Norway is even more amazing than the excerpt from Moore's movie: Their building a Hydrogen Highway

[berni_mccoy]

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=31012

Norway's Minister of Transport and Communication, Torild Skogsholm, announced that approximately USD 7.5 million in funds have been earmarked for testing alternative fuels and environmentally friendly technology. The lion's share of the funds will go towards the HyNor project, a "hydrogen highway" of sorts that spans hundreds of miles along the country's southern coast between the cities of Oslo and Stavanger.

"We're now finally beginning to see the contours of the hydrogen highway from Stavanger to Oslo and have come a significant step closer to realizing Norway's first hydrogen filling station."
- HyNor project leader, Christopher Kloed, from Hydro

The Research Council of Norway, on behalf of the Ministry of Transport and Communication, granted a total of NOK 48.6 million (USD 7.5 million) to a series of projects and the testing of hydrogen and biological fuels.



More at the link.

Imagine if the U.S. Government decided to build a series of Hydrogen Refueling Stations along the major interstates... I've seen many pilot programs for Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles advertised on T.V.: BMW, Chevy, Toyota and Honda all have programs going on next year, but they are all in Southern Cal or near Metro regions. If the government got serious about fuel economy, they'd be building Hydrogen Highways. And for about 7.5 million per 400 miles, that is cheap, especially given the fact that the refueling stations in Norway are powered by solar/wind energy.

[pansypoo53219]

1. i've been to denmark. a windmill here and there is not offensive. why do we need FARMS?

why do we need the grid?

[Cerridwen]

2. Scale.

Area:

U.S.: 3,618,770 square miles
Norway: 125,181 square miles


Population:

U.S.: 303,505,341
Norway: 4,525,000


Terrain/topography:

U.S.: Desert, forests, swamps, mountains, valleys, a rain forest, extreme heat, extreme cold, and everything in between.
Norway: glaciated; mostly high plateaus and rugged mountains broken by fertile valleys; small, scattered plains; coastline deeply indented by fjords; arctic tundra in north


Power consumption?
Materialistic values?

[berni_mccoy]

5. Which makes Norway's accomplishment even more amazing

They have far fewer resources and tax-base to invest in such a technological venture and yet, they already have cars and fueling stations on the roads.

[Cerridwen]

12. Which is why I included "materialistic values". Perhaps I should have said

priorities. Norway's priorities are far different from U.S. priorities (speaking to the "leaders" of the countries not the populace).

The U.S. is far behind the curve when it comes to doing well by its people. This is just another example, I'm afraid.

And now I'm off to work so I can't stay and discuss this with you. I agree, Norway is doing wonderful things. I wish our country had chosen people over profit long ago.

[NewJeffCT]

19. Norway makes a lot of money off of oil

while they may have fewer resources than the US, they have a lot of one of the most valuable.

[wtmusic]

21. Bingo. Connect the dots. nt

[wtmusic]

3. Consumer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a distraction

to steer you away from truly viable fuel efficient cars like biodiesel, advanced hybrids and battery electrics. Fuel cell vehicles cost roughly $1M each, have serious durability problems, and don't work well in cold weather. Liquid hydrogen is extremely difficult to store and pump, and preparing the hydrogen for use in a car by compressing it or liquefying it and transporting it uses up to 70% of the energy contained in the hydrogen itself. That energy usually comes from burning coal or natural gas--not clean at all. HFC vehicles have been ten years away for about fifteen years now, and real experts in the field like Joe Romm from Clinton's DOE say they're 30 years away from widespread use, if they ever see it.

They are seeing some use in powering industrial buildings and mass transit, but when it comes to consumer vehicles you're correct that the government is not serious about fuel economy. That's exactly why the hype about hydrogen--so for the next 30 years we'll keep burning gasoline.

[berni_mccoy]

4. They may be a distraction here, but they are a reality in Norway

They already have Hydrogen vehicles and stations on the road: http://www.hynor.no/pdf/engelsk-hynor-presentation.pdf

Their goal is to complete the entire highway by 2009. They are making steady progress.

[northzax]

8. yes, they have 20 cars on the road

20. out of a million. all paid for with public funds (since the number of people who can afford fuel cell vehicles is, well, limited to the Forbes List, for the most part)

[Milo_Bloom]

13. Honda is releasing a production HFC car next summer.

I am on the list to try and lease one.

So, they aren't 10 years away... they are here.

[wtmusic]

16. OK, just don't think you're doing the environment any favors

Fact: hydrogen fuel cell cars create far more pollution and greenhouse gases than hybrids, and are likely to do so for the foreseeable future -- when the processing and shipping footprint is included. The petro industry wants you to play ball in their yard, so they've manufactured the illusion that a green HFC vehicle is just around the corner. Until they've sold every last drop of gasoline, instead of creating advanced hybrids and lithium ion electric cars which are completely viable today. And guess who's going to be selling you hydrogen for $15/gal in 2040?

"The bad news is that it is going to be years and years before this is readily available countrywide and many metro areas do not even know when alternative energy fuel stations will be proposed.

This is exactly why any politician offering the American public a four year fix to our energy problem is selling rhetoric you shouldn't listen to. It is going to be 2012 to 2016 before the U.S. will see any noticeable difference, and anyone who believes that any full system-wide fix happening before 2020 is probably more optimistic than realistic. You are hearing this from someone who believes that green investing and green businesses are already becoming big business. But there are also financial and logistical realities."

http://www.247wallst.com/2007/11/how-investors-s.html

We don't have time to waste.

[Milo_Bloom]

18. Sure I am.

Hydrogen is an abundent element and once profitable will be easy to collect using quite green solutions (such as solar and water power). I hope the petro industry becomes involved and I will be more than happy to play ball in their yard and pay them whatever the fuel cost is, because in the long run, it will be better for the planet.

Its a real shame Ross Perot didn't want to be president in 1992, because if he did and he won and his gas tax would have gone into effect then, making gas $2.50 per gallon at that time, we would be MUCH FURTHER along in this process.

[wtmusic]

20. The fact that hydrogen is abundant means nothing.

Hydrogen is tied up with other elements, like oxygen in water or carbon in methane. To separate the two requires energy. You can separate them with wind and/or solar power, compress the resulting hydrogen or liquefy it, transport it, then put it into cars which don't work very well and don't go very far, with about 30% of the energy present in the hydrogen left over to turn the wheels. And don't forget the amount of energy required to construct your infrastructure, which you can bet won't be coming from hydrogen -- and will end up as additional CO2 and pollutants in the air.

Or you can take that same energy and put it into the existing grid to charge electric vehicles and end up with the inverse -- about 70% of the energy you started out with actually going to turning the wheels of the car.

The efficiency and environmental footprint of every single hydrogen transportation solution currently available is appalling, without prospect of things getting better anytime soon. Think what you want to think, but basic physics and chemistry don't support it, and the fact that you've bought so eagerly into their con is evidence of how effective they've been.

[Milo_Bloom]

24. Oh please...

Sell the conspiracy theory somewhere else. This same nonsensical argument can be used to shoot down EVERY SINGLE solution, including electric cars, which are not nearly as efficient as many people think, because of the production of the electricity, which would require additional energy production NOW and a huge remodel of the current infra-structure, since it is not equipped to provide electricity for all current uses AND charging everyone's care on top of it. California can't take the summer drain WITHOUT cars being added into the equation.

Hybrids are a cute temporary reduction solution, but that's it, they are not a long term solution... because we need a different FUEL SOURCE. "Electricity" isn't a source, it is a result.

Bio fuels have promise, Hydrogen has promise. Both are currently inefficient, but that is ONLY because they are in their early stages. I personally prefer Hydrogen because of input I have received and the fact that it is easily foreseeable that one can generate their OWN fuel in the future much easier than with Bio fuels which need more processing..

[wtmusic]

25. A huge remodel of the current infrastructure? Wallpaper or just carpet?

:rofl:

Please yourself. You have no idea about what you're talking. Give me some numbers, facts, anything besides your own "preferences".

[Milo_Bloom]

26. I gave you a specific example, which you not surprisingly ignored.

See California's electricity infrastructure and then try applying a small amount of logic.

If the current infrastructure is unable to adequately supply needs during high drain times, query how it will be able to supply the ADDITIONAL resources necessary once you add the charging of cars into the equation.

You also failed to address the issue of fuel source.


In short, you did a little side-step to avoid addressing the actual issue.

Not surprising from a conspiracy nut.

[wtmusic]

29. Electric cars will be charging almost exclusively at night

when there is very little load. Excessive loads occur during peak power usage in the middle of the day (mostly due to air conditioning). So there is plenty of excess capacity -- estimates for Los Angeles, where I live, suggest we could add 100,000 electric cars to the grid without touching the infrastructure. And if we could convince 100,000 drivers to drive electric it would be well worth it to add capacity. Same plant, bigger generators.

The fuel source can be anything -- nuclear, wind, sun, natural gas, even coal (an electric car powered by electricity generated from coal is still significantly cleaner than a non-hybrid internal combustion car). Whatever you use, you are only decreasing efficiency by making a big detour through hydrogen.

Have I addressed the issue? I want to be absolutely clear that even if you don't believe there's a conspiracy (what conspiracy...it's just good business) hydrogen, right now, is a really awful choice to make.

Have you ever heard of National City Lines? I suppose it's only "conspiracy nuts" who believe that GM, Firestone, Standard Oil, and others bought up electric street cars and replaced them with city buses?

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

[Milo_Bloom]

31. LMAO!!!!!

Yes, people will be charging their cars at night exclusively. Lets put the idiocy of this aside for a second and go one level deeper. It can handle 100,000 cars. No, that didn't prove my point at all. The fact that California has something like 30 MILLION cars means we won't require any significant modifications at all... just "bigger generators".


After that you go off the deep end with the usual conspiracy nut theories that because a company did something wrong once, everything they do from that point forward is, de-facto, bad.

GM, Firestone and Standard Oil bought up the electric street cars years ago, THUS, they cannot possibly be involved in the actual solution now.


So, no, not only didn't you address the issue, but you completely missed the point.

[wtmusic]

34. I'm done

Too much attitude, not one fact. To stubborn to admit you're wrong. Don't skip the meds. :hi:

[Milo_Bloom]

36. Yeah, just ignore those pesky facts... makes it so much easier doesn't it? (nt)

[307 MMS]

44. Start up

Folks..read both your exchanges with interest. 2.5 years ago, I left a start-up fuel cell co....Plug Power, that's partnered with Honda on vehicles. It's in quite a mess right now, for many reasons. But, and just maybe, if and when the powers that be get on board, from my experience of working there, we're another 10 years, minimum to affordable FCX vehicles. They'll be for the lil' people long after my 55 yo ass is dead...if ever. Been there. Seen it...alot of PR.

[IDemo]

30. Wrong

The well-to-wheel* energy efficiency for electric vehicles is not just better, but much better than any other current technology. As the charts below show, the Tesla is twice as efficient as the Toyota Prius, and three times as efficient as the Honda FCX (hydrogen fuel cell). The Tesla's motor-control/battery charging control circuitry is a step ahead of most current EV's, but not by a huge margin:



*well-to-wheel - The total efficiency involved in energy extraction, processing, delivery, and usage.

[Milo_Bloom]

33. So?

How does this prove anything stated "wrong". Putting aside the fact that you are comparing a 1st generation product (Honda FCX) vs a much later generation development of a product that has been around for YEARS.... The same argument applies that to support this type of technology will ultimately involve a complete rebuilding of the infrastructure.

[IDemo]

38. "electric cars, which are not nearly as efficient as many people think"

Is simply a wrong statement. If you have the power engineering background and experience to argue with the Department of Energy and virtually every other reliable source (oops, that might exclude Amory Lovins!), feel free to offer your numbers.

PEM fuel cells are not a new, out of the box technology. They have been around since the 60's and were used on Gemini capsules. It's not realistic to expect them to get noticeably more efficient than they are now.

The numbers for kilometers per Megajoule of transportation energy well-to-wheel efficiency for hydrogen versus electricity are very unlikely to change by a factor of three anytime in the future.

[Milo_Bloom]

40. No, its not. The statement is 100% correct.

Many people think of electric cars as a silver bullet, which it is not and it STILL doesn't address the underlying source problem. The fact that one particular model of electric car is more efficient than one particular model of a fuel cell car does not discredit the statement that electic cars are not nearly as efficient as many people think.

[IDemo]

41. The statement is still 100% wrong

Electric motors are highly efficient. This truth does not change regardless of whether you are evaluating a Tesla or any other EV or motor application, versus any hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. When used in an EV with regenerative braking (virtually every production car nowadays), they are even more efficient. When adding V2G technology, they represent a potential asset to the grid:

Advocates of electric-drive vehicles point to their quiet, low-cost operation and near zero emissions as two of the strongest arguments for EVs, including battery, fuel cell and hybrid electric-vehicles.

Now there is a third, perhaps even more compelling reason supporting the adoption of electric-drive technologies, the energy crisis. As strange as this might sound, the electric-drive automobile could just be the answer to helping meet growing energy demand.

<>

"People think of a car as a lot smaller than a house and maybe think of it as having less power, but electric vehicles put out from 10 kilowatts up to the EV1 that puts out 100 kilowatts. So, that compares with an average consumption of a house at one kilowatt. A vehicle puts out quite a bit more than a house requires," Kempton pointed out. This means the average electric-drive vehicle could easily power several homes, he added.

"But the question is, is there use for this (EV-generated electricity) besides just emergency power on a one-by-one, switch-it-on-manually kind of basis?" he asked. "That's what we've investigated in a study we did for the California Air Resources Board and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power."

What the Vehicle-to-Grid study found was a very real opportunity to provide the power grid in California with high-quality electric power during times of peak demand. Under this scenario, a participating EV owner could net as much as $3,000 a year in extra income, a sum that would go a long ways towards paying for the vehicle.

When you factor in a reduction in CO2 and other pollutants, battery electric vehicles are the runaway winner. Hybrids and fuel cells aren't even in the same league. As for EV's or anything else resulting in a "silver bullet", it's simplistic to assume that any technology will magically replace the entire vehicle fleet anytime soon. There will be a mix of vehicle types and energy sources to come for a very long time before, hopefully, the best one predominates. Or better yet, we find a way to leave the automobile culture behind.

Reviving my old journal for informative purposes for the duration of the thread.

[Milo_Bloom]

42. Nope, still not wrong.

The fact that they ARE effecient, doesn't make the statement false. They are not as effecient as many people believe, since many people think they are a silver bullet solution. And they aren't. That assumption may be a FALSE assumption, but the statement remains true.

And you STILL haven't addressed the underlying infrastructure issues, as well as the source issue.

[IDemo]

43. Straw man: "People" are calling EV's a "silver bullet"

What they are is a much better technology than anything currently available, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

From AC Propulsion, inventors of the power control system originally used in the EV1 and later in the Tesla, and innovators in V2G technology:

Electric Vehicles Part of the Electric Power Solution for California

January 25, 2001
Sacramento, CA

In testimony before the California Air Resources Board today, AC Propulsion vice-president, Alec Brooks, turned the tables on auto industry giants who are using the power crisis to pressure Governor Davis to suspend electric vehicle requirements. Brooks explained how electric vehicles can help solve California's electricity problems.

Brooks told the Board, "Electrically driven vehicles, and I include hybrids and fuel cell vehicles along with battery EVs, will actually help California solve its electricity problems because they can feed power to the grid. It's a convergence of many recent technology developments, but the key factor is that every EV represents power capacity on wheels. When those wheels are parked and the car is plugged in, that power capacity can be available to the grid."

In his testimony, Brooks described how the electrical equipment on board electric vehicles can serve double duty, powering the car, typically for just for one or two hours a day, and supporting the power grid the rest of the time. "It's not a 'something for nothing scheme', the energy has to come from fuel," Brooks explained, "but battery EVs can shift power from low demand periods to high demand periods, and hybrid vehicles can actually generate electricity for the grid cleanly, quietly, and efficiently. The technology that automakers have developed for automotive emission controls and fuel economy is very effective during steady-state operation at light load, so automobile engines make great powerplants for small-scale generation. Once you have several thousand vehicles, they add up to a significant generating asset. Since the power generation is close to the power consumption, you reduce congestion on the grid too.

And, on the need for infrastructure rebuilding, from http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf">Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (DOE):

The U.S. electric power infrastructure is a strategic national asset that is underutilized most of the time. With the proper changes in the operational paradigm, it could generate and deliver the necessary energy to fuel the majority of the U.S. light-duty vehicle (LDV) fleet. In doing so, it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve the economics of the electricity industry, and reduce the U.S. dependency on foreign oil. Two companion papers investigate the technical potential and economic impacts of using the existing idle capacity of the electric infrastructure in conjunction with the emerging plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) technology to meet the majority of the daily energy needs of the U.S. LDV fleet.

This initial paper estimates the regional percentages of the energy requirements for the U.S. LDV stock that could potentially be supported by the existing infrastructure, based on the 12 modified North American Electric Reliability Council regions, as of 2002. For the United States as a whole, up to 84% of U.S. cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) could be supported by the existing infrastructure, although the local percentages vary by region. Using the LDV fleet classification, which includes cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans, the technical potential is 73%. This has an estimated gasoline displacement potential of 6.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, or approximately 52% of the nation’s oil imports.

As for energy sources, bring on the windmills, solar panels, solar thermal, and yeah, bring on the nuclear, too. Just, whatever you do with all that electric power, don't waste it with another unnecessary conversion step to hydrogen!

[baby_mouse]

46. It's all about the extraction-to-output ratio...

... meaning the amount of energy you put in against the amount of energy you get out. None of the solutions on offer are anywhere near as efficient as petroleum, with petrol you basically just stick a tube in the ground and suck out barrels of concentrated energy. Nothing else is the same, not even hydrogen. Hydrogen would only be comparable with petrol if there were enormous untapped reserves of liquid hydrogen sloshing about beneath the Earth's surface. There aren't any.

The only thing that comes close in terms of extraction efficiency is electricity, which can be grabbed from the surroundings with minimal effort using wind turbines, undersea current-tapping turbines and solar power.

[Strelnikov_]

35. Agreed

The EV is ready, we just need to execute.

Further, I have seen no compelling data, from an energy efficiency standpoint, that any other motive source for personal vehicles comes close to battery electric.

[greenman3610]

6. I say let a thousand flowers bloom

electrics and hybrids look like the winners in this country
but 20 years out, who knows?

[berni_mccoy]

7. Unfortunately, I don't think we have 20 years to make a change.

Electrics still put a load on the grid and if everyone in the U.S. switched, we'd have to resort to Nuclear Power not to push more CO2 into the atmosphere. Likewise with Ethanols, we could not grow enough vegetation to produce enough fuel to supply this nation and not increase emissions through other means (coal). Hydrogen is the most abundent material in the Universe. Let's use it.

I believe Norway is doing what we should be doing: Act Now. Change Now. They started in 2003 and by 2009 they will have this program completed. That's 6 years. We have the technology and resources to do what they are doing and the car companies have the vehicles. It is morally wrong

[wtmusic]

9. It is morally wrong to use public funds for hydrogen

when it has virtually zero chance for widespread acceptance and creates more pollution and greenhouse gases than other options.

Estimates put the cost of building a minimal hydrogen infrastructure in the US -- 10,000 stations --- at half a trillion dollars. That's not going to happen without vehicles to buy it and the vehicles aren't going to be sold without a place to fuel them, a classic chicken/egg dilemma. Though hydrogen superficially appears attractive because burning it creates nothing but water, liquid hydrogen has 1/4 the energy of gasoline on a per gallon basis (gasoline actually has more hydrogen atoms than an equivalent volume of liquid hydrogen) so you'd have to store 4x as much in your vehicle to get an equivalent amount of energy. Not to mention store it at 2 degrees above absolute zero, or -253ºC. Compressed hydrogen can be stored at higher temperatures, but has an even lower energy density and requires energy to compress it, which comes from where? Burning coal and natural gas.

Electrics put little extra load on the grid because they're primarily charged at night, which is an efficient use of an infrastructure we already have in place. And we should be resorting to nuclear power--despite all the negative publicity any other option is more dangerous.

An excellent resource is Joe Romm's The Hype About Hydrogen:

http://www.amazon.com/Hype-About-Hydrogen-Fiction-Climate/dp/1559637048/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196778641&sr=8-1

[The Traveler]

10. Yes, hydrogen is the most abundant element

but it is also very active, which means here on planet earth you don't find much in the way of free hydrogen. It must be extracted ... for example, by breaking water molecules apart with intense electromagnetic field (electrolysis). And that takes power. Thus, hydrogen fuel systems demand a lot of power from the grid, too ...

Most hydrogen economy models I have seen posit expansion of existing power grids with coal fired or nuclear power plants. However, there are other methods of delivering hydrogen fuels that may be more suitable from an energy cost perspective. Most of those alternatives bear their own environmental consequences. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary article on the topic. Hydrogen Car

Hydrogen is not a silver bullet solution, but a technology base that should be considered carefully as an alternative to petrochemical fuels.

[307 MMS]

45. My take

Having worked at a fuel cell start-up co. here's my take on it.
Put nuclear powered ocean water desalinization plants in strategic locations around the country. Use nuke power for electrolysis to de-sal water to extract hydrogen. Have the hydrogen storage higher than sea level, as hydrogen naturally rises. Then, feed then the hydrogen back down to a sister plant that runs off of hydrogen to create a perpetual machine.....oops, the powers that BE'll never allow that!

[IDemo]

23. The tailpipe to smokestack myth again

It is simply untrue that electric vehicles will result in a greater CO2 footprint than the equivalent number of internal combustion vehicles. As pointed out above, the efficiency loss in taking electricity, regardless of source, and using it to crack hydrogen, makes it a net energy loser when compared to using it directly in battery electric vehicles. And with Vehicle to Grid (V2G) technology, electric vehicles can be used to source power to the grid when needed, as well as supplying monitoring and control functions.

http://www.google.com/search?q=smokestack+myths&ie=UTF-8

[piedmont]

11. Hydrogen is just an energy STORAGE system. How is the energy actually produced? nt

[EnviroBat]

14. The Hydrogen is mixed with oxygen across a grid (usually platinum),

and an electrical charged is produced. The by-product is water vapor.

[wtmusic]

17. I think piedmont was referring to the energy produced

to create the hydrogen. :shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

15. hydrogen is not the answer- it's a distraction by the oil industry.

and since norway gets a big chunk of it's income via oil, it's no wonder that they are pursuing this course.

watch "who killed the electric car?" and you'll see how pointless hydrogen fuel cell technology is as an option.

[robertpaulsen]

28. I like that movie. I also recommend "The End of Suburbia".

That documentary does an especially good job at demolishing the myth that we will ever experience a "hydrogen economy".

[killbotfactory]

22. The US is capable of much more impressive feats than that

too bad our representatives have no desire for that, and would rather just pump money into a corrupt military industrial complex, that in turn uses that money to lobby our government to go to war.

[JuniperLea]

27. What kind of socialist are you! And why do you hate Amurika??

Norway rules! We could learn a thing or six dozen from the #2 best place to live in the world.

[IDemo]

32. Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense

In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.

“More energy is needed to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds than can ever be recovered from its use,” Bossel explains to PhysOrg.com. “Therefore, making the new chemical energy carrier from natural gas would not make sense, as it would increase the gas consumption and the emission of CO2. Instead, the dwindling fossil fuel reserves must be replaced by energy from renewable sources.”

While scientists from around the world have been piecing together the technology, Bossel has taken a broader look at how realistic the use of hydrogen for carrying energy would be. His overall energy analysis of a hydrogen economy demonstrates that high energy losses inevitably resulting from the laws of physics mean that a hydrogen economy will never make sense.

“The advantages of hydrogen praised by journalists (non-toxic, burns to water, abundance of hydrogen in the Universe, etc.) are misleading, because the production of hydrogen depends on the availability of energy and water, both of which are increasingly rare and may become political issues, as much as oil and natural gas are today,” says Bossel.

http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

[Strelnikov_]

37. We will not have the energy to waste on ReH2 as a transportation 'fuel'

The following assumes production of H2 from electrolysis using electricity generated from a renewable source, which to date is the only proven scalable process to produce ReH2 (renewable hydrogen).

Toyota has already developed the near term solution, the PHEV. Now, they simply need to implement it (smaller cars, less powerful engines). They are obviously a well-managed company, and as such are, along with Honda, keeping their R&D toe in the ReH2 energy carrier market in the event some major 'breakthrough' occurs. I could see fuels cells providing the power for future PHEV's beyond battery range, assuming some breakthrough in fuel cell technology.

Why A Hydrogen Economy Doesn't Make Sense
http://www.energybulletin.net/24093.html

In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.

. . .

Economically, the wasteful hydrogen process translates to electricity from hydrogen and fuel cells costing at least four times as much as electricity from the grid. In fact, electricity would be much more efficiently used if it were sent directly to the appliances instead. If the original electricity could be directly supplied by wires, as much as 90% could be used in applications.



Carrying the Energy Future
Comparing Hydrogen and Electricity for Transmission, Storage and Transportation
Patrick Mazza and Roel Hammerschlag
June 2004

http://www.ilea.org/articles/CEF.html

http://www.ilea.org/downloads/MazzaHammerschlag.pdf (.pdf)

Advanced EVs gain substantially more useful work than FCVs with the same amount of electrical energy. Using calculations from remote and localized electrolysis scenarios reported above, 38-54% of original source energy emerges from a vehicle fuel cell to propel the vehicle. By comparison, advanced batteries operate at cycle efficiencies of 87% or better. The remainder of the electric energy brought to the battery is lost as heat during charging or through self-discharge when the vehicle is allowed to stand unused for long periods of time. Assuming losses of 8% of the original electricity between generation and delivery to the vehicle, 80% of original source energy emerges from the battery. Fuel cells and batteries feed functionally identical electric drive trains, so the 80% battery cycle efficiency and 38-54% fuel cell efficiency are directly comparable.

. . .

Though the drive trains of FCVs and EVs can be nearly identical, EVs will suffer an efficiency penalty during acceleration because the batteries are heavier than the hydrogen fuel tanks. Direct modeling of EV drive train efficiency shows that this penalty is probably much less than detractors of EVs like to postulate. For instance Delucchi & Lipman calculate that a 480-kilometer EV weighing 1,700 kg (of which 510 kg are due to the battery) specified to accelerate from 0 to 60 in 9.3 seconds, still handily achieves more than seven times the fuel-to-kilometers efficiency of a gasoline car with equivalent performance. Delucchi, Mark, and Timothy Lipman. "An Analysis of the Retail and Lifecycle Cost of Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles." Transportation Research Part D 6 (2001): 371-404.

. . .

The EV’s clear, current advantage over the FCV is that the EV can be brought to market immediately. Even today's limited-production EVs are already capable of meeting most daily driving needs. Solectria’s Force, having a curb weight of only 1,100 kilograms with nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries is specified with a range of 140-160 kilometers. The RAV4 EV with NiMH batteries is specified at 200 kilometers. Nissan’s Altra EV, using lithium ion batteries, claims 190 kilometers. Brooks compares a Ford Focus FCV with a concept EV based on an altered Toyota Prius, powered purely by Li-ion batteries. The Focus has 320-kilometers range and a curb weight of 1,600 kg, the Prius 220-320 kilometers with a curb weight of 1,300 kg. Refueling the Focus requires the equivalent of 860 MJ, the Prius 140 MJ. Adding batteries to the Prius to bring its weight to that of the Focus would raise the driving range to 640 kilometers.

. . .

EVs can offer twice the useful work from the same electrical energy as ReH2-powered FCVs. A fleet of 10,000 FCVs might consume between 250 and 360 TJ of electricity each year. The same fleet of battery electric cars would consume 180 TJ. Advanced battery technologies hold solid potential to substantially overcome range limitations that have held back EV acceptance. PHEVs offer an option that merges the best of EVs, including very high efficiency, with the unlimited ranges and rapid fueling time of HEVs.

[Strelnikov_]

39. And note, the 'Hydrogen Economy' will require either a massive investment

in the electric grid, or massive investment in a completely new infrastructure (hydrogen transport).