The Economist: Electric cars Difference Engine: Tailpipe truths

I did not say fuel efficiency was not important. I said the actual cost savings was not that important. The point of many prius purchases, consciously or subconsciously, was "signaling" to the outside world that the owner cared about the environment. It was/is mostly about a displaying to manage the owners personal view/status. The Unique shape actually helped that messaging.

Here is a times article on it..
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/business/04hybrid.html
with the top reasons for buying a prius in 2007 being, by far, "It makes a statement about me".


There is plenty of hard research to back up the idea that "green status" is a key element, e.g. check out this article (which unlike many of the others I know is free) http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/140554.pdf

The first purchasers were early adopters and those who really wanted to be green. It went more mainstream when others wanted to been see that way, even if it was too late to be early and even if they were not really that focused on being green.

And since it is mostly a status thing, it needs to cost a bit more (or the owner is not seen as sacrificing to be green), and its slow to build. The reputation of the Leaf and Volt may take time to grow, and like many other entries, they many never make it. But it will more likely be because of their reputation than because they make the most financial sense.

:focus:
Which also gives the grid time to get just a bit cleaner. We can expect that many of the early adopters will be in the greener parts of the country, or be willing to pay extra for the cleaner greener energy. Something the Economist blog post missed entirely.

 

Solar or wind generated hydrogen has no fossil fuel component.

Hydrogen can be direct burned (as demonstrated by the BMW7H) or used in a fuel cell (as demonstrated by the FX Clarity). Both cars are on the road now. The technology to use solar panels to create hydrogen is well established.

No science there just a political screed by someone who has some agenda though unclear from the rant what it was.

More real world information here.

Hydrogenics' first HyLYZERâ„¢ refueling station was first demonstrated in the fall of 2004, at Exhibition Place in Toronto, Canada. Since then, this HyLYZERâ„¢ installation has become part of Toronto's Hydrogen Village initiative and currently provides a working example of what our future hydrogen infrastructure could look like.

Less than gasoline which is much more dangerous fuel. Hydrogen is much safer.

There's quite a bit of industrial hydrogen infrastructure in place, you likely pass liquid hydrogen tanks on the road every day.

 

I think you need to understand something: The oil and coal industries are run by extremely ruthless and wealthy people who truly don't have the slightest bit of concern for the environment in any way. Their sole goal is to sell as much petroleum or coal as possible. They are no different than the tobacco industry, which truly did not care that their product killed people.

When you read an article that states the preposterous notion that electric cars are environmentally harmful or inefficient or more expensive to operate than an SUV, be CERTAIN that you're seeing oil/coal industry product placement. It's pure propaganda.

What can you do about it? Simple: Drive a Prius or electric vehicle, and tell everyone who asks how wonderful it is. Prius grew from a quirky curiosity into one of the world's best-selling cars, but it took a decade. We'll get there.

 

And they Solar/Wind don't generate any fossil fuel component when used in a EV, either. So its not an advantage over EVs.

Funny, you choose to only mention the second link. The first is a solid published scientific article that addressees the full "end-to-end" efficiency of the hydrogen economy.

Consider this figure from the scientific paper



Please explain what advantage you see?

I'm aware of local hydrogen station concepts. While it saves maybe 10% (because it does not need transport) it is still far less efficient than charging and using BEV.

Yes and liquid hydrogen trucks can carry about 1/20 of the energy of a gas tanker and because of venting requirements are continually loosing gas (energy) and not really suitable for a car -- especially as the backup energy for a EREV where it might need to sit for months. Only compressed hydrogen current really makes sense for a car and at at it is not trivial to work with -and since its odorless and colorless you need added sensors for safety. The advantage is its very light and hence dissipates quickly. It can be safe, but takes a lot of infrastructure and heavy sturdy tanks and monitoring sensors.


If there is any real future for hydrogen, its in a EREV-based, EV for local and H2 on the long trips.

I believe that unless there is an unforeseen breakthrough in hydrogen storage/transport and generation, in the long run our liquid fuels for long trips (e.g. EREV's) will be coming from a Fisher-Tropsch type conversion of biomass and/or other biodiesel processess.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/epa_fischer.pdf
I know folks working on FT processess without the biomass, i.e. just from flue gas, but currently it is much less efficient -- but does have the advantage of recapturing carbon already used in coal plants.

Here is a nice summary of FT as they way to transition to the "hydrogen" economy. http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/Su07Uhrig.pdf

 

Correct. Didn't say it was. The advantage is that hydrogen fuel, either direct burn or fuel cell/electric is transportable and eliminates the main problem with EV's, range and refill.

BMW apparently disagrees, they went for liquid hydrogen.

The BMW7h and the FXClarity have already answered the questions of range and storage and refill. Works well. The extensive existing industrial gas infrastructure has answered the rest.

Solar, wind or nuclear generated hydrogen is the perfect transportation fuel in ability to produce it cleanly and in use.

Fuel tanks are bigger but the fuel is lighter and more energy density than gasoline so tradeoffs.

Certainly a viable option if our survival depended upon it.

 

why would we choose to be less efficient on the h2 energy highway versus just use the electricity to charge batteries? are we not very smart? how else can i put it? the math/thermal dynamics does not give h2 ANY advantage. try darrelldd website (evnut.com). there is a paper there that shows we'd throw away 4 times the range going h2 instead of directly running a vehicle on battery electrons. why are we even trying to make hydrogen work in cars? again, we appear to be on the top of the food chain, but with some things we are downright stubborn/ignorant.

 

Hydrogen is a bit more efficient. Three times as efficient per Honda's direct comparison to gasoline, twice a hybrid and about 5% over the pure EV.

Because the hydrogen is denser energy storage medium, more transportable and eliminates the recharge issue of EV's.

Honda FCX Clarity - Fuel Cell Comparison - Official Web Site

 

Then the pundits want it both ways.
1) Modernly, articles tout how even with recent gas hikes - hybrids aren't selling ...
2) In bygone times of cheep gas, articles touted how no one want's em.

can you have it both ways? . . . or which way is it

.

 

Before we switch over to $500,000 hydrogen cars - please read what hydrogen/aerospace engineer Robert Zubrin has to say about the likelyhood of hydrogen ever being anything but a fantacy on par with unicorns and time travel:

The New Atlantis » The Hydrogen Hoax

As for Solar or Wind --- guess what energy source has to be utilized, in order to manufacture panels and wind mills. (hint ... it's not children's laughter ... nope, it's good ol fossil fuel) i.e. there are no free rides. Just try & manufacture silicon wafers w/out fossil fuel. Just try & mine rare earths w/out fossil fuels. It's just that some energy forms are better than others ... but they ALL have down streams.

.

 

Thanks, that's an effective illustration that shows the relative inefficiency of hydrogen. Do you have any links to a chart that would integrate the relative costs of the various technologies?

Well, yeah. But, at least we've started. It would be a tragic error to burn all the raw materials before discovering their best use. I'd like to believe that evolution's 'survival of the fittest' has at least something to do with intelligence and vision.

 

What? Humans? Not a chance. The microbes and insects are way ahead of us.

 

Too late, already cruising around LA, blowing holes in the various "impossible" scenarios posted.

Honda FCX Clarity Overview - Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle - Site

Amazing that they built the cars and the infrastructure already. On to the economies of scale where $500,000 prototypes become $50,000 production models. How many times have we seen that scenario.

The energy efficiency comparison was also an eye opener. Hydrogen powered fuel cell beat all comers, gas, hybrid and EV.

Solar, wind, tidal...electricity from any source is indistinguishable. Several US chip and solar panel manufacturers are powered by hydro.

 

From
The Car Enthusiast Online: BMW Hydrogen 7

BMW put a cryogenic tank into the trunk of the Hydrogen 7 to store the liquid hydrogen at a temperature of minus 423 degrees Fahrenheit. The tank is capable of holding 17.6 pounds of liquid hydrogen, which provides a range of approximately 125 miles. The Hydrogen 7 is also equipped with a 19.5 gallon gasoline tank. Refueling the hydrogen tank is fairly simple, with the pump hose easily attaching to the coupler on the car, behind that c-pillar door. The entire refueling process takes roughly 8 minutes.

The hydrogen fuel is stored in a large, nearly 30-gallon (110 liters), bi-layered and highly insulated tank that stores the fuel as liquid rather than as compressed gas, which BMW says offers 75% more energy per volume as a liquid than compressed gas.

H2 is only more dense than other energy sources if you measure it by weight of the liquid.. ignoring the tank weight or the volume.


How did they address the venting issue.. they vent it.?

To stay a liquid, hydrogen must be super-cooled and maintained at cryogenic temperatures of, at warmest, −253 °C (−423.4 °F). When not using fuel, the BMW Hydrogen 7’s hydrogen tank starts to warm and the hydrogen starts to vaporize. Once the tank’s internal pressure reaches 87 PSi, at roughly 17 hours of non-use, the tank will safely vent the building pressure. Over 10–12 days, it will completely lose the contents of the tank because of the venting.

Thinking about it, though maybe that could work for an EREV with say a 60mile battery range, as I one generally knows when taking a road trip so maybe only then do I fill up with H2.. and just need to fill so that I don't have any left at end of trip.


With respect to your comment on our survival.. I already commented that there are other liquid choices that may, in the long run, be more efficient and easier to manage and better reuse of existing infrastructure/technology. H2 could be the future, but I see it as just one of multiple paths and its inherent inefficiency issues are problematic.

 

No chart on the costs.. because they really depend on the scales of production. The fuel-cell is a very precise device with tolerances that make manufacturing difficult and expensive, but for which there is the potential of automation (like a chip fab).

The compression/purification is well known and unlikely to scale much better with more units..

 

Nope ... hydrogen prototype costs will NEVER get driven down to 'only' $50K production vehicles ... not with hydrogen cars:

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity[/ame]

That'd make the proto's cost about $800,000 - ish

see, I was being insanely generous - claiming hydrogen cars are 'only' $500K ... but what the heck, maybe some day they WILL come down from $1 million to $500k production vehicles ... in theory ... maybe, . Let's face it, if the gov'ment willing to throw away free money, them's good paying research dollars ... can't just throw it out ... but you FIRST have to tell your sponsers "sure! we can get the cost down ... within 10 years!". They began saying, "10 years" (from my memory) in the 1970's. Then when we got to the 1980's they said it'd happen in the 1990's ... then the 2000's ... and here we are, still waiting ... just 10 more years. Yes, Lucy WILL keep pulling the football out from Charlie Brown, as long as he's gulible enough to keep trying to kick it.
Ergo ... 'The Hydrogen Hoax'
.

 

Regardless of the other issues, I don't see how adding conversion losses to the process can ever improve it. No matter how the electricity is produced, it's always more efficient to store it in batteries than to make hydrogen and then make electricity.

 

Yes. That is what I pointed out to you. That ALL the hydrogen cars on the road today, BMWh7 and Honda FCX use LIQUID HYDROGEN vs. compressed hydrogen gas.

Since you made the following statement:

And since that statement has been proven wrong, what are we to make of your other arguments vs. hydrogen? They sound very similar to the same arguments made about hybrids when they were first being engineered.

The reason for the liquid hydrogen is that hydrogen has the greatest energy density of any fuel and by using its liquid state that fact is best taken advantage of.

The range on the prototype cars is 250 miles and the cars can be refueled as easily as the more dangerous gasoline fueled vehicles. Hydrogen has all the advantages of electric cars (no pollution) and none of the disadvantages, range and refueling.

Rather than the smokescreen of theoretical studies, best to look at the HYDROGEN CARS ON THE ROAD.

The Honda FCX is the best example because so many are on the road and it is full build out of infrastructure to service.

New Public Hydrogen Station Adds Convenience for FCX Clarity Customers: Hydrogen refueling network expands in Southern California.

A smart energy policy for US would be huge push for hydrogen energy products and infrastructure. The technical issues for hydrogen are likely less than those electric vehicles as the range and refuel issue is tied to battery technology, storage, recharging, manufacturing raw materials and those look to have problems going forward, problems that hydrogen does not have.

 

Actually that is not inherently true. Batteries are a chemical strorage technology and have their losses too. Electricity-> h2 fuel cell is more efficient.. but the problem is storage/transmission of hydrogen is more expensive so right now its much less efficient end-to-end. Home hydrogen generators address so of the disto-costs but not the compression/liquefaction so for now, batteries are definitely more efficient.

The real reason to still consider hydrogen is that for the long trip, you need dense rapidly refilled energy -- a liquid or monster battery and super-QC.. (and QC hurts the life of the battery.). An H2 EREV has the advantage of only need 1 set of motors, plus the battery can be a massive buffer so the H2 FuelCell only needs to produce the average power needed, not maximum power needed (which allows for smaller cells and constant power feeds which is better).

Despite my past posts that might seem negative, I'm still on the fence. I'm no longer positive H2 will be the long-term winner, but I'm also not quite ready to rule it out. I looked into building a FC vehichle, and more recently looked into expanding my Volt to have a FC range extender (even a 2kw unit would greatly extend the effective working range of the volt when there is no charging at the other side). But the costs and logistics are still way too far away.

 

Except the opposite is true. Hydrogen has the highest[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density"] energy density [/ame]of any energy storage medium.

Hydrogen: 123 mj/kg (megajoules per kilogram)
Gasoline 47
Lithium Air battery 9
Lithium Ion battery 0.72
NiMH battery 0.288

Efficiency and power, from generation to use, hydrogen is the fuel of choice. The issues are infrastructure engineering, building sustainable energy hydrogen generation plants, pipelines, post pipeline storage and distribution.

That is why the Honda fleet in LA is interesting as it addresses a good part of the back end infrastructure. Sunny coastal cities like LA with water and sunlight, have potential to generate their own hydrogen supplies. Populations are densest at coastal regions worldwide so generation and transport of hydrogen have built in advantages.