Hydrogen vs. Battery

[vfx]

The announced budget cut stories are trickling out.
The article had this too:

The Obama administration will also drop spending for research on the exploration of oil and gas deposits because the industry itself has ample resources for that, Dr. Chu said.

 

[dpeilow]

And then I just get this from The Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Letter

Gov’ts Synchronize for 2015 Commercial FC Vehicle Launch, GM Paper Says

DETROIT, May 8 - Governments are globally synchronizing policies to start commercialization of fuel cell vehicles by 2015, according to an internal General Motors paper compiled in April and made available to The Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Letter.

It is one of several Key Takeaway statements in the 84-page document, “Global Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Infrastructure Competitive Analysis.” According to a senior automotive industry source who did not want to be identified, it’s not just something carmakers want but “it’s a done deal.”

The paper also says other countries and foreign carmakers are outpacing the United States in these areas: “Germany, Japan and OEMs based in these countries continue to execute their fuel cell and hydrogen plans for 2015,” says another such statement, and “Competitors have more vehicular/engineering/manufacturing cycles of learning.” Also, the “US NAS (National Academy of Science) addressed ‘valley of death’, low volume/immature technology, proposing price buy-down for customers” (H&FCL Feb. 07, Aug. 08).

The paper was prepared to “document the Automotive Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Infrastructure programs in both the US and foreign countries; Determine reasons for foreign nations focus on Hydrogen for Future;” and “Develop a clear understanding of the gap between the US and the rest of the world relative to these initiatives.” It was compiled primarily from publicly available resources.

The paper summarizes earlier announcements by Daimler and Toyota to start building small fleets this year and in 2015, respectively (H&FCL Feb., March 09). It also says the current global fleet of fuel cell vehicles stands at 318, with GM contributing more than one third (115). Hyundai has announced plans for another 100 cars and Honda plans to have 200 leases over the next three years.

Germany’s main goal, the paper says, is to “develop and implement a strategy for a long term, nationwide market introduction of hydrogen as a fuel for transport” via its Transport Energy Strategy launched 11 years ago and, so far, scheduled to run through 2016. In Asia, “‘Japan Inc.’ is alive and well in advanced technologies,” and “They intend to win.”

The U.S. Energy Department has funded many programs for auto fuel cells, but “there is still much work to be done to match the German/Asian Partnerships.” The United States needs to do a better job to “link industries together as well as the public-private sector to insure National Competitiveness and match countries like Japan and Germany.” The problems in creating a US hydrogen fueling infrastructure include “regional, fragmented, inconsistent” efforts; “multiple, convoluted funding sources,” and “fuel providers have been inconsistent in their support (H&FCL April 09).

(A more detailed version will be published in the upcoming June 2009 issue of “The Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Letter”).

 

[vfx]

Pro Hydrogen arguments Top 25 things I wish President Barack Obama knew about hydrogen fuel cell cars and plug-in battery cars « Hydrogen Car Revolution

 

[stopcrazypp]

Pro Hydrogen arguments Top 25 things I wish President Barack Obama knew about hydrogen fuel cell cars and plug-in battery cars « Hydrogen Car Revolution

From the link:
The current cost of replacing the Roadster battery pack is $30,000!

Funny he mentions this and doesn't mention how much a fuel cell + hydrogen storage tank costs (does he even know and is it even publicly known). And it seems fuel cells don't even last that long, the last article I read said 100k miles. So you have to replace fuel cells.

I think this is an older article though.

 

[JRP3]

Pro Hydrogen arguments Top 25 things I wish President Barack Obama knew about hydrogen fuel cell cars and plug-in battery cars « Hydrogen Car Revolution

From his number one reason
1. HONDA (AN EXTREMELY SMART COMPANY) HAS COMPLETELY REJECTED PLUG-IN BATTERY TECHNOLOGY!!! INSTEAD, THE COMPANY IS AGGRESSIVELY PURSUING HYDROGEN FUEL CELL VEHICLES!!!

Of course Honda has recently announced that they will be pursuing plug in hybrid vehicles. Smart company getting smarter.
Blenco's an idiot.

 

[graham]

Pro Hydrogen arguments Top 25 things I wish President Barack Obama knew about hydrogen fuel cell cars and plug-in battery cars « Hydrogen Car Revolution

The arguments mostly seem to be in line with:
"People who have a vested interest in hydrogen say they think hydrogen will be great some day!"

 

[vfx]

The arguments mostly seem to be in line with:
"People who have a vested interest in hydrogen say they think hydrogen will be great some day!"

:biggrin::biggrin:

 

[dpeilow]

Again from The Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Letter

Bulletin: May 9, 2009

You are receiving this email because you are subscribed to HFCL Bulletin. If you wish to unsubscribe from this E-Newsletter or change information on your account, please use the links at the bottom of this message.


Energy Dep’t’s 2010 Budget Proposal Zeroes Out Transport, Other Fuel Cell Programs

WASHINGTON, DC May 9 - In its 2010 budget request released two days ago, the Obama administration in effect proposes killing the transportation parts of the Energy Department’s hydrogen and fuel cell program.

The “Fuel Cell Technologies” program, previously known as “Hydrogen, Fuel Cell and Infrastructure Technologies,” is supposed to shrink from the current FY 2009 appropriation of $168,960,000 to $68,213,000, as summarized on p. 61 (p. 67 in the transmitted PDF version) of the 694-page Volume 3 of the DoE budget request.

The only two subprograms for which funding is sought are “Fuel Cell Systems R&D” at $63,213,000, apparently a new catch-all category that was not funded at all in FY 2008 and 2009, and “Systems Analysis” for which $5,000,000 are sought, down from the FY 2009 appropriation of $7,713,000.

Zeroed out completely are “Hydrogen Production and Delivery R&D;” “Hydrogen Storage R&D;” “Fuel Cell Stack Component R&D;” “Technology Validation” (a footnote says funding for this category is to be included again starting in FY 2010); “Transportation Fuel Cell Systems;” “Distributed Energy Fuel Cell Systems;” “Fuel Processor R&D;” “Safety Codes & Standards” (also supposed to restart in FY 2010); “Education” (also scheduled for 2010 restart); “Market Transformation;” and “Manufacturing R&D.”

Some smaller hydrogen programs are still part of other areas such as the budget for DoE’s Science Office, a source told H&FCL, “but other bits like hydrogen from the nuclear HTGRs (high temperature gas reactors) are zeroed out.”

Within hours of the budget release, the National Hydrogen Association and the U.S. Fuel Council in a joint statement - apparently the first such joint release ever - deplored the action, saying the proposed cuts “threaten to disrupt commercialization of a family of technologies that are showing exceptional promise and beginning to gain market traction. Fuel cell vehicles are not a science experiment. These are real vehicles with real marketability and real benefits. Hundreds of fuel cell vehicles have collectively logged millions of miles.”

P.S.: The day after the budget release, German fuel cell developer Proton Motor and Czech Skoda Electric unveiled near Munich the first-ever transit bus with a triple hybrid fuel cell system. The bus is expected to be put into service in the Prague metro area this summer.

 

[dpeilow]

The fallout begins:

Byron McCormick Resigns from DoE Panel Protesting Fuel Cell Funding Cuts

WASHINGTON, DC May 11 - Recently retired General Motors fuel cell executive J. Byron McCormick resigned from the U.S. Energy Department’s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee to protest Secretary Steven Chu’s decision to zero out DoE’s transportation fuel cell budget.

In an e-mail today to Chu, McCormick, until last year GM’s executive director of fuel cell activities (H&FCL Jan. 09), wrote that given his “experience of developing, manufacturing and fielding batteries, EV's, hybrid vehicles, fuel cells, electric propulsion systems and fuel cell vehicles, and understand the technical, regulatory, environmental and business issues involved, I am both perplexed and confused by your decision to zero the budget.

“Like my colleagues from the other global OEM's who wrote me this weekend I've spent the last 35 years of my life developing real hardware, fielding real hardware, learning the lessons that the customers and real experience teach us and developing business understandings as to what it takes to make a sustainable/viable business with products customers will purchase.”

He added, “I also know that there are many well meaning passionate advocates who do not have that relevant experience and make their cases based on idealized models or non-realistic or scientifically supportable assumptions. So, I in no way mean to demean them or you in my disagreement with your decision.

Wrote McCormick, “However, since I have recently retired to New Mexico, and am as a result being very selective as to where and on what pursuits I spend my time and energy, I have decided to resign from HTAC and focus my attention/experience/knowledge with those who will be moving ahead to make it happen.

“I want to wish you the best of luck in developing an energy policy for the United States."

 

[JRP3]

The fallout begins:

Translation, the money has stopped so I'm leaving. Rats abandoning the ship.

 

[vfx]

Translation, the money has stopped so I'm leaving. Rats abandoning the ship.

What was he going to do all day anyway?

 

[doug]

Living on Earth: Leaving Hydrogen in the Dust

Energy Secretary Steven Chu reversed the Bush administration’s pro-hydrogen fuel cell vehicles agenda. Many in the hydrogen industry are appealing but as Jim Motavalli, author of Forward Drive: The Race to Build Clean Cars, tells host Steve Curwood, the surge of electric vehicles promises a quicker payoff.

 

[TEG]

And I suppose it is fair to say that many of the people on this forum are happy to see the outcome happening this way.

Some hydrogen zealots may have been hoping he would have gone their way, for instance see this old article:

Chu as DOE Chief Greeted Favorably - 2008-12-11 19:46:22 | Design News

...Hydrogen and fuel cell advocate James Provenzano, co-author of the The Hydrogen Age, is delighted with Chu's scientific background.

"It's refreshing to have someone on the science end of things and less on the political. For so many years, we had the political and industry side running DOE," he says. "He's a strong supporter of reducing greenhouse gases and working on climate change. Overall, he sounds like a fantastic choice. I've looked at some of his papers and he will bring a holistic approach to problem solving. He doesn't seem myopic which many people can be in this position."​

Provenzano, also president of Clean Air Now in California, says he is still researching where Chu might come down on hydrogen. "He seems to have the propensity to promote hydrogen, but I don't know."...

 

[TEG]

Interesting, related responses posted to this story:
Technology Review: Q & A: Steven Chu

 

[TEG]

And a response from Joseph Romm, who has been speaking out against fuel cell research for years:
Secretary Chu agrees with Climate Progress and slashes hydrogen budget | Grist

(Lots of great links to be found in the "related posts" section at the bottom of the story)

 

[vfx]

Technology Review: Q & A: Steven Chu

TR: It used to be thought, five to eight years ago, that hydrogen was the great answer for the future of transportation. The mood has shifted. What have we learned from this?

SC: I think, well, among some people it hasn't really shifted [laughs]. I think there was great enthusiasm in some quarters, but I always was somewhat skeptical of it because, right now, the way we get hydrogen primarily is from reforming [natural] gas. That's not an ideal source of hydrogen. You're giving away some of the energy content of natural gas, which is a very valuable fuel. So that's one problem. The other problem is, if it's for transportation, we don't have a good storage mechanism yet. Compressed hydrogen is the best mechanism [but it requires] a large volume. We haven't figured out how to store it with high density. What else? The fuel cells aren't there yet, and the distribution infrastructure isn't there yet. So you have four things that have to happen all at once. And so it always looked like it was going to be [a technology for] the distant future. In order to get significant deployment, you need four significant technological breakthroughs. That makes it unlikely.

TR: So this is an example, perhaps, of picking a technology prematurely. Is there anything we've learned from that in terms of future policy?

SC: I wasn't there when they started making this [decision]. I'm not sure it was deeply understood what was required. Now, having said that, I think that hydrogen could be effectively a "battery" in the sense that suppose you had a way of using excess electricity--let's say a nuclear plant at night, or solar or wind excess capacity, and there was an efficient electrolysis way of turning that into hydrogen, and then we have stationary fuel cells. It could effectively be a battery of sorts. You take a certain form of energy and convert it to hydrogen, and then convert it back [into electricity]. You don't have the distribution problem, you don't have the weight problem. [Editor's note: Storage tanks can be heavy.] In certain applications, you don't need as many miracles for it to happen. If you need four miracles, that's unlikely: saints only need three miracles [laughs].

(Emphasis mine)

 

[stopcrazypp]

you're giving away some of the energy content of natural gas, which is a very valuable fuel. So that's one problem. The other problem is, if it's for transportation, we don't have a good storage mechanism yet. Compressed hydrogen is the best mechanism [but it requires] a large volume. We haven't figured out how to store it with high density. What else? The fuel cells aren't there yet, and the distribution infrastructure isn't there yet.

I agree fuel cell cost & energy cost really isn't there yet for hydrogen, as well as the infrastructure.

But you have to admit in terms of volumetric density they are improving, trunk space in most hydrogen cars are around the same as some hybrid cars, though the shape of the hydrogen tank isn't convenient for packaging and makes for a less usable trunk space (harder to get a flat floor).
It's definitely not as flexible to package as a battery pack or a gas tank (the Prius with better battery packaging shows this point), but in terms of density it's not too bad.

Camry Hybrid (10.6 cubic feet):

Clarity (10-11 cubic feet in some reports, 13.1 according to Road & Track, probably including the small storage space shown in this picture):

Prius (14.4 cubic feet, blows both away, showing how battery/gas tank packaging is more flexible):

Highlander FCHV trunk (SUV is the only way to can get a flat trunk it seems):

 

[vfx]

......Boom!.boom..........boomboom!


:tongue:

 

[dpeilow]

BBC NEWS | Technology | Car race on 'hydrogen highway'

 

[flabby]

The Challenge:
Drive an Electric and a Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle for a month and see which you like better.

Challenge to Chu: drive an electric and a hydrogen car for a month, see what happens

Problems with this:
-Tesla should be used instead of the cube because of distance issues.
-for the price of a hydrogen car, can't you just add more batteries to an electric vehicle (possibly enough to go well over 1000 miles per charge. Yes it would be huge, but you would get the range).
-quick charge vs. fill up time issue is solved with a battery swap- implimented in the Tesla S.
-isn't one of the reason's hydrogen fuel cells so far along is because they've received a great deal of money from the government, and the lack of funding for battery developement one of the reasons that battery technology is not as advanced?