# Daimler Chief Sees Hydrogen Cars By 2015



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

Dieter Zetsche sees hydrogen-powered cars will be ready for the mass market by 2015, but infrastructure will be needed.

More...


----------



## paker (Jun 20, 2008)

They better start jumping on getting an infrastructure going if they think hydrogen will fly in 2015.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Hydrogen is a big of scam as ethanol. Hydrogen is not a fuel, it is a carrier.


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

I don't much like the idea of Hydrogen either, but how is it not a fuel? Does Hydrogen not "oxidize" by combining with Oxygen to produce energy, the same way gas does?


----------



## CFreeman54 (Jan 14, 2009)

Yes, and if hydrogen is a good enough fuel for a rocket or the space shuttle it certainly has enough energy to power a car.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a carrier and has a negative EROI like a battery. 

The most popular and efficient source for making hydrogen is fossil fuels. Secondly is electrolysis which is very inefficient. 

There is just too many other fuel sources that exist for a hydrogen economy to exist like EV's which all the technology and infrastructure are already in place.


----------



## ga2500ev (Apr 20, 2008)

News Bot said:


> Dieter Zetsche sees hydrogen-powered cars will be ready for the mass market by 2015, but infrastructure will be needed.


Infrastructure is the only reason that EVs are not a viable solution. And unlike all liquid fuels, electricity doesn't require a physical connection for transfer. You can charge a car while it's running on the road, if the road had the infrastructure in place to pull it off.

ga2500ev


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Sunking said:


> Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a carrier and has a negative EROI like a battery.
> 
> The most popular and efficient source for making hydrogen is fossil fuels. Secondly is electrolysis which is very inefficient.
> 
> There is just too many other fuel sources that exist for a hydrogen economy to exist like EV's which all the technology and infrastructure are already in place.


Exactly correct.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

ga2500ev said:


> Infrastructure is the only reason that EVs are not a viable solution.


How do you figure? Outlets are everywhere, most charging is done at home, over night. It will be much easier to install high powered charging stations than to build an entire hydrogen infrastructure from scratch. As battery range increases and prices come down larger battery packs will require fewer charging stations, not more.


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2009)

namyzarc said:


> I don't much like the idea of Hydrogen either, but how is it not a fuel? Does Hydrogen not "oxidize" by combining with Oxygen to produce energy, the same way gas does?


As Sunkinga said, you have to get the hydrogen from somewhere, you can either crack fossil fuels, which is wasteful (you may as well just burn them in the car) or you have to electrolyse them. 

Electrolysis is about 25% efficient from what I understand, so basically what you're doing is you're taking the basic concept of an electric car and cutting the efficiency by 3/4 and then filling it up with an extraordinarily high pressure explosive gas.

Thats the other thing I'm interested in seeing, which is the public reaction to the first super high pressure transport vehicle accident and the likely ensuing fireball which will probably make conventional military weapons look like a bit of a joke.


----------



## CFreeman54 (Jan 14, 2009)

Hydrogen and electricity are both useful and acceptable methods of powering human transport. Each has advantages and disadvantages. For the near 
future, hydrogen for long distance transport and electricity for inter city, shorter distance transport appears the most technologically possible.

If you don't like hydrogen, that's your right, but the dictionary definition of a fuel is: 
a : a material used to produce heat or power by burning. 
b : nutritive material c : a material from which atomic energy can be liberated especially in a reactor.
Hydrogen meets both the "a" and "c" definition of a fuel. You can make up any definition you want but this is the standard one.

About 1300 Watts/sq. meter of energy from the sun hits the surface of the earth, actually a little less due to atmospheric filtering and cloud cover, 
of which theoretically about 1000 watts/sq.meter is available for use at the earths surface. Currently, this is almost 100% wasted in terms of capturing 
it for human power use. How can using solar energy for hydrolysis, a very simple process, requiring some PV panels, water, and an electrolyser to make 
hydrogen be more inefficient and wasteful than that?

Even if someday battery/infrastructure technology allows long range, quick recharge for land vehicles, we will still likely be dependent upon hydrogen
for high speed air travel. 

Yes, hydrogen is explosive. So is gasoline.As far as relating the dangers of hydrogen explosion to that of military weapons, have you ever heard of 
Napalm? It is gasoline mixed with fatty acids.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

We don't drive cars powered by napalm. There was a recent arson related explosion of a CNG car, much worse than any gasoline car fire I've seen. http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7555 Take an explosive gas and then compress it under high pressure, creating even more potential explosive forces. But we can ignore all that. The total inefficiency of having to build a complete hydrogen infrastructure from scratch, the inefficiency of having to cool and compress hydrogen to high pressures to get some energy density, and the inefficiency of using any source of electricity to split hydrogen, as compared to using the same electricity to charge a battery, all add up to make hydrogen so inefficient there is no benefit to shifting to its use. There are so many studies available that point out all the shortcomings there is no reason to pursue the technology. If you need range in the short term drive an ICE, or a hybrid. 
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/081803_hydrogen_answers.html


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

In fairness, you can store hydrogen in a porous rock to reduce the danger involved, but that reduces the amount you can store in any given pressure vassal because the rock takes up much of the internal volume (so the range argument is mute). Acetylene is stored and transported in heavy steel cylinders in this manner, but it is by no means a non hazardous material even when all procedures are followed.

Yes, gasoline is flammable and under the right conditions can be explosive outside of an internal combustion engine, but nothing compares to hydrogen gas in terms of flame speed, wide mixture range, and sheer explosive power at ambient/pressure. It may have a relatively high self ignition temperature, but once you get it going from any open flame or spark, the flame spreads much easier than any fossil fuel. CNG, LPG and gasoline vapors will burn easily, but require ideal mixture to produce a big bang all at once. Hydrogen is much less picky in this respect and will explode very easily even at VERY lean mixture ratios.

The only advantage in terms of safety is that hydrogen has its lighter than air and hopefully would dissipate rapidly if there is a leak out doors. The reality of the matter however, is that you could make a pretty effective bomb out of just about any hydrogen powered car to take out part of a city block. Not so easy to do that with battery, gasoline or diesel powered cars.

Security concerns aside, no one has been able to answer the efficiency problems of hydrogen that JP just mentioned. I've been pointing them out for a while too, and there can be some interesting conversation that arises from the argument, the position we have taken on hydrogen remains sound.

Like it or not, the only reason hydrogen is being taken seriously is because it comes mainly from fossil fuels and gives the oil industry the hope of being able to continue selling its product and an ever increasing price.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

CFreeman54 said:


> About 1300 Watts/sq. meter of energy from the sun hits the surface of the earth, actually a little less due to atmospheric filtering and cloud cover,
> of which theoretically about 1000 watts/sq.meter is available for use at the earths surface. Currently, this is almost 100% wasted in terms of capturing
> it for human power use. How can using solar energy for hydrolysis, a very simple process, requiring some PV panels, water, and an electrolysis to make
> hydrogen be more inefficient and wasteful than that?


 Freeman I am not trying to rude or argumentative but I design a lot solar PV systems, electrical transmission systems. It is true that that on earth we receive about 1000 a/m/2 at the surface. However solar PV panels at best are around 19 to 20% efficient, so the real number that you can collect is 200 w/m/2. Secondly the efficiency of electrolysis is terrible at best 50% if you use the secret technology of Electric Boat (submarine manufacture) using platinum electrodes. In order to be able to extract enough hydrogen to be useful would take an enormous PV array measured in the 10’s of thousands of watts. At a cost of $7 per watt installed, I don’t think you would get many takers.

Even using PV cells to charge batteries is not attractive at 70% efficiency, but a heck a lot better than using them for hydrogen.

I have been an engineer in the electrical generation and transmission business for 30 + years, and Imo there is only one solution to our light transpiration needs and our economy: Ev’s and nuclear power is our saving grace.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

CFreeman54 said:


> If you don't like hydrogen, that's your right


It is not we who have a bias against hydrogen as an energy source, but the laws of physics. Bottom line, the more hydrogen you make, the less energy you have.


CFreeman54 said:


> but the dictionary definition of a fuel is:


I'll concede that hydrogen is a fuel, since it burns, but the concession is a pedantic one. Others here are mistakenly equating *fuel* with *energy source*, but it's easy to see what they mean in context, and, in context, they have it right. Technically, hydrogen is a fuel since it burns, but it is not by any stretch of the imagination an energy source. That is what I and others are claiming when we say it's not a suitable fuel.


CFreeman54 said:


> About 1300 Watts/sq. meter of energy from the sun hits the surface of the earth, actually a little less due to atmospheric filtering and cloud cover,
> of which theoretically about 1000 watts/sq.meter is available for use at the earths surface. Currently, this is almost 100% wasted in terms of capturing
> it for human power use. How can using solar energy for hydrolysis, a very simple process, requiring some PV panels, water, and an electrolyser to make
> hydrogen be more inefficient and wasteful than that?


You're kidding, right? Just because solar energy is available doesn't mean we should squander it. PV panels are expensive and only about 20% efficient. Your hydrogen vision would require building four times more solar panels than would be required to charge batteries with the same energy storage. Requiring four times the investment in solar energy collection just to fuel your hydrogen future can't be justified solely on the basis that the sun shines a lot. Claiming that there's lots of sunshine doesn't even begin to address criticism of hydrogen's inherent inefficiency. Even if we could harvest half the solar energy falling on planet Earth, why would we waste it on hydrogen production?


CFreeman54 said:


> Even if someday battery/infrastructure technology allows long range, quick recharge for land vehicles, we will still likely be dependent upon hydrogen for high speed air travel.


High speed air travel, rocket fuel -- yes, there are some niche applications for which hydrogen is uniquely suited and won't be replaced any time soon. But automobile fuel is not one of these applications.


CFreeman54 said:


> Yes, hydrogen is explosive. So is gasoline. As far as relating the dangers of hydrogen explosion to that of military weapons, have you ever heard of
> Napalm? It is gasoline mixed with fatty acids.


Again, to be pedantic, only gasoline vapor is explosive, not liquid gasoline (unless militarized -- but who puts napalm in their gas tank?). In liquid form, as it is stored in a car's gas tank, gasoline is far safer to manage and control than a pressurized explosive tank of gas with equivalent stored energy. Poke a hole in a gas tank in the presence of a flame, and you have a very bad fire. Poke a hole in a hydrogen tank in the presence of a flame, and you have a bomb.


----------



## namyzarc (Mar 18, 2008)

Drew said:


> As Sunkinga said, you have to get the hydrogen from somewhere, you can either crack fossil fuels, which is wasteful (you may as well just burn them in the car) or you have to electrolyse them.
> 
> Electrolysis is about 25% efficient from what I understand, so basically what you're doing is you're taking the basic concept of an electric car and cutting the efficiency by 3/4 and then filling it up with an extraordinarily high pressure explosive gas.
> 
> Thats the other thing I'm interested in seeing, which is the public reaction to the first super high pressure transport vehicle accident and the likely ensuing fireball which will probably make conventional military weapons look like a bit of a joke.


Oh I understand perfectly the inefficient nature of creating hydrogen rather than use electricity directly, which is why I stated that I didn't much like the idea of Hydrogen either. 
What I didn't understand, and what hasn't been answered, is how on earth can something that oxidises (burns) to produce energy that can be harnessed to move a vehicle NOT be considered a fuel???


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2009)

CFreeman54 said:


> Hydrogen and electricity are both useful and acceptable methods of powering human transport. Each has advantages and disadvantages. For the near
> future, hydrogen for long distance transport and electricity for inter city, shorter distance transport appears the most technologically possible.
> 
> If you don't like hydrogen, that's your right, but the dictionary definition of a fuel is:
> ...


If you think that hydrogen is a viable fuel source then its likely you haven't looked far enough into it. The fuel isn't awfully energy dense in its self, but the main problem comes from the fact that it either has to be stored cryogenically as per rockets which adds a MASSIVE energy overhead to it and makes storage past a few hours, let alone days or weeks totally untenable. 

The other option is of course high pressure gas storage, which creates the possibility of a low yield fuel air explosion, gas stored at 300 Atmospheres, if released explosively, ie by a vehicle accident, will result in very effective fuel diffusion, if this happens a short period of time before an ignition source such as electrical arcing then its likely that the energy yield for the explosion will be very close to the idealised maximum energy yield. For a car this would be catastrophic, for a fuel tanker this would be a disaster.

Add to the above that cryogenics relies on multiple layers of expensive and hard to maintain insulation and high pressure, by definition relies on extremely robust pressure vessels, both of which weigh an extremely large amount relative to the fuel content and you've got yourself a classic all round loser.

There are other more technical issues which add to the pointlessness, but bottom line is the above, that energy density is woeful and risk of negative outcome is high.

By way of example current hydrogen vehicles have similar range to a well constructed pure electric vehicle and have fuel systems which weigh as much as, if not more than a comparable battery pack.

And before you mention future developments, pressure vessels and cryogenics are extremely well developed technologies, batteries are not, I would expect that battery chemistry will be moving ahead in leaps and bounds, whereas the energy storage capability of hydrogen vehicle will remain abysmal.

EDIT: Namyzarc, I'm guessing that the reason that some people on this forum, myself included, do not consider hydrogen a fuel is because it is generated from electricity, then turned back into electricity or some other form of motive energy so basically in this case it isn't a fuel, its a battery. All battery chemistrys behave in exactly the same way as generating and then oxydising hydrogen, just using other elements, people are even working on light metal/air batteries, so the argument that oxidation=combustion=fuel is incorrect because it is simply a storage medium for externally generated energy, as opposed to on original source of external energy as per fossil fuels etc.


----------



## CFreeman54 (Jan 14, 2009)

Sunking; yes, I agree with you completely on the efficiencies and costs you state, but there have been a number of interesting research
developments in the past couple years. I work for OSU and have been following the research. Also, there are better ways of applying current technology.
As you say, efficiency and cost have been a problem, but space grade PV cells are currently capable of 40% efficiency, so cost is more the problem.
I contacted Spectrolab a while back about their 40% efficiency cells and the array I wanted would have cost more than $100,000!!!!!

Large scale manufacturing can reduce that. Researchers at MIT and UCal. Berkey have developed new doping technology for polymer films that
can produce low cost thin film PV panels, and this technology has been licensed and should be in production within a year or two. Current efficiency of
this polymer film is similar to conventional monocrystalline PV cells but should be about 1/10 the cost. Scientists working on PV efficiency believe 50%
efficiencies are obtainable in the near future. The key is large scale manufacturing to reduce cost.

Whether you use PV panels to recharge batteries, or make hydrogen it is going to take some sq. meters of PV panels to power cars. If you talk about
centralized commercial production of energy for the 240 million cars on US roads, then you need tremendous acreage of "Solar Farms". But, even a small
house though has enough roof surface area to make 10-20 kw, even at 20% efficiency, does it not? A 20' x 40' roof is about 74 sq meters. Even at 20%
efficiency that can generate about 14.8 kw on a sunny day. That is enough energy to make hydrogen for a car in a day, or to recharge a Tesla Roadster in about 3.5 hours.
I am sure grid electricity from hydro, wind, solar, and probably coal and nuclear will be available for those cloudy days when you can't generate enough
electricity yourself. Coal and nuclear both have serious pollution problems, as we all know. Nuclear would be clean if we could devise technology for
recycling the waste products, and could guarantee confinement in case of accident.... both difficult to accomplish.

Large scale manufacturing of PV panels and switching government subsidies from the power corporation to the end point user to encourage private
PV panel installation would solve most of the cost problems, and is a healthier than relying on coal or nuclear. Technology for absorbing (adsorbing?) hydrogen into a
solid material (aluminum hydride)that is not explosive but available for release upon heating is being developed, and will make hydrogen use much safer. I believe ranges
similar to gasoline powered cars are possible using this technology; if someone has specific data on this please point me to it. Hydrogen only makes sense
if generated from solar powered electrolysis, but in 20 years at current growth and gasoline usage rates fossil fuel oil will be basically gone ,
so that is the only alternative for H2 production anyway. Given the scale of the problem, I think multiple technologies will be needed to meet the energy
needs of people.

Yes, compressed hydrogen is very explosive, but so is gasoline vapor, and more people have died in gasoline explosions/fires and more arson has been committed
with gasoline than has ever been with a compressed gas. Pure gasoline is actually more volatile than Napalm, and hence more explosive, and if you are worried about terrorist attack, certainly having a nuclear power plant near every city is a bad idea. Storing H2 in the solid aluminum hydride absorbed state negates the explosive concern. 

Personally, I would rather drive an electric vehicle most of the time, because it
is the most elegant solution, but I still think that for long distance travel and air travel, hydrogen will be useful, and probably necessary. Astronomer, I am not advocating squandering energy, but the fact is we (humans) ARE squandering energy now, and have been for hundreds of years. I'm a biologist by training, not a physicist
but I seem to recall physics teaching that energy is never created or destroyed (matter, energy, same thing.... e=mc^2), so how can you have less energy
by making hydrogen? Some e becomes heat in the process, so find a way to use it. The exhaust is water which can be remade into H2 with sunshine.

I don't see it as inefficient to use hydrogen to do something that battery technology is not capable of doing. Even if we can double the energy density
of Lithium Ion battery technology it still won't get you from NY to California nor fly you at jet airplane speed. This is not a problem for most of us
driving around town in cars, but is a big problem for the trucking/transport industry, and hence for all of us who need to buy things transported by 
those industries. That is why I said we need EV's for around town and H2 for long distance travel. If not hydrogen then what do you suggest?


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

One thing that has been touched on, but not emphasized enough is over all efficiency from cradle to grave. 

In its simplest terms one can say hydrogen is a fuel as it does burn providing there is ample oxygen. But as stated hydrogen is not an energy source. It is a carrier, and a very expensive poor carrier of energy with very low energy density in a gas form.

The first loss is making it. Depending on how it is made either cracking from fossil fuel, with the most optimistic unrealistic efficiency being 50%.

To overcome its energy density issue it has to be compressed or liquefied to make it usefully. Well to compress it takes pumps and more energy dropping efficiency to around 25% at best. But even compressed is still very low energy density. To change it to liquid requires cryogenic refrigeration, now we are down to 5% or so efficiency. If liquefied comes storage problems to prevent it from boiling off through thermal losses. That means more refrigeration cost to keep from loosing it.

Once all the efficiencies are considered and taken into account, hydrogen just will not work unless you are a star or fusion reactor. EV's are the only practical solution. Not even bio-fuels like ethanol or Bio-Diesel can stand up to fill the void.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

CFreeman54 said:


> Sunking; yes, I agree with you completely on the efficiencies and costs you state, but there have been a number of interesting research
> developments in the past couple years. I work for OSU and have been following the research. Also, there are better ways of applying current technology.


Interesting, I graduated from OSU (Oklahoma State)  Go cowbows.

I am very familiar with Spectra Labs and their product. All you gotta do is be able to afford $1000 per watt and get it into orbit, then figure out how to get the power back down to the surface.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

CFreeman54 said:


> I am sure grid electricity from hydro, wind, solar, and probably coal and nuclear will be available for those cloudy days when you can't generate enough
> electricity yourself. Coal and nuclear both have serious pollution problems


Huh? What pollution problem are you referring to with Nuclear energy. There is none. Don't go off on spent fuel rods, that is a man made US government problem. There is no reason to store any fuel rods. You just recycle them and reuse them until there is nothing left. The ?"USA is the only country with spent fuel rod problems. France and Japan very heavily populated countries with small land mass have no problem. Ask yourself why? Answer: they reuse and recycle the fuel...


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2009)

CFreeman, it seems a bit like you're oversimplifying.

With regard to the explosive danger of hydrogen, petrol doesn't diffuse into any open space at an extremely high rate due to the pressure its stored under and nuclear power plants are extremely low in count and well guarded, so neither of these points very well address the major disparity in risk to the general population when compared to hydrogen. Nor is nuclear power trucked through major cities to reach distribution sites.

If you're after a system for extending the range of a vehicle then something like a roof mounted high speed generator would make the most sense, as this can be powered on biofuel crops or similar or, considering how extremely infrequent long distance trips are for general population, you could simply rent an ICE vehicle specifically for a journey.

As far as alternate storage methodologies for hydrogen go, Aluminium Hydride would be 10 time heavier than H2 stored on its own, which means that the total storage efficiency is lower than current technologies even ignoring the housing and heating requirements you mentioned, which means that it is simply a method of addressing the safety concerns related to the explosive nature of hydrogen.

I think if I had the option of carrying 40-50L of hydrogen gas at 300Atm vs 300-400kg of batteries I'd pick the batteries every time, because I know that I'm not going to get blown to bits, I know that all the technologies associated with electrical powertrain are well developed and understood and I know that I only use what I need.

Hydrogen on the other hand suffers from a lot of drive side problems as well. I believe they've worked to remove the requirement for high volumes of Platinum in the PEM in Hydrogen fuel cells at the moment, but as of now I'm pretty sure they still have the throttling problems which mean that they are only capable of running at set or slowly varying speed and at the end of the day they are not a proven technology and have no support infrastructure.

How could it possibly make sense to convert all petrol stations to an extremely inflammable fuel which is hard to store and handle and produces an unsatisfactory energy density which can't be improved upon without star trek levels of technology.


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2009)

Sunking said:


> Huh? What pollution problem are you referring to with Nuclear energy. There is none. Don't go off on spent fuel rods, that is a man made US government problem. There is no reason to store any fuel rods. You just recycle them and reuse them until there is nothing left. The ?"USA is the only country with spent fuel rod problems. France and Japan very heavily populated countries with small land mass have no problem. Ask yourself why? Answer: they reuse and recycle the fuel...


America also has a spent fuel problem because they built a lot of fast fission reactors with the intent of producing depleted uranium for weapons usage.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

CF, stop bringing up the "range" boogeyman, it's not as big an issue as people pretend. We are still at the early stages of a battery revolution, 200+ mile range is easily possible right now, and even though it costs a lot it's still magnitudes cheaper than any hydrogen solution and it will also improve much more quickly than any hydrogen solution. Fast charging is possible, and easier to implement than hydrogen. In the meantime hybrids and genset trailers are a cheap solution, no need for expensive inefficient hydrogen and expensive fuel cells that will need maintenance and repairs.
It doesn't appear that you are even really interested in looking at all the problems that are readily apparent with hydrogen.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

By the way, Iceland was supposed to be the leader into a hydrogen economy with their cheap hydrothermal energy, and they are giving up and moving towards BEV's. What more evidence is needed that hydrogen isn't practical?
http://industry.bnet.com/auto/10002...or-evsand-a-100-percent-clean-energy-economy/


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Just to comment on the argument that petroleum fuel vapor is dangerous as an explosive. Yes, thats true, but gasoline vapors from an open fuel tank does not compare to a ruptured hydrogen pressure vessel in explosive potential. There is no comparison at all.

Chrysler is trying to stand apart from the rest by being the sole advocate of hydrogen because there is still a reasonable support base in industry, government and to a lesser degree, the general public. It has nothing to do with any real merit the idea has in itself. Its all about looking like you know what you are doing. Personally, I don't buy it.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> Chrysler is trying to stand apart from the rest by being the sole advocate of hydrogen ......


GM, Toyota, and Honda are still pushing their hydrogen vehicles.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> GM, Toyota, and Honda are still pushing their hydrogen vehicles.


That would suck. You sure its not just some lingering PR funding that has yet to burn off (them trying to save face)?

I thought honda was starting to look at EVs now even though they were very cool to the idea as recent as last year. At least GM and toyota have some form of "part time" EVs planned for market. Ford and nissan are going all out with EVs if you believe the press coverage.


----------



## CFreeman54 (Jan 14, 2009)

Drew: Tell the people around Chernobyl that there is no potential pollution problem with Nuclear energy. Radioactive particles were detected in Sweden
680 miles from the reactor site! Yes, I know in theory there are technological and recycling solutions to the problems. Yes, I know our technology is better than it was 23 years ago. Many of you have been 
discussing worst case scenarios with hydrogen. The worst case scenario with a nuclear plant is much worse....and the damage lasts for 2X the half life
of caesium-137, iodine-131, and strontium-90. 

We also have technological solutions for dealing with compressed gases. Most of us have natural gas piped into our homes. All my neighbors have 
propane tanks sitting under their barbecue grills on their patios. hospitals, clinics, and laboratories use compressed gases, some of which are oxidizers and /or are
explosive, routinely. There have been relatively few accidents with these. 

The energy density problem with hydrogen is real, but there are technological solutions to it. If you do not encourage research how will you know about them?
Some people have suggested blending H2 with methane made from organic decomposition. No, I have not studied the details.

JRP3: You are right that I that I have not done much in-depth research into hydrogen; that is because I am building electric cars
(and there is still much I need to learn about that), not hydrogen cars. I agree with you that hydrogen fuel cells are a silly , inefficient way of 
powering a vehicle. I am not opposed to others doing research to "look into all the problems that are readily apparent with hydrogen" though. 
Pure research may yield knowledge that leads to unexpected practical applications, and sometimes practical engineering applications lead to scientific
discovery.

I also agree that range is not "as big an issue as people pretend". In the past three years I think there has only been one occasion when I drove
more than 130 miles at a time, and as you said, 130 miles is easily managed with Li Ion batteries. A fast charging battery and infrastructure
for dump charging en-route might solve the problems for land transportation. The fact is though at the moment we have neither of these. Mazda 
does however have a multifuel RX-8 that can run on hythane. Not the ideal solution, but better than burning gasoline I think. If/when battery technology
solves the land transport problem, we still need hydrogen for high speed airplanes, though electric/battery technology may be able to take over for propeller planes.
I do not agree that a country's political decision is necessarily evidence that something is scientifically impractical or invalid. One can point to many 
instances where political decisions contradict the science, or vice versa.

In regard to battery fast charging, if any of you have information sources on improving battery technology please point me in that direction. I am going to an 
international meeting next week to discuss potential areas of research on this very subject.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> That would suck. You sure its not just some lingering PR funding that has yet to burn off (them trying to save face)?
> 
> I thought honda was starting to look at EVs now even though they were very cool to the idea as recent as last year. At least GM and toyota have some form of "part time" EVs planned for market. Ford and nissan are going all out with EVs if you believe the press coverage.


Unfortunately GM has still been pushing it's hydrogen equinox program and trying to get government to help build hydrogen filling stations. Their current trial program gives away free hydrogen fillups, I'm sure that won't influence drivers' experience at all  Look up "Project Driveway". Then there is the Honda Clarity, probably some others as well. The hydrogen lobby is running scared but still fighting for public funding.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

CF, Chernobyl was a poorly designed and poorly run reactor that was bound to fail, modern reactors are nothing like it, and only one way to generate electricity. Hydrogen, since it's a less efficient means of storing electricity, will only increase the need for generating capacity, of any type. Also, no one drives around with a nuke in their auto, just as low pressure natural gas and propane in your house is a whole different animal than a super high pressure tank of hydrogen driving down the highway. The fact that you are comparing low pressure stationary natural gas and propane to super high pressure mobile hydrogen tells me you really need to look much more deeply into this issue.
As for fast charging, A123 and Altairnano cells have been able to handle fast charging for quite a while now, probably some others as well. Unlike hydrogen, there are no breakthroughs that have to happen for this to be reality, just some fast charging stations need to be built. You can even reduce the need for super high powered lines by using similar high C rate storage batteries to store charge overnight and then fast dump it during the day into vehicles that need charging. 
The fact that many of the powers that be are abandoning hydrogen, even in the face of intense lobbying efforts by the hydrogen crowd which includes big oil, should tell you there are real problems with the technology. Big Oil is very interested in hydrogen but the science is so strong against it even they can't sell it.
Finally, if we shift the personal vehicle fleet to EV's that will leave plenty of fossil fuels, or biofuels, for airplanes, they just don't use that much.


----------



## CFreeman54 (Jan 14, 2009)

Before this conversation started I already believed EVs were a better choice for most land vehicle applications. You all have definitely reinforced that feeling. One thing is for sure; fossil fuels are a finite resource. One day within my lifetime....unless I'm caught in a hydrogen explosion or something,  there won't be any left. 

I was under the impression that even the "fast charging" batteries still required 30-60 minutes to recharge an EV size pack. Am I wrong or is that a limitation of the current supply rather than of the battery? Perhaps this is the wrong thread to discuss this question in.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Fossil fuels are a limited resource but obviously the less we use the longer they will last. There are still many undeveloped areas as well as undiscovered areas. Not enough to endlessly sustain a growing world demand but probably enough to handle a smaller niche market. As I stated A123 cells and Altairnano cells can be fast charged, less than 10 minutes for Altairnano independently proven by Aerovironment. Other than cost batteries are already good enough, and improving. There is no technological reason a 300+ mile fast charge capable EV can't be built today.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

CFreeman54 said:


> Before this conversation started I already believed EVs were a better choice for most land vehicle applications. You all have definitely reinforced that feeling. One thing is for sure; fossil fuels are a finite resource. One day within my lifetime....unless I'm caught in a hydrogen explosion or something,  there won't be any left.
> 
> I was under the impression that even the "fast charging" batteries still required 30-60 minutes to recharge an EV size pack. Am I wrong or is that a limitation of the current supply rather than of the battery? Perhaps this is the wrong thread to discuss this question in.


Look at the chemistry and note the continuous C rates will answer your question. For example LiFe4Po batteries have a 35 C rate. That means for example if it is a 10 AH cell, it can be discharged and charged at (10 x 35) 350 amps. So to fully charge it from 0% DOD to 100% in less than 2 minutes at 350 amps (60 minutes/35). If the battery has a C4 rate about 15 to 20 minutes.

FWIW I am leaving out one factor, charging efficiency. For that you have to consult the manufacture specs at the specified charge rate. But 80% is roughly correct.

Last comment is if super capacitors ever become to be, charging time can be a second or two in theory.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

We have a tendency to get lost in the big picture when it comes to smaller issues like BEV vs hydrogen. Nuclear is a big can of worms and like it or not, some will never really be comfortable with it. I'm undecided for now.

Hydrogen does have safety concerns, and again I agree with JRP3 when he says that its not fair to compare LPG to hydrogen. My second truck is LPG and i have no safety concerns with it at all, but hydrogen has far greater BTUs, higher flame speed, higher pressures, etc, etc.

A hydrogen truck exploded a few years ago in canada. I remember it was a praxair truck contracted out by ballard power. Don't recall the news making a big deal about it and don't even remember seeing photos of it, but from the verbal reports they claimed a good sized industrial yard was leveled.

Can't help but wonder if some national pride combined with blind green phobia contributed to the lack of impartial and thorough coverage of the incident in canada. Ballard Power is treated as a national champion even though they are a hopeless failure with a penny stock value.

Safety concerns aside, the real issue is efficiency/cost effectiveness. EVs have arrived. The batteries right now, not 5-40 years down the road. We don't have to wait for the hydrogen miracle anymore but I'm sure big oil would love it if we did. I'm sure there will still be plenty of politicians looking to score political green points by driving hydrogen powered cars in front of cameras, but the technical problems remain and I won't support the idea (even indirectly) if I can help it.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Sunking said:


> FWIW I am leaving out one factor, charging efficiency. For that you have to consult the manufacture specs at the specified charge rate. But 80% is roughly correct.


I'm pretty sure it's actually better than 95% for lithium, though it drops some at high C rates.


----------



## CFreeman54 (Jan 14, 2009)

The LiFePO4 batteries I have been looking at only have a 3C rate (see Thundersky page: http://www.thunder-sky.com/pdf/200964145219.pdf). The information that some Li Ion batteries can take such high charge rates is very encouraging though; it means the only obstacles are manufacturing scale to lower cost and installing charging station infrastructure in place of gas stations.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I don't know if that 95% figure accounts for losses in the charger or simply the battery cell itself. I think it only relates to the chemical conversion efficiency of the cell alone. I would expect the charger to be now worse than 10%, but not sure. And yes, the higher the C rate, the lower the efficiency.

Bottom line is 80% efficiency is probably a realistic number for EV net operating efficiency. Slow charging and a high efficiency brushless drive could bring the number above 90%. Lets see a FCEV do that


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

david85 said:


> Bottom line is 80% efficiency is probably a realistic number for EV net operating efficiency. Slow charging and a high efficiency brushless drive could bring the number above 90%. Lets see a FCEV do that


I was speaking strictly to the battery charge effeminacy of 1.2 units in to 1 unit out.


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

CFreeman54 said:


> The LiFePO4 batteries I have been looking at only have a 3C rate (see Thundersky page: http://www.thunder-sky.com/pdf/200964145219.pdf).


Not familar with that manufacture but 3 is pretty darn low for LeFe4Po. However even at 3 C is in the 20 minute ball park for charging from 100% DOD.


----------



## Drew (Jul 26, 2009)

CFreeman54 said:


> Drew: Tell the people around Chernobyl that there is no potential pollution problem with Nuclear energy. Radioactive particles were detected in Sweden
> 680 miles from the reactor site! Yes, I know in theory there are technological and recycling solutions to the problems. Yes, I know our technology is better than it was 23 years ago. Many of you have been
> discussing worst case scenarios with hydrogen. The worst case scenario with a nuclear plant is much worse....and the damage lasts for 2X the half life
> of caesium-137, iodine-131, and strontium-90.
> ...


Chernobyl was an older reactor design, one of the first in fact, designed in the 1950s. Modern reactor designs are intrinsically safe, as temperature rises neutron absorption falls off and energy production reduces commensurately.

The radiation effects from any number of the innumerate above ground nuclear tests carried out by both sides during the cold war were all significantly worse in terms of fallout than Chernobyl.

Either way, worst case scenario for new Nuclear plants would be the absence of electricity comming out of them...

This is all beside the point of course, because the main issue here is the absence of reason in advocating hydrogen as a fuel.

Your point about propane and natural gas is an excellent example of what I was talking about previously. Propane is the primary constituent of LPG which liquifies at about 20-25 Atmospheres at what most people would call a reasonable ambient temperature, natural gas however does not, it operates at a maximum 100 Atmospheres in the main lines and is bought down to pressure in urban and suburban areas, inside a persons house natural gas is generally at about a tenth of an atmosphere or less, this is because of the risk of damage to the pipes increasing with relative distance to the surface etc etc. Hydrogen solutions of course advocate usage of pressures in the range of 300-450 Atmospheres in a vehicle. Just to add some imagery to what is a relatively dry debate at this stage here is a picture of a main line accident;










Obviously the volumes are higher, but the actual pressure of this line was less than a third of what you're talking about putting into cars.


As far as battery fast charging goes here are the specs for the 26650 cells from A123, apparently they have two newer battery types, both with better characteristics than these, but they aren't releasing datasheets for them.

With reference to your comments on parallel research streams, I think that in many instances there is an opportunity for any number of parallel research streams to help assess and resolve future issues, but this is a case where I feel strongly that "Future technologies" are simply a diversionary tactic for a larger issue and that funding this research is simply buying into a diversion which is designed to focus public attitude away from the fact that with current technology already present in peoples homes you can build electric vehicles. We're not talking about research vs research here, we're talking about research vs building the infrastructure to start churning out electric vehicle (larger format battery plants and the like).

Alternate fuel vehicles are a poor choice as well as far as I'm concerned, again there is absolutely no refueling infrastructure for any fuels other than petrol. LPG and diesel present in most locations, as far as I'm concerned its best that its kept this way, otherwise we're all going to have to wait for petrol in between the various alternate fuel deliveries at petrol stations.

On top of all this petrol stations will have high current three phase connections already to power fridges, air conditioners and pumps, which can easily be repurposed to fast recharge EVs.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Keep in mind that CNG has crazy low BTUs/liter for a fossil fuel. A similar amount of liquefied hydrogen would have made an even bigger boom.

Regarding the C rates for LiF4PO4.............................

Spiral wound cells like a123 are inherently prone to surviving higher C rates because of the metal cylinder case. Prismatic cells like what sky energy, thundersky, and hipower produce are not able to contain the pressure as well and must be derated relative to the smaller "can" cells even if the chemistries are completely identical (which they are not AFAIK).

Also pay attention to constant C and intermittent C ratings. Staying at or below the constant C rating will yield the highest efficiency for charging or discharging. Most lithium chemistries have very low internal resistance so thats why the efficiency peaks in the mid to high 90s. Thats also why current and voltage limiters are recommended, because the batteries will go beyond safe limits if you allow them to.


----------

