ITM-Power Claims Polymer Membrane Breakthrough in Hydrogen Electrolysers

[steve333]

Originally Posted by Rocket 88

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.

Then that means the infrastructure isnt completely in place for plug-ins either. And no landlord is going to pay for hook-ups throughout the entire garage.
Plug-ins are only part of the solution, it can't be the only one.

[steve333]

Originally Posted by edsuski

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?

Well, considering that I park on the street I would solve the problem by not buying an electric car.
Electric cars aren't the future in my opinion, I think hybrids with engines using E-85, and then transitioning to hydrogen, which I feel will be the answer.
I vote for Hydrogen.

[Rocket 88]

Originally Posted by steve333

Then that means the infrastructure isnt completely in place for plug-ins either. And no landlord is going to pay for hook-ups throughout the entire garage.
Plug-ins are only part of the solution, it can't be the only one.

Originally Posted by steve333

Well, considering that I park on the street I would solve the problem by not buying an electric car.
Electric cars aren't the future in my opinion, I think hybrids with engines using E-85, and then transitioning to hydrogen, which I feel will be the answer.
I vote for Hydrogen.

IMO Landlords would pay for the hook ups if they recouped the money or could profit from providing electric service. Trust me, I'm a landlord and its possible. Renting parking spaces is lucrative business. Renting parking spaces and charging for an electric hook up could be too. I'm not suggesting they would do it out of charity.

For street parkers a system could easily be provided, but the alternate choice is that your electric vehicle just would not be plugged in and would utilize a small internal combustion engine or fuel cell to generate its own electricity.

But the infastructure issues are not that large.

Think of when the automobile first showed up. Could you imagine saying we need a gazillion gasoline stations all storing thousands of gallons of fuel and what the cost for that would look like.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by steve333

Well, considering that I park on the street I would solve the problem by not buying an electric car.
Electric cars aren't the future in my opinion, I think hybrids with engines using E-85, and then transitioning to hydrogen, which I feel will be the answer.
I vote for Hydrogen.

Plug-in electric vehicles are not for everyone. Luckily - they don't have to be for everyone or every purpose to make sense.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

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. .

So I guess it is not quite as simple as having electricity and water in the garage and some place to store the hydrogen. I’ll take the 110V plug that already exists in my garage and still have room for cars.

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

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. .

Luckily – for 78% of us to stop buying oil there is no need for any lighter weight chemical batteries that can accept a massive amount of current. The needed batteries exist today –just ask the guys at GM or A123 etc.

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

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. .

A grain of sand is also a very good way to store a lot of energy (E=mc^2), but like hydrogen – it to is more difficult to use than a battery.

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

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. .

Batteries are way more efficient than 50% today.

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

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. .

Take a look at the A123 web site. They are claiming that their batteries (proposed batteries for the Volt) can be charged and discharged every day for ten years and still maintain 86% of there capacity. Since the Volt design actually uses two 8 KW cells – the loss of a mere 14% is not an issue.

Also keep in mind that hydrogen fuel cells do not like to provide high levels of current and are thus mated with Li Ion batteries. Both technologies are dependent on Li Ion batteries. Fuel cell cars typically use a single 8KW cell.

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

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

The batteris for the Volt are 400 Lbs - the batteries for the typical hydrogen fuel cell car are 200 Lbs.

F=ma What can I say. A Plug-in electric vehicle has twice the batteries of a fuel cell vehicle but it does not have a fuel tank designed to contain the worlds smallest molecule at 5,000 – 10,000 PSI nor does it have a hydrogen fuel cell. So we end up with a difference of (200 lbs – (weight of fuel cell plus hydrogen tank)). What do you think we are talking about – maybe one hundred pounds more for a vheicle that weighs 3000+ Lbs? Maybe 3% more weight due to the batteries. Not really that much. Still way more efficient to use a battery (that 50% efficiency thing is hard to compensate for).

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

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.

Not today – not widely – and maybe never as efficiently. Why invest billions on infrastructure that, according to the DOE, will take until 2025 to complete when we have the needed infrastructure to stop using imported oil today?