|
|
 |
|
EV World Open Access Article |
Abandoned too soon? The Ford Prodigy diesel-electric hybrid was developed at an estimated cost of $50 million as part of the Clinton-era Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle inspired by then Vice President Al Gore. The author argues this technology makes more sense than fuel cell vehicles.
|
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen vs. Hybrids and Biofuels
Should we build a hydrogen or a carbohydrate economy?
By David Morris
Open Access Article Originally Published: February 13, 2004
Both President Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger have embraced a fuel-cell-powered, hydrogen-fueled transportation system. Bush declared his support in his State of the Union address in 2003, Schwarzenegger in his recent State of the State address. In March Arnold will issue an Executive Order whose goal is to have hydrogen fueling stations along all 26 of the state’s interstate highways by 2010.
For the first time in history California and Washington may be on the same page when it comes to transportation. That is what is called a good news, bad news situation.
The good news is that politicians are proposing a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem. To date policymakers have anguished over mandating efficiency improvements of a few miles per gallon or significantly reducing tailpipe emissions. A hydrogen future, at least in theory, could displace 100 percent of the petroleum needed for transportation.
The bad news is that achieving that goal in that way will be frightfully expensive and disruptive. To be successful it requires changing every feature of our transportation energy system: refineries, pipelines, storage systems, end-use devices. Fuel cells must replace combustion engines. Hydrogen stations must replace gas stations.
The capital cost to California alone will be more than $50 billion, the cost to the nation more than ten times that amount.
I applaud the audacity of those who advocate investing on a such a scale. I recommend that the same boldness be applied to a transportation strategy that promises to achieve the same environmental and national security benefits decades sooner at a fraction of the cost.
The hydrogen strategy relies on fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen fuel. The better way relies on hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrids and biofuels like ethanol.
The expense of hydrogen is often justified because it will be used in fuel cell powered cars and fuel cells are two to three times more efficient than internal combustion engines. But comparing a future technology to one that is a century old is inappropriate. Better to weigh fuel cell vehicles against the newest transportation technology, the hybrid electric vehicle(HEV).
 The newest HEVs already achieve efficiencies comparable to those promised by fuel cells. They’re available now. Indeed, some models have become best sellers. As of this writing there is a two month waiting list for the new Toyota Prius. And this fall, when Toyota introduces its hybrid SUV the transportation debate may change forever. The hybrid SUV will not diminish performance nor interior room. Yet it will achieve a fuel efficiency(estimated at 40 miles per gallon) that is twice that of a comparable conventional SUV.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 23205 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
31 comments so far...
28-Jan-2007
46573
| |
Ethanol isn't a biofuel, it's biodiesel!
Posted by: Shao Tasuke
|
|
31-Oct-2005
10629
| |
I went for the Prius(47mpg on first 500mi) with the hope of adding the plug in option and running on ethanol. That's what got me to this web site. Are there any prius owners experimenting with ethanol? On the question of alcohol vs food issue, I was told by an ethanol advocate, David Blume ( see alcoholcanbeagas.com/alcohol) that, cows cannot digest raw corn very well, but after the ethanol is made the mash that is left is more digestible. Therefore , you get better food for the cow plus ethanol. But why are we obsessing about corn. Brazil uses sugar cane where the net energy gain is much higher. Even Sugar beets an potatoes are better. I don't know anything about the sugar content of kudzo, but I've heard it's a real pest in the South. Maybe it could be harvested and turned into ethanol.
Question: My friend told there is a problem with water seperating from the ethanol if the vehicle is not driven for an extended period, which could cause problems. True?
Posted by: Marston Schultz
|
|
18-Feb-2004
1676
| |
Mandate E85 vehicles! Personally, I don't care if ethanol has only half (or whatever it is) the energy content of gasoline. As it is, I go about two weeks between fills in my moderately-sized family sedan. I would much rather fill up with E85, or reven E100 once a week or more than stick with the E10 (if even that) I get now.
If every vehicle manufacturer that sold into North America was mandated to include E85 hardware on all their vehicles, the price to do so would be extremely minimal, and suddenly absolutely anyone could fill up with an 85% renewable fuel. Right now it's restricted to anyone buying one of the very few domestic E85 vehicles, in which I have zero interest. But imagine if Tauruses, Civics, Camrys, Explorers, Oddyseys, BMWs, ALL ran eith E85. That could cut gasoline use by an incredible amount.
As a side benefit, we up here in Canada wouldn't need to add gas line antifreeze - we'd be running on it instead!"
Posted by: Andrew Netherton
|
|
18-Feb-2004
1679
| |
I have a question in regards to Stephen Sears comment about plug-in hybrid vehicles. The concept seems great but do we know how much range one can get while driving the new Toyota Prius on electric only before the engine kicks in to charge the battery? I've heard it's less than a mile and the battery pack on the Prius is said to be rather expensive. Do we know how large the battery pack would need to be to get a 50 mile range and how much it would weigh? This added weight would obviously decrease the mileage of the car. I suppose in a perfect world, the battery pack would be modular and a plug-in hybrid buyer could buy enough batteries to have a range just enough for the morning commute. Here's to hoping that Toyota considers it."
Posted by: Robert Reichenbach
|
|
19-Feb-2004
1687
| |
One of the environmental costs associated with using biofuels is increased use of nitrogen fertilizer, a known producer of greenhouse gases. There is also the problem of taking land out of food production or wildlife habitat. I am essentially in agreement with the author but would like to see these factors included in the calculus."
Posted by: David Kemp
|
|
19-Feb-2004
1696
| |
The whole hydrogen thing seems to be typical wishful thinking and procrastination. It is so much easier for politicians and auto executives to talk about some win-win solution that is far in the future than to actually work on unglamarous real technology. The Detroit car companies have successfully gotten out from having to build electric cars by saying they will develop hydrogen cars. I can already predict what will happen in ten years, they will say 'Gee, fuel cells are just too expensive. The public doesn't want them.' In the meantime they have been able to keep doing business as usual."
Posted by: Jim H
|
|
19-Feb-2004
1702
| |
Don't worry about biodiesel and land use. B2 blends actually can get 10% better mileage. If we subsititue 2% biodiesel + get 10% better mileage, we'd reduce petroleum diesel usage by 12%. To do that, we'd only need to convert one third of the waste restaurant fryer oil into biodiesel instead of putting it in the landfill; no new plants, no new acreage.
For more petroleum reduction...we should be looking to algae ponds in southwest desert areas using salty water. Soy gives 48 gal/acre. I've seen numbers for algae production as high as 10,000 gal/acre."
Posted by: Marc Franke
|
|
20-Feb-2004
1708
| |
I too agree that staring into the hfc crystal ball at $100k an hour is laughable when the car I drive daily (Honda Civic Hybrid) does just as well from an environmental stand point.
I must take exception with the comment of limitations of electrics, however.
In the mid ninties we were geting over 300 miles per charge in the EV1 preproduction cars.
Those batteries are now available and much better than the tested lab built ones we used. The kicker is that the batteries will last the life of the vehicle, or more, and can handle rapid charging.
What I am saying here, is that the technology is here and now to go further and faster with all electric than any ICE. The real kick is that the infrastructure is here also.
The biggest problem I can see is that the consumer does not get to be part of the equation."
Posted by: Doug Canfield
|
|
23-Feb-2004
1742
| |
I am only trying to help here..
i found an great site that offers lots of info (the most ive seen) on the efficiency of ethanol. It has numerous links to reports and articles for references. it covers many details including the food issue and fertalizer issue. I found it very interesting reading. as Mr. Bill Moore (God bless him) says: you decide.
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html"
Posted by: Andrew Schaeffer
|
|
29-Jun-2008
62460
| |
This articles seems written by somebody that works for a gas company, aren't we suppose to be trying to rid our self from gas dependancy? Gas prices will never be what they were before, we are just trying to stop their increase. Hydrogen is a new way to ZERO EMISSIONS and were just learning from this technology, who says that in the future we can't run 70 mile per gallon on hydrogen. And price of course its expensive but every new technology its expensive, until you get competition and different companies battling for supply and demand. People should be optimistic and start to worry that the north pole is melting at record rates.
Posted by: Kenneth Arcelay
|
|
15-Feb-2004
1614
| |
Mass diversification of energy production: what a grand idea."
Posted by: David Park
|
|
15-Feb-2004
1616
| |
Why didn't they just take an engine from a wrecked
VW TDI, and put it in a Ford Pinto....
Would have saved $49.999 million."
Posted by: Menwith M
|
|
15-Feb-2004
1621
| |
As with any fuel, there are good and bad sides to Ethanol.
Yes, newer processes do make 1.4 units of energy for every 1 unit put into manufacture. Yes, newer processes for converting cellulosic materials are on the near horizon which should put it up around 2:1. Yes, we can make ethanol, locally, without needing to import. Yes, current ICE vehicles can be converted to run on Ethanol. And, IIRC, there was an article linked from EV World this last week which stated that a group in Minnesota had made an Ethanol reforming reactor, which made hydrogen from Ethanol and fed a fuel-cell with the hydrogen. In short: Ethanol is an EXCELLENT transition fuel. And, as the author points out, if we start using it with currently-available hybrid technology, we can reduce the amount of fuel needed, overall, further speeding our migration from petroleum.
That's the good news. Now, for the bad news.
First, the cellulosic conversion process is STILL on the horizon; the enzymes and yeasts needed to do the work are the subject of intense genetic R&D at the moment. Consequently, when they do get it working, you can bet it won't be cheap.
Second, while ICE vehicles can be converted to run Ethanol, it's not as simple or cheap as the author mentions. Each year, GM and DOE sponsored the FutureTruck competition, where different colleges build vehicles to meet certain goals, then compete for a prize. A couple years ago, the goal was running on Ethanol or E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline). All of them had serious problems with starting a cold engine. University of Texas, IIRC, had the best solution: they had a small distillation system under the hood which actually distilled a small quantity of gasoline out of the E85, which was used for starting.
Why is this? When you feed gasoline into an engine, the atomized fuel absorbs some of the heat energy from intake air and the metal passageways it's being routed through. This cools the air and the metal (improving the efficiency of the engine) and vaporizing (rather than just misting) the fuel, improving the air/fuel mixture. Ethanol absorbs more heat for a given amount of fuel. Consequently, when you crank that engine first thing in the morning, especially if it's cold, Ethanol doesn't vaporize nearly as well as gasoline. Rather, it tends to condense on the cylinder walls. Since Ethanol is a potent solvent, it can clean the lubricants off the cylinder walls, greatly increasing the amount of friction during starting and cold-weather operation.
"Flex Fuel Vehicles" (certain Ford Rangers and Tauruses, certain Daimler/Chrysler Minivans, an increasing number of GM trucks) are all designed to handle E85; in every case, you have to use a special oil, or some kind of special additive to your oil, if you're going to use E85. Some of the vehicles do NOT recommend using E85 during cold conditions. In every case, they have to use different materials for seals, packings and flexible lines in the fuel system, because the materials commonly used for gasoline tend to decompose when exposed to high concentrations of Ethanol. The above mentioned FFV's all use newer materials which are compatible with both.
Conversion to Ethanol, especially with older engines, requires a signficant amount of labor. Additionally, since Ethanol has a lower specific energy (less energy per gallon than gasoline), you may need a new (higher capacity) fuel pump and carbeurator or fuel injectors. Replacing FI components, in particular, can get very expensive, very quickly.
Engineering a vehicle to run efficiently and cleanly on both Ethanol and gasoline is still a bit of challenge, but it can be done. Converting an old one quickly becomes an expensive pain in the rear. I'd love to see Ethanol take off; I mean, some of the newer cellulose-based processes can run on grass clippings, for heavens sake (mow your lawn, then make your own fuel, in small quantities, in your garage). If I could make 17 gallons of Ethanol, blend it with 3 gallons of gasoline (homemade E85), that would save my pocketbook a tidy amount. I'd love to do that and reduce the amount of money we are sending to the Middle East (in the form of imported oil purchases). Just keep in mind: the automobile conversion isn't quite as easy as the author may be suggesting."
Posted by: Tony Chesser-Evans
|
|
15-Feb-2004
1624
| |
I couldn't agree more with Bill. Plug-in Hybrids and Ethanol make the most sense. I spent over $1M in building an experimental ethanol plant in 1982. I purchased sugar beet product and fermented it to produce a 10% alcohol solution in 48 hours. I then distilled it to produce a 75% solution (150 Proof) using my patented energy recycling distillation process. We used 75% since it gave the most miles per gallon of pure alcohol, rather than 95%. The distillation took only 7,500 B.T.U.'s per gallon of 150 proof alcohol. This would come down to 2,500 BTU's in a full scale plant. I was only producing 600 gallons per day. "
Posted by: Stephan Sears
|
|
15-Feb-2004
1628
| |
Referring to tony's comments, My Dodge caravan was harder to start the first winter i was using E85 (85% ethanol) I get it at speedway near Ohare airport in IL. i've tried other stations brands and wherever they get it from it gives may car more torque and smoother response (must not detonate - knock as much because of the higher octane) i am supposed to get 4 miles per gallon less per EPA tests than on gasoline. That is probably what i was getting the first winter, and my car stalled once or twice when starting cold in zero or below temps. This year i put new 8mm silicone plug wires and platinum 2 plugs in the engine. and I am supposed to get 5mpg less average driving on it, but after the mods see no loss in mileage after that. Also after the mods the below zero temp. starting was only rough twice, and has not stalled once starting at that temperature range this winter. Last time i checked my mileage after the mods. last summer it was 21.5 average with some airconditioning use. My van is rated at 18 city and 24 HWY on normal gas. It runs better than new when I have to use regular gasoline because of the mods. You have to use Synthetic oil in order not to void the warranty (and offset the friction created by using the ethanol). my van has 74093 miles on it and we just went to Florida on vacation using it last summer. I changed the oil before we went. I was worried it would be low when we got back because of previous expierence with long vacations in other cars. It was at the same level it was when i changed it when we got back and had only gotten slighty brownish. I have been using E85 for more than 2 years now in the chicago area. I would also get better mileage if i didn't have radial T/A 70s on my van and went back to the 75s it came with but the handling would suffer, and i feel my family is safer now that the van is more controllable with the tires i have. I am very happy with my car. Maybe there is some way we could all compare mileage and ways we made gains and share onfo to help each other. I would like to make my car into a mild hybrid but have to find out how
"
Posted by: Andy Schaeffer
|
|
16-Feb-2004
1634
| |
Bravo! Glad to see someone out there really using renewable fuels! I am using biodiesel in my car (2003 VW Golf TDI diesel) and it has been great!
I've thought several times of getting a Dodge minivan and running it on E85...and you are already doing it! Thanks!"
Posted by: Marc Franke
|
|
16-Feb-2004
1635
| |
I should point out that Ford never officially said how much money was spent developing the Prodigy. The $50 million number came out in an industry trade mag published during the 2000 Detroit Auto Show after the car was shown in Washington,D.C., along with the GM and DaimlerChrysler PNGV concept vehicles. All three carried similar price tags, which tell me the number was more for PR reasons than a real reflection of development costs.
Also all three cars used prototype direct injection diesel engines and hybrid-electric drive trains. The goal was to create a manufacturable 80 mpg family sedan, just as the car market was shifting to SUVs. None of the cars actually reached the 80 mpg goal, but all of them claimed to get 70 mpg or better.
Still, the question remains, was the federal contribution to this effort in the form of taxpayer dollars -- carmakers were supposed to foot half the development tab -- money well spent, when both Toyota and Honda produced production HEVs without US gov't incentives or assistance, cars that have been for sales for years now, while we still can't buy a US-made hybrid?
We report. You decide!"
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
24-Feb-2004
1756
| |
The methods for producing ethanol are expanding, and the use of them as a combustable fuel source is important, but so is the use of hydrogen as an electric fuel source.
The most logical procedure I can conceptualize is to develop the ethanol system as the hydrogen system develops. One of the major reasons for this is that there will likley be applications of ethanol that will not be replacable by hydrogen as an electric or combustable fuel source.
What are some of these applications and the reasons why they are not replacable?"
Posted by: Brett Rogers
|
|
24-Feb-2004
1757
| |
Hydrogen from water is prohitable!
SHEC labs has developed chemical and mechanical technologies that uses amplified sun light to split water into hydrogen and water. Check out there website, this is the a competitive method that is 100% pollution free; even the oxygen is not waisted!"
Posted by: Brett Rogers
|
|
24-Feb-2004
1758
| |
Hydrogen bomb stations.
I concerned about how we will be protected from accidental and delibrate explosions of hydrogen storage devices."
Posted by: Brett Rogers
|
|
24-Feb-2004
1761
| |
Jim H is right on the money. Another Example: When the Ford Pinto was first identified as having a fatal gas tank design, Ford used the courts to postpone for 8 years any retrofitting which might have made the car a little safer to drive. By the time Ford was forced to make these corrections, the Pinto production line was being shut down. All of these behaviors are typical of Detroit auto makers: they titillate, tease and knowingly make false promises. Detroit is using Fuel Cell cars as a cover story in an effort to continue business as usual. Why produce hybrid cars and SUVs during the interim when hydrogen cars are just around the corner? Well, guess what,hybrid cars are here and the technology works. Afterall I should know, I own one. "
Posted by: Mike C
|
|
24-Feb-2004
1768
| |
A couple things.
One is I wish we could drive a wooden stake into the heart of this ethanol thing. Ethanol from corn is a net energy loss or sink. Subsidising it is a true waste of resource. It is only promoted by those who have a vested interest(farmers,ADM and politicos) or lack of understanding of its net energy value. Do a google on Cornell- Roger Segelken (wish I could post the link here) for a revelation. Do you relalise that converting our nation to ethanol would require 98 percent of our farm land.
Another is this irrational fear of hydrogen as an explosive. Bob Lazar makes the absurd reference to a compressed hydrogen tank as a potential bomb. Ask any explosives expert what it takes to make a bomb. He will tell you that it takes a fuel source AND an oxidant. Tank filled with h2 with no oxygen equals no explosion. Rupture the tank and you have far more fuel than oxygen therefore outside the explosive limits. Take a gasoline tank and rupture it with the same ignition source and you have just enough air in the tank to explode. And as to the heat generated. Did you know that most of the heat you feel in a gasoline fire is simply the carbon burning. Hydrogen has no carbon so there is even less chance of heat damage. Try and have much of a h2 fire when the molecule rises at 17,000 mph or escape velocity. Where does a gasoline molecule go. Right at your feet. ON and ON and On about h2 as a bomb. Let's give it a rest please."
Posted by: larry elliott
|
|
24-Feb-2004
1772
| |
I need to make a correction. I stated that 'Why produce hybrid cars and SUVs during the interim' when I should have said 'Why produce hybrid cars during the interim'. Hydrogen powered cars will eventually become mass produced along with an infrastructure to refuel them. I've got a feeling though that in order for hydrogen cars to catch on, gasoline will have to become prohibitively expensive or rationed due to shortages. The day will be coming for both."
Posted by: Mike C
|
|
01-Mar-2004
1826
| |
The debate between the use of Hydrogen vs. the use of Ethanol seems to me to not be a debate at all. Ethanol will never be used as a straight fuel for the entire vehicle fleet of the US (unless Americans are ready to give up corn flakes for their morning commute) and it is used as a blending component to reduce America’s dependency on foreign oil, or so they say.
Combine the goal of reducing dependence on foreign oil with the needed reduction in greenhouse gasses and it seems like the one country that is getting it right is Argentina. Over 25% percent of the vehicle fleet is now running on CNG, which is rapidly decreasing oil demand and meeting Kyoto emissions standards, something the US doesnt know too much about. If you develop a CNG infrastructure (which has already been done to some extent in CA) you are taking a huge first step into a hydrogen infrastructure as the Natural Gas can eventually be used to produce hydrogen when the needed vehicle technologies are available.
The cost of conversion in Argentina is around $2000 per vehicle which is paid off after 2 years in price saving over gasoline.
So why not use electric Hybrids now and develop a better natural gas infrastructure for gov't vehicles, UPS, etc... so that one day we can combine the two to create a vehicle that will have great battery storage capacity that can be combined with hydrogen developed from our natural gas infrastructure. Looking even further down the road maybe we can eventually replace the natural gas with electrolysis technologies that use energy from wind or solar sources to create a truly green fuel.
"
Posted by: Auden Kaehler
|
|
01-Mar-2004
1828
| |
I would love to see hydrogen fuel cell cars, because they would be electric cars! But even the most optimistic fuel cell lovers say it will be at least a decade before they are practical. Whereas hybrids and battery cars are here now. As a side note, I am reading a history of the Lockheed Skunkworks and in the 60's they were looking into making a hydrogen powered airplane. All of the experts they spoke to were terrified at the thought of making large quantities of liquid hydrogen, saying it was too dangerous. Lockheed went ahead anyway and made hundreds of gallons of liquid hydrogen. They even tried blowing up small tanks to see how dangerous it would be to handle and found that it was actually difficult to get it to ignite because it displaces all of the air. But I would be nervous having a high psi tank in my car. Even scuba tanks make me nervous just because of the high pressure."
Posted by: Jim H
|
|
02-Mar-2004
1837
| |
Ethanol is a net energy generator. The full report upon which the article was based has that information. www.newrules.org
Biofuels only make sense if there is a dramatic reduction in liquid fuel requirements, which come from the HEV and PHEV. Ethanol is made from sugars. Right now the sugars come from corn. Eventually they will come from cellulose. We can still have corn flakes but maybe the cereal box will be a little thinner!!"
Posted by: David Morris
|
|
12-Mar-2004
1974
| |
The hydrogen problems are really much greater than indicated in your article, David, and the potential from next-generation biofuels is much greater than from corn ethanol.
I've very recently updated three papers that deal with these issues in much more detail.
(1) Fuels for Tomorrow's Vehicles,
(2) A Realistic Look at Hydrogen Price Projections, and
(3) Practical, Clean Energy For Future Transportation.
(The third is essentially an abridged version of the first.)
Below are the links:
http://www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_FutureFuels.pdf
http://www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_H2Price.pdf
http://www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_Practical_Energy_Brief.pdf
These are "must read" for the serious environmentalist.
"
Posted by: David Doty
|
|
11-Apr-2008
61156
| |
The question that nobody ever seems to ask is: "Where is the hydrogen going to come from?" Let's put one idea to bed at the beginning -- currenty the cheapest, most efficent way to make hydrogen is by steam reforming natural gas, or coal, or petroleum hydrocarbons. Why bother, every atom of carbon in the fossil fuel used would wind up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide anyway and contribute to global warming:
CH4 + 2 H2O ---> CO2 + 4 H2
4 H2 + 2 O2 ---> 3 H2O
Overall:
CH4 + 2 O2 ---> CO2 + 2 H2O
If instead when we burn the fossil fuel directly, we get the same result as far as carbon is concerned,
i.e. CH4 + 2 H2O ---> CO2 + 2 H2O
Actually, it takes more energy and costs more to go through hydrogen, so we are no better off than if we burn the fossil fuel directly in an internal combustion engine, like we do now.
Electrolysis of water is another way to make hydrogen, but it takes more electrical energy to make hydrogen than we get back when we use the hydrogen as a fuel, because the hydrogen has to be compressed, transported, etc. Even if the hyrdrogen is produced in our garages from electricity and water, the energy used to compress the hydrogen is wasted and makes it better to use an electric or plugin-hybrid powered vehicle.
What makes much more sense is a biofuel-plugin hybrid, especially using biodiesel (biodiesel is much more energy efficient than ethanol). Such cars/SUVs/trucks/etc. would use 85% less fuel than current gasoline and diesel engines, and the electricity needed can come from regenerable power plants, or rooftop solar panels or wind turbines. It makes the most sense, it is the most efficient, it can be done now, electricity is the easiest form of energy to distribute or be distributively produced, and it can work. This approach requires lots of battery storage capacity, so to make it better we need to continue to develop better batteries, and we'll need good battery recycling systems. But it can work very well with the batteries we already have.
Posted by: Barry Heimlich
|
|
11-Apr-2008
61157
| |
The question that nobody ever seems to ask is: "Where is the hydrogen going to come from?" Let's put one idea to bed at the beginning -- currenty the cheapest, most efficent way to make hydrogen is by steam reforming natural gas, or coal, or petroleum hydrocarbons. Why bother, every atom of carbon in the fossil fuel used would wind up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide anyway and contribute to global warming:
CH4 + 2 H2O ---> CO2 + 4 H2
4 H2 + 2 O2 ---> 3 H2O
Overall:
CH4 + 2 O2 ---> CO2 + 2 H2O
If instead when we burn the fossil fuel directly, we get the same result as far as carbon is concerned,
i.e. CH4 + 2 H2O ---> CO2 + 2 H2O
Actually, it takes more energy and costs more to go through hydrogen, so we are no better off than if we burn the fossil fuel directly in an internal combustion engine, like we do now.
Electrolysis of water is another way to make hydrogen, but it takes more electrical energy to make hydrogen than we get back when we use the hydrogen as a fuel, because the hydrogen has to be compressed, transported, etc. Even if the hyrdrogen is produced in our garages from electricity and water, the energy used to compress the hydrogen is wasted and makes it better to use an electric or plugin-hybrid powered vehicle.
What makes much more sense is a biofuel-plugin hybrid, especially using biodiesel (biodiesel is much more energy efficient than ethanol). Such cars/SUVs/trucks/etc. would use 85% less fuel than current gasoline and diesel engines, and the electricity needed can come from regenerable power plants, or rooftop solar panels or wind turbines. It makes the most sense, it is the most efficient, it can be done now, electricity is the easiest form of energy to distribute or be distributively produced, and it can work. This approach requires lots of battery storage capacity, so to make it better we need to continue to develop better batteries, and we'll need good battery recycling systems. But it can work very well with the batteries we already have.
Posted by: Barry Heimlich
|
|
13-Dec-2007
59582
| |
Here is the truth about hydrogen energy.
Hydrogen can be made at home. Anybody who says it can’t is either a shill, an idiot or completely out of touch with reality and technology. You can make it for free, at home, all day long and all night long. The metrics quoted by the anti-hydrogen crowd are just lies to protect their competing business interests. Anybody who says it costs too much or that it has some evil chain reaction of “negative karma” or “sour grid source” or causes cancer because of something back in the energy chain is almost always a shill because the energy chain is constantly improving. Anybody who says the numbers say it is all wrong or bad or evil or inefficient are also usually a shill who are quoting numbers from six months or six years back (which is ancient history in hydrogen timeframes). It now costs less to make hydrogen from water than any known way to make gasoline and it continues to get cheaper every month. The “battery shill” spin has worn thin and has been supplanted by facts. Hydrogen is made from WATER via solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio waves, sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy. Hydrogen can also be made from any organic garbage, waste, plants or ANYTHING organic via lasers, plasma beams or dozens of other powered exotics which can be run off of EITHER the grid or the free hydrogen made from solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio waves, sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy OR the grid. There is no oil that needs to be involved anywhere in the production of hydrogen. These systems trickle charge hydrogen into storage containers, either tanks or solid state cassettes, 24/7.
Tens of millions of dollars are being spent by battery companies in order to discredit hydrogen because hydrogen works better than batteries. A large number of “pundits” who act as “writers”, “bloggers”, “authors” and “non-profit evangelist group founders” are actually supported by financial gain from battery companies who are terrified of hydrogen displacing their revenue streams. You will see a list of these people and their backers online soon. The following facts are cut and pasted from tens of thousands of validating scientific sources available online and in libraries, federal studies and university research papers.
Lets go over the battery and bio-fuel shills lies:
Lie # 1:
“But critics say the process of producing hydrogen requires three to four times more energy than the hydrogen later generates in the fuel cell.”
RESPONSE: This is data from the 60’s. It is now more efficient to make hydrogen than it is to make gasoline, build or use batteries or process bio-fuel. The technology has beat everything else.
Lie # 2: “the cars are too expensive.”
RESPONSE: The production of hydrogen cars is at an early stage while battery cars have been around for almost a hundred years and the battery cars are still expensive for what you get. The Moore’s law on hydrogen cars shows a clear price decline to low cost in market volume.
Lie #3: “ hydrogen molecules can't be contained easily without energy-consuming compressors or maintaining them in liquid form at extremely low temperatures , and it's extremely difficult to store,"
RESPONSE: This data is also from the 60’s. Hydrogen is stored in chemical powders and muds that easily contain vast amounts of hydrogen. Pressure and liquid tanks to store hydrogen are old school archaic technologies. Hydrogen can be easily stored in over 2800 different solid state compounds.
Lie #4: "The infrastructure isn't there”
RESPONSE: Solid state hydrogen can be shipped by UPS, Common Carrier and uses all existing infrastructure. DOPT has already licensed and approved such solid state delivery via common EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE. This method can reavch every person on earth TODAY! This requires almost NO NEW INFRASTRUCTURE.
Lie #5: “the hydrogen is too expensive”
RESPONSE: Hydrogen can be made at home or office in numerous ways powered by solar or wind or microbes or any number of free power sources. It is always being made by such devices and constantly trickle charged into solid state storage systems all day and night FOR FREE without grid power.
Hydrogen processors now make hydrogen with 91% efficiency.
NO INFRASTRUCTURE IS NEEDED!!! This is the biggest lie of all. A large number of start-ups have solid state hydrogen solutions that entirely use existing infrastructure.
Battery Shills, backed by companies who are invested in batteries, are the usual suspects in anti-hydrogen reporting.
A “fuel cell car” and an “electric car” ARE THE SAME THING. The shills want you to think otherwise. The only difference is where the electricity is stored. You can pull the batteries out of every Zenn, Tesla, Zap, EV1, Venture Vehicle, etc. and pop a fuel cell/hydrogen pack in the same hole and go further, more efficiently in EVERY SINGLE CASE.
A modern fuel cell and hydrogen system beats batteries on every front including
FIRE- Batteries catch on fire constantly and have been the result of massively more fires and explosions than hydrogen.
Life Span- Hydrogen power systems run massively longer and provide massively greater range per charge than batteries.
Run Time – The run time of batteries constantly shortens while hydrogen does not.
Memory Effect- This effect is not present in hydrogen systems
Recharge Time- modern hydrogen systems are instant recharge.
Charge life- Modern hydrogen systems can recharge massively longer than batteries before end of life.
Nano powder batteries have cancer causing powder that falls into the pores of the Chinese factory workers skin and gives them potentially fatal diseases
Cost- The cost per 300 mile range for a hydrogen car system is massively lower than a battery system
Energy from “sour-grid”- A modern hydrogen system can be charged from a completely clean home energy system.
Can’t make energy at home- Hydrogen can be made at home. Batteries cannot.
Storage Density – Modern hydrogen technology has a massively higher storage density than batteries.
Bulky Size- Hydrogen systems are dramatically less bulky than batteries.
High Weight- The weight of batteries is so great ir reduces the reange of travel of a vehicle which causes the use of wasteful energy just to haul the batteries along with the car. Hydrogen energy systems weigh far less.
Environmental soundness- The disposal of batteries after use presents a deadly environmental issue.
Self Discharge issues- Hydrogen does not self discharge like batteries.
The charge-keeping capability of a typical lithium-ion battery degrades steadily over time and with use. After only one or two years of use, the runtime of a laptop or cell phone battery is reduced to the point where the user experience is significantly impacted. For example, the runtime of a typical 4-hour laptop battery drops to only about 2.5 hours after 3,000 hours of use. By contrast, the latest fuel cells continue to deliver nearly their original levels of runtime well past the 2,000 and 3,000 hour marks and are still going strong at 5,000+ hours
The electrical capacity of batteries has not kept up with the increasing power consumption of electronic devices. Features such as W-LAN, higher CPU speed, "always-on", large and bright displays and many others are important for the user but severely limited by today`s battery life. Lithium ion batteries, and lithium-polymer batteries have almost reached fundamental limits. A laptop playing a DVD today has a runtime of just above one hour on one battery pack, which is clearly not acceptable.
Such limitations have led to an enormous interest in alternative power sources, of which the fuel cell is the most promising candidate. Storage density, i.e. the electrical capacity available per unit mass of energy storage means, is one of the most important parameters.
So you have the well-known battery and competing fuel shills who are anti-hydrogen sheep:
Ulf Bossel of the European Fuel Cell Forum, Alec Brooks, James Woolsey, EV World Sam Thurber, Cal Cars and others.
Yet for every manipulated argument they come up with, they are shot down by hundreds of sites with facts.
The interventions of these 'doubters' fall into a number of clear categories which I'll summarise as:
1 "You can't succeed because no-one has ever succeeded at this (sports car making / battery-power / taking on the majors, etc etc) before". - May I commend to everyone Dava Sobel's wonderful (and short!) book, "Longitude", which offers a perfect map of the tendency of government and the scientific establishment collude to reject true innovation. This effect can only be overcome when a tipping-point of perceived popular utility is reached, at which point the establishment suddenly has a bout of collective amnesia about their earlier denials. (Same story many times over, historically, of course - from Gallileo onwards.)
2 "It's inefficient to carry around". Rather as it's inefficient to carry around a full tank of gas, perhaps? Or to carry around a SUV chassis which itself weighs a ton or more? (Come on, Detroit, you can find a better argument than that, surely?)
3 "This technology is not a solution and never will be." This very much reminds me of the IBM's famously short-sighted take on the prospect of home computing, back in the 70s. The language of these contributions, let alone their content, points to a thought-process rooted in volume-producers'vested interests. Consider the successes of some other new-tech challengers of vested interests: Dyson taking on Hoover with a bagless vacuum-cleaner; Bayliss bringing clockwork (i.e. battery-less) radios and laptops to the third world; thin-film solar panels (sorry, can't remember who, but you know who I mean). On this point, it was deeply depressing, at a high-level environmental science conference of the UK Government last year, for me to witness a "leading and respected" Professor of Transport rejecting electric traction out-of-hand with the words "it will never be more than just power storage on a trolley". Given that this "expert" was advising ministers of state setting future national policy on alternative transport, my immediate thought was "Who pays this man's research grant?"
So let's be vigilant for any who claim, in a smooth way, that invention can't possibly have the answers. From a position of some expertise in this field, may I remind readers that the "you-don't-understand-how-our-industry-works" argument has been the policy instrument of choice for numerous corporate fraudsters and protectionists down the ages (Enron, anyone?). New York's energetic DA, Mr Spitzer, has made a fine career out of challenging such thinking in the finance sector (with the simple rejoinder: "WHY does your industry work like that? Against customer choice?"). And then of course there's the entire consumer movement (remember Flaming Fords? remember "Unsafe at Any Speed"?). We can and should ask the same questions of the conventional auto industry.
The good news is that genuine innovation will out - as long as ordinary consumers are able to find it and buy it. One of the early lessons of the twentyfirst century, thank goodness, is that the old-school, browbeating style of corporate communication - terrorising one's customers into rejecting alternatives - increasingly fails as people wise up to making decisions based on their own independently-gathered information about benefits and risks. (Interestingly, a popular reaction against "selling by fear" is also now happening in the political field. Now why might that be?) As a consumer, one doesn't have to agree with the in-ya-face techniques of anticorporate critics like Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock to still subscribe to the view that we can buy what we want to buy. We no longer want to be told by old-tech that new-tech is inherently suspect. Isn't it old-tech that brought us dependency on oil, climate change, wars over energy sources?
So c'mon people, how about a reward system for "spot the spoiler"? I'm all for free debate on the issues, but some of these blogs smell rather like the work of paid old-tech corporatists trying to sabotage your success.
Challenge such interventions with the greatest possible vigour, and let consumers decide for themselves!
1.) Battery companies are spending millions of dollars to knock H2
because it works longer, better, faster and cheaper than batteries! Most of the people writing these screaming anti-H2 articles are battery company shills or have investments there. H2 does beat batteries on every front so the should be SCARED!
2.) The steel unions hate H2 because H2 cars don't use steel. Steel is
too hard to afford any more so nobody will use it in any case.
3.) Activists hate H2 because they think it can only be made by the oil
companies and they hate the oil companies. This is a falsehood created by the battery and steel guys.
4.) Oil companies hate H2 because it is so much better than oil but they
only get to hate it unto 2030 when the affordable oil runs out. Then they know they must love it because H2 energy will be all that is left. The Oil industry is dismayed that H2 is coming on so fast and they are trying to slow it down even more.
5.) Other alternative energy interests hate it because it is getting all
of the funding because the polita-nomics are better with H2 than ANYTHING ELSE ON EARTH.
If the gasoline in your car blows up it will do a VAST AMOUNT more death and damage than H2 ever will. You are driving a MOLOTOV COCKTAIL. In 2030 oil is GONE and there is NO OTHER OPTION that can be delivered world-wide in time but H2!
If I am a shill who could I possible be working for? You don’t need an oil company or energy company anywhere in the loop.
Posted by: Shelly Carson
|
|
20-Aug-2007
57748
| |
Hydrogen fuel is great. Now if only there was a way to get extract it in abundance. hmmmm wait there is! Hydrogen is the fuel I think people will be using for hundred if not thousands of years in the future. And for good reason. Its completely clean when utilized, and emmits no carbon emmisions! Currently the cheapest way to extract hydrogen is by burning natural gas which is pollutive. However there is a way to extract hydrogen in large quantities and cleanly.
That way is pond scum. Common algae that grows on the surface of any river emmits hydrogen as a bi-product of photosynthesis. Its totally clean and has the potentianl to completely supply the future generations with a clean abundant source of fuel, for use in fuel cells or ICE turbine generator engines. An area of roughly 7 square miles would be needed for cultivation. I invision a combination, Solar/Wind/Algae production farm 7 miles across supplying all the fuel and electricity needs of America.
Posted by: Michael Foreal
|
|
|
September ePOLL
Do you agree that the $100 billion invested in technology innovation was an appropriate expenditure by the American government?
|
