Fuel cell R&D subsidies versus corn subsidies

yes but you will save gas if overall MPG is higher!

why not to build? for one reason, while natural gas will have lesser energy content liquid CNG is much easier to store then H2. Fueling stations for CNG already exist (not as common). Distribution infrastructure is already in place, millions of natural gas pipes all over the place (including your front yard).

If you are the owner of only non-fleet CNG vehicle, Civic GX CNG, you own your own charge station, for 1500$?

 

AFAIK gasoline fc cars are about 40% efficient. Volvo has a diesel that is 45% efficient, the gen III prius engine is 38% efficient and has a gasoline engine in the lab that is 42% efficient. In conventional cars these engines can not produce at the engines efficiency, but in a PHEV they can come close. A gasoline fc car also needs all the pieces as a phev, so gas fc versus efficient PHEV will not save gas, but will be more expensive and at today's technology level much higher in maintenance costs.

natural gas does have the potential to reduce gasoline usage. I would rather use it in something like the picken's plan to power trucks than wait for expensive unreliable fuel cells to get cheap and dependable. Chu only cut R&D by half which should provide funds to improve the cells. The big cuts were for commercialization, setting up hydrogen pumps and subsidizing companies in building the pro-type cars. Toyota and honda are still going to build their widely expensive demo cars, the government would just rather subsidize them building bevs and phevs that will actually save gasoline in the next couple of decades.

 

FC will not need all the pieces as PHEV as it will not have ICE.. and won't have higher maintenance costs as there are fewer parts and much less moving parts. FC is basically an EV with smaller battery and fuel cell.

The fuel cells are ~80% efficient, far cry for ICE, direct injected or not. The quoted ICE 38% and 45% efficiency rates are only good for optimal conditions, the real life numbers are far less, somewhere ~1/2 give or take. Turbines are ~60% efficient but too bulky and operate in narrow range.

what you really need to look at is overall efficiency, including mfg and delivery, and it isn't that great.

 

the PEM FCs are very fragile and wildly expensive. 80% efficient is news to me. I've heard of SOFC being 65% efficient, but you won't find one of those in a car.

he's talking about every BUT the ICE... and if anything goes wrong with that PEMFC the maintenance costs will currently require you to get about 4 new mortgages.

 

Honda claims FCX Clarity has 60% tank to wheel efficiency, powertrain losses included. For comparison 60MPG diesel VW Polo has 22% tank to wheel.

No question if electrolysis used to produce H2, the overall efficiency will be not favorable.

 

+1

Yes, honda claims that the clarity is 60% efficient from hydrogen in the tank to the wheels. Now this hydrogen needs to be manufactured and compressed before it gets to the car. With natural gas the bloom box which I pointed to before, which is inappropriate for cars is the biggest breakthrough, and is 50% efficient. This would need to drop when making it small enough and cheap enough to fit in a car, and energy is lost running the motors and charging the batteries.

All of the research and commercialization money for phevs should directly benefit the systems needed for fuel cell vehicles if they are ever commercially produced.

 

Not all of the research, at least not parallel PHEV, more so on series electric like Volt and on EV... but wow we finally agree on something??

 

It does my heart good when journalists tell it like it is. The article below was picked up by this month's EV world - acknowledging that continued high manufacturing costs (not even counting a necessary multi trillion dollar infrastructure) and other such hurdles make hydrogen autos less & less likely: http://www.torquenews.com/397/future-hydrogen-fueled-vehicles-not-burning-so-bright

But what REALLY cracked me up was the comment from one of Honda's hydrogen research persons:

Automakers Try To Sell Government On Fuel Cell Cars : NPR
I couldn't help but think of GM ... cranking out all those Hummers ... even as the dealer's back lots over filled to the point they had to start stacking 'em at local Mall back lots.

.

 

I see all these subsidies for corn alcohol, and shake my head in disdain.

Don't they know that it will add to the price of food? Perhaps they do, and the companies like ADM and Monsanto, who provide genetically modified seeds have their lobbyists at work in DC, and just want to make more insane profits.

We really have to spend more money on alternatives, and corn-based ethanol is NOT one of them. Fuel cells, wind, solar, tidal, and others are more the way that we should look to get more energy. Tidal power, for instance, can be very reliable, and persistent, if they do it correctly.

While I'm at it, I don't see why there isn't more emphasis on conserving the resources we have, rather than using more of them. But I guess that's the socialist in me.

I'll get off the soap box now. I know that this isn't a political forum, and I doubt that folks here want to hear my REAL political views!

 

You should know that the main thing behind the Picken's Plan, is more profits for his greedy wallet. It's not about conservation, environmentalism, or any other altruistic goal. It's only about his greed.

 

+1

There is the subsidy that is on top of the mandate. This subsidy does nothing but transfer money, it doesn't affect food, but..... it is begot a sugar tariff, and that affects food. Let's at a minimum remove those two things.

Then there is the more questionable item of the mandate. I would like to get rid of this also. Ethanol does offset some oil, but uses a great deal of natural gas to produce fertilizer and other polution. I would rather use that natural gas to offset gasoline in electric generation for phevs, bevs, and natural gas fueled cars. This will offset more gasoline than the mandate has.

I'm not opposed to greed. Picken's invested in natural gas because he thinks it will make him money. The plan is just one use. It is about reducing demand for oil. Hydrogen will be overwhelmingly produced from natural gas. Instead of building a hydrogen infrastructure, or putting fuel cells in the cars, I would rather burn the natural gas in the engines in the short term.