# NASA Project to Demonstrate Wind, Solar Hydrogen Fueling Station



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

True to form, NASA proves that it will always be 20 years behind the times! LOL


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

Perhaps, they are behind the times, but this will serve as a public educational station. This type of facility is necessary to prove to the public the viability of hydrogen fuel and alternate energy production.

Without these big money institutions leading the way, we would be left with us small guys at home in our garages trying to make progress.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but fuel cells are a dead idea. Nothing wrong with alternative power generation, but as an energy storage device, fuel cells are just not practical.

China is starting to export battery powered busses that are cheaper and work at least as well.


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

david85 said:


> I hate to be the one to tell you this, but fuel cells are a dead idea. Nothing wrong with alternative power generation, but as an energy storage device, fuel cells are just not practical.
> 
> China is starting to export battery powered busses that are cheaper and work at least as well.


 
Full Battery powered vehicles are definitely the way to go for local driving, and most fleet driving. But it takes time to recharge, this is fine for the normal private vehicle that has limited range requirements, and can normally recharge over night.

For fleet vehicles I can't see full electric/battery being the way to go. This requires additional vehicles to swap out for recharging, or a battery bank that can be dropped and swapped (a possible senario I have read suggested for battery fleet vehicles, such as buses.)

But for normal or longer range vehicles, hydrogen tanks with fuel cells makes the most sense to me. 

It would be great if we could get everyone to use public transportation for all long range travel, nice ideal dream...we can dream after all. But I think that is an ideal that would be hard to implement.

What would come first? The loss of all gasoline supply, necessitating more public long range transportation. (thinking here electric trains). Or more inexpensive train service making driving personal vehicles too expensive in comparision.

In America its hard to get where you want to go on trains. Our service is very limited. In large metro areas like New York and Chicago, you can get every where on the trains and buses. But in my neck of the woods, the bus service is a token and takes an hour or more to travel the distance that I can do in an half hour on my E-scooter.

To pry people away from their personal IC vehicles we will have to have a replacement. 

Consider also construction and service vehicles. I am an electrician by trade, and know that field well. To travel to a job and work all day, an electric/battery vehicle would be fine. But to do service work, and E/battery vehicle would not suit at all. 

When doing service work there were days I traveled over a hundred miles to do 4 or 5 jobs. Once the batteries get there, and I think they are around the corner, this might be possible. But the lithium technology is still too expensive for the average joe to run his vehicle on.

And still is the matter of longer range, and I think hydrogen and fuel cells are the answer for that demand, and will be for many years in the future. What NASA and others are doing in this arena is the solution.

You mention the Chinese buses, what else forms the basis of your opinion against hydrogen and fuel cells?

Kent Secor
In Cape Coral, FL, USA


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Kent, 

you mention cost of lithium as a problem keeping them from being cost competitive. I personally bought a lithium battery for my car (see link in signature) for about $16000USD delivered and it will give my car at least 100 miles of range. Volume pricing can already bring that price down close to half of that. I would challenge you to find anyone that can sell you a fuel cell (*AND* all the needed equipment) for that price. Similar lithium batteries are already available at lower prices and slightly higher energy density. I have tracked the price of lithium batteries for the last 2 years and they are still falling. The chinese are practically dumping the lithium battery market.

There are lithium batteries being sold right now that could probably give a steel bodied car 400+ miles of range, but its only by one company that has yet to find a large scale off shore jobber so supply is limited. The point is, their product is real, and it is being sold (company is called Electrovaya) to NEV builders and test mules have been built and documented by 3rd parties.

I'm not sure if you are aware of the efficiency of fuel cells, but most of them are barely more efficient than ICEs in converting hydrogen to electricity. Liquifying hydrogen is also expensive because it has to be compressed, but also cooled (VERY inefficient). Once its liquified, it can be transfered to another storage vessel fairly quickly, but getting liquid hydrogen is far from efficient or cost effective even before you take into account the cost of the equipment.

Using fresh potable water from the great lakes to power vehicles in some of the most populated areas in north america is also not practical, or sustainable if you are only getting 22-30% net efficiency on the energy you are storing in those hydrogen tanks by the time you are using it in the vehicle. Its much easier to power EVs without using drinking water supplies.

The worst electric cars out there are 50% efficient if you drive them like they are stolen, and the better like mine are close to 90% (maybe better). Those are numbers from right now, not future projections. 200 miles of range is happening right now, not future projections from an automaker unveiling a concept (vaporware) car. Those electric busses I mentioned earlier have range of 400km and up.....right now.

You are also a little off with recharge times. Most lithium batteries today can be recharged in 1 hour or less, so complicated battery swaps are not needed. You need to have an industrial power supply to dump charge that way, but its still cheaper and more efficient than installing hydrogen infrastructure. Electric fuel can be transported from anywhere in the country at the speed of electricity. You can't say the same for fuel cells.

There are several membes that are currently running lithium batteries and a group by is happening right now, so stick around to see what's possible.

Oh, and welcome to the forum


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2009)

Ever drive an Electric Hydrogen Fuel Cell car? They are powerful and a blast and they do not need to carry 1000 lbs or more of batteries. Just a tank of hydrogen and a small battery pack for regen purposes. I drove one and was very impressed and I do agree that at this time they are not practical but only because of availability, not because they do not work. They do work and quite well. Some day we will have stations for hydrogen. I is is not a dead horse yet. Not even close. It is just not in the main news right now. Work still goes on with this stuff. 

Pete : )


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

What did you drive? make? model? specs?


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2009)

david85 said:


> What did you drive? make? model? specs?


Dave,

I got to drive the Mercedes F-Cell Hydrogen Fuel Cell Car. It was sweet and very quick. It did however have a high pitch whine which I figured came from the controller or motor. But it was quick. Jumped to FWY speed like any vehicle and there was full space for passengers and we had 4 adults in the vehicle a the time. California Fuel Cell Partnership had an open house and invited the public to actually get behind the wheel of these cars. My wife drove Toyota's Converted SUV Fuel Cell Vehicle. Both she and I were impressed to no end. If you did not want to drive one but wanted to go along as a passenger you could too. The vehicles were full and all were quick. No complaints here.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I'm sorry Gottdi, I don't really want to be rude but theres more to a car than a test drive that pushes you back in the seat.

Mercedes used a fuel cell made by the canadian company ballard power to make that protype. Um, where do I start with ballard power??

The company has quietly abandoned automotive FCs becuase they are either incapable or unwilling to make them cheap enough for mass production (dispite many press releases to the contrary). They are going back to overpriced aerospace one-off fuel cells to pay their bills (and not working very well, I might add). Their stock is slowly falling to penny status.

Ballard was part of a group of several companies that were publicly commited to making hydrogen-electric vehicles. Enova was part of the group and designed the motor traction drives. There was a third company that I can't remember the name of. I think it was a now defunct lithium battery producer in quebec. This was supposed to be a match made in heaven, with all of the battery, FC, and motor drive tooling under one cooperative, but nothing ever came of it and ballard has been treading water ever since. Enova is not doing so well either.

Ballard power is a bit of a prestige company for canada, and doesn't really have to try very hard to get public money to stay afloat because fuel cells are seen as a green high technology. Also, most of ballard's products are exported.

Maybe they can simply sell out to mercedes, I don't know. But I have my doubts that mercedes can do much better than the company that came up with the FC in the first place. I'm sorry, but the mercedes benz F-cell car is not much more than the chevy volt, only more expensive. It may drive, but its far from practical. The design has been in the works since the late 1990s and it still isn't ready.

I have no doubts that for the right price it can be done, but how much would you spend for a car that gets 250 miles per charge and uses over 700 miles worth of electricity? 250 miles is not hard to get out of a BEV for a a lot less than a FCEV. Did you ever hear of the solectria sunrise? it was capable of 250 miles in 1996 using NiMH batteries.

Indeed 500 miles is still rather easy and with some out of box thinking with aerodynamics and light weight construction, 1000 miles is possible today with the right batteries.


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

David,

Thanks for the welcome.

In my post I was not considering LiFePo4 battery packs. The Chinese buses you reference still have the limitation of daily range. Question, are they lithium battery banks or lead acid?

My reference was to lead acid batteries, as those are the affordable battery of today and for the forseeable future.

Companies like Tesla Motors with their sportscar and their soon coming sedan, will drive the lithium market to produce more lithium batteries and because demand will rise, price will correspondingly drop. Once that happens us average joes will be able to buy them at a resonable cost, and the market will take its rightful place. That is my opinion about that.

Still as I posted, battery banks in cars will always have the limitation of range and charge time. For local around town trips, they will be fine. 

Right now I can convert a small pickup truck or van to electric and have enough room for good deep cycle AGM batteries to have a 70 mile range. This would cover most any trip I would make in a single day. Once the cost of lithium batteries gets down to about the same as the AGM batteries, they would give me a 200 - 300 mile range, which would be great for all local travel.

I would be willing to add a trailer with a genset on it for extended range driving. 

But the average driver in America is not so industrious or wanting to mess with their technology. Can you see an 80 year old woman hooking up a trailer to her car to go across the state to visit the grand babies? 

I can't see Americans making the change from personal vehicles that they can stop into a filling station and gas up at to having to travel a limited 300 miles, then wait for hours to recharge to travel another 300 miles.

With the limitations of hydrogen, making it, compressing it, then heating it to a gas for fuel cell use, and the low efficiency. It will give travel loving Americans the ability to continue to stop in and fuel up for the road in the same amount of time as it now takes to pump in gas or diesel fuels.

As to your limitations on hydrogen. Water anywhere can be electrolyzed into hydrogen from any electrical source. Solar photovolatiacs and wind turbines can provide this electricity anywhere there is water. Also these electrical sources can drive the compressors to liquify the hydorgen. This can be done on site of the fuel station, so no losses from transporting the hydrogen in pipes or tankers is necessary. There is just such a demonstration hydrogen fueling station in Sacramento, CA.

As to the overall efficiency of fuel cells. So what? IC engines are at most 30% efficient. The end byproducts are poisonous gasses that affect all of life, and many think affect the uppper atmosphere causing golbal warming. (I and many scientists question this thesis, but that's another discussion.) Whatever you think about global warming, we can agree that it would be a great thing for all our ecology and not just our smog ridden super cities, to get rid of the tocix gas spueing vehicles.

The byproduct of a fuel cell runned vehicle is H2O, water vapor. So even if the overall effieciency of a fuel cell car is the same as an IC one, overall it is better for everyone.

Another point is that hydrogen is a renewable and local resource. With hydrogen we have no need to buy and ship in fuel products from around the world. Rather than sending our money to other nations, we could spend it right here, in the USA. Put our own workers to work, rather than paying foreign nations to pump up oil for our fuel products.

I have been following the work of backyard experimenters who are working on ideas of getting greater than Faraday's constant in hydrogen production. The idea seem sound, but has yet been proven conclusively. Still some of their systems are producing greater than faraday's constant now, and they are constantly fine tunig their systems for greater outputs of hydrogen. One such researcher is Bob Boyce. So far of all the water fuel proponents his work seems the most valid, and he is working open source so anyone can get to his work and duplicate it.

So I still think full battery E-vehicles is the best way to go for local trips, and hydrogen is best for long range trips.

I can see myself having a battery car for local travel and either hooking up a hydrogen fuel cell trailer or renting a H2 FC car for long distance travel.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2009)

Nothing rude taken. It was not just the ride that impressed me but the technology and the fact it actually works. No vapor ware. The idea is sound and it is possible but it will take sooooooo much time to implement. I am not an advocate of the HFC but I am impressed and willing to wish it well. Pricy but so again is the all electric drive with lithium. Sure not in the millions but then again the HFC's are still all prototypes and not for sale. Electric drive is here and growing. I agree that batteries are the best way to go and that some day they will break into the ICE market. I do know of the Sunrise but that is old and now only in the hands of DIY folks and I do commend them for the very positive work they are doing reviving the line. 

Gotta run for now and I will finish this later

Pete : )

PS. I love battery power.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

how to start , My research on fuel celled in 1979 . 1980 Ballard had done a Nova PBS aired only one time on the hydrogen economy . That was well done show but very little mention of fuel cells to my disappointment . Now when I talk of fuel cells I mean alkaline KOH like the batteries not the PEM Teflon acid membrane ones used in the cars .KOH cells much more effecent , cheaper, last forever ,make much greator power, no platinum ( silver/nickel ),work in reverse to make H2/O2 .Why use PEM cells , they say no need to carry O2 on board , true but at what cost to the overall system ? As it turns out they carry 30kw compressor on board to scrub the air of nitrogen and CO2 . Air filters are a major problem . I was told of fuel contamination problems . As the H2 comes form oil not splitting water , but they say its from the supply line soft parts . So last month I got to drive the 5 newest fuel cars from GM, Nissan, VW, Toyota, Hyundai, and ride in another from VW . 6 million bucks worth of cars in 2 hours what a blast . The best part was riding shotgun and looking over the power numbers on the flat screen , I note that we are using about 25kw to go 20 mph . turns out that all electric loads shown ( that air compressor ) . At least one of these cars would do 450 miles . If we had a KOH cell it should be over a 1000 mile range . Now the grave danger of caring O2 on board . The US Air Force ran tests in the late 50's on fueling with LH2 and LO2 no problems , I weld / cut around O2/fuel all the time no problem . If the cutting rig catchess fire at the bottles walk over turn off the bottle its happened to me at least 10 times in in my life . cut the burned hose ( that you knew was leaking before the fire ) out and back to work .


----------



## dschill (Mar 19, 2009)

Hmm interesting article...i love this newsbot thing


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Well, the efficiency of fuel cells isn't really better than internal combustion when you consider the cost involved with compressing and cooling of the fuel to stuff it into a tank. That is my biggest problem with FCs, net operating efficiency. A close second is the cost. Of course ballard will claim that the cost can be driven down, they have no reason to exist if not. But I don't believe it anymore. *1979?* just how much more time do they need to perfect this stuff??? I think its time to cut your losses and move on.

Recharge times for EVs can be under 15 minutes with todays technology, so refueling time doesn't really matter that much anymore.

I could say more, but my posts have a way of getting WAAAAAY too long on topics like this


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

"Hydrogen is the last fuel you would try if all others failed" - Joe Romm

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

The fuel cell is a great idea and reasonably efficient, yes. But that ignores the elephant in the room: the upstream is where the problems are...

The financial and environmental costs of making Hydrogen are high. For instance, the USA would need to evacuate North Dakota and cover the entire state in solar panels to generate enough electricity to electrolyse enough H2 to drive the equivalent miles we use gas for today.

Secondly is safety. There's no way I'm putting my kids in a Hindenburg with idiots in SUVs on the road, no matter how good the crash test results are. The H2 molecule is so small it's the highest leak risk of any gas, and the static electricity generated by a leak would be enough to cause ignition.

The only reason NASA is doing this is to get some of that $1.2 billion funding Dubya announced in that famous "addicted to oil" SOU speech. Justifying their existence, that's all. There isn't enough platinum, Natural Gas or Electric generating capacity in to world to make H2 a viable transport mechanism.

Home-generated PV, wind and nuclear powered EV is the way to go, baby...

Or use a camel-drawn wagon like in the opening scene of Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome... (camels are missing in this photo)


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

You can make hydrogen tanks safe much like what was done with acetylene cutting gas (stored in porous rock), but safe is a relative term and you most certainly can make an acetylene explode. What I worry about is what some nut job would do if he wanted to blow up half a city block. All he needed to do was steal a car, sabotage the fuel system, and he has an instant earth shaker bomb on wheels. No need to steal explosives anymore because your extensive publically funded refueling network has it at thousands of locations across the nation four your convenience.

At the end of the day, hydrogen and human nature can be predicted with reasonable accuracy. Lithium can be made to explode too, but not nearly as easily, and LiFePO4 will only make some smoke and thats about it.

The most efficient fuel cells I know of are only 60% efficient running on pure hydrogen. Getting that hydrogen in the first place is no where near 60% efficient and *NO*, I don't believe claims of over-unity or other incarnations of perpetual motion.

Being clean isn't a good enough reason to like hydrogen. YOU NEED TO DO THE MATH.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

david85 said:


> Being clean isn't a good enough reason to like hydrogen. YOU NEED TO DO THE MATH.


David Strahan does the math in his book "The Last Oil Shock".

To drive the same miles as we do using guzzoline, with a H2 fuel cell, you would need:

Wind:
UK - 8,673 square miles of turbines (4 per sqm)
US - 55,732 square miles of turbines (4 per sqm)

Solar:
UK - 3,719 square miles (total cover, back to back)
US - 14,058 " "

Nuclear:
UK - 67 new Sizewell B plants (more if coal/old nuke are decommissioned)
5 times current cenerating capacity
US - 433 new Sizewll B plants " "
7 times current capacity

Questions for H2 proponents:

How much will it cost to build not only that H2 infrastructure, but the generating capacity to electrolyse the H2 from water?

How long will it take?

The maths proves that H2 is a lame duck, red herring, damp squib, call it what you will. GWB was negligent in proposing H2 as a saviour to US oil addiction, since these facts were well known when he gave that speech.


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2009)

I don't see any money figures there. And where do these figures come from? BIG OIL?
More than likely.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

According to wikipedia, the efficiency of electrolysis is only 25-40% relative to the energy put into the process. Please note, that this does NOT take into account the energy lost to compress the hydrogen into liquid form.

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

40% x 60% = 24% efficiency at the fuel cell in the car before you start to count losses for the motor, tires and lead foot. How is this any better than ICEs?

If we assume 25% efficiency then its 25% x 60% = 15% efficiency (again, thats leaving out the compression part)

Right down there with steam locomotives from 100 years ago.

Yeah, it can be cleaner that steam/coal power if we cover the country with solar panels, but wouldn't we be better off to focus on the battery electric car with 80% efficiency instead?

Cheaper power distribution,
More miles per kwh of energy consumed,
No fuel transportation cost,
Easier and lower cost recharging stations so you can have more of them and still cost less than hydrogen,
No need to use water resources for fueling cars at 15%-25% efficiency,
No artificial cloud seeding caused by millions of cars on the road venting water vapor,

Its a no brainer to me.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> No need to use water resources for fueling cars at 15%-25% efficiency,
> No artificial cloud seeding caused by millions of cars on the road venting water vapor,
> 
> Its a no brainer to me.


It's such a no brainer nobody sees it 

That's how you know you're onto something


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

david85 said:


> According to wikipedia, the efficiency of electrolysis is only 25-40% relative to the energy put into the process. Please note, that this does NOT take into account the energy lost to compress the hydrogen into liquid form.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis
> 
> ...


David,

I hear what you are saying, but you have ignored the idea I've proposed. 

Service stations that electrolize water right on site. No trucking involved. Using photovolatics, wind turbines and yes, electrical power from the grid, to produce hydrogen and oxygen right on site.

On board vehicle tank issues and safety in crashes is the bigger concern in my opinion. Production and use efficiency overall would be no less that the ic engines of today. With the byproduct being only water...

Again I point out that local travel is best with full electric, but long range trips would be better with hydrogen. 

You mention only needing 15 minutes to recharge a battery bank? Can you supply links to this information? Best recharge of a LiFePo4 car sized bank I've read about is over an hour. Lead acid is more like 12 hours, and NiH about 6 hours...


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

kent1956 said:


> David,
> 
> I hear what you are saying, but you have ignored the idea I've proposed.
> 
> Service stations that electrolize water right on site. No trucking involved. Using photovolatics, wind turbines and yes, electrical power from the grid, to produce hydrogen and oxygen right on site.


I'd rather just have battery packs 

At least you'd see like 80% efficiency or higher out of the electricity.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

gottdi said:


> I don't see any money figures there. And where do these figures come from? BIG OIL?
> More than likely.


No gottdi, the opposite. Strahan is a vocal peak oil campaigner and supporter of Simmons, Campbell, Kundsen and Heinberg.

What he is saying is that alternatives can't bridge the gap without reducing consumption. Doubling the CAFE standards and removing the exemption for light trucks and SUVs would eliminate imports from the middle east, for a start.

His complaint isn't with alternatives, it's with weak government who won't take away our SUVs and air conditioners even though they are killing the planet and depleting resources far quicker than we can replace them.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

kent1956 said:


> David,
> 
> I hear what you are saying, but you have ignored the idea I've proposed.
> 
> ...


I haven't ignored what you are talking about. I don't think you realize just how big that solar panel has to be to power that electrolizer because the whole process is so inefficient. You also don't realize that what you are proposing would convert fresh water into a fuel based commodity. Do you remember what happened because of biofuels?

NiMH batteries have been recharged in 15 minutes.....many years ago in fact. Just google it and you will find plenty of hits. I have personally recharged consumer sized NiMH batteries in under one minute.

Lead is dead, but it can most certainly be charged in less than 12 hours LOL! The EV1 could be recharged in 3 hours off a standard houshold 220VAC outlet (limited by what the average house could pump out than what the car could accept). http://auto.howstuffworks.com/sunraycer.htm/printable

The weakest of LiFePO4 batteries are rated at 1C which means they can be recharged in 1 hour. Thundersky batteries are now rated at 3C, which means 1/3 of an hour recharge time. Compact spiral wound cells like a123 systems can be recharged in minutes.

Thundersky spec sheet: http://www.thunder-sky.com/pdf/200931791117.pdf

a123 spec sheet: http://a123systems.textdriven.com/product/pdf/1/ANR26650M1A_Datasheet_APRIL_2009.pdf

I think your info is a little dated.


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

Technologic said:


> I'd rather just have battery packs
> 
> At least you'd see like 80% efficiency or higher out of the electricity.


 
I'm not disagreeing with the superior efficiency of electric drive, battery storage vehicles.

Just questioning the ideas for longer range.

Jason Sawell on his blog has an article about a system that does address this. Making battery packs under chasis mount and quick release. A whole battery bank can be replaced in minutes. allowing long range travel with "normal" replacement of the battery pack.

It is now installed in Israel, with systems going in in Holland and Hawaii. Also in the system are charing stations all over the cities, with a GPS system that can guide you to the nearest charger, or changing station, as well as help you plan your charges/changes for your planned trips.

This type of infrastructure would make all electric vehicles a certain reality. 

Only thing left is to sell the public on electric and off of fuels.


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2009)

Going to H2 has never been about cheaper or more efficient than gasoline. It is only about a different source of fuel. Every one else is touting it's gotta be cheaper and more efficient. When most here tout the efficiency of the electric motor most forget the inefficient way the electricity is produced. So in that light it is no less than H2 or Gasoline. Hell my solar panels are very inefficient at extracting electrons compared to the amount of photos that fall upon it daily. A damn is very inefficient at extracting power from the falling water that passes through the turbine too. It produces lots of power but not efficiently. We use tools that are durable and will last a long time so our source is always available. Take falling water and extract electrons. Burn coal and extract electrons. Extract H2 from water then use it to extract electrons while converting much of it back to water. Use the empty space of all roof tops to extract electrons from photons. No need to evacuate North Dakota. Water droplets are not used for cloud seeding anyway. Particulate matter is what is used to seed a cloud. Silver Oxide has been used. There are others too. No need to compress the H2 to liquid either. So no wasting energy doing something unneeded. No, H2 was not the cause of the Hindenburg disaster either. That was proven. H2 is no more dangerous than our gasoline. H2 is also used to make gasoline so we do make a bunch of it already. It is a bit tougher the extract from water than oil. Solar will make that much easier on location. They already have high volume on systems and I have seen them operate. They run to keep a tank full and when low they just start up again. Pretty cool machines. They work. They work well. Easy to retrofit any station with them. All stations have water and electricity and many have excellent sun days. Most have lots of already unused roof space too for panels. Let alone other space that could be utilized. 

Want more?

Pete : )


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

I use air tools very inefficient but they work like nothing else . I'm planning a large wind generator 30 kw . I will run out of battery at 400 KWH ( 10 ton of battery ) then crack water compress H2 and O2 with the wast power as I'm off grid .


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Gottdi, 

hydrogen isn't an energy source, lets be clear about that. *Fuel cells are an energy storage device*. In practice, its just a big complicated battery system with 25% recharge efficiency. I remember people dissing NiMH because it was only 60% efficient, these days its higher. Lithium is over 95%. Lead is anywhere from 50% for fast charge to 90% or more with slow charge.

You are right that most power generation methods are not very efficient, which is why any more efficiency loss added on top becomes so significant.

How much hydrogen can those refueling stations really produce? 
How many cars can they refuel in one day? 
How much water will they consume that would otherwise be used for food crop irrigation or drinking water?

Lets see some numbers on those.

Water isn't an infinate resource, and shortages are happening in your country even without it being used as a fuel. Areas that don't have enough water will still have distribution costs to truck it in. EVs don't need anything other than the hot dry sun to take advantage of solar charging and they will drive about 300% further for the same amount of power they take from the grid.


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2009)

If it is not an energy source then all those who fear it have nothing to worry about. : ) 
Of course it is an energy source. 
Water is far more infinite than oil. At least water has a natural water cycle and water is naturally recycled. 

Distribution costs for oil too. Don't tout that. Local is better. After it is used it will be reintroduced into the environment as pure clean water. How bad is that. 

Sorry to say but the world is changing and our old ways will be changed no matter how much you diss it. It is time to embrace the new changes. Remember that our heavy use of oil products has had the greatest impact on clean water than any thing else. OIL is dirty and polluting. However water does and can recycle and when it is naturally recycled it is cleaned. When it comes down as rain it mixes with the damn oil induced smog and becomes contaminated again. DAMN OIL. I for one will fully embrace H2 fuel cells. I also embrace batteries too. Both have their place and oil will have limited usage. 
So why again do folks always bring up food crop garbage. Do you realize how much water is used and polluted in industry? Far more than for growing cattle feed corn. That water too is polluted with pesticides made with OIL. More of that DAMN POLLUTING OIL. Go after that crap first before you remove a good source of power for powering your future vehicles. There are far more problems than using some water for producing electrons to move your vehicle down the road. Cleaning action too. 

More?

Pete : )

I really should put this stuff into a more outlined paper. Find a reason to use it and a reason to remove the garbage. That will do more for cleaning up our environment than anything else.


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

Pete and Kent,

you guys bring lots and lots of good points and there are obviously many issues with battery powered EVs, otherwise everyone would have one by now, HOWEVER, the whole argument for H2 is moot because of one simple fact, THERE IS NO H2 ON THIS PLANET, period, end of story. And please, please stop saying that water is a source of energy, IT IS NOT. Water is a result of energy burned millions of years ago, when planet has formed, that energy is gone forever. Its like saying that CO and CO2 that comes out of your ICE tailpipe is energy, its not energy, its a result of burned energy, in order for it to become energy again, reverse chemical reaction must occur, which is done by plants which are powered by Sun. Same with water, its not an energy source because you need to apply another energy source to it to split it into H2 and O2.

Fuel Cell is an awesome invention, IF THERE WAS H2 available, but its not available, so Fuel Cell is not as practical as news outlets paint it.

Unfortunately we will still have to rely on carbon fuels for a long time, but advances in algae and non-food crops will help making it more carbon neutral and less fossil dependant, while we continue to perfect nuclear and other sources of energy. The least we can do in short term is stop burning fossils for short daily commutes, because that is just despicable waste of resources.


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2009)

In a natural state your correct but H2 does exist if we extract it. Oil is also a result of a higher energy input. It is not a natural source either. It was created with far more energy than we get from it. It just happens that much of the work was done for us. It is just too easy. So it is easy to be greedy. 

Once H2 has been extracted it is a source of usable energy for moving our vehicles. It can be burned directly too. Better to use it in a fuel cell. More usable energy is utilized. 

Electricity is not usable in it's natural occurring state either. We create a form that is usable for us. How many lightning bolts have you used today? 

We take one source that is not directly usable and change it to something that is more usable. I am sure we could find a way to better use petrol too. I bet using petrol for the H2 would be far more efficient than just burning directly in a combustion engine. 

Forgot to mention that gasoline does not exist either until we create it. 

More?

Pete


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

All that is true, but we need a positive bottom line, which is not possible with splitting water. We have positive return from fossils because we did not spend the energy to make it, the planet and the Sun did it for us and it took millions of years. We don't have such luxury if we want to survive, we need a source of energy that is readily available with positive return on investment and which doesn't kill us in the process of extraction 

High efficiency is nice to shoot for, but you need at least positive efficiency, which you cannot get from water.

IMHO, nuclear power is THE ONLY source of energy capable of sustaining our civilization for hundreds of years, given the state of tecnology we have available. Sun is the second best, but unfortunately we have not yet found a way to extract Sun power with enough efficiency to be sustainable, those PVs are awesome, but too damn expensive to produce in quantities that we need to make a dent in global needs.

Wind, would be the third, which also derives from Sun, but again, too expensive to produce and too little return on investment.

I am fascinated with GeoThermal power, which is another plentiful source of clean energy, but we need to improve the technology of deep drilling without side effects of earthquakes and such, I think this one has a future too.


----------



## major (Apr 4, 2008)

gottdi said:


> Of course it is an energy source.


Pete, 

Many disagree with you about hydrogen, myself included. You seem passionate about the subject. I suggest you read this book:

Out of gas: the end of the age of oil
By David L. Goodstein
Edition: reprint, illustrated
Published by W. W. Norton & Company, 2005
ISBN 0393326470, 9780393326475
148 pages

http://books.google.com/books?id=5d...a=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPP1,M1 

From page 88, a quote:

So the fuel cell is one possibility for the future of automotive transportation. However, the fuel it uses, hydrogen, is not a source of energy. Instead, it is a means of storing and transporting energy. The primary energy to make hydrogen will most likely be electricity produced by a heat engine using some other fuel. That kind of conversion of energy from one form to another always involves inefficiencies. Using present-day technology, to extract a given amount of hydrogen from water and compress it for use in an automobile would require consuming in heat engines about six times as much fuel as the hydrogen would replace.

...end quote.

And from the Blatant Opportunist, October, 2002.

quote....

....no large source of terrestrial hydrogen exists.........

......hydrogen is only an energy carrier that inefficiently transports some other source of net energy.

...end quote....

Personally, I see a future for hydrogen and fuel cells. I don't think it will be in the near future. Maybe decades off. So I don't want to see research stop on hydrogen and fuel cells. I just want them put into the proper perspective.

The one thing which would give hydrogen an advantage over other energy carriers is an abundance of "free" energy which could be used to extract the hydrogen form water. I think this is what the subject project is attempting to demonstrate by using renewable energy sources to produce the hydrogen. Even there, I think it would be more efficient to use that energy to charge batteries, but we already know how to do that. I'm o.k. with some rocket scientists playing with hydrogen in Cleveland.

Regards,

major


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2009)

I am and I also know it is not a smoking gun. We need to use all the other sources we have at our disposal and use them. The reason much has not changed is because of the deeeeeeeeep pockets of the oil industry. Solar IS viable and WE do have the ability to cover our spare squarefootage wasted roof tops to solar. AND make a good tidy profit. Not what our OIL guys want to see happen. Takes power away from them. We have the ability to use H2, Batteries, Geothermal, Solar, Solar heat for steam production for turbines to make electricity and all with out destroying our environment. I am passionate about using the available resources available. 

We do not have any other source like oil that had been converted naturally to a substance we can manipulate cheaply. SO WE MUST live with using alternative solutions. Of which we have many. All with good and not so good points. Some areas would be better suited for geothermal while other areas solar heat for steam production which by the way uses water. There is a difference between using water and destroying water supplies. Nuclear is an option but..... I am for it as long as corners are not cut just to make a buck. There in lies the problem. The problem is Greedy People. Period. We do have the power to bring down that mountain in our way. How many are willing to do that? One person can move a bucket, a million can move the mountain. Willing to really take a stand? I stand but mostly alone. 

Pete


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2009)

I happen to live in a area that is perfect for solar. I still have room for another 4 KW system on the roof. That means I can produce more than I can actually use and I'd have extra for production of H2. Why not. It would be extra energy not being used for anything. So produce H2 and use it for a FC powered electric car.  Pretty simple. I have neighbors that do not have solar either. Lets get those cheap solar panels being sold in Europe and bring them here. We need them. They were designed here but are being sold over the ocean. Jeeeze. How stupid is that. I see very little in the new thin film panels that are being made and installed. Just not here. Ouch. 

Pete


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2009)

I stepped up to the plate and purchased a full house solar system. It is expensive but the power is clean and my monthly cost remains the same while others pay more as time goes on. So unless we step up to the plate nothing but discussions take place and that does nothing to clean things up. Lets get with it and stop talking about it. 

Pete


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

gottdi said:


> In a natural state your correct but H2 does exist if we extract it. Oil is also a result of a higher energy input. It is not a natural source either. *It was created with far more energy than we get from it.*


Completely untrue and dimitri is completely correct about hydrogen not being an energy resource anymore than lead/lead oxide in a lead acid battery. Crude oil is not made with electrolysis of water. Hydrogen is. You may want to study the difference.


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

gottdi said:


> I happen to live in a area that is perfect for solar. I still have room for another 4 KW system on the roof. That means I can produce more than I can actually use and I'd have extra for production of H2. Why not. It would be extra energy not being used for anything. So produce H2 and use it for a FC powered electric car.  Pretty simple. I have neighbors that do not have solar either. Lets get those cheap solar panels being sold in Europe and bring them here. We need them. They were designed here but are being sold over the ocean. Jeeeze. How stupid is that. I see very little in the new thin film panels that are being made and installed. Just not here. Ouch.
> 
> Pete


I am 100% with you in regards to PV, I am in Tampa afterall . Every month I am checking PV prices hoping they would become more affordable, but I just can't justify it right now, with 10 years return on investment to break even. I could live with 5 years to break even, but not 10. My point about PV is just that, to make a global dent, it must be cheaper to produce.

BTW, they are not cheaper in Europe, they are just heavily subsidized by Government, I wish our Government would subsidize PVs instead of poor Chevron that only made 40 billion last year, f%^$ng bastards...


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I won't argue about the merits of solar either because I think its a great idea. But don't worry about the high cost because thanks to asia, the price will continue to fall. I sourced lithium batteries from mainland china at prices that would have made a123 crap their pants at the time. I have no doubt that I could do the same for solar panels when the time comes.

gottdi, how much power in KWH are you producing from those panels every day on average?


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

david85 said:


> Completely untrue and dimitri is completely correct about hydrogen not being an energy resource anymore than lead/lead oxide in a lead acid battery. Crude oil is not made with electrolysis of water. Hydrogen is. You may want to study the difference.


Actually, it is true, it took a lot more Sun power to store the carbon in fossils than what we get back by burning it, but its a moot point because it took millions of years. Time must be factored into any energy discussion. I laugh at some bio fuel proposals which forget to mention how long it takes to grow the plant before it can be turned into carbon fuel, its not sustainable because it takes too damn long


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

dimitri said:


> Actually, it is true, it took a lot more Sun power to store the carbon in fossils than what we get back by burning it, but its a moot point because it took millions of years. Time must be factored into any energy discussion. I laugh at some bio fuel proposals which forget to mention how long it takes to grow the plant before it can be turned into carbon fuel, its not sustainable because it takes too damn long


Well, yes that is true but thats kind of splitting hairs when you consider how long it takes to make crude oil naturally underground. I was referring to the human aspect of net energy output relating to oil refining. The point is the energy is already there before we came along. As far as we are concerned, fossil fuel is a limited resource, although if you are willing to wait a few million years then I guess its renewable....


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

david85 said:


> I won't argue about the merits of solar either because I think its a great idea. But don't worry about the high cost because thanks to asia, the price will continue to fall. I sourced lithium batteries from mainland china at prices that would have made a123 crap their pants at the time. I have no doubt that I could do the same for solar panels when the time comes.
> 
> gottdi, how much power in KWH are you producing from those panels every day on average?


Everything is made in Asia, I am pretty sure 99.9% of global PV market comes from Asia. I check prices on Alibaba direct from the factory, and still its too expensive. And since demand seems to outpace supply, prices will not be dropping that much...

You can get PV for $4 per Watt of output today, but it would take over 10 years to break even. When it gets to $2 per Watt, I will be reaching for my wallet


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

The prices shown on alibaba are ALWAYS the high end of the price scale other wise a dangerous price war could result. If you negotiate and haggle with individual suppliers then you could probably knock off a good 20% or more considering how much competition there is in china right now for anything relatively high tech. Group buy might be a solution worth looking at (probably been done before so maybe worth looking for).

Crap, I need to get some work done.

Catch ya later guys!


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2009)

david85 said:


> I won't argue about the merits of solar either because I think its a great idea. But don't worry about the high cost because thanks to asia, the price will continue to fall. I sourced lithium batteries from mainland china at prices that would have made a123 crap their pants at the time. I have no doubt that I could do the same for solar panels when the time comes.
> 
> gottdi, how much power in KWH are you producing from those panels every day on average?


Since I my panels are not tracking on a good day right now I am getting 46 kwh per day. It is a touch more than we use daily. We can actually cut back a bit more. We are working on that. If I had tracking panels I could do a whole lot better with this system. I also have a small bank of solar panels we are getting ready to install for a solar water pump for our garden. Those panels were built in 82 and are still pumping out almost full power today. That is 4 panels that are 27 years old still pumping out good power. Panels are worth the investment even at 10 year payback. Remember that the value of the home goes up considerably if you install your system. So if you sold your home right after you installed your system you could re-coupe the full price before any refunds. So in that light you are actually ahead right out of the gate. I could sell the home and go buy another one and install another system for free. How is that for a fast return on an investment. So go find a decent home to flip and install a system and use the profits from that to buy another system and install that on your home to reduce your payback time. Or to put one in with no payback time. Done right it could be free.  

Gotta work the system to your benefit. 

Pete 

Worked the system by buying and fixing and reselling boats to purchase my boat outright. No payments. Free. No money from my paycheck went to buy that boat.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

I've have the potential of thousands of KW that I cannot store with batteries what would you have me do with it ? I can split water and recombine it with a fuel and condense it and do that over and over all with the same water. A true battery . they don't put condensers on the fuel cell cars because it's not that much water , adds weight and cost . but it can be done .Then you will have some drinking water on the road . I'll find that number .Ok found it , 1 liter water takes 13,170 KG to disassociate (13,170000 G / 3600 sec.=3,658 watt Hours / liter of water . that makes 679 liters O2 and 1358 liters H2 ( 1358 / 26 =52 cuft of H2 )


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> I've have the potential of thousands of KW that I cannot store with batteries what would you have me do with it ? I can split water and recombine it with a fuel and condense it and do that over and over all with the same water. A true battery . they don't put condensers on the fuel cell cars because it's not that much water , adds weight and cost . but it can be done .Then you will have some drinking water on the road . I'll find that number .


Sell it to the grid, sell it to neighbors, start your own power company... many choices before you waste it on electrolysis.


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2009)

david85 said:


> Completely untrue and dimitri is completely correct about hydrogen not being an energy resource anymore than lead/lead oxide in a lead acid battery. Crude oil is not made with electrolysis of water. Hydrogen is. You may want to study the difference.


I can't take lead oxide and make a usable fuel from it but I can with water. I can split it and use the H2 directly in a combustion engine. Same as propane and gasoline. As water it is just an energy carrier but after it's manipulated it becomes a fuel (energy source) and there is a waste product from making it too. It is called Oxygen.  What a dirty thing. Can't take crude and dump it into your tank. You must distill it. I am aware that you do get a bunch of energy from the process but it has not been without big problems. So the cost is much higher than usually stated when you factor in the health issues, cleanup issues, pollution issues and cleaning up that too. I mean it is a real big problem. So why use something that is actually killing us when we can use something else. 

By the way plants that produce oils can become a large chunk of alternative fuels and yes they are renewable yearly. Like I said none of the alternatives are the smoking gun but all together they will provide most of what we need. No it will not take away from our very wasteful food supply. We waste so much that there really is not a problem with producing enough to eat. 

More?

Pete


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2009)

dimitri said:


> Sell it to the grid, sell it to neighbors, start your own power company... many choices before you waste it on electrolysis.


I do sell to the grid. If I put up another 4 kw system the electric company would not at that point be required to buy it back 1:1 ratio. 1 in 1 out. I have a grid tie system. If I had a battery storage system I could sell to the neighbors but they would have to have access to the system directly. That is not going to happen. Because I have that grid tie system I am actually a private power company and we have all the paperwork that any power company would have except it is such small scale that the paperwork is minimal. We are a power company. All grid tie customers are. Since I have a system designed for private use the state is at this time required to sell the same as they buy. One for One. So I pump in during the day and take out in the evening. So since I could not actually sell it to the neighbors and PG&E would not buy it back at 1 to 1 I could therefore use the leftovers for charging a fleet of EV's and use some for H2 production. For home use the best use would be for charging batteries for EV's. H2 is not something I would actually produce but I could. If the lithium batteries actually prove them selves over a long period of time then I will catch the wave. Until then, not. I just watch. 

Pete 

Going to go look at another prospective EV glider. Back later.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

dimitri said:


> Sell it to the grid, sell it to neighbors, start your own power company... many choices before you waste it on electrolysis.


I'm off grid , and if I was on grid they would not pay me , but if they would it would taxed and taxed . thanks I'm in love with independence . neighbors have solar cells and are off grid .


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

in the old days the anti- solar panel guys were saying the panels are to inefficient to work . with a free resource it just means we gather more of it . my solar cells are the least eff. and damaged , I just need more.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

gottdi said:


> I do sell to the grid. If I put up another 4 kw system the electric company would not at that point be required to buy it back 1:1 ratio. 1 in 1 out. I have a grid tie system. If I had a battery storage system I could sell to the neighbors but they would have to have access to the system directly. That is not going to happen. Because I have that grid tie system I am actually a private power company and we have all the paperwork that any power company would have except it is such small scale that the paperwork is minimal.


If you had a 100kw system hooked to the grid in most areas you would be considered a power company... and need proper zoning (bribes), proper paperwork (more bribes), etc.

Also in my area... they pay you 2 cents and sell it for 14 cents/kwh...


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

42kwh per day is impressive! More than enough to charge my lithium car.

I can't really criticize you for producing that much power from solar power. Personally, I sell it all back into the grid or buy up a bunch of old lead acid batteries for a backup bank, but when you are talking zero emission renewable power it really doesn't matter that much anymore. Leave the lights on all night for all I care, its your power to use as you see fit.

Your house would not be able to refuel even one fuel cell powered car per day however, so I wonder just how large the solar collector grid would have to get before you can refuel cars as numerous as the average gas station does.

The solution of solar panels for roofs on private houses is IMO, the best solution for all our problems today and tomorrow. I can't say enough good about it.

Using it on the roof of a hydrogen station is a concept that I don't think is workable though it is a nice thing to visualize. The amount of fuel produced per unit of land covered is just too low (Math). You would be lucky to refuel one or two cars per day off solar power. the same station used to charge batteries could recharge 3-6 EVs per day on the same amount of power. Higher efficiency also gives you the ability to displace more fossil fuel energy with the power you save by not using it for electrolysis.


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2009)

aeroscott said:


> I'm off grid , and if I was on grid they would not pay me , but if they would it would taxed and taxed . thanks I'm in love with independence . neighbors have solar cells and are off grid .


Excellent. Some day we too will be off the grid. Hope sooner than later but for now it is grid tie. Can't beat 1 for 1 right now. No batteries to worry about for now. I know it will change. 

Pete


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

david85 said:


> Your house would not be able to refuel even one fuel cell powered car per day however, so I wonder just how large the solar collector grid would have to get before you can refuel cars as numerous as the average gas station does.


Refer my transcript from David Strahan. Here's the maths:

Mileage in 2004:
US - 2,570,400,000,000
UK - 4000,000,000,000

H2 miles per kg (average): 55

kg of H2 required:
US - 46,734,545,455
UK - 7,272,727,273

Multplied by kwh required to electrolyse and compress 1 kg of H2: 65

gives kwh required:
US - 3,037,745,454,545
UK - 472,727,272,727

Expressed as Mwh:
US - 3,037,745,455
UK - 472,727,273

Divide by the no of hours in a year (8,760) to give MW capacity required:
US - 346,775
UK - 53,964

Raise by 50% to account for freight. Total generating capacity required:
US - 520,162 MW
UK - 80,946 MW

To produce this electricity, you have 3 options: wind, solar, nuclear

Option 1: Wind:
Divide capacity by 3MW turbine capacity gives no of turbines required:
US - 173,387
UK - 26,982

Since wind doesn't blow all the time, multiply by 3.33 for total turbines needed:
US - 577,380
UK - 89,851 

Maximum no of turbines per square km (4) gives square km required:
US - 144,345
UK - 22,463

Expressed as square miles:
US - 55,732
UK - 8,675

Option 2: Solar
Generating capacity required (from above):
US - 520,162
UK - 80,946

Divided by capacity (MW) of a 1km^2 PV array: 100

Gives theoretical area in square km:
US - 5,202
UK - 809

Multiply by average productivity factor
US - 14%
UK - 8.6% due to weather differences

gives actual area needed in km^2:
US - 36,411
UK - 9,633
Expressed as sqaure miles:
US - 14,058
UK - 3,719

Option 3: nuclear
Generating capacity required (from above):
US - 520,162
UK - 80,946

Divided by Sizewell B plant capacity: 1,200 MW

Gives no of Sizewell B equivalents required:
US - 433
UK - 67

Or as a multiple of current generating capacity:
US - 5
UK - 7

So looking at electrolysing H2 from water using nuclear power, *each US STATE* would need between 8 and 9 nuclear reactors just to make enough H2 to drive the same no of km as we did in 2004...

The calculations are on pages 92-93 of "The Last Oil Shock" where Strahan is advocating drastic improvements in fuel economy and reductions in miles driven if we are to cope with an oil peak. Doubling CAFE would postpone the oil peak (whenever it is) by a decade simply by reducing demand.

And it would reduce CO2 at the same time...


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

david85 said:


> Gottdi,
> 
> hydrogen isn't an energy source, lets be clear about that. *Fuel cells are an energy storage device*. In practice, its just a big complicated battery system with 25% recharge efficiency. I remember people dissing NiMH because it was only 60% efficient, these days its higher. Lithium is over 95%. Lead is anywhere from 50% for fast charge to 90% or more with slow charge.
> 
> ...


David,

I fail to see your logic here. Water is not an infinite resource? No kidding, if you are only breaking it up into is parts, H2 and O2...but in the use of it, whether through a fuel cell or burning in an IC engine, we get the byproduct of that use, H2O....

Mate you need to see the trees again that the forest is made of. You seem to me to be stuck on batteries only, and not seeing the whole big picture.

As to water being a viable resource, how much water is in the oceans? How about the Great Lakes? And this is just in America. Now in the Sahara, cracking water to make fuel might be a very, very bad idea.

But you think that using water to make fuel will take it from other needs and uses? 

Water may not be an infinite resource, but then neither is oil, which is why we are now scrambling around as a society to find something or somethings else to fuel our transportation and energy needs. BUT water is a renewable resource, which oil is not.

And guess what, neither is lithium a renewable resource. Though it is a realitivly untapped resource. There are some concerns that the growing lithium battery market will quickly out pace the ability to mine/harvest this mineral.

If this is a valid concern it will serverly limit the emerging lithium battery fueled vehicle market. The manufacturers can make the vehicles, but without the lithium to make the battery packs from, we are back to lesser battery banks, and lower range, which the car buying public will not go for, IMHO.

Again, getting us back to a transition fuel, H2. Also I see some viability in bio-fuels as transitional fuels.

May I ask one personal question of you? What are your credentials? Are you in the field? Or just schooled in the field as many of us are?


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

jlsawell said:


> Refer my transcript from David Strahan. Here's the maths:
> 
> Mileage in 2004:
> US - 2,570,400,000,000
> ...


Jason,

All these figures seem to me to be alarmist and not based on the truth of the energy situation.

For one, we do not use just one method of energy generation. In America we use coal, oil, hydro and nuclear, with a growing use of solar and wind turbines.

If we add additional photovoltaic panels on the millions of roofs in America, and wind generators where they fit, we can add to the energy production without building new power plants, and spread out the generation to as to not have to build up the infrastructure of the grid system (which is an often ignored part of the economics of building more centralized power plants.)

The figures you give use just one method at a time, when it would be more realistic to show some kind of mixture of generation methods.

If we take what we now produce, from our covential power plants and supplement it with solar and wind sources on the customer level, I think it changes the outlook considerably.

No need to empty out a single state and transform it to a power producer. Instead each and every home and business could be producing its own electrical power, and H2 for their own vehicles.

This also means no losses from transporting it through pipelines or in tankers, or losses from sitting in tanks, where the H2 could recombine with stay O2...


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

kent1956 said:


> As to water being a viable resource, how much water is in the oceans? How about the Great Lakes? And this is just in America. Now in the Sahara, cracking water to make fuel might be a very, very bad idea.


kent1956, water is a renewable resource but it is only one half of the Hydrogen equation.

The cracking process consumes an enormous amount of electricity (65 kwh) to produce a kg of H2 - which will take you roughly 55 miles in a Honda FCX or Ford Focus FCV. With the average Hydrogen tank holding 4kg of compressed gas, it will take 260 hours for a 1kwh PV array to make 1 refill. How many cars per day does the average gas station service?

I agree with you that H2 looks good. But the upstream processes are just so inefficient that I shake my head at the money being ploughed into research.

Sorry - just read your reply to my prev post.

The author isn't talking about existing electricity production, since there aren't any H2 vehicles in existence (apart from the odd test model and Arnie's H2 Hummer)

The question remains: how do you propose to create enough H2 to drive the same miles as US or UK drivers did in 2004?

To make that H2 and keep the same level of economic activity, you need to add the generating requirements of the H2 to the current economic energy demands.

Even with a mix of Solar, wind and nuclear: say 30% each...

Who's going to fund a solar panel on every house roof? in the middle of the GFC? nobody

How many new nuclear power stations are being built in the USA to account for their "share" of the requirements? none

All researchers place the oil peak between 2000 and 2020. The exact date is irrelevant if there are no alternatives for transport fuel in place and in the next 10 years you can't seriously propose that the US govt or industry will build 100 new nuclear plants, 15,000 square miles of wind farm and 5,000 square miles of solar?

Where is the money to come from since the $US has collapsed and is likely to go into stagflation with all this bailout money being printed?


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

kent1956 said:


> David,
> 
> May I ask one personal question of you? What are your credentials? Are you in the field? Or just schooled in the field as many of us are?


 
As far as you are concerned, my credentials are ZERO.

You are in florida, so you have plenty water all around you. Once you separate it from the salt (more lost efficiency), you basically have a limitless supply of the stuff. I really wish you would take the time to crunch the numbers instead of just dismissing everything though.

Lithium is a limited resource, but so are the parts that go into fuel cells like say, platinum, so that doesn't mean much. Fuel cells don't last forever either. The numbers have been crunched on lithium and there is plenty to go around for decades to come even if we all started driving EVs tomorrow. We discussed that here before.

In case you haven't noticed, states like california and farm states are having water supply shortages already. The great lakes are also a limited resource with the most populated parts of canada and the USA using it for a source of drinking water. They are slowly receeding at the moment thanks to a combination of natural and artificial factors.

Did you just imply that we can use coal and oil to power hydrogen generating stations in case wind and solar are not convenient?


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

kent1956 said:


> If we add additional photovoltaic panels on the millions of roofs in America, and wind generators where they fit,
> 
> If we take what we now produce, from our covential power plants and supplement it with solar and wind sources on the customer level, I think it changes the outlook considerably.


Those are two very big "if"s and I'd love to see your calculations similar to David Strahan's showing how much it would change the outlook.

I appreciate your hope but I think if you look into the cost and time involved in building, installing and operating those solar and wind generators, you will come to the same conclusion I have.

And that's to assume there won't be a single environmental impact objection to these wind/solar farms in neighbourhoods.

Also, how much energy will be left over from cracking water to provide power to the home/business? Your H2 car will be sitting in the garage most of the time if you want to use lights/air con/ microwave /tv /clocks /pc as well.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

I just googled "How long does it take to build a wind farm" and looky here: In the UK it takes about 7 years from site to production.

So even if we legislate for a MASSIVE wind & solar surge: it will be 2016 before the first plants come online - with at most 4 or 5 years to connect up the grid, filling stations AND convert even 20% of the vehicles in the world to run on Hydrogen. After 2020, all bets are off as to how much oil will cost and how much will be actually available for fuel, since industry and the military will take their share first.

here's the story from the UK paper:

http://www.windenergyplanning.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-wind-farm/

The Project:
The Hollies Wind Farm, Lincolnshire, England
2x 1.3 MW turbines (yes just 2 x 1.3MW turbines)
Site identified - year 2000
Legal documentation agreed with the landowner - 2001
Surveys and environmental report preparation - 2002
Planning application submitted - 2003
Planning permission considered by local planning authority - 2003-2005
Planning consent granted on appeal - 2005
Grid connection agreement completed - 2005/2006
Contract with turbine manufacturer placed - 2006
Constructions starts - 2007
Generation starts - 2007
This project has taken over 7 years to develop with 2.5 years in the planning system. Planning applications should take 16 weeks to decide. This is not an unusual story and many parts of the chain clearly need speeding up - including the planning system. It is not however the individual planning officers who are the problem or the principle of the system, but the lack of resource the government is putting into the (local) planning system together with nimby decisions local politicians are making which are the key factors resulting in the protraction of this part of the process.


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

Jason,
You asked:



> The question remains: how do you propose to create enough H2 to drive the same miles as US or UK drivers did in 2004?
> 
> To make that H2 and keep the same level of economic activity, you need to add the generating requirements of the H2 to the current economic energy demands.


 
You have missed my main point for H2 use. H2 or any fuel is only needed for longer range travel or heavy demand vehicles, such as trucking or construction vehicles that are working all day.

All local travel, which by some estimates is 80-90% of all travel in the USA, can be on full electric with rechargable batteries, that can be plugged in at home or charging stations located at convient places throughout a city.

Your quotes are assuming that only H2 is used to replace fossil fuels as the main and only fuel source, again an unrealistic view of reality.

I see a mixture, much as we have at the present and is emerging. Presently we have gasoline, diesel and alcohol fueled vehicles, and flex fuel and hybred vehicles. We also have rechargable small vehicles, forklifts and such. And the emerging full electric vehicles. Also emerging is the biofuels, such as bio-diesel. 

In my very county, (Lee County, FL), we are planting trees that can grow anywhere and whose seeds produce more oil per acre than soybeans. These trees can be planted in fields where cattle range and therefor will not take up land normally used for other crops. Along with this is the plans and proposal to build a bio-diesel plant. This is now and here, not pie in the sky thinking.

H2 operated fuel cells will just be one more type in the mix.

Your author is using a limited view to generate an alarmist cry, most likely in support of his favored view.

I'm trying to look at all the technologies at present and emerging.

My preferences are toward renewables and alternate energy sources. Nuclear power generation to me is the worse idea that man has ever come up with.

Builidng nuclear bombs in our backyards and then having to dispose of the waste, somewhere, in someone's back yard. To me is most foolish, when we have millions of roofs to set photovoltaic panels on and spread out the generation of electricity to every neighborhood in the world.

Local generation of electricity makes the most sense to me, and safe, non radiation sources likewise make the most sense to me.

I have been trained and educated in nuclear power generation systems, I know what they can do and how they can fail and pollute the environment with radiation. That is not what I want in my backyard!

Give me a solar farm or wind farm in my backyard anyday instead!!! But instead let's mount them to my roof, put a mast in my backyard and let me generate myown and some for my neighbors too...makes lots more sense to me, and no chance of radiation poisoning!


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

I'd love to see your calculations for the following:

1. Cost of converting existing ICEs to run on your proposed combination of fuels

2. Power produced by your proposed array/mast. Cost of installing this combination across the USA in sufficient quantities to generate the required H2 - even if it's just for your suggested mode of transport.

3. How this home-grown power will be divided amongst transport/ heating:cooling/ cooking. For instance, will you be able to charge the EV and heat/cool your home at the same time?

4. How long haul trucks will carry enough H2 AND their cargo. At 55 miles per kg (a VERY generous assumption for freight, since it's based on a very light focus/FCX), where will these new trucks fit the H2 tanks?


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> The calculations are on pages 92-93 of "The Last Oil Shock" where Strahan is advocating drastic improvements in fuel economy and reductions in miles driven if we are to cope with an oil peak. Doubling CAFE would postpone the oil peak (whenever it is) by a decade simply by reducing demand.
> 
> And it would reduce CO2 at the same time...


And if you did that with electricity you'd save from upwards of 90% of that capacity you described...

amazing eh? Hydrogen sucks... plain and simple.

Anyone with half a lick of sense would toss the idea into the trash.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

Technologic said:


> And if you did that with electricity you'd save from upwards of 90% of that capacity you described...
> 
> amazing eh? Hydrogen sucks... plain and simple.
> 
> Anyone with half a lick of sense would toss the idea into the trash.


http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=251

Here is Strahan's glowing recommendation for EVs. In the 3 years since his book was researched, the EV community has come to the fore.


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

Some more reality check on the ideas being posted here.

There is a limit to photovoltaic panel and wind generator production.

This all is an emerging technology, just like higher efficiency batteries. If we had to stop using oil today. We would not have the production products to all convert to electric battery operated vehicles tomorrow.

There are already concerns over silicon cell production limits for the increasing demands for photovoltaic cells for the next forseeable 5 years.

Wind gerator production plants are nearing their maximum production capabilities.

Lithium harvesting is nearing its maximum ablitities.

All these industries are increasing productions or seeking investment monies to do so. All are watching with great interest to the financial environement to make sure they do not get ahead of the money, which would spell finanical ruin for them.

Most states in America have some kind of rebate program for installation of solar water heating, photovolatics and wind generating systems. Many states have reached a limit to what they can fund in these rebate programs. Florida's rebate program is on hold. This year's rebate funds are exhausted and those installing systems this year are in line for the funds allocated for next year's budget. There is hope that the Federal stimulus package for Florida will be used in part to meet the rebate needs for next year. We shall see.

My point is that there are limitations at the present to what can be done to get us off of an oil economy. We are in the for front of this change. And all methods of energy use is needed. We can't discount H2 as a viable option, nor can we think that H2 or any other energy method alone is the answer. 

In any business model, diversivification is always a better option than limiting the business to just one product or service. Most viable corporations are diversified into many different businesses, and can better weather the economic flucuations than limited product or service corporations. I think this idea is a viable one for energy production and usage, and for vehicles.

Until the infrastructure is built up for one vehicle type or numerous ones, we will not know for sure what we will be using in the next couple of decades, or 50 years from now.


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

Technologic said:


> And if you did that with electricity you'd save from upwards of 90% of that capacity you described...
> 
> amazing eh? Hydrogen sucks... plain and simple.
> 
> Anyone with half a lick of sense would toss the idea into the trash.


 
You crack me up mate,

Anyone with half a lick of sense, would not put all their eggs (or vehicles) into one basket. Plain and simple. Anyone, private, company, government or corporation that does that is up for a reality check when all goes to pot, like now!

That you refuse to consider H2 as a viable system, shows your ignorance and bias. Prejudice of all stipes is always foolish.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

kent1956 said:


> You crack me up mate,
> 
> Anyone with half a lick of sense, would not put all their eggs (or vehicles) into one basket. Plain and simple. Anyone, private, company, government or corporation that does that is up for a reality check when all goes to pot, like now!
> 
> That you refuse to consider H2 as a viable system, shows your ignorance and bias. Prejudice of all stipes is always foolish.


1. Warren Buffett, arguably the best investor on the planet says "put all your eggs in one basket, and WATCH THAT BASKET"

2. Buffett is starting to invest heavily in the electric vehicle market. He is not investing in H2. What do you know about H2 that he doesn't?

3. I call hypocrisy. To say we are ignorant when you come on an electric vehicle forum and try to convince us that H2 is the way to go? Bahahaha. If you don't like what we have to say, that's your perogative. If you think I'm wrong, stump up some figures and math to back it up. But to say I'm ignorant and biased when I'm standing on top of a mountain of well-researched data and maths shows astounding hubris.

The maths is simple.

H2 takes you about 55 miles per kg. That's the mpg for the Honda FCX and the Ford Focus FCV averaged.

H2 costs 65 kwh to produce 1 kg of h2 from water. This has been known since last century when we started to do it on an industrial scale. How much water, I don't know - do you? Are we talking the entire Mississippi? Backyard swimming pools? Don't come in here telling me I'm ignorant without some damn good data to back you up. Egad! Your impertinence is appalling!

Divide the number of miles you want to drive on a H2 fuel cell by 55 and you end up with a large number of kg.

The only way around this H2 problem is to increase the efficiency of the fuel cell or the electrolysis process. You might make the electrolosis more efficient but you'll still only get 2 hydrogen molecules out of every water molecule. 

Go read Joe Romm's book "The Hype About Hydrogen". He was a researcher in the Dept of Energy and knows what he is talking about.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Did you just say Egad? LOL

Kent, your basic argument of not wanting to write anything off has merit, but you need to move on from that generalization and dig a little deeper. 

Why won't you look at the numbers?

We're doing all the work here, man!


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

david85 said:


> Did you just say Egad? LOL
> 
> Kent, your basic argument of not wanting to write anything off has merit, but you need to move on from that generalization and dig a little deeper.
> 
> ...


David,

Though I appreciate your knowledge regarding EV, your ignorance of photovoltaics is loud. As to your knowledge of H2 and electrolysis procedures, that too seems to be lacking, specially based on your original criticism of this threads opening article.

But keep it up, you are learning something other than welding, which is yoru main claim to fame....once you learn some real electrical knowledge let me know, maybe we can have a real discussion.


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

jlsawell said:


> 1. Warren Buffett, arguably the best investor on the planet says "put all your eggs in one basket, and WATCH THAT BASKET"
> 
> 2. Buffett is starting to invest heavily in the electric vehicle market. He is not investing in H2. What do you know about H2 that he doesn't?
> 
> ...


And Jason,

Though you too seem to have some knowledge, you are prejudiced against anything not battery driven. The "facts" you have posted are limited, and biased to say the least. 

But keep reading the truth is out there.

May I ask your credentials to make such sweeping judgments? Do you think you know better than a group of rocket scientists? Perhaps you do, perhaps you are one, or just such an engineer?

Hyprocrisy? As to discussing H2 here on an electric vehicle forum. It fits right in, or did you forget H2 fuel cells driving electric motors? That doesn't fit here? Hello.....!

As I said, keep reading the truth is out there.

One of the backyard engineers working on water cars might yet break the 4l/minute limit to produce a car that fills up on water and produces hydroxy gas (also known as brown's gas) on demand to operate a car. Some have claimed to have done this very thing, though I've not seen any proof of it so far.

So, keep your horizons open...oh and that Buffet is not yet buying into H2, does not mean it is not viable, just that he sees the next best thing. In a couple of years he might be buying into H2, if the Lord gives him that many days....


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> H2 takes you about 55 miles per kg. That's the mpg for the Honda FCX and the Ford Focus FCV averaged.
> 
> H2 costs 65 kwh to produce 1 kg of h2 from water.


It takes roughly 5kwh to go 50 miles in most decently efficient lithium/regen designs.

So in more fuel efficient cars my first guess of 90% electricity savings is probably a bit low.

At any rate... Electricity is the perfect material ... it's quite literally pure energy. Using this energy into other work to make materials for transport is almost fundamentally a horrible idea. It should go into batteries as efficiently as possible and put into highly efficient motor systems. Anything else is just silly.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

david85 said:


> Did you just say Egad? LOL
> 
> Kent, your basic argument of not wanting to write anything off has merit, but you need to move on from that generalization and dig a little deeper.
> 
> ...


I've been crunching the numbers on fuel cells and H2 since 1979 , talking with LH2 liquifying people , etc . This auto / oil company fuel cell program is a planed boondogel So most information is meant to have a slant . For instance KOH cells run at 70% whats not said is that's at rated power . Because 1 volt per cell resistive losses are vary high , the same unit running at lower power can hit 90% . I ran into this way back . I heard it again when I drove the FC cars last week . I find it hard to believe with acid FC's but I won't say impossible . If we start hitting 40% to 65% eff on solar . A 2000 ^ ft house will make 2 meg Watts / month . my wind generator will do something like that . I need big storage , I don't need the FC , I can burn it , heat / AC and cooking .


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

Technologic said:


> It takes roughly 5kwh to go 50 miles in most decently efficient lithium/regen designs.
> 
> So in more fuel efficient cars my first guess of 90% electricity savings is probably a bit low.
> 
> At any rate... Electricity is the perfect material ... it's quite literally pure energy. Using this energy into other work to make materials for transport is almost fundamentally a horrible idea. It should go into batteries as efficiently as possible and put into highly efficient motor systems. Anything else is just silly.


What car with 4 wheels goes 100 watts / mile . Tesla can do 200 w/m


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

aeroscott said:


> I've been crunching the numbers on fuel cells and H2 since 1979 , talking with LH2 liquifying people , etc . This auto / oil company fuel cell program is a planed boondogel So most information is meant to have a slant . For instance KOH cells run at 70% whats not said is that's at rated power . Because 1 volt per cell resistive losses are vary high , the same unit running at lower power can hit 90% . I ran into this way back . I heard it again when I drove the FC cars last week . I find it hard to believe with acid FC's but I won't say impossible . If we start hitting 40% to 65% eff on solar . A 2000 ^ ft house will make 2 meg Watts / month . my wind generator will do something like that . I need big storage , I don't need the FC , I can burn it , heat / AC and cooking .


Thanks Scott for some well informed information on this thread. Great to have a fellow alternate energy proponent as well as a EV enthusiast here to balance the gear heads....


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> What car with 4 wheels goes 100 watts / mile .


Sure that all steel mitisubishi highway EV uses about 100wh/mile. It's not exactly hard honestly.


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

Jason,

I read some on Dr. Romm. His view interests me enough that I will get his books at the library and read what he has to say.

I do notice he is a proponent of global warming, which I don't think has been proven yet, though it is a very popular theory. Many scientist not on the global warming gravy train, disagree with the theory.

Still I am all for getting off of the oil economy and onto renewable energy sources. Best for all around. I remember in the 70s when the ecology movement started. I remember Lake Erie being on fire because of all the industrial waste being pumped into the Great Lakes. Some said the Lakes would die never to live again. 

Within 5 years of pollution and dumping controls, the lake lived again, within 10 years you could not tell it had ever had any problems.

So I fully support clean energy systems, no matter what form they come to us in....Still not convinced that H2 is not viable, even with all the figures you throw around, but I still agree that battery run EVs are the best for most local travel.

If you still think me wrong to discuss hydrogen in this thread, look at the title to this thread and remember what we are really discussing....


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> 1. Warren Buffett, arguably the best investor on the planet says "put all your eggs in one basket, and WATCH THAT BASKET"
> 
> 2. Buffett is starting to invest heavily in the electric vehicle market. He is not investing in H2. What do you know about H2 that he doesn't?
> 
> ...


I watched Buffet talk about that He said he didn't understand it . what we are talking about is batteries , fuel cells are batteries . I posted the water numbers 1liter 3600 watts . I drove 5 of the new FC cars they all had 30 kw air compressors for the air breathing cells , hype is right , KOH cells carry the O2 so no 30kw . don't paint all fuel cells with the hype . they picked the worst technology to discredit the entire H2 idea . before the auto/oil fuel cell program , you never heard of fuel cells , NASA called them APU's , the utilities were having secret meeting on the fuel cell threat .


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

Kent , thanks . I crashed the grand opening of the fuel cell partnership . I explained my long study in FC and this was hype , he said could be . they also had the 1967 fuel cell Chevy van in the back lot . I think that was koh cell unit that not to many people heard of . then I see How killed The Electric Car and the director of FCP is the one that killed the electric car . So they killed the electric car , fuel cell car and the hydrogen economy . Good shooting 3 birds with 1 stone .


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

Jason,

Thanks for the info. I went today and got Romm's two books. I will read them and consider his viewpoint. As a physicist he might have some valid points.

One thing that does concern me already about him is that his site posts his blogs and they are filled with rhetoric, rather than facts. I would think a scientist would argue based on facts and data, rather than polemics. 

I will see what his books reveal.

I also got some other books, newer ones than Romm's hydrogen book. Some are proponents of hydrogen and HFCEVs (I too can make abbreviations!)

When I consider an issue I don't just study one side's view. I read them both. Normally it becomes readily apparent who has the truth and who is just standing on a pile of manure and slinging it about.

Sometimes both sides have a measure of truth and error. Sometimes people on both sides sling manure, trying to disparage those on the other side. The more one reads, and considers the more truth you find.

If this is too hypocritical for you, well so be it. We all have our opinions, and you are welcome to yours, no matter how wrong they are... 

On another note, I'd love to know when that guy is bringing his charging post business to the main land America. As an electrician I'd love to work on that project.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Here are some simple questions that you might be able to answer for me:

1; if you have 100kwh of electricity, how much electricity (not heat energy) can you store in a fuel cell if all you have to start with is an empty hydrogen tank and a tank of distilled water? Why won't you answer this? I'd like to see some referrences on that 90% efficiency.

2; 65% efficient solar panels? where? I want to see that, and where can I buy them?

If you want to make hydrogen yourself, then I have no problem with that. My issue is with fuel cells on a mass scale and the total system efficiency loss therein. Why won't you directly address my point? What are you afraid of? Or do you just not like conversing with self tought wielder/fabricators? LOL



> I do notice he is a proponent of global warming, which I don't think has been proven yet, though it is a very popular theory. Many scientist not on the global warming gravy train, disagree with the theory.


Don't know much about the author, but I agree about global warming, or climate change as they call it now.


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

david85 said:


> Here are some simple questions that you might be able to answer for me:
> 
> 1; if you have 100kwh of electricity, how much electricity (not heat energy) can you store in a fuel cell if all you have to start with is an empty hydrogen tank and a tank of distilled water? Why won't you answer this? I'd like to see some referrences on that 90% efficiency.
> 
> ...


I like discussing anything with those informed enough to do so. 

When did I claim 65% efficiency for photovoltaic panels? It ain't there, yet and maybe never. 

I've read some ideas about focusing solar radiation to concentrate it on smaller cells, and increasing the electrical output. Problem is the heat generated, as you also concentrate the IF frequency, so you have to radiate the heat away, because the cells production decreases as their temperature rises.

Another idea uses parabolic mirrors to track the sun, shining it up onto a strip of photovoltaic cells above it. Nice system, no motors or mechanical parts to wear out like other sun tracking systems. They still only get about a 28% eff.

Another idea uses multiple layers, each one colored so as to utilize a different frequency of solar radiation. Again about 30% eff.

The major photovoltaic systems use more panels of lower eff, and lower cost.

Oh and the answer to your first question is ZERO. Fuel cells do not store energy, they produce it on demand... like I told Jason, keep reading the truth is out there..

Tell me, sir welder, have you never heard of someone using H2 to cut and weld with? I have....  It is an energy sources, no matter what some pundit says....


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

The 65% mention of solar power was aimed at aeroscott, not you kent. I should have been clear about that. I can't find much wrong with your respons to that particular question though. Best I ever found was 36-40% with concentration, but 10-20% is what you normally get with average PV cells.

You don't need to be a wielder to know about hydrogen cutting. What does that have to do with my question of efficiency?

Maybe I can rephrase the question.

Suppose you start out with 100Kwh of electrical energy, and you want to store that energy in a fuel cell by decomposing water and using that hydrogen as the energy storage. 

Once its in the fuel cell, how much electrical energy potential do you have left from that original 100kwh?


----------



## dimitri (May 16, 2008)

Anyone who calls H2 an energy source does not deserve to be a part of intelligent conversation, end of story. I feel sorry for you guys wasting your life trying to convince anyone to do any math, if that person is not capable of grasping at the concept that H2 on Earth is not an energy source, the rest of these debates are completely moot...

Unsubscribing of this totally useless thread, add it to a list of perpetual motion, since that it what it became, perpetual loop of foolish statements...

see ya in real forums, where we build EVs....


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

dimitri said:


> Anyone who calls H2 an energy source does not deserve to be a part of intelligent conversation, end of story. I feel sorry for you guys wasting your life trying to convince anyone to do any math, if that person is not capable of grasping at the concept that H2 on Earth is not an energy source, the rest of these debates are completely moot...
> 
> Unsubscribing of this totally useless thread, add it to a list of perpetual motion, since that it what it became, perpetual loop of foolish statements...
> 
> see ya in real forums, where we build EVs....


Deuterium is an energy source on earth


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2009)

dimitri said:


> Anyone who calls H2 an energy source does not deserve to be a part of intelligent conversation, end of story. I feel sorry for you guys wasting your life trying to convince anyone to do any math, if that person is not capable of grasping at the concept that H2 on Earth is not an energy source, the rest of these debates are completely moot...
> 
> Unsubscribing of this totally useless thread, add it to a list of perpetual motion, since that it what it became, perpetual loop of foolish statements...
> 
> see ya in real forums, where we build EVs....


Gasoline and oil are in your terms also energy carriers. If you want to get down to the semantics of the use of the term energy then yes H2 is an energy carrier. So are most things we use. It is the Sun, Earth and Moon that are basically energy sources. All else are just carriers. If you get real nit picky even the sun is just a carrier because some day it will run out and stop. The moons influence on the planet will also some day stop. But until then they are sources of energy we use. We do tend to improperly use the term energy source. So friggin what. It is usable energy to make work. We take that substance and release the energy held within. Therefore we say it is an energy source. A temporary energy source. Batteries are carriers, Electricity is just a carrier too. So Blaaaa Blaaaa Blaaaa Blaaaaa. Gasoline/Oil is not an energy source. 

Radioactive sources are carriers because they too will stop someday. However they could be considered energy sources because of the long life they have. 

We are not as stupid as you may think. 

Pete


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

been running today got 4 charger stations for the Ford ev .Lonnie Johnson invented a heat engine with no moving parts runs at 650 c. 65% eff and the 40% was gallium arsenide 500 sun solar cell . 100 kw X 70% electrifier minis 10% compressor then KOH cell 70% to 90% depending how hard we run it . LH2 is said to cost 20% , 1% loss /day of gas , (like 30% month ) I'm not planing on LH2 yet .


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

aeroscott, is this what you are referring to?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4243793.html


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> been running today got 4 charger stations for the Ford ev .Lonnie Johnson invented a heat engine with no moving parts runs at 650 c. 65% eff and the 40% was gallium arsenide 500 sun solar cell . 100 kw X 70% electrifier minis 10% compressor then KOH cell 70% to 90% depending how hard we run it . LH2 is said to cost 20% , 1% loss /day of gas , (like 30% month ) I'm not planing on LH2 yet .



God this just sounds so horrible to me 

Even with $10,000 per panel you can't even do 1/5th as well as an EV.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

I'm going to award this thread the Hiroo Onoda medal.

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

He's the last Japanese soldier fighting WW2...still believed the war was going on in 1974... Refused to surrender until relieved by a superior officer.

Some have labelled my maths biased and scare-mongering. I don't contest that they are scary figures. What I simply ask is that someone show that they are wrong. So far, nobody has done so.

1. Show me a Fuel Cell prototype that gets much much more than 55 miles per kg

2. Show me a machine or prototype that can electrolyse H2 from water using much much less than 65 kwh of electricity.

3. Show me a machine or prototype that can produce zer0-emission electricity in the quantities needed to put enough H2 in enough fuel cells to cover even a fraction of the miles we drive today...Assuming non-polluting EVs and biofuels can be brought online before 2020 in sufficient quantities.

My maths and numbers may be scary, but everyone commenting is simply expressing: 1) fear at the consequences and 2) hope that technology will one day save us. I still wait patiently for someone to show with maths how the human race will be able to generate enough H2 from any electricity source in sufficient quantities to alleviate the greenhouse has problem and the peak oil problems we face in the next 10 - 20 years.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Careful jlsawell, he might start questioning you based on YOUR qualifications, lol.

aeroscott and gottdi are real members with real ideas and even made at least a half hearted effort to answer honest questions even if we don't agree. I have respect for them and both have contributed to the forum in the past.

Kent? I'm not sure about this guy but I have a growing suspicion that he is just a 13 yo with nothing better to do than waste our time. Not once was there any substance in his posts and his replies are comming in from the early morning hours in some case.

hmmm.................


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

dimitri said:


> Anyone who calls H2 an energy source does not deserve to be a part of intelligent conversation, end of story. I feel sorry for you guys wasting your life trying to convince anyone to do any math, if that person is not capable of grasping at the concept that H2 on Earth is not an energy source, the rest of these debates are completely moot...
> 
> Unsubscribing of this totally useless thread, add it to a list of perpetual motion, since that it what it became, perpetual loop of foolish statements...
> 
> see ya in real forums, where we build EVs....


 
Yep, glad to see you take your ignorant and foolish comments elsewhere.... not at all sorry to see you go...bye, bye.


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

david85 said:


> Careful jlsawell, he might start questioning you based on YOUR qualifications, lol.
> 
> aeroscott and gottdi are real members with real ideas and even made at least a half hearted effort to answer honest questions even if we don't agree. I have respect for them and both have contributed to the forum in the past.
> 
> ...


Careful there welder....or I will seriously reconsider your maturity as well as your credentials.

what are you 20? Well kid, I've been studing alternate energy since the 70s, when you were still wet behind the ears from nursing at your momma's teat.

that you can't understand my post or find substance in them speaks volumes of your depth of knowledge regarding hydrogen, fuel cells, and alternate energy.

But that's ok, stick with what you know. and continue to share what you do know. If you keep studing, you will find the truth, it is out there.... 

And I noticed Jason's credentials...an accountant. Hmmm...not an engineer able to deal with all the so called facts he thinks he understands. but a simple pencil pusher....and a writer, so I assume he can read as well....but in looking on his blog, at least he is reading and writing about the right stuff, so I have some hope for him. At least he is intelligent, even if still ignorant of the full truth....but I do have hope for you Jason...keep reading the truth is out there.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

And more and more people are realizing the truth, that hydrogen is a dead end, and are cutting funding for it. Those desperately trying to hold onto it are mostly car and oil companies looking for a way to hold on to their control of transportation and distribution. They are terrified of reliable, efficient EV's that won't need constant maintenance and won't be tied to a single source of fuel. The truth is out there, and more people are finding it.  Hydrogen is inefficient, expensive, and unnecessary in the face of constantly improving BEV technology. Fast charging exists in A123 and Altairnano cells, and for the few who occasionally need 400 mile range vehicles, ICE's are fine, either in a rental car or towable generator, until more fast charge stations are built.


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

jlsawell said:


> I'm going to award this thread the Hiroo Onoda medal.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroo_Onoda
> 
> ...


Jason, actually I have no fear for tomorrow, or hope that technology will save us all.

I ride my bike lots, zero carbon emmissions, except when I eat lots of beans...zero use of foreign oil, well just a few drops on my chain, and a little bit of grease here and there...and healthy all around...

Local travel is easy and cheap, on my bike...

I started reading one of the authors you recommend. Joseph Romm...I guess you never read his book on "The Hype about Hydrogen". He is far from an H2 opponent. He thinks it will happen, but gives it another 40 years to be in full operation, at least in America. He does think we need a solution now, before the carbon emmissions poisons the world to death. He is a global warming proponent, (which I still don't see as a proven fact yet). I do agree with him that we need to do something now and not wait for the technology to catch up.

I also agree with you, and I keep saying this and get no credit for it, that full battery EVs are the way to go, now!

But that won't keep me from considering H2 as a viable solution for our final energy mix.


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

JRP3 said:


> And more and more people are realizing the truth, that hydrogen is a dead end, and are cutting funding for it. Those desperately trying to hold onto it are mostly car and oil companies looking for a way to hold on to their control of transportation and distribution. They are terrified of reliable, efficient EV's that won't need constant maintenance and won't be tied to a single source of fuel. The truth is out there, and more people are finding it.  Hydrogen is inefficient, expensive, and unnecessary in the face of constantly improving BEV technology. Fast charging exists in A123 and Altairnano cells, and for the few who occasionally need 400 mile range vehicles, ICE's are fine, either in a rental car or towable generator, until more fast charge stations are built.


 
Hmm...then I guess you missed this announcement from Norway. Seems that they disagree with your view, enough to support H2 filling stations in their country...guys this is not pie in the sky, it is one of the emerging energy systems for the emerging EVs.

What do you think about this Jason? 

Added comment:
Wait a minute...hold the presses..EVs not tied to any fuel? What planet do you live on mate? Where in the world do you get electricity from now? The moon? EVs are limited to plugging into some kind of electrical power source for their charges. They don't draw it from the air.

Electrical production in most of the world comes from falling, moving water (hydroelectric), steam driven turbines, which use steam generated by some kind of fuel, oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear pile, and some geo thermal, tapping the mantel's heat to produce steam (Ice Land does this big time).

No fuel driving EVs? Sorry mate, but that is just plain an ignorant statement.

Any comparision of any system must be from well to wheel to be equal and fair. Whether considering overall efficiencies or carbon production. You can't get off saying that EVs use no fuel.

Even if you recharge off of photovoltaic cells and wind turbines, those devices were made with some kind of energy, derived from some source. Most likely from some fuels some where along the way. 


Now if you want to intelligently ammend you comment to EVs carry no fuel onboard and therefor....

that would make sense in this real world we all live in, well most of us live in anyways....some can only dream of just one way of doing things, one method of energy production and transferance....to dream the impossible dream....so the song goes... 8)


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I don't care if you personally were the first to split the atom. You still didn't bring anything but generalization and personal insults to the discussion.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

Norway proves my point that H2 is impractical for the US/UK/Australian environment. The quantity of miles just doesn't stack up. Particularly as we are facing a peak in the supply of oil sometime in the next 10 years. How will the trucks deliver their merchandise to stores in between 2020 and 2050? We simply don't have a stopgap once the oil starts to become expensive.

Also, I'd bet money that they are using natural has to greate H2, not electrolysing it using renewable electricity. Once the Natural Gas peaks around 2015, the cost of that H2 Highway will escalate as the gas price goes up (as a side note, check out Russian foreign policy effects on the price of Euro gas) and the scarcity means they have to start using electrolysed H20.

Kent, you and Joe are hoping for H2 to become part of the mix in 40 years... All I ask is that you compare the progress H2 fuel cells have made in the last 20 years (minimal) with batteries.

I remember a friend of my dad's had one of the first mobile phones in Australia. This would have been around 1986. The thing was the size of my laptop and had a coiled cable to the handset, just like my desk phone. Most of it was battery. Compared to my slimline mobile 23 years later, the improvement is astronomical.

Now project that battery improvement out another 20 years.

Also, look at the applications for a H2 fuel cell: spacecraft and transport. Compared with all the millions of other gadgets that benefit from improved battery capacity, where should the research be going?

Improving batteries not only makes EVs viable, it also translates into better hearing aids, pacemakers, military radios, kids toys, hospital equipment, forklifts, calculators, mobile phones, MP3 players, and the list goes on.

None of these gadgets will be powered by a H2 fuel cell.

I'm glad we all agree that EVs are needed here and now. But in 40 years, how many miles will trucks be driving? How much H2 will that require and therefore how much energy to produce that gas? I challenge you to show that running anything like a reasonable portion of transport on H2 from renewable energy will be even remotely cost effective. It's not and instead of campaigning for H2 along with pure EVs, I'd encourage you to campaign to you local, state and federal govt representatives for EV-related facilities NOW, and hold off on the H2 for 5 years or so.

If it's 40 years down the track, redirect all funding from H2 to EV batteries for 2 years. The 2 year pause won't harm fuel cell research much, and a 2 year delay in a 40 year project is immaterial. But the difference could be crucial for EV batteries.

And please don't make cheap cracks about my apparent lack of qualifications. I recall Mr Warner of Warner Bros asking "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" and the scientific community saying to the Wright Bros "If God wanted man to fly, he would have given us wings". 

And it was the tax accountants that nailed Al Capone.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

kent1956 said:


> Any comparision of any system must be from well to wheel to be equal and fair. Whether considering overall efficiencies or carbon production. You can't get off saying that EVs use no fuel.


No argument there. So what is that efficiency for FCEV cars?


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

david85 said:


> aeroscott, is this what you are referring to?
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4243793.html


That's it David , I'm not holding out for high eff. panels . I will continue to buy used / damaged cheap panels . As the cost of panels drop we will have more need for large storage . if lithium silicon batteries take off with 10X more energy , depending on cost . I can scrounge the stainless steel , tanks , vales , compressors , etc , for this at price I am able to deal with in fact I have most of what I need . But if I can get lithium cheap , with current tech. 10,000 - 20,000 lbs.of lith. to store 1000 kw . I paid 700.00 for 50 kw of surplus lith. 18650 about 2 pallets 1200 lbs . I don't think I will run into that kind of deal again . It would take 20 times that 14,000 bucks . 1000000 watts / 3600 watts per liter of water =277 liters (69 gallons)water X 1358 liters H2 gas ( 1 liter water=1358 liters h2 gas )=377222 /28 =13,472 cu. ft./340 [5000psi . tank / 14.7 (1 atm )]=39 cub ft @5000 psi . but i have 12(8 H2 & 4 O2 ) tanks with that volume and 1 inch thick walls so 625 psi would work @ a lot less compression energy . I haven't run these numbers in 20 years .


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

david85 said:


> I don't care if you personally were the first to split the atom. You still didn't bring anything but generalization and personal insults to the discussion.


 
That's ok David. Stick to your welding and building your EV. Let the rest of us be concerned for H2, infrastructure and fuel cells. We'll let you know when to buy in....  and follow Norway in this technology. When it happens you will be ahead of the game with your EV, just rip out the batteries, install a couple of tanks and a fuel cell and away you go...

So keep on, keeping on. And the rest of us will do the same...don't forget what the title of this thread is. NASA's demonstation project. 

*I still think those rocket scientists, who help keep our men living in space and to the moon and back, know a hell of alot more than either you or I about H2 and fuel cell technology. And I expect these real engineers and scientists will lead us into a hydrogen economy. No matter what a few welders and tinkerers think.*

If you want to take offense at that too, well youngster go right ahead. You have your opinion, and I have mine. Take it or leave it, I really don't care. But your attacks on me, enjoin defensive attacks back.

Get real kid, this is happening, this is real world. It is coming, it is in development, production is building up. We are going to have more hydrogen development and usage in our daily lives. Fuel cells are a technology that is here today, and will be powering more tomorrow.

That is what this thread is about, what the lead article was about. Get your head out of the sand, the truth is not down there. Battery EVs are great. I think they are the main way for us to normally, daily get around. 

But H2 has it's place in the energy mix. It is a clear as the torch in your hands every day!


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

david85 said:


> No argument there. So what is that efficiency for FCEV cars?


 
DAvid, 

from some informal figures I did myself, which need to be adjusted by an real engineer. it is about 80%, providing the H2 is produced by photovoltaic panels, with free solar energy input. 

Using KoH cells, and the O2 produced by electrolysis, it would increase the eff, to about 85-90%. Don't know the figures for the panel construction fuel uses, to be honest...

gee an honest question finally. Rather than a rhetorical or entrapping one.

Again the comparision for H2 is not to battery vehicles, which are superior eff.

But compared to IC engines operating with gasoline.

H2 can also be directly used in IC engines, with a little better eff, than the IC on gasoline, about 35% eff, rather than the 28-30% eff of a gasoline IC engine.

Again just my own figures, doing an informal computation. A real engineer in this field could give better truer figures.


----------



## kent1956 (May 8, 2009)

Jason,

You stated,

Norway proves my point that H2 is impractical for the US/UK/Australian environment. The quantity of miles just doesn't stack up. Particularly as we are facing a peak in the supply of oil sometime in the next 10 years. How will the trucks deliver their merchandise to stores in between 2020 and 2050? We simply don't have a stopgap once the oil starts to become expensive.


Actually for any vehicle to become totally practical, some kind of infrasture must be built. BEVs are impractical for anything except local travel. Where now, can you recharge? For me at home, perhaps I could sneak a recharge on some exterior receptacle on a building near a parking space some where. But no gaurentee on that.

So now, BEVs must be a local vehicle, with home as main charging station.

Now with the Better Place system, by Shia Aggassi, makes perfect sense. I'm listening to him now on the radio.

Put in chaging stations all over every metro area. Then a battery change out station every 100 miles between metro areas, and there you have it. His system changes out battery packs in 3 minutes. Great system. Exactly what we need. (you have his article on your blog, thanks for that info.)

Now to convince the governments to buy into it. 

This type of system can make BEVs the main vehicle on the road, and make BEVs usable for long range travel. This type of system, could hedge out HFCEVs as a viable option. We shall see....

In the early days of the automobile. It was up between electric cars and IC cars. IC cars won out, and the world bought into the oil economy, spending billions in infrastructure.

In this new move, it will be whatever infrastructure that gets built that will rule the market. BEVs with out a system like Aggassi's will never be more than local vehicles, which is a good thing, beacuse 80-90% of all travel is within 20 miles of home.

Is this all enough facts for you David? See I too have done my homework.

Still H2 is playing out to be part of the equation, whether you all like it or not. Some of us have our heads up and are looking at the whole EV and energy forest, not just the battery tree.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

lots of pit falls trying to figure a system . like the statement that fuel cell car guy made it's 90 plus % eff but not if it had a 30 kw compressor running and the car only needed 10 kw to go down the road . I think if big auto / oil would have left fuel cells alone we might be farther ahead on FC and way ahead on the EV . But the techs working some what on there own will still come up with great stuff in spite of there bosses .


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

kent1956 said:


> Added comment:
> Wait a minute...hold the presses..EVs not tied to any fuel? What planet do you live on mate? Where in the world do you get electricity from now? The moon? EVs are limited to plugging into some kind of electrical power source for their charges. They don't draw it from the air.
> 
> Electrical production in most of the world comes from falling, moving water (hydroelectric), steam driven turbines, which use steam generated by some kind of fuel, oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear pile, and some geo thermal, tapping the mantel's heat to produce steam (Ice Land does this big time).
> ...


Are you kidding? Who said there was no fuel driving EV's? The point was that electricity can be made from a huge variety of sources, which makes it much more flexible and less prone to price fluctuations and shortages.
I'm getting the feeling more and more that you are nothing but a troll with your weak attempts at personal attacks. Just because a fuel cell may be the best solution for outer space doesn't mean it's even close to practical for every day transportation. The space shuttle may work in space but you're not driving it to work every day.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

kent1956 said:


> Now with the Better Place system, by Shia Aggassi, makes perfect sense.


Figures you'd think that.


> Put in chaging stations all over every metro area. Then a battery change out station every 100 miles between metro areas, and there you have it. His system changes out battery packs in 3 minutes. Great system. Exactly what we need. (you have his article on your blog, thanks for that info.)


You think auto makers will ever come close to a standard swappable pack? Nope. You think it will ever be practical for a swapping station to house hundreds of packs on site for swapping? Nope. You think there will be a large demand for swapping when 90% of the time people will charge at home, for a lot less money? Nope. Better Place is almost as bad as hydrogen in terms of efficiency and likely hood of development. Just another attempt to control vehicle infrastructure, no thanks.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

the cars makers would hate any type of standardisation .just look at cordless power tools .standard battery packs and quick removal are important even without a exchange program .


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

kent1956 said:


> Jason,
> 
> Is this all enough facts for you David?


Not yet. How did you arrive at that 85%-95% efficiency?

My question of the efficiency of FCEVs was in the context that you put fourth in one of your replies that any comparison must include "well to wheel" losses. I understood that to mean the losses from the moment you start pumping oil out of the ground to the moment the car puts the energy to the road from its on board fuel cell.

What does your 95% efficiency assume? If all you accounted for was hydrogen already in a usable form in the fuel cell, then you did not answer the question.

I can tell you right now that there is no battery electric car that is 95% efficient, when you start to measure losses for the motor, motor controller, shafts, gears, charger, tires, power generation at the plant 300 miles away, etc.

Lets see all of your math, Kent.

How did you arrive at 95% efficiency?


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> Figures you'd think that.
> 
> You think auto makers will ever come close to a standard swappable pack? Nope. You think it will ever be practical for a swapping station to house hundreds of packs on site for swapping? Nope. You think there will be a large demand for swapping when 90% of the time people will charge at home, for a lot less money? Nope. Better Place is almost as bad as hydrogen in terms of efficiency and likely hood of development. Just another attempt to control vehicle infrastructure, no thanks.


In all honesty, I think the "hot swap" idea is mainly a stunt to get attention so that there is a simple and easy to understand solution to plugging a car in to go longer distances. People swap batteries in toy cars, so why not full size cars?

There are many reasons why it does not scale up well, but that would take us way too far off topic. Last I checked, there was a battery swap station that has been built, but to date, no prototype car that can use it. I'm still waitinting to see some pictures or video of that robot instead of just a written article.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Actually there is a video of the system at work, and it's pretty cool. It still doesn't make the reality of what's actually involved in the whole concept any more practical.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/electric-vehicles/635-project-better-place-14.html
Here's our own PBP thread where we can continue to bash the concept 
http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forum...ce-presents-worlds-first-automated-31600.html


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

All I ever saw before was CGI videos of the concept. I heard that a swap station had been built but never saw video evidence until now. Thanks.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

I was speaking to Guy Pross and Ben Kennealy from Beter Place yesterday and they said much of the standardisation is already in place. The clamps that hold the batteries in are the same used to hold bombs in the bomb bays of the IDF F-16s. Designed to withstand multiple-g manouvers yet release with pinpoint accuracy, I think they're onto a good idea.

Obama and the head of the Dept of Energy agree that Hydrogen fuel cells aren't viable anytime soon and research funds would be better spent elsewhere in battery research. Maybe they read my last few posts???   

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/05/08/hydrogen-car-goes-down-like-the-hindenburg-doe-kills-the-program/

The dream of hydrogen fuel cell cars has just been put back in the garage. U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced yesterday that his department is cutting all funding for hydrogen car research, saying that it won’t be a feasible technology anytime soon. “We asked ourselves, ‘Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will covert to a hydrogen car economy?’ The answer, we felt, was ‘no,’” Chu said [CNET]. While innovative new cars are a high priority, Chu declared that his department will focus on efforts that may pay off sooner, like plug-in electric cars.
Cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells have been a staple of clean energy dreams, as they’d produce only a trickle of water as a waste product, instead of sooty exhaust and carbon dioxide gas. The retreat from cars powered by fuel cells counters Mr. Bush’s prediction in 2003 that “the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.” The Energy Department will continue to pay for research into stationary fuel cells, which Dr. Chu said could be used like batteries on the power grid and do not require compact storage of hydrogen [The New York Times].

But experts say there are a host of obstacles to overcome before hydrogen cars can regularly cruise America’s highways. They are still very expensive, and producing the hydrogen on which they run is not cheap, or completely clean, either. At the moment, most hydrogen used in fuel cells is extracted from natural gas, a non-renewable hydrocarbon just like oil. A new hydrogen distribution system would also have to be built from scratch – and won’t be cheap [The Wall Street Journal]. One recent report from the National Research Council estimated that the total cost of building hydrogen pipelines and filling stations could be as high as $200 billion.
end quote

$200 billion - by comparison, anyone have a figure for the hunt for WMDs so far? I think the US is up to 4,500 soldiers killed and $667 billion according to this:
http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

So a Hydrogen economy at $200 b is not practical but Iraqi WMDs at $600 b is OK??? hmmm


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I'm still not convinced that the business model of better place has staying power, but I'm content to at least let it run its course. LOL, as if any of us could stop it anyway. If I had the choice I wouldn't buy into it based on what I know so far.

I don't think I can find much wrong with your assertion of fuel cells though.

Better place is a step up from fuel cells though so its at least a step in the right direction.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

This is silly. There's more than semantics involved when distinguishing between an energy source and an energy carrier. And there's more to consider than the perpetuity of an energy supply when categorizing the two. Without an energy source, you have no energy. Period. And simply calling an energy carrier an energy source does nothing to solve the problem of where the energy originally comes from.

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source like oil, or the sun. It's as simple as that.

And it really is that simple. It would be complicated if we required energy to be converted from one form to another, like from kinetic energy to electrical energy (think wind turbine), or heat energy into kinetic energy (think steam engine). That's because in converting energy from an unusable form to a useable form, inefficiencies -- even large inefficiencies -- are often acceptable. That's the price we pay to obtain energy in a more useful form.

But hydrogen requires electricity to produce, and it produces electricity (via fuel cell) as the end product. So we've performed two steps (at least) of energy conversion without even changing the energy to a different (or more useful) form. We get exactly the same kind of energy out of it (electricity) that we put into it (electricity), except we're getting much less out than we put in. There is simply no point in doing that.

In a nutshell: The more hydrogen we produce, the less energy we have.

And despite Kent's obvious misunderstanding of the assertion that BEVs are not tied to any particular energy source, as for the perceived need to diversify our energy technologies, BEVs already do that quite nicely, as has already been pointed out. Energy for BEVs can come from virtually any source, clean or dirty, renewable or fossil. And BEVs do this in precisely the same fashion -- but without the same inefficiencies -- as FCVs. Invoking FCVs as a necessary component in a diversified energy infrastructure denies the fact that FCVs get their energy from _exactly the same sources and in exactly the same form_ as BEVs, but at a significantly reduced efficiency. Calling for the development of FCVs to diversify energy infrastructure would be like requiring the Post Office to diversify its delivery system by requiring a third of its mail carriers to travel by rollerskate instead of by truck. It reduces the level of efficiency without providing any diversification benefit whatsoever.


If people are dead set on having fuel cell vehicles, then they should be fueled by methane, not hydrogen. At least the methane is available (in vast quantities in North America) and is a true energy source, unlike hydrogen. And since we have some infrastructure already in place to operate cars running on CNG, it would be far simpler to adapt and to expand that infrastructure to serve cars that operate on methane fuel cells than to build a new infrastructure with hydrogen -- and its associated as-yet unsolved problems -- as an energy carrier. Methane fuel cells would still dump CO2 into the atmosphere, but it is still far cleaner than gasoline. And it would add true diversification, unlike hydrogen FCVs.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

Astronomer said:


> If people are dead set on having fuel cell vehicles, then they should be fueled by methane, not hydrogen. At least the methane is available (in vast quantities in North America) and is a true energy source, unlike hydrogen. And since we have some infrastructure already in place to operate cars running on CNG, it would be far simpler to adapt and to expand that infrastructure to serve cars that operate on methane fuel cells than to build a new infrastructure with hydrogen -- and its associated as-yet unsolved problems -- as an energy carrier. Methane fuel cells would still dump CO2 into the atmosphere, but it is still far cleaner than gasoline. And it would add true diversification, unlike hydrogen FCVs.


You've just summarised the economy of the post-apocalyptic Bartertown in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome.

"Who run bartertown?"
"Master Blaster"


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> I was speaking to Guy Pross and Ben Kennealy from Beter Place yesterday and they said much of the standardisation is already in place. The clamps that hold the batteries in are the same used to hold bombs in the bomb bays of the IDF F-16s. Designed to withstand multiple-g manouvers yet release with pinpoint accuracy, I think they're onto a good idea.


The size and shape and connections of packs are not standardized and will never be. We can't even get standard sized batteries in cell phones or cordless tools, you think automakers are going to be any better? Even so, standardization is only one of many problems with swapping, the largest being it's simply not necessary. Especially in the smaller countries where it's being promoted, a 200 mile pack would take you the length of Israel, what's the point in swapping? Makes no sense. Batteries and getting better and cheaper very quickly, swapping is as pointless as hydrogen.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Batteries and getting better and cheaper very quickly, swapping is as pointless as hydrogen.


Up to a point I agree, but by similar logic you wouldn't combine a phone and a camera - there's no point.

The swapping is only a small part of their plan, but it's the bit that people seem to fixate on and point to and say "See, there's a less-practical part to this project, therefore, the entire thing is a waste of time"...

They are taking a USB-style approach to setting the standards with the ISO, car maker and battery people. Once the planning is finalised, local battery makers will be provided the specs and invited to make compliant batteries. This way the whole thing provides local jobs complying with am international standard.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> Up to a point I agree, but by similar logic you wouldn't combine a phone and a camera - there's no point.


Camera phones have revolutionized transparency of governments...
Not to mention legal assistant and on the fly video taping of corruption.

I see zero benefits to battery swapping... the idea of removing $10k battery packs for packs of unknown quality is a big no.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> Camera phones have revolutionized transparency of governments...
> Not to mention legal assistant and on the fly video taping of corruption.


Amen to that!



Technologic said:


> I see zero benefits to battery swapping... the idea of removing $10k battery packs for packs of unknown quality is a big no.


In this idea, you don't own the battery so if they screw it up its at their cost (which is then passed on to you, the customer). You buy the car, then they provide the battery after you sign a contract.

The single guiding principle of this idea seems to be handing complete control over to the better place company. Its not that you buy a car, you are buying USAGE of a car. This is why they use the model of buying miles and not directly paying for the energy you consume at market rate.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Amen to that!
> 
> 
> 
> In this idea, you don't own the battery so if they screw it up its at their cost (which is then passed on to you, the customer). You buy the car, then they provide the battery after you sign a contract.


My point exactly... either way you're paying for it... and it's not even necessary or convenient.

Last thing I want, or would allow actually, is my government prorating "mileage" like they do "stamps" for letters.

No thanks... really... NO. I wouldn't even be ok with businesses doing such garbage.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

Technologic said:


> the idea of removing $10k battery packs for packs of unknown quality is a big no.


Technologic, I think you may be misunderstanding the concept.

Under the BP contract, the car owner does not own the battery that comes with the car they buy. Like the SIM card in your mobile phone is owned by the telco, and allows you access based on your plan - same with BP batteries.

So people using a BP car won't give two hoots about the battery, because it isn't theirs. The software monitors it and tells you when you need to swap it out. It can also tell if the owners are abusing the battery and tell BP to contact them.

And just like mobile phones today, there are plan options. Many people use these contract plans. Others choose to pre-pay. You might not like the subscription-contract model and that's fine. You can do your own conversion and charge at your own outlet. And as a bonus, EV conversion is a lot cheaper than setting up your own mobile phone network because you "don't want to be locked into an expensive pay-for-use plan to a monopoly"


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> Technologic, I think you may be misunderstanding the concept.
> 
> Under the BP contract, the car owner does not own the battery that comes with the car they buy. Like the SIM card in your mobile phone is owned by the telco, and allows you access based on your plan - same with BP batteries.
> 
> ...


No thanks... pass.

I want to own my property. I want the equity and I don't want people "rating" my batteries, tracking mileages, and shoving unnecessary regulations onto battery designs.

Can you imagine the stagnation of battery technology?
Any new form of battery coming out WON'T be used because it will require a complete revamping of all their swap stations... no thanks.

Keep that as far as possible from the gov... and private businesses, but mostly the gov.

I want people competing, not nationalization of "the status quo" on packs, car designs, etc etc etc. 

I'd like to keep the reins of my slavery out of the goverment's hands as long as possible.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Cellphone/camera analogy was terrible. Cell cams enhance the usefulness of the product. The real analogy is if you paid to be part of a program to swap out the battery of your cell phone when you needed a recharge.
Yeah it might be useful once in a while if your phone was low on charge and you didn't want to wait while you plug it in, but no way would it be worth subscribing to such a service when you can just keep it charged from home. Plus you'd have to hope you were near a swapping station that had your battery when the phone actually went dead.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Another reason swapping, and hydrogen, aren't necessary:


> OGRON BV is a Dutch company that wants to bring this breakthrough technology to the rechargeable lithium battery market. Professor Joop Schoonman, science director at the Delft Center for Sustainable Energy, will be making a presentation during the 5th International Symposium of Large Ion Battery Technology and Application, which will take place June 8 - 10, 2009 in Long Beach, California, USA. Company representatives plan to demonstrate the technology with a standard car that has been converted to electric drive and equipped with a 70 kWh of these new batteries. The company claims the electric vehicle will have a 500 km range and the battery module will be capable of an 80% recharge within 5 minutes.


http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=4698
http://www.ogron.eu/en/news-en.html
Just another of many battery improvements on the way.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

I love the battery developments but I fail to see how better batteries are a problem for Better Place. Better range will only increase public acceptance, and the swap stations remove the objections of the last minority of opponents to EVs based on low range.

The swapping stations are a small part of the project. It's like saying to NASCAR that since the soft drink vendors at one racetrack aren't making money, the whole shebang is useless. You're focussing on one small aspect of the business model and exaggerating it's importance to the final result.

The BP cars have a combined GPS/battery monitor to tell you how much charge you have left. No ICE car can say to you "you have 5 miles of fuel left and here are the 3 closest fuel stations - on your GPS..." so the BP cars are actually far less likely to be stranded than a gas car.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

jlsawell said:


> The BP cars have a combined GPS/battery monitor to tell you how much charge you have left. No ICE car can say to you "you have 5 miles of fuel left and here are the 3 closest fuel stations - on your GPS..." so the BP cars are actually far less likely to be stranded than a gas car.


You are not at all nervous about an international government sponsored project like this making cars that can be tracked and monitored live with GPS? Battery swaps are only a small technical defect that I have a problem with. Its the Orwellian flavor of the idea that worrys me.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

david85 said:


> You are not at all nervous about an international government sponsored project like this making cars that can be tracked and monitored live with GPS? Battery swaps are only a small technical defect that I have a problem with. Its the Orwellian flavor of the idea that worrys me.


Sorry if my friendly tone is lost a little by the medium. I'm still happy with y'all, and just trying to make sure the discussion is based on facts, not rumours.

1. As far as I understand, there is very little government money involved. The original $300 million was raised from private venture capitalists - your heroes. If you know of govt money involved, please let me know because I would like to raise it with BP management.

2. Who mentioned live tracking via GPS? The GPS satellites can't track your unit, they only emit a signal that the individual units triangulate to establish their position. The only "tracking" involved is the mileage of the car, not the destination's it's been. You'd need to get hold of the actual unit for that, which the FBI can already do with your handheld GPS. Your mechanic probably keeps track of your mileage anyway, so what's the big deal?

3. If I were so paranoid to be afraid that the govt was secretly tracking my vehicle mileage, I'd be more worried about your mobile phone. They can already trace your mobile phone route & calls without your knowledge.

4. Besides, what are you afraid of? You'll drive to a brothel, the govt will find out and tell your wife? The press would have a field day with the invasion of privacy. Besides, no politician would legislate a tracking system because they're much more likely to be up to illegal/immoral things than Joe Average... They would be exposed by it far quicker than anything you might be up to.

Worried about Orwellian govt? Go look at your own IRS. That's Big Brother, the Gestapo and the Brothers Grimm all rolled into one.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

No hostility here either.

I'm canadian, the IRS is american (poor bastards) but point taken, thats why I don't want EVs to be part of that kind of model. We did get audited by revenue canada once though, what a waste of time that was. Only reason it happened was because THEY failed to process our GST papers on time and it was up to us to straiten things out but by then our file had been flagged for audit.

There may not be any official connection between BP and the government of oregon, but this is still uncanny:

http://www.greendaily.com/2008/12/30/oregon-considers-gps-tracking-mileage-tax-who-benefits/

I don't think there is any real secret that one of the big reasons that EVs have been held back is because of how difficult it would be to tax them when people generate their own power at home. But learning to do more work with less tax dollars is evedently unthinkable. Hydrogen and BP's model lends itself rather well to highway taxation so naturally governments like israel with thier 60% tax on new cars love the idea.

I've heard your thesis about privacy before. Basically you're saying "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about". Only problem is the law is run by imperfect people too even if we assume they are genuine. The more rights I have, the safer I am. The more rights they have, the more dangerous they are. Privacy is not about vanity or imbaressment, it plays right into basic human rights and freedoms. It your right to anonymity, don't underestimate that and don't take it lightly when you loose even an inch out of a mile. Cars cruise a mile a minute these days.

Mechanic? That doesn't really apply to me either. I do all my own servicing from AC overhaul to automatic transmission to full engine rebuilds. Did structural/cosmetic body repair as well. The only mechanic that I would ever take my car or trucks to is one that I trust my life with. I haven't met one yet so for now only I touch my vehicle's bolts. The state of oklahoma has started passing laws to restrict who can and cannot service their own EV if the system voltage is over 80V even though there were no reported cases of electrical injury from EVs. They also require yearly updates of training that costs a few grand every time. They took a bit more than an inch that time.

I don't care if this is a private enterprise or a government, the danger of a monopoly like this speaks for itself no matter who is in charge.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> I love the battery developments but I fail to see how better batteries are a problem for Better Place.


Cheaper longer range batteries make swapping, and fast charging stations, even less useful. The less they are needed the more likely the whole concept will fail. PBP provides no added value. Other individual businesses can add fast charging stations to their locations at a reasonable price to attract customers, much like gas stations today make more money from the goods they sell than the fuel. 


> The swapping stations are a small part of the project. It's like saying to NASCAR that since the soft drink vendors at one racetrack aren't making money, the whole shebang is useless. You're focussing on one small aspect of the business model and exaggerating it's importance to the final result.


Swapping is probably one of the more expensive and least necessary aspect of better place. The whole concept of not owning the battery but paying for the charge "service" is a bad idea. The customers will have to pay outrageous recharge or swapping prices for PBP to recoup the costs of building all that infrastructure. If anyone has a choice to either charge at home for almost nothing or pay inflated prices using PBP facilities they will charge at home. My earlier cellphone analogy was spot on.


> The BP cars have a combined GPS/battery monitor to tell you how much charge you have left. No ICE car can say to you "you have 5 miles of fuel left and here are the 3 closest fuel stations - on your GPS..." so the BP cars are actually far less likely to be stranded than a gas car.


Yes, just like almost every other EV, even without GPS, can tell you your SOC and warn you when you're running low. PBP adds nothing, except unnecessary expense.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> 4. Besides, what are you afraid of? You'll drive to a brothel, the govt will find out and tell your wife? The press would have a field day with the invasion of privacy. Besides, no politician would legislate a tracking system because they're much more likely to be up to illegal/immoral things than Joe Average... They would be exposed by it far quicker than anything you might be up to.
> 
> Worried about Orwellian govt? Go look at your own IRS. That's Big Brother, the Gestapo and the Brothers Grimm all rolled into one.



Please refer to my post...

I'm afraid that we'll be using lithium batteries 25 years from now, car ranges won't improve much, and every guy will spend $15-20k to keep a $10k pack charged 

Don't use that "if you're not doing anything illegal why do you care" bit. Freedom is a fundamental right for every person. I'm sure you can think of all the reasons keeping as much of that freedom as possible is necessarily important.

My argument about equity is the whole point. If you disagree about my argument of "large government" or corrupted businesses running the technology into the ground, then you should at least realize that there is equity in owning your car and all the parts and none leasing it out.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Going way back to the original topic, goodbye hydrogen:
http://www.grist.org/article/hydrog...hu-agrees-with-climate-progress-and-slashes-/
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=09-P13-00020&segmentID=2
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/


----------

