Japanese oil, gas companies to tackle hydrogen fueling infrastructure
by Jeremy Korzeniewski on Aug 8th 2009 at 5:33PM 
Toyota Highlander FCV - Click above for a high-res image gallery
A consortium of 13 Japanese oil and gas companies are collaborating in an effort to commercialize technologies enabling convenient refueling of hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2015. Coincidentally (or not), that date goes hand-in-hand with Toyota's target for selling hydrogen vehicles on the retail level.
According to the Nikkei in Japan (via Trading Markets), unnamed automakers are considering joining the group, which expects to start field-testing dozens of hydrogen refueling stations across Japan in short order. It's hoped that the oil companies can generate the hydrogen and the gas companies can use their existing pipelines and stations to transport it at a cost comparable to gasoline.
Considering that the great promise of hydrogen is its lack of tailpipe emissions, we can only hope the oil and gas companies find a way to generate the energy carrier in an environmentally friendly manner, even if it's not necessarily the most profitable solution. Sound likely?
Gallery: LA 2007: Toyota Highlander Fuel Cell
[Source: Trading Markets via Fuel Cell Today]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Carlos 6:19PM (8/08/2009)
I just want an ICE engine that burns hydrogen, it that too much to ask for?
Reply
Jacob 6:57PM (8/08/2009)
Yes.
BillySharps 8:08PM (8/08/2009)
Why do you want one?
polo 9:04PM (8/08/2009)
Of course the gas and oil companies would fund hydrogen...it keeps them in the $$$ loop. Almost all the hydrogen produced comes from steam treated NATURAL GAS (found in the same pockets as oil, owned by the oil cartels), if we switched to hydrogen their profit margins wouldn't even be slightly affected (in fact they'd charge a premium for converting the NG to hydrogen). Of course a hydrogen fueling infastructure in the US would easily cost in the upper-100s of billions, and you could get two good Ferraris for what one OK hydrogen fuel cell car costs.
What the oil companies are really trying to do is STALL and slow down acceptance of EVs so they can continue to profit off oil. Hydrogen IS NOT a option or backup - it is not cost-effective any way you look at it: it uses 3x the energy compared to an EV, the infastructure is NON-EXISTENT, and the cars themselves simply too expensive to be anything other than prototype grant-ponies. Let hydrogen die along with the oil companies.
Rhawb 10:39PM (8/08/2009)
Polo - Any new technology is expensive, but as new technology matures, prices begin to drop thanks to improvements in the manufacturing process. Things won't be any different with hydrogen, if someone starts taking it seriously there WILL be steady advances in the refining process and thus prices will drop. They may even find new resources that produce hydrogen more efficiently than natural gas - a find like that could put the Exxon boogeyman out of business!
Also, let you forget, there was a time not so long ago when we had no gasoline infrastructure (nothing near the level we have now, anyway). We seemed to do just fine cranking out all these gas stations and we can do just as well in building a hydrogen infrastructure. That's a shaky argument at best.
Of course, it's not the easiest or most immediate solution, but the best solutions are rarely the easiest. I think we're just wasting our time with the EV and hybrid band-aids we currently have - they both have their share of glaring problems. To me, hydrogen looks like very good long-term solution - it's not perfect RIGHT NOW, but with some funding and research, I think it has the most potential.
Ken Stamper 2:29AM (8/09/2009)
No offense Rhwab, but you don't know what you are talking about. Polo is right. Hydrogen can only be only created from another fuel source, such as natural gas, so anyone that thinks it is a viable alternative fuel needs to think again. The technology will not "mature" to the point where we can create hydrogen out of thin air. It is not an energy source like oil or natural gas- it is an energy carrier. To quote Wikipedia, "The energy density per unit volume of both liquid hydrogen and compressed hydrogen gas at any practicable pressure is significantly less than that of traditional fuel sources." In other words, hydrogen requires nearly as much energy to create as it does to burn. Hydrogen is not viable and is a distraction to real solutions.
Tohe 2:51AM (8/09/2009)
Yeap, Rhawb has no clue. Even the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy has made the case that hydrogen is NOT a viable technology.
sparrk 4:41AM (8/09/2009)
@ Carlos , BMW H7.
TranceMaster 4:36PM (8/09/2009)
although you guys are right, it is not a primary fuel source, it doesnt have to be made from methane. It can be made from water, using power from whatever source of electricity you like (solar, nuclear, coal, wind...). in the end this is just as good as EV just better since battery technology is not needed (ie no battery waste) and you can fill up in the same time as gasoline would. i think it is the perfect solution for the future of vehicles. so stop thinking about using it from methane (which requires digging out of the ground and the following reaction:
"Commercial bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of fossil fuels such as natural gas, gasoline, ... At high temperatures (700–1100 °C), steam (H2O) reacts with methane (CH4) to yield syngas.
CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2 + 191.7 kJ/mol" -wikipedia
Notice 700-1100C temperatures, that takes power (electricity, and from what source?), so its not simply 'you get 191.7kj/mol of energy for free' and you have to clean up that carbon monoxide as well. So how much is the total energy of all that compared to 295KJ/mol you have to input from H2O --> H2 + O2. I would take the latter because you don't have to worry about finding methane (millions or billions in research?) then digging it out (envrionmental impact? energy and cost?) and then CO pollution, or removal (even more energy to change it to something else?) you may find that hydrogen production from water is far cleaner than from methane and less messy, and that means cheaper to make after the initital costs have been taken into account.
remember, the whole process has to be looked at to see if it is more or less energy efficient.
TranceMaster 4:48PM (8/09/2009)
i forgot to mention that you could use salt water, and i dont even think you need to distil it to get rid of the salt and other stuff since the product is gas (easy collection), so the only cleaning would be the tanks every once in a while. also, O2 being the product means we can reduce the ppm of CO2 in the air (win win :) ).
Tohe 12:56AM (8/10/2009)
@TranceMaster
Still it takes 3 times the amount of energy to produce hydrogen than it would take to charge a battery. No matter from what angle you view it, hydrogen will always be an inefficient way to power our cars, Hydrogen = WASTEFUL.
midworken 6:58PM (8/08/2009)
This is fantastic news... hope other countries follow suit
Reply
polo 9:07PM (8/08/2009)
Why? So Exxon can continue to make $15billion every 3 months off your sweat and tears? Are you that much a corporate slave that you cheer at the thought of your master proclaiming the slavery and bondage of your children?
BigWill 9:34PM (8/08/2009)
You seriously think Evil Exxon is going to go out of business because of EVs? Spare me. They'll keep making their fortune by jacking up the price of fossil fuels required to generate electricity to recharge all of those EVs.
mole 11:13PM (8/08/2009)
which calls for nuclear energy..
BigWill 12:45AM (8/09/2009)
Of course nuclear power would make sense. Which is why Obama and The Greenies oppose it:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/03/27/gauging-the-prospects-for-nuclear-power-in-the-obama-era.html
Like I said, Exxon et. al. shouldn't expect any interruptions in their revenue streams.
tankd0g 9:11PM (8/09/2009)
Hey Polo, Exxon owns your electric company too. Deal with it.
~D. 7:31PM (8/08/2009)
this makes me sad in a way: not because I dislike hydrogen or because I think what the Japanese and others are doing is bad in some way, but rather because I greatly admire what they are doing while at the same time feel that we will never be able to do the same. Here you have industry collaboration in a direction that will produce a viable product for the consumer, benefiting both in a symbiotic way. (and they are beginning their effort NOW, as opposed to when they are in dire straits or when their competitors the world over are already doing it.) I have a sneaking suspicion that when we try that here, our industry will infight and pay-off our politicians to dupe the public into thinking hydrogen makes baby Jesus cry.
Reply
Ray 9:27PM (8/08/2009)
Wow that is deep with baby Jesus crying and all.
What a great solution to use fossil fuel to make hydrogen. These guys are really thinking ahead. Remarkable. Yes I would love to pay 3 dollars a gallon for hydrogen. Compared to .40 cents for a EV to go the same distance. Let me bend over and grab my ankles now.
Ray 9:43PM (8/08/2009)
I'm waiting, "Exxon is that You"? "Well it ant baby Jesus"!
Reply