Hydrogen vs. Battery

[dpeilow]

I'm not even sure his comments about European Union energy mix hold water. Well, maybe in Germany now that they've freaked out and turned off the nukes. Big coal must love it.

Must find a grid mix for the EU.

 

[stopcrazypp]

As usual, siting this special case where HFCV can be cleaner than EV (i.e. H2 from natural gas, electricity from coal) and then talking about getting your H2 via renewables without admitting that EV beats HFCV here by a factor of 3.

They always do avoid that issue because it makes HFCVs look horrible as a solution for the future where most people predict using much more renewable energy. And they know under any other situation besides from electricity made from a huge majority of coal, EVs blow HFCVs out of the water (including using natural gas).

What I don't get is why they insist on being so rosy on hydrogen and always trying to downplay EVs (almost all manufacturers are like this, except maybe Nissan and Ford), even though they claim they have equal focus on both.

 

[Nik]

What I don't get is why they insist on being so rosy on hydrogen and always trying to downplay EVs (almost all manufacturers are like this, except maybe Nissan and Ford), even though they claim they have equal focus on both.

I suspec that the general public knows nothing about the impact of hydrogen fuel except 'no emissions except water'. The fact that Hydrogen (unlike Oxygen!) doesn't grow on trees isn't really that well understood.

 

[dpeilow]

And the only proposed zero CO2, relatively efficient way to make hydrogen that I've previously read about just went boom on the east coast of Japan. In fact - as we know - it was a big part of the reason why that went boom. So in light of that I think the hydrogen lobby need to give it up. They won't though.

 

[zack]

It's okay if they don't give up. Investigating the viability of hydrogen is a good thing. Some very specific applications may come from it and heck, variety is the spice of life! I'd love it if my Roadster had a hydrogen heating option, with electric backup. Could put a bit of weight in the front of the car to reduce under steer and increase my range in the cold Minnesota winters! 8^D

Seriously, hydrogen research gives people jobs and every kind of research leads to side discoveries that help technology overall. It's not immoral and it doesn't increase dependence on foreign oil, so hydrogen gets a thumbs-up from me. Besides, if someone successfully gets hydrogen cars on the road en masse, it only increases the number of hapless drivers who I can leave behind as I rocket away from a stoplight.

 

[JRP3]

I disagree. Investing in hydrogen takes money, research, and resources away from EV's and other renewable resources, with little likely hood of return, and therefor prolongs our dependence on fossil fuels. If you want more weight in the front of the Roadster and more range, then add more batteries. Just because an industry provides jobs doesn't mean it should exist.

 

[vfx]

They can do all the research they want. Just don't use my tax dollars.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It's okay if they don't give up. Investigating the viability of hydrogen is a good thing.

No problem with that, but as vfx says it usually is using our tax money and so far it hasn't resulted in anything that we can buy. I'm okay with the limited research that Obama proposes though.

And right now the issue isn't really research. The issue is most auto manufacturers paint an overly rosy picture about hydrogen, as if it was some kind holy grail, while completely downplaying (if not outright spreading FUD about) EVs and plug-ins, when it is a solution that is actually here now.

 

[JRP3]

Plus they try to push for public funding for the non existent hydrogen infrastructure. I think the Navy is getting some GM fuel cell vehicles for Hawaii and wants fueling stations set up for them. Guess who is paying for that project? The added kicker is that Hawaii can be completely covered by a single charge of a LEAF!

 

[zack]

Alright, I'm duly convinced. Hydrogen sucks. 8^D

On edit:

Wait, I take that back. What about jets? How will we power those without generating massive amounts of carbon? If we're going to eventually wind down our use of fossil fuels completely and save all of our oil for manufacturing, we're not going to want to crack oil into jet-A fuel. Hydrogen might be a viable fuel for flight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_aircraft

 

[JRP3]

Didn't work out too well for the Hindenburg :cursing: :wink: (Not actually hydrogen powered of course), but jets use a small fraction of our fuel use and that may be a small enough amount that carbon neutral bio fuels could cover it.

 

[zack]

Interesting. Here's an article from last July which actually features a plane powered by "algae juice".

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/algae-could-one-day-make-aviation-carbon-neutral-2010-07-21

 

[vfx]

Hydrogen is not "bad" per-say, it's just not viable for automobiles in the practical future.

"Lith-i-um killed the hy-dro-gen car...."

 

[TEG]

"Lith-i-um killed the hy-dro-gen car...."

Oh-a oh!

 

[dpeilow]

Count the straw men in this article: UK's Cella Energy develops hydrogen 'micro beads' that could fuel cars for $1.50 per gallon | Inhabitat - Green Design Will Save the World

However it did get me thinking: Hydrogen supporters often say it is a by-product of the refining process and that we already produce large quantities for use in fertilizer, manufacturing, rockets, etc, etc. Fine. But what if the oil companies are planning to divert some of this effectively "free" hydrogen into the transport market to seed it? Boom - undercut the EV market with an effectively artificially priced loss leader and then when everyone is hooked, EVs and other refinery sales (petrol etc) go away and then it will not be a by-product any more but something that has to be specifically made and sold at its true price. Is this the big oil masterplan?

 

[richkae]

For hydrogen to be viable it needs 3 things that it currently doesn't have:
1) affordable cars
2) filling stations
3) competitively priced fuel

For #1 the Leaf at $32k US pre-rebate puts BEVs are way ahead. Will a fuel cell stack + compressed hydrogen tank compete with a battery in terms of cost?
For #2 - the fact that you can charge your car at home puts BEVs way ahead. I have analyzed the number of level fast charging/battery swap stations you need to make BEVs convenient and I believe it is at least one order of magnitude less than gas stations ( and thus hydrogen stations ).
For #3 to compete with BEVs they will have to sell it at a huge loss.

The only advantage hydrogen has is the fast refill for the 300+ mile driving days, but without filling stations everywhere it doesn't matter.
If 200-300 mile range BEVs can beat them to market in quantity, I dont think they will be able to convince people to step backwards to hydrogen.

 

[JRP3]

But what if the oil companies are planning to divert some of this effectively "free" hydrogen into the transport market to seed it? Boom - undercut the EV market with an effectively artificially priced loss leader and then when everyone is hooked, EVs and other refinery sales (petrol etc) go away and then it will not be a by-product any more but something that has to be specifically made and sold at its true price. Is this the big oil masterplan?

How can they sell "cheap" hydrogen with no fueling infrastructure?

 

[dpeilow]

Mercedes aims to breathe new life into fuel cell cars. The Green Piece. | TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk

 

[malcolm]

Even assuming that the reasearch goes smoothly from now on, hydrogen will present a marketing problem; reduced luggage space compared with EVs. Either the pressurized tank takes up space under the hood or in the trunk. By 2015 the public should be aware of 300 mile range EVs with plenty of space to spare. Why go back to refuel at forecourts and sacrifice your luggage?

Hydrogen automobile technology has four more years to run. After that, it's all over.

ETA:

It's all over - too strong.

I think it'll become progressively harder for hydrogen to break into the domestic transport market, even assuming they solve the technical difficulties. But I wasn't thinking about commercial.

hydrogen trucks and big rigs could still happen.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Even assuming that the reasearch goes smoothly from now on, hydrogen will present a marketing problem; reduced luggage space compared with EVs. Either the pressurized tank takes up space under the hood or in the trunk.

To be fair, the recent attempts are much better at packaging. Basically you just have more than one tank. That way you can fit the tanks under the car, the same way you can fit a battery. However, the required volume isn't going to improve in the future, unless they raise the pressure even higher (IMO unlikely), while batteries will continue to improve in volumetric density.