Looks like President Obama's stance on yet another issue is "evolving."

The president's administration is indicating it might increase support for hydrogen fuel-cell technology, Bloomberg Businessweek reported. As regular readers surely remember, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) cut funding for H2 vehicles back in 2009, but the government's recent statements have hinted at future more favorable to fuel cell fans. Last month, for example, DOE Secretary Steven Chu made remarks supportive of more research into hydrogen vehicles.

Now, National Fuel Cell Research Center Director Scott Samuelsen referred to a "dramatic turnaround in the past six to nine months" on the part of the administration. Obama has so far pushed hard for battery-electric technology, calling for a million plug-in vehicles to be on U.S. roads by 2015.

Hydrogen fuel-cell supporters hope the government reverses the trend of declining federal funding for hydrogen and fuel cell research, which will decline to $80 million for the 2013 fiscal year from $103.6 million for the current year, Bloomberg said, citing Energy Department spokesman Bill Gibbons. Proponents of hydrogen fuel-cell technology cite the fact that the vehicles have a full-tank range and can be filled up in about the same amount of time as conventional, gasoline-powered cars, but without the greenhouse-gas emissions.

That said, cost remains an issue because of the limited number of both fuel-cell vehicles and hydrogen refueling stations. There are fewer than 60 hydrogen fueling stations in the U.S., according to the DOE. That compares with about 1,000 compressed natural gas (CNG) stations and more than 10,000 electric-vehicle charging stations (not counting standard outlets). Automakers such as Toyota, GM, Mercedes-Benz parent Daimler and Hyundai have said they plan to start mass-producing hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in 2015.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 214 Comments
      • 2 Years Ago
      @DaveMart, Marco, LTAW and last but not least Ladies & Gentlemen at the ABG community BREAKING NEWS Spec challenged us with the "obvious problem" based on an uploaded picture (by somebody) to the Internet (battery EV vs fuel cell). Here it is: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png/700px-Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png The picture basically says, that fuel cell vehicles actually just a pile of cr@p, compared to battery EV (due to some efficiency claim). Now let's see another document: U.S. Department of Energy "Fuel Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles Compared" http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/education/pdfs/thomas_fcev_vs_battery_evs.pdf Excerpts from the official document (12 pages with figures and charts): 1.0 Introduction "...To achieve oil “quasi­independence” and to cut GHGs to 80%... we will have to eliminate the internal combustion engine from most light duty vehicles... We have two choices to power all­-electric vehicles: fuel cells or batteries..." 2.0 Fuel Cell and Battery Comparisons - 2.1 Vehicle Weight "...Compressed hydrogen and fuel cells can provide electricity to a vehicle traction motor with weights that are between eight to 14 times less than current batteries,.. As a result, EVs must be much heavier than FCVs for a given range... ...the extra weight to increase the range of the fuel cell EV is negligible, while the battery EV weight escalates dramatically... [which] requires extra structural weight, heavier brakes, a larger traction motor, and in turn more batteries to carry around this extra mass, etc." - 2.2 Storage Volume "...compressed hydrogen tanks take up much less space (including the fuel cell system) than batteries for a given range....[Figure 5.]" The hydrogen system has an inherent advantage in basic energy density. But this advantage is amplified on a vehicle as a result of weight compounding. Thus the battery EV requires more stored energy per mile than the FCEV as a result of the heavier batteries and resulting heavier components...[Figure 6]" - 2.3 Battery Performance Assumptions "...These curves demonstrate that all battery technologies involve a trade­off between energy and power....[Figure 7]" 2.4 Greenhouse Gas Pollution "The greenhouse gas (GHG) implications of charging battery EVs with today’s power grid are serious5. Since on average 52% of our electricity in the US comes from coal, and since the grid efficiency is on the order of only 35%, GHGs [Greenhouse Gas Pollution] would be much greater for EVs than for hydrogen­-powered FCEVs... [Figure 8]... (to be cont.)
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        Well, my boycott didn't work. This article still got over 100 comments. Mostly from Krisztiant and DaveMart agreeing with each other. Since you're kinda new to ABG, and this forum does not make it easy to reference past comments. I cannot expect you to know... But C.E. (Sandy) Thomas DOES NOT WORK FOR THE DOE! I have debunked his crap at least twice here... at length. He fudges his numbers bad. Uses ridiculous scenarios to make his conclusions. For example, to claim that BEV charging infrastructure is more expensive than Hydrogen infrastructure, he asserted that EVERY BEV sold must have at least one public charger, and for every public charger, a trench must be dug... and would therefore cost several thousand dollars per BEV sold. That was just one example. I will not redebunk his claims all over again. You seem to be making a very common mistake. The 'energy.gov' DOE website contains hundreds, if not thousands of pro hydrogen studies. That DOES NOT MEAN they are endorsed by the Secretary of Energy, nor are they accepted as truth by the DOE. 1) Many of these studies are done by DOE employees working in Hydrogen Fuel Cell departments. Their whole job is to 'continue' research into Fuel Cells... if they were to start turning in negative reports, they will lose their position. Every agency is full of positive studies that are written for job security. 2) This paper, which you seem to quote as if it is an official DOE study... is merely a proposal SENT TO the DOE by Thomas, who is CEO of H2Gen Innovations, Inc. A for profit company trying to get more funding. The other half of the multitude of papers available on the DOE website are from companies making proposals. --------------------- If you want to be thorough... take a look for ALL the Battery Electric studies on the DOE website. How many will you find? How many FCV studies will you find? Lots more HFCVs stuff, right? LOTS, LOTS MORE. Now, how many BEVs are actually on the road? How many public chargers? How many FCVs, how many H2 stations? Reality seems to conflict with DOE projections of hydrogen being a clear winner! Bottom line: Hydrogen has had DECADES of political influence and corporate money. Flooding the DOE and Congress with hype. Most people, including me, agree on the strict technical aspect of what Fuel Cells and Hydrogen tech can currently do... but the devil is in the details. It is the 'projections into the future' that are grossly overstated in order to secure a new hydrogen economy where the powers that write today's "studies", are the ones in full control and profiting.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @Chris M: The report on the weights of fuel cell cars is from April 2009. We can do a lot better than that for the weights of both the tank and the stacks now, as the links I gave indicate. Hence their figures for the weight advantage of fuel cell cars are highly conservative.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Chris M: Please note that Joe's comment above contained absolutely no counter arguments to the actual figures given, and simply said that the source is pro-hydrogen. I have checked through the figures and they seem in respect of the weights given for the fuel cell system if anything conservative. Far from the claims in the document being excessive, they show in Figure 11 and comment that for vehicle ranges of up to 100 miles the battery car is just as efficient. The differences only start coming in if you want a battery pack able to go further than that. Hardly by coincidence this fits in very well with what car manufacturers are actually doing, looking at low range BEV city cars in small sizes, and going for fuel cells for anything longer range or larger. I have never seen in an ocean of comments regarding the supposed superior efficiency of batteries weight even mentioned as a factor, so the assumptions of the better efficiency of batteries clearly do not take that into account. Their specific energy claims for fuel cell systems at 550Wh/kg are on the low side, as most of the weight is in the tank, and Qualcom can now hit 1.78kwh/kg: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/mfg2011_plenary_leavitt.pdf As for the stack, here is Nissan: 'The new fuel cell stack has a power output of 85 kW from a unit that weighs 43kg and has a volume of 34 liters.' http://integrityexports.com/2011/10/14/nissan-fuel-cell-stack-gets-world-beating-power-density/ As for the volume of the Qualcom tank: 'Further, the volumetric capacities of the two systems are 6 and 37% lower than the DOE 2010 target of 28 g H2/L and 34 and 56% lower than the DOE 2015 target of 40 g H2/L for the 700-bar and 350-bar systems, respectively.' http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/compressedtank_storage.pdf
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          I have already addressed the claim of 4 times more efficient. And yes, that was a very specific case. You would love to claim a, "forever and always" victory over me now. But as it stand... you and 3 others seem to be the very VOCAL MINORITY here. With you and Krizstiant patting each other on the back for this entire article. But my argument remains just as strong. C.E. Thomas writes exaggerated papers that do not reflect reality. ----------------------- We do agree on so much, but we differ greatly on what claims are credible. I know how easy it is for government and companies to predict things and have no real consequence for the 90% of the time it turns out to be untrue. Falsifiability? Now we are talking reason and logical arguments. The main thing that would falsify my position, and force me to admit I am wrong, is the building of actual H2 fueling stations prior to 2015. A few hundred all over the U.S. would be a good enough start for my claim to be invalidated. Right now, you are mounting up evidence in the form of papers, studies, prototypes, projections, and estimates. But I am not surprised by this. This is how Hype is professionally done on a large scale. So I give little to no credit to hype in the form of studies. You, Kriz, Dave, and LTAW do. But most here do not.
          Chris M
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Thanks for confirming my suspicions. The "weighs less" claim was reasonable, but I was a bit suspicious about the "takes less space" claim considering the bulky nature of H2, and the "cost less" claim was clearly comparing current battery technology to a hypothetical future high production rate fuel cell that doesn't currently exist. But the items that really set off my BS detector was the "requires less energy" and "produces less greenhouse gas" claims, those claims simply didn't jibe with the facts.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "The cost of the cars?I remember plenty of argument, including from yourself, that they were going to remain fantastically expensive, luxury items, and all the studies of cost reductions were bunk." No, that was not my argument. I said repeatedly that FCVs would remain expensive, because volume will remain low, and volume would remain low, because automakers will not be confident of demand, and demand will be uncertain because nobody wants to pay for a "Sufficiently Dense" fueling infrastrucure. I don't see BEV advocates getting desparate.... I see Hydrogen Lobbyists getting desparate and flooding the government with claims that it can be cheaper than it will actually be done. --- Infrastructure? Yes, I think that parties involved are claiming costs that are too low. But that is very common in all contract proposal. Get government committed, then slowly raise costs. Too fast, and they will drop the company for contract breach, but slow increases so that government will think it is reasonable. Eventually, infrastructure costs will show it's true colors. "Daimler is funding much of the cost of a skeleton network in Germany out of it's own pocket." A skeleton network is NOT, "sufficiently dense". Ask them to pay for the Majority, not just "much of"... and they won't commit. Germany is much farther along in the hydrogen dream, why, because the government drank the kool-aid. They will pay much more than they bargained for. In the U.S., we cannot afford to publicly finance the dreams of the Oil/Gas companies to get us locked in to a similar paradigm as Petroleum. ---- Efficiency, no, we agree more or less on that. Think back to all the many times we've argued. When has it been about actual current technological efficiency of a particular device? The 4 times thing was not properly explained that it was a very specific circumstance and won't really reflect other possible energy paths. You would love to get hung up on one of my mistakes. But it doesn't bother me much. I make mistakes, I move on. And that did not even address my main point of that whole argument. That 90% of the driving in a PHEV will be done on a drive train that is more efficient than 100% of the driving of a FCV. The poor efficiency of 10% of driving using an ICE is WELL worth the cheaper costs, and the MUCH more convenient availability of gasoline
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "You are not part of the debate simply because you make claims you can't back up." And who are you sir to allow or disallow members of a debate? "I made it perfectly clear that I did not agree with the high costs given in the study for battery infrastructure," Yes, but Krizstiant did not. I suspect that he assumed it is official since it was found on the DOE website. As far as I am concerned, papers and studies found on the DOE are not to be taken as the official position unless found on the EIA subsite, which contains statistics and analysis of all scopes of energy research. They do make projections into the short term. But they tend not to make assumptions too far into the future, unlike most hydrogen studies found elsewhere on the DOE.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          You are not part of the debate simply because you make claims you can't back up. You claimed that battery cars are four times as efficient as fuel cell cars and could only flannel when asked how you worked that out. And you complain about others referencing flawed studies? I made it perfectly clear that I did not agree with the high costs given in the study for battery infrastructure, but the cost for fuel cell infrastructure seems to be in accord with other, more general, cost figures which do not break the cost down fully. The difference between a prejudice and a reasoned judgement is that the latter can be falsified. I am wondering just what it would take to falsify your judgement on fuel cell cars. The cost of the cars?I remember plenty of argument, including from yourself, that they were going to remain fantastically expensive, luxury items, and all the studies of cost reductions were bunk. Well, tell that to Daimler, who are not only going to mass production in 2014, which is another thing opponents said would never happen, but are looking to prices well under $50k. Infrastructure is so fantastically expensive that it can never be built, and you can't travel anywhere by fuel cell cars? In fact it is cheap enough that Daimler is funding much of the cost of a skeleton network in Germany out of it's own pocket. Inefficiency? I have produced detailed figures showing it is no more than 1.5 times less efficient than batteries. You are welcome to refute them if you can, as I have set them out so as to enable critique, not simply made a blanket, unsupported claim as you have done. So what would falsify your position, Joe? In my own case it is simple. A really efficient, lightweight and inexpensive battery pack, possibly lithium air, might make fuel cell cars unnecessary. I have no sort of objection to that outcome. Meanwhile, what we can engineer is fuel cell cars, and efforts to deny this are becoming increasingly desperate.
        • 2 Years Ago
        (cont.) 2.5 Cost "Kromer and Heywood at MIT have analyzed the likely costs of various alternative vehicles in mass production. They conclude that an advanced battery EV with 200 miles range would cost approx. $10,200 more than a conventional car in 2030, whereas a FCEV with 350 miles range is projected to cost only $3,600 more in mass production...[Figure 9]... ...the fuel cell electric vehicle could provide the range, passenger and trunk space and refueling times demanded by drivers for full­ function vehicles. Battery­-powered electric vehicles will probably find niche applications as city cars and limited range commuter cars... 3.0 Well­to­Wheels Efficiency "Some analysts have concluded that fuel cell electric vehicles are less efficient than battery electric vehicles... However, this neglects the effects of extra vehicle weight etc... In other words, we need to estimate the total “well­to­wheels” efficiency of the vehicle... [Figure 10] illustrates the answer:...the hydrogen­powered fuel cell electric vehicle is between 1.5 to 2.2 times more energy efficient than a battery EV... 4.0 Conclusions The fuel cell EV is superior to the advanced Li­ion battery full function EV on six major counts; the fuel cell EV: - Weighs less - Takes up less space on the vehicle - Generates less greenhouse gases - Costs less - Requires less well­-to­-wheels energy - Takes less time to refuel These advantages are dominant... we expect that the fuel cell EV will eventually dominate the transportation market." "Obvious problem" solved.
      Spec
      • 2 Years Ago
      "Obama may be charging up support for fuel-cell technology" is the headline. I click on the source story and read: --------------------------- Neither Danielson nor Zichal (two Federal officials) yesterday made promises of helping build fueling stations for consumers. ... Obama’s budget request would cut funding for the Energy Department’s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies office to $80 million in the 2013 fiscal year from $103.6 million in this year’s budget, said Bill Gibbons, a department spokesman. ----------------------------------------------------- I guess Obama is "charging them up" by reducing funding. Great headline! So accurate!
        JakeY
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        @krisztiant None of what you quoted showed "charging up support". Just some PR fluff about hydrogen. In reality, Obama is continuing to cut hydrogen funding, and there's no reversal that the article hinted at. Spec is quoting real officials' statements about concrete commitments to hydrogen (the actual budget).
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @JakeY
          Sounds like Obama's staff is trying to get him to understand the opportunity that he is missing by not at least half-heartedly acknowledging the potential of HFCVs. The Germans and the Japanese, as well as the Koreans and the Chinese, and much of northern Europe, are very politically supportive of FCV development, and it would be foolish for a sitting President to allow the US to loose the technological lead in a sector that we pretty much dominated just when everyone else in the world is starting to move towards implementation and commercialization.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        ^-- win
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        @Spec I'd like to provide you with your very own words from a reply of yours at the previous article on H2. Here it is for the great advancement of the entire humankind (your words commence): "You can do a google search and find what you want to believe no matter what it is. Just finding random quotes that say what you want to believe is meaningless. Especially when the things said are just empty future plans. I can say that I will create the infinite energy source machine 3 years from now . . . but that is meaningless.  And you manage to completely destroy your own credibility when you cite those quotes from an article that basically concludes the OPPOSITE of what you are trying to say. You grab out of context quotes from this article:" And now some other quotes from the source article: "Heather Zichal, Obama’s top aide on energy and climate change, called hydrogen cells “an opportunity”... She urged the U.S. not to fall behind Japan, Germany and Korea in research and production. She cited FedEx Corp. (FDX), Wal- Mart Stores Inc. and Wegmans Food Markets Inc. for using fuel cells to power vehicles for their fleets." "Fuel cells are truly an integral part of our portfolio and part of our all-in approach,” David Danielson, Energy Department assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, said at the conference." “GM continues to develop the technology [fuel cell] in an effort to reduce costs and continues to assist in the deployment of an infrastructure for mass production.” "Fuel cell vehicles, estimated to cost more than $1 million each a decade ago, can eventually be mass-produced at much lower costs than battery-only models" All right Spec.
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          Wow . . . you are gullible. Ever hear of the phrase "Actions speak louder than words." Do you know what means? Can you identify which things are actions and which things are just words? Holy smokes.
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          Vote me down but no response? You got nothing? If platitudes are all you need, you can have as much as you want. They are free.
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          That's right. Bush supported an "alternative" fuel source that was basically a boondoggle and just more support for his pals at the oil & gas business. Bring back Bush!
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          Spec is on the right track here. Nothing that President Obama has done, and nothing that the DoE Sec. Chu has said, indicate that President Obama has any willingness to support FCVs. President Bush was an ardent supporter of FCVs, and pushed hard for them. Germany, Japan, and South Korea are very strong supporters of fuel cell vehicles. GM, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Mercedes, and BMW are all very strong supporters of FCVs, each having committed billions to developing them. Mercedes has built the first automated production line, and stacks are already being produced. Those are all actions, Spec. Actions which you seem to ignore.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        @JakeY As you are clearly not a completely "hopeless fanboi" and definitely not a "crazy die-hard" kinda guy, I give you a response to your perception. You: "None of what you quoted showed "charging up support"." "Charging up" in this case rather means "evolving", than "switched on" already. Notice ABG's first sentence too: "Looks like President Obama's stance on yet another issue is "evolving."" Looks like / stance / evolving... none of them means switched on, but rather "charging up". You: "Just some PR fluff about hydrogen." Now, this is not not exactly correct. Listen to this (source): "There’s been a dramatic turnaround in the past six to nine months of the need for this [i.e. having 1 million electric vehicles (Plug-ins/BEVs) on the road] in the future [2015]” by the Energy Department, Scott Samuelsen, National Fuel Cell Research Center director, said in an interview at a conference in Washington" It is not just some PR fluff, it is a very clear statement by a competent official. Then: "Revived interest in fuel cells coincides with congressional scrutiny of U.S. financial assistance to plug-in vehicle and battery makers..." Which also means: interest in fuel cells is "charging up", while plug-ins / batteries get more "congressional scrutiny". Again: "Fuel cells are truly an integral part of our portfolio and part of our all-in approach,” Sounds also like a very clear statement as opposed to "PR fluff". You: "In reality, Obama is continuing to cut hydrogen funding..." Yes, and it stems from the administration's previous commitment to plug-in vehicles / batteries, which now get more and more "congressional scrutiny". On a government level, decisions are usually not just switched on / off, but they take some "charging up" time (to eventually happen). You: "Spec is quoting real officials' statements about concrete commitments to hydrogen " Spec (quoting): "Neither Danielson nor Zichal (two Federal officials) yesterday made promises of helping build fueling stations for consumers." It is in no wise an official statement, but rather the lack thereof (and we already discussed the budget issue). But the real "game changer" is this: "Auto executives at the conference said they aren’t looking for loans or grants like they sought for plug-in electric cars because the technology is developed..."' So, fuel cell cars don't even need loans / grants (unlike plug-ins/BEVs), since they already developed (i.e. no need for any more breakthrough). And the possibly most important statement is this: Michael O’Brien, Hyundai Motor’s U.S. vice president of product development: "Fuel cell vehicles, estimated to cost more than $1 million each a decade ago, can eventually be mass-produced at much lower costs than battery-only models, That is the kind of statement what every government likes to hear and nobody can argue against.
          Spec
          • 2 Years Ago
          Have you invested your life savings in fuel cell cars? Please do so. That will help research along and give you your just rewards.
      PR
      • 2 Years Ago
      After watching the rollout of the Model S, I can see the logic of shifting money to additional transportation options in the near future. In my opinion, the rollout of the Model S is a remarkable milestone that to me signifies a major cross-over point in the roll-out of full production EV's. With its 5-digit wait list well into 2013 with $5,000 to $40,000 dollar deposits, it is clear that this is a full out production effort, and not just a compliance car. With electric cars moving from the pre-rollout phase and into the full production phase, and well on track to mass production in the near future, there is now more room to explore other alternative modes of transportation. There will not be any one single silver bullet solution to Energy Independence, there will have to be many solutions for many needs. It was good to focus funds on EV's back in 2009 in order to focus on getting EV's past the threshold and on the market. Now EV's are a real reality on city streets, as opposed to 2009. And now is a good time to expand on other options. I don't see a clear plan in the source story, but there ya go....
        Marco Polo
        • 2 Years Ago
        @PR
        PR, I wish what you write had a basis in reality ! But it just doesn't ! Electric cars are not "well on track to mass production in the near future". The Tesla model 'S' is a remarkable achievement, by an exceedingly remarkable businessman, turned industrialist. But it's still an expensive vehicle, just satisfying a niche market. EV' s have along ways to go. Many difficulties lie ahead. It's crucial that the US re-elect an administration sympathetic to maintaining the subsidies. Already, the anti-EV opponents are saying, "see, FCV's don't need taxpayer support" . It's also true that a roll out of Hydrogen fuelling stations is not only feasible, but calculated at less than 50% more than LPG fuelling facilities. If a vast continent, sparsely populated, like Australia can reach a 98.6 coverage with LPG, then the US can easily develop a hydrogen network. No production EV makes money for it's manufacturer ! That's is a fact. Hopefully, Tesla will be the first. But with very limited numbers. By adding, different models and attempting the lower end of the mass passenger vehicle market, Tesla will suddenly find a whole new set of problems. But Elon Musk is a young man, and he has time to build JVC's with OEM's to reach his goals.
          Marco Polo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Elmo Biggins You seem to be one of those people who need to join a tribe and defend it fiercely! Lie ? All over the world FCV technology has been developed largely without the large scale support of government. Just because 'pro-Ev' advocates, like you, oppose it, doesn't make it untrue ! LPG, was rolled out largely by the Oil industry as a method of selling an otherwise waste product. I like range extended vehicles, ( I just ordered 9 Amperas) but we must be realistic, technology is technology, the best technology should be utilised. Cheering for an inferior technology just because we have either investments or emotional involvement is silly. So far, no one has proven to me that FCV's are more economically feasible that EV technology, but I'm not going to be like Luddite ICE fans and close minded say it won't happen ! Investors, are entitled to invest in whatever they like ! I have no idea why the US government needs to invest in FCV's, the hydrogen industry can easily afford to finance it's own research and development. I have spent 17 years in the EV industry, yet I can appreciate that if hydrogen can be produced more economically and the FCV possess the same capabilities of a gasoline vehicle, then rolling out the refuelling infrastructure, is a pretty simple logistical exercise. (the precedent already exists). Solving the energy problems of a post-oil world should be the priority, not defending any particular technology.
          PR
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          More Marco Polo lip flapping. Typical when Marco cannot actually contradict any of the points made by other posters with any type of factual response, off he goes with mindless lip flapping. Halo cars generating sales are a very real marketing reality. You know this fact (as does everyone else on this board). But since I'm the one posting it, your knee jerk reaction is to act like a child and pretend that acting like a child is a suitable substitute for facts and reason. Just stand up like a man and admit you failed to calculate in the Halo impact on company profitability, and admit that your failure to include this factor made your previous statements about profitability incorrect. But your comments about me buying a Model S is pretty funny, and proves my point. Heck, I'll just go straight out this weekend and buy one off the lot. Oh wait.... It's so damn successful that unlike the vast majority of gassers on dealer lots, I can't buy one this weekend if I wanted to. Same for next weekend, and the weekend after that. And all the weekends after that through the rest of the year and well into 2013. Yea, there must be absolutely no reason to be excited about the Model S as an EV and green car enthusiast, whether you personally buy one or not.... What an absolute idiot! But if you think commenting on a car is only suitable if you first buy it, then be the very first to live up to your own standard. I'm expecting you to follow your own standard and STFU on any topic where you haven't first purchased that vehicle.
          Elmo Biggins
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          MarcoPolo, what you said is just factually incorrect. It can never be substantiated. Unless you are going to do polling by some legitimate polling agency and their results show those who oppose EVs are attacking the idea of hydrogen stations, guess what you claim is simply not true. As I am one of those who oppose hydrogen stations and FCVs, and support EVs, your claim as it relates to me is a lie. The same for the many other posters here who feel the same way. I don't need to comment on the rest of the hyperbole you put out for your psuedo-resume, because I can make the exact same claims with a few changed numbers and words, and it would be just as irrelevant to the discussion and just as provable.
          Marco Polo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          @ Elmo Biggins Now, in your desperation, you've become incomprehensible. It's not a popularity contest, or a 'faith' based concept. If Daimler Benz, Hyundai, Ford etc can build FCV at an economically acceptable price, and if hydrogen fuel can be sold at an acceptable price, FCV technology will prove superior to BEV/EREV's due to greater range, economics and convenience. Sadly, this will consign EV's back to specialty uses and enthusiasts ! Now, this is the bit you must come to terms with, It doesn't matter whether you or I, "oppose hydrogen stations and FCVs ", the infrastructure with very quickly roll out since in all likelihood the initial fuel will be produced by natural gas and the giant Oil companies will produce hydrogen as a method of selling natural gas and keeping their existing infrastructure profitable. (Look at LPG as a precedent) "Oppose" all you like ! No one will pay the slightest attention ! But, you can draw some cheer from the fact that so far, no company has proven hydrogen economic. But, in science and technology, never say never !
          Marco Polo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          PR, You evidently know as little about auto-manufacture as you do about business ! You learn a little jargon, which fools the rubes, and hope to form a little cheer squad. If you are so excited by the Tesla 'S', go and buy one! Buy any EV (even a Think) ! Practice what you preach ! Read what Krisztiant, LTW, and Dave Mart write, with an open mind, keeping personalities to yourself !
          Elmo Biggins
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          "Already, the anti-EV opponents are saying, "see, FCV's don't need taxpayer support" Lie. Many pro-EV supporters are adimently against wasting money on a tech thats not feasible for a national roll out. One alternative gasoline solution is needed, because thats all we can afford. If our EVs need a ranger extender gas is still better than hydrogen. "No production EV makes money for it's manufacturer ! That's is a fact." Thats the same for any new product with research costs attached, genius. But apparently its much more lucrative to constantly promise mass production of FCVs, and watch the gullible investor dollars, subsidies, and govt loans flow in (and not deliver).
          PR
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Thanks for the buzz kill Marco. There I was riding high on the Model S roll-out, and who shows up to kill the fun? Macro Polo. Not unpredictable. My definition of near future might be different than yours, but I'll stick to my statement while leaving the definition vague. We heard all the "it will never happen" BS when hybrids first came out. They were proven wrong too. EV's absolutely are making money for manufacturers, even if it is just for the Halo value. Here is how it works. GM sells 1 Volt for a tiny profit, but they get many more Cruze sales due to the Volt getting people on their website, into their dealership, etc. That's real money that the Volt is making for GM. Again, suck it if you can't admit to reality, or if it just pisses you off because I wrote it.
      Smurf
      • 2 Years Ago
      All political "spin" aside.... This is a good thing. We who "supposedly" support efforts to reduce polutiton, global warming and foreign oil dependence should support "all" efforts that may help achieve these goals. Just because we like one alternative technology better than the others, does not mean we have to "against" all other alternatives beside that "one" that we like best. I'm glad to see that Obama is finally realizing this as well and is not pitting EV and hybrid technology against each other. I believe hydrogen is an "inevitable" as a fuel source, primarily because it is "not" a fossil fuel and it does not take millions of years to make more of it. Hydrogen can be made in a short amount of time and its primary resource is water. Yes. I know we have not overcome all of the economic hurdles for hydrogen yet. But we have made significant progress in the last 10 years. We will get there eventually if we continue put enough effort into it, and stop using it as a political football. In the long term future, both EV's and hydrogen vehicles will be dominate our roads. Neither one will be the exclusive. Certain limitations with EV's, like long charge times, will mean that some type of refillable fuel will always be needed for long range use. Hydrogen will eventually be that fuel. The sooner we "get this" the sooner we starting putting the right emphasis on solving our limitations with Hydrogen (and EV's), getting us to a solution sooner. The longer we fight about it the further we get from a real solution.
        Marcopolo
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Smurf
        Smurf Very sensible.
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Smurf
        Sorry, I'm not phase by your use of ridiculous attacks as we both know that I am not the one believing in the claims of others. I expect a modest increase in current Li-Ion batteries similar to what has already been observed. I make no claims that Li-Air will definitely come to pass, or when. And I have even said many times before, that I have no problem with people chosing HFCVs as long as we are not using public money to fund the infrastructure like our Petroleum infrastructure. You, DaveMart, are the one making claims about a certain future. And now you are getting upset that I'm not playing your game. We both pander to prejudices, too bad you're not aware of yours.
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Smurf
        In a world without limits on how much we can spend of our money... sure. Everything's great. But we who support efforts to reduce polutiton, global warming and foreign oil dependence... do not like to waste time and money on false dreams that do more to line the pockets of the rich than to really help the situation. Hydrogen may not be inevitable. There are other carbon neutral alternatives that could work eventually and be much more dense than Hydrogen (highly efficient strains of algae biofuel perhaps).
          Smurf
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "In a world without limits on how much we can spend of our money" You mean "In a world where we refuse to add a few measly cents of gas tax" $.05 in gas tax equals $10 billion per year. That can support a lot of alternative programs....
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Algae does indeed have potential. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/webinarslides_melis_012411.pdf
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          "not try to pick our one favorite and suppress all the others" Yes, very true. Please write to CARB and tell them to stop giving double the ZEV credits to FCVs compared to BEVs. They are awarded double for every FCV sold based on very specific wording that suppresses BEVs. If CARB were fair, they would get the same number of credits, and let the vehicle that customers want more, win more credits. This kind of thing happens a lot. Governments have had lots of money thrown at them to pass pro-Hydrogen legislation. The U.S. finally started to shun the Oil/Gas lobbyists when Obama got elected. Germany is still influenced more toward hydrogen. Money talks. Oil/Gas companies have the best lobbyists money can buy, and thus, more legislation is "picking" hydrogen over battery. Not based on actual demand from customers... but based on the number of positive studies can be commissioned.
          Smurf
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          @Joe, I'm a supporter of algae based biofuels as well. Like I said, We should support "all" alternative options, not try to pick our one favorite and suppress all the others... I'm not as confident that even with algae we are going to be able to "grow" enough fuel to meet our continued "growing" needs for more energy. In the long run though, I'm a little more confident in our ability to make hydrogen in sufficient quantities to meet our needs. But, that does not mean we should support only hydrogen and not bio-fuels. Like hydrogen, algae is still far from being cost effective. Current cost of producing algae based biofuels is still about $15 per gallon. But, like hydrogen, we need to continue to support algae development and someday it will be a cost effective solution. EV's are my favorite solution. I currently drive a Chevy Volt. But.... 1. I still feel EV's will have limitations for many years to come. Especially when charged from home. So another refillable fuel based solution is required to supplement EV's. 2. I do not want to see us cut our own throats but suppressing any of the alternative solutions. I feel we need each an every one of them, and we need them as soon as possible.
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Smurf
        Joe is prepared to believe in anything, including the tooth fairy, to pander to his prejudices, as long as it does not involve fuel cells or hydrogen. That naturally includes a mystic 8% pa increase in capability of batteries for as far as the eye can see, even if it involves the petty inconvenience of costs falling below those of the materials used, or exceeds their theoretical limits. Perfectly workable heavier cars circling the globe and skeleton infrastructure put in place at very reasonable costs indicate nothing to him. Apparently he may believe in fuel cell vehicles long after they have happened, which is wonderful. The fact that they are the only credible way of shifting long distance and heavy transport off of oil with anything like present technology doesn't count at all. Instead of that the batteries in a Tesla, for instance, which have a basic materials cost of ~$100 kwh or so are to continue dropping until everyone can afford an 85kwh pack. Alternatively, we can apparently firmly rely on lithium air or whatever. What we can actually do is not any use, as it uses hydrogen.
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Smurf
        BTW, most of the fuel used is unsurprisingly by big heavy cars are the one which most often go long distances. Batteries save at a huge premium are not gong to do that, and for long distances PHEV's don't help after the first few miles. So we are supposed to ignore the biggest source of petrol consumption and simply subsidise batteries which aren't going to cover it? That makes zero sense, and fortunately every car maker on the planet seem to disagree with that they can't build fuel cell cars. But what, we are supposed to believe, do any of the ones who are building them know, when we have people on this very forum who know far better?
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Smurf
        @Joe: So your solution to not being able to move heavier vehicles for long distances at reasonable cost without oil is not to have a solution? You also are perfectly happy to have subsidies for battery cars, and their infrastructure, when it is entirely unclear, and in fact now seems perhaps unlikely, that people will be prepared to pay the large premium involved and be limited by range, but criticise any attempt at introducing a solution to the range issue at least? Fortunately in Europe at least undertakings for carbon reduction mean that the carbon emissions from long distance travel must be tackled, and if that involves a subsidy for the only workable technology to do that, that is what is going to happen. Were you also against subsidy for electric cars, your position would at least be consistent, however short-sighted.
      EZEE
      • 2 Years Ago
      Barack Obama has kindly set up a new way for all of you to show your support, and since this is a green initiative, I know you will jump at the chance! You can give him your birthday and anniversary presents to help him get reelected, or even your wedding gifts! Here is the link to his web site, where you can do this (I am not lying): http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/the-obama-event-registry?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Any important moment in your life, you can turn into a donation opportunity to. The President! An actual event registey! we all should be tightening our belts anyway, and who doesn't already have a toaster?
      Letstakeawalk
      • 2 Years Ago
      Do you deny that Mercedes has built a fuel cell manufacturing plant in Canada?
      • 2 Years Ago
      All right folks, Here's an objective article which gives some definite answers to clear up the uncertainties and emerging questions about the topic. "Hydrogen fuel cells versus battery-power: Which will reign supreme?" "This column has been full of news about the historic arrival of battery-powered electric cars, but a lengthy conversation with Dr. Thomas Weber, head of R&D for Mercedes-Benz, has me once again thinking about hydrogen as the ultimate alternative to fossil fuels... "There are serious limitations to the driving range you can ever expect from batteries. The hydrogen fuel cell provides zero-emission driving over long distances with short refuelling times," said Weber. He believes fuel cells are the answer to electro-mobility both for passenger cars and heavy trucks. Weber's opinion counts as he is a member of the Board of Management of Daimler AG and head of Group Research & Mercedes-Benz Cars Development. "There is a role for battery-powered vehicles, but the opportunities for fuel cells are much greater," said Weber. ===== MMIND YOU (repeat): "Weber's opinion counts as he is a member of the Board of Management of Daimler AG" His opinion counts, since he in a position of power about the future of fuel cell at Daimler. CLEAR. ===== "The [fuel cell] hype went away but the science moved forward. Fuel cell systems have become more efficient, less expensive and more reliable... While the U.S. government is throwing big incentives at the development of battery-powered cars, the German government is playing a different card. Seven hundred million euros of funding has been made to support the development and implementation of German fuel cell technology. Last month, the German federal government announced a further €200-million for research in hydrogen storage technologies while claiming that Germany has more than 300 companies and 65 research institutes specializing in fuel cell technology... The missing link has been the availability of hydrogen. That's changing, too. Daimler and the Linde Group recently announced joint development of infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles. Subsidized by the federal government, the plan is to open another 20 hydrogen filling stations strategically placed across Germany. Given that the range of fuel cell cars on a three-minute hydrogen fill up is nearly 400 kilometres, this will enable "emission-free" driving anywhere in the country. They want 1,000 hydrogen stations in 10 years. ...the fuel cell industry is on the verge of a major breakthrough," said Dr. Juergen Friedrich, Chief Executive of Germany Trade and Invest in Berlin. "Thomas Weber convinced me that Daimler is deadly serious about exploiting the long term advantages of fuel cells over batteries. It would appear that the German government totally agrees. There's never a dull moment in the technology battle that's raging in the global automotive industry." I can say: yes. http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/green-driving/news-and-notes/hydrogen-fuel-cells-versus-battery-power-which-will-reign-supreme/article598892/?service=mobile
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        Ah, but what do the following companies know about how to build power trains for cars, or what it will cost them? BMW AG, Daimler AG, Ford, General Motors LLC, Honda R&D, Hyundai Motor Company, Kia Motors Corporation, Nissan, Renault, Toyota Motor Corporation, Volkswagen Or these companies about how much hydrogen infrastructure costs and how much hydrogen costs? ENI Refining and Marketing, Galp Energia, OMV Refining and Marketing GmbH, Shell Downstream Services International B.V., Total Raffinage Marketing Air Liquide, Air Products, The Linde Group http://www.h2euro.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/a_portfolio_of_power_trains_for_europe_a_fact_based__analysis-2.pdf What on earth are government's doing taking any notice of their opinions? BEVs are the one and only answer and the one true faith, it appears.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Didn't you see the Highlander Dave? "There can be only one." #ormaybetwotoo
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Here's a couple pdfs to look over: This presentation gives a French POV, so here's some more for everyone to look over. http://unit.aist.go.jp/hydrogenius/ci/event/ihdf2012/pdf/2-3lucchese.pdf Here's some info from Nuvera: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/htac_may2012_nuvera.pdf
        Smurf
        • 2 Years Ago
        ""Hydrogen fuel cells versus battery-power: Which will reign supreme?"" The question itself is flawed...... I continue to believe that the future will consist of: 1. EV's for short range and small vehicle applications 2. Refillable fuel based solutions for long range and large vehicle applications. (Hydrogen is a candidate) I believe that "neither" will reign supreme. We are going to need BOTH.....
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Smurf
          Yes, the question is only 2 choices. In a world of Black and White, the answer would be easy. But pro-hydrogen advocates love to ignore PHEVs. Why? Because it fulfills the very market FCVs are trying to fulfill. It may not fulfill the market with perfect cleanliness or simple elegance... but it fulfills the market cheapest and certainly clean enough. This bothers FCV advocates.
          Marcopolo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Smurf
          Joeviocoe PHEV's or EVER's also bother the pure electric only crowd also. (even those who don't drive either). Look at the indignation of commentators like PR, etc who feel that even the discussion of Hydrogen technology is hearsay in the week that the Tesla S has been released for sale !
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Smurf
          The article simply meant by reign supreme: which one could reach larger market share or - in other words - has the potential to become the dominant market force. Smurf: "We are going to need BOTH..." Exactly that's what Dr. Thomas Weber (member of the Board of Management of Daimler AG and head of Group Research & Mercedes-Benz Cars Development) said: "There is a role for battery-powered vehicles, but the opportunities for fuel cells are much greater" That's the reason, why the Obama administration seems to realize, that betting everything on the battery was a simple mistake. It didn't work out really well and other countries are now taking the lead on what was the U.S.'s stance on vehicle electrification in the first place before the shift to battery (i.e. fuel cell). About your points: 1. EVs for short range and small vehicle applications. Yes. And don't forget the scooters, where batteries make perfect sense (as the growing success of electric scooters already show it). 2. Refillable fuel based solutions... Yes, that's what makes sense for longer range or simply full functionality vehicles as the battery is simply not viable for this purpose (as every available study / statement / automaker roadmaps etc. conclude this way). "Weber (Daimler AG): "There are serious limitations to the driving range you can ever expect from batteries... [he] believes fuel cells are the answer to electro-mobility both for passenger cars and heavy trucks." Also important: the hydrogen economy means not only fuel for cars, but an energy carrier / storage for renewable energy sources (solar, wind etc.) where the output is greatly fluctuating. And finally: fighting passionately against this [fuel cells, hydrogen etc.] is simply just silly, as well as, futile (since it makes no difference on the outcome of the real world).
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        It doesn't seem that this article even considers PHEVs. Just another "black and white" viewpoint. MB is poised to be a Fuel Cell leader, so that is what they are pushing. LTAW, the Nuevera PowerTap looks very promising though. How much for one capable of 50 kg per day?
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          I can't find a specific price for a unit, but I did find a reference that says based on average gas prices (in 2009) that the 50kg/day unit provides hydrogen at an average cost of $6kg. Certainly over time the primary cost of the hydrogen produced is based on the cost of the input cost - the Nuvera units are reformers that use natural gas.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          The European study I linked fully considers PHEVs and sees them as an interim solution, as do the numerous car companies who put their name to the study, presumably.
          Joeviocoe
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          The price per kg of H2 looks okay. But I was more wondering the price of the unit. A lot of time, promising technology is left to rot because they can't make the it cost effective.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          One of the car companies is the relevant branch of GM
      Letstakeawalk
      • 2 Years Ago
      So now you're changing your argument. You're not against FCVs, just against the use of public money to develop a hydrogen infrastructure. That's a huge step forward in our discussions. Can we just start at this point from now on? Instead of you fighting and arguing every advance made by an automaker in bringing their FCVs to market, would you just look at whether or not public funding was used in that specific instance?
      Joeviocoe
      • 2 Years Ago
      No, but that is the vehicle side of things. I believe I can quote myself as saying, "the automakers are ready now". Infrastructure wise, not much actually being built in the U.S.
      Marco Polo
      • 2 Years Ago
      @ Joeviocoe Joe, one these debates/threads leave the first 'page', they do tend to die, so I hope you read this post. I have only three observations on your reply: 1) you have presented an excellent case. Well argued and praiseworthy for it's lack of tawdry name calling or abuse, you are sir, a gentleman ! Thank you for your participation in a most interesting debate. 2) Apart from yours, the first fifty anti-hydrogen comments were mostly absurd and based on either emotion or prejudice, without any real knowledge, (even of EV's as an industry). 3) I should think you would find interesting, the example provided by the roll out of LPG infrastructure in Australia. The similarities are remarkably pertinent. (LPG, (natural gas) uses the same distribution system for transport and industrial uses.) In the advent of hydrogen becoming viable, it's not unreasonable to assume that the principle players in the distribution infrastructure would be the major oil companies. It's reasonable to assume these giants corporations have the resources to effect the necessary infrastructure as a continuation of their existing business model ! They really have no need of government assistance, and I would agree with you that they should not recieve any special taxpayer funding or assistance, outside of the government removing gratuitous obstacles and effecting proper regulations and safeguards. Incentives should be reserved for the Automakers and consumers. Just a thought.....
        Joeviocoe
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Marco Polo
        1) Thanks 2) I think 2WM, PR, Spec, DaveD, EVSuperhero, Chris M, Neil, and a few others make cogent arguments against Hydrogen and aren't absurd at all. 3) There are many parallels to draw with Biofuels and CNG/LPG... but there are many differences too.
      Spec
      • 2 Years Ago
      That last hydrogen story got a lot of comments. So lets throw out another one even though nothing was announced and just some bland vague comments were said.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Spec
        I agree. I'd much rather see an official announcement from the DoE or Sec. Chu, instead of one of President Obama's advisors trying to make it look like the President has an opinion one way or the other.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          Well, a recent interview makes it very clear that Sec. Chu is indeed much more positive about hydrogen! “The evolution of his position over the past half year is very encouraging,” Edward B. Cohen, vice president for government and industry relations at Honda North America, said of Dr. Chu in an interview. “The secretary now appreciates to a greater extent than he has previously the potential of fuel-cell technology.” Patrick Serfass, vice president of the Hydrogen Education Foundation, a nonprofit hydrogen-fuel advocacy group, called Dr. Chu’s evolving position “inevitable,” given breakthroughs in fuel-cell programs supported by the Energy Department. In an e-mail, Mr. Serfass described Dr. Chu’s earlier positions on hydrogen as “ancient history.” David Friedman, deputy director of the vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, agreed with that assessment. “Rethinking previously held positions is what a good scientist does,” he said." http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/cheap-natural-gas-prompts-energy-department-to-soften-its-line-on-fuel-cells/ "After meeting with the major automobile companies, Dr. Chu now believes that the car companies are sincerely developing FCEVs as the next generation vehicle, and are not developing FCEVs as “green-washing” to demonstrate their commitment to low-carbon transportation. He acknowledged that FCEVs can travel 300 miles today without further breakthroughs in technology, and can be refueled in minutes instead of hours." http://www.chfca.ca/resources/chfca-blog/us-energy-secretary-chu-is-positive-on-benefits-of-hydrogen-%26-fuel-cells
      DaveMart
      • 2 Years Ago
      LTAW: I'm glad I prefaced my remarks on this thread by saying that 'allegedly' the costs of hydrogen from wind are in the same ball park as from natural gas, as in fact to get to that they are, typically for the renewables movement, counting subsidy!: 'The base hydrogen costs ranged from $3.74kg to $5.86/kg. The base results show no wind sites that meet the centralized or distributed U.S. Department of Energy 2015 targets of $3.10/kg and $3.70/kg, respectively; however, when considering the effects of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credits (ITC) (reduction of $0.02/kWh), almost half the sites analyzed meet the distributed target and a few of the sites can meet the central target,' They also give a capacity factor for the electrolysis equipment of 98%, which turns out to be arrived at by using natural gas when the wind is not available, so if you look at what actually happens at most of the sites you have gas with a bit of wind, not wind with a bit of gas! What I don't know is if they are arriving at the supposed cost figures for hydrogen from wind by taking a site which manages 50% of it's hydrogen production from wind, at a higher cost, and 50% from NG, at a lower cost, and add them together to come out with the supposed $3.74/kg for hydrogen supposedly from wind! The renewables industry has never seen a figure it doesn't fiddle. As renewables goes though, this is clearly the most economic way of doing things. Taking the base-line figure of 3.74kg for hydrogen, even if it only meets that figure by using 60% gas, about right in the great plains with their high wind capacities, then the economics are still workable, with hydrogen after transport and compression going for $6.44/kg including $2.70 for the distribution and so on. That would mean that the split between renewables and natural gas for hydrogen would be around 60/40, but costs would be kept lower by only the very best wind sites being used. So the contribution from renewables ends up being substantial, but not overwhelming. That is renewables for you though. They always promise more than they can deliver. It's about the least un-economical way of using them there is, however, and way better than anything we can do with batteries. BTW, they use a figure of 50kwh/kg for hydrogen, whereas the best I have seen is 58.8 for electrolysis. Renewables figures again, I would imagine.
    • Load More Comments