and probably water as well - if not, grab a bucket and bring in some water. If what you say is true - go ahead and convert that water into Hydrogen and compress it to 5 - 10 thousand psi. Let us know how that works for you. The needed infrastructure to support hydrogen fuel cells is, according to the department of transportation, not going to be available until at least 2025. If this is the way you want to go – we can simply continue to buy oil form the Middle East until then. Or – we could spend the billions we are currently wasting on hydrogen fuel cells and the 10’s of billions we would need to build the hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure on making plug-in electric vehicles and end our dependence on foreign oil in less than a decade.

Sure - you need a power source, water purifier, some sort of electrolyzer, a hydrogen purifier, compressor, and pressure vessels. Doesn't work? Don't tell that to these guys:

Here's a few that use solar power or single-phase AC and water to produce hydrogen:

http://www.nfcrc.uci.edu/2/ACTIVITIE...omeFueler.aspx
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/busin...8988/index.htm
http://www.siei.org/

Honda has a home energy station that uses natural gas for the FCX Clarity:

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

This is similar to the system they had employed to fuel natural gas powered Honda Civics in garages.

These seem more feasible than the development of a lightweight chemical battery that can accept a massive amount of current for fast-charging and store enough energy to move a normal-sized car for a decent distance. At least these home hydrogen stations exist in labs now.

Originally Posted by edsuski

Hydrogen is a fuel - not a battery. When you make the hydrogen in your garage - see if you can get it to light up a light bulb.

Hydrogen + Oxygen = Chemical Energy. Sure it's not electricity, but any type of energy can be converted into electricity. A tank of hydrogen is a lightweight, convenient way to store a lot of energy - just as the gasoline tank is a very convenient way to store a lot of energy in your current car. In contrast, a LiIon battery is a very heavy, expensive, and bulky way to store a lot of energy. It is very efficient, but also very limiting.

Originally Posted by edsuski

Hydrogen is essentially burned in a fuel cell and exhausted out the exhaust in the form or water. A hydrogen fuel cell not only requires more energy than a battery, it is also only 50% efficient and requires replacement of the electrolyte to operate.

Currently, yes. However, the efficiency can be increased over time. 50% doesn't sound so bad when you consider that a standard Otto-cycle gasoline engine only achieves about 60% thermal efficiency - and they've been in development for over 100 years.

Originally Posted by edsuski

On the other hand - Li Ion batteries simply convert electrical energy into chemical energy and then release that energy to the electric motor. All that is needed to recharge the battery is energy - the electrolyte is reused. Of course - the energy required to drive a mile in a plug-in electric vehicle is less than is needed to do the same in a Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (all things being equal).

Chemical batteries have a limited number of charge/discharge cycles. You need to replace the whole thing after awhile. You also need to mine hundreds of pounds of material out of the earth or recover it from brine pools. After that, you need to refine it, and ship it around the world to make the battery cells. That's not all that energy efficient and will create other material shortages. Also, you would be substituting one non-domestic material (Oil) for another (Lithium or Nickel). That would be trading one problem for another - especially since China is the emerging leader in Lithium production.

Oh, BTW - you never addressed the inherent energy loss in dragging around 1000lbs worth of battery.

I'm not saying that chemical battery powered electrical cars - I just don't see them as being the end-all be-all solution. Hydrogen, on the other hand, can fuel all types of vehicles.