The U.S. Energy Department has spent a lot of time and money researching hydrogen vehicles, and just announced $2.4 million more to move H2 refueling station technology forward. The $2.4 million will be spread out among five projects in three states:
  • The California Air Resources Board will get $150,000 to "analyze an operating hydrogen refueling station that uses natural gas to produce hydrogen."
  • California State University and Los Angeles Auxiliary Services, Inc. gets $400,000 to "collect data from hydrogen refueling architecture deployed at California State University - Los Angeles."
  • The Gas Technology Institute in Des Plaines, IL also gets $400,000 to "analyze operational, transactional, safety, and reliability data from five hydrogen fueling stations."
  • Finally, Proton Energy Systems in Connecticut gets money for two projects, one to "provide operational data from two existing stations that integrate hydrogen generation, compression, storage and dispensing" for $400,000 and the other to "deploy an advanced high-pressure electrolyzer at an existing hydrogen fueling station and nearly double the dispensing capacity of its storage tanks" for $1 million.
The DOE's release doesn't specify if these monies are grants or loans, just "investments" and that the recipients need to match them.

Along with the funding announcement, the DOE released the "National Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Learning Demonstration Final Report," which gives the results of six years of H2 vehicle testing. Some numbers: 180 vehicles, 500,0000 trips, 3.6 million miles, 33,000 hydrogen fill-ups from 54 online H2 stations in the U.S. (as of January 2012). For more, download the PDF.
Show full PR text
Energy Department Investments to Advance Hydrogen Infrastructure and Fueling Technologies
Projects to Reduce Costs and Drive Higher Performance
July 18, 2012

As part the Energy Department's commitment to give American businesses more options to cut energy costs and reduce reliance on imported oil, the Department today announced a $2.4 million investment to collect and analyze performance data for hydrogen fueling stations and advanced refueling components. The five projects-located in California, Illinois, and Connecticut-will track the performance and technical progress of innovative refueling systems at planned or existing hydrogen fueling stations to find ways to lower costs and improve operation. These investments are part of the Department's commitment to support U.S. leadership in advanced hydrogen and fuel cell research and help industry bring hydrogen technologies into the marketplace at lower cost.

These new projects will collect data and monitor the performance of hydrogen fuel stations, advanced components and other innovative hydrogen technologies using renewable energy or natural gas. By analyzing performance in real-world environments, these projects will help hydrogen fueling equipment manufacturers improve the designs of existing systems to achieve higher efficiencies and test new system components. Additionally, this data will help focus future research and development efforts, driving American manufacturing competitiveness in the next generation of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.

In addition, the Energy Department released today the final reportPDF from a technology validation project that collected data from more than 180 fuel cell electric vehicles. Over six years, these vehicles made more than 500,000 trips and traveled 3.6 million miles, completing more than 33,000 fill-ups at hydrogen fueling stations across the country. The project found that these vehicles achieved more than twice the efficiency of today's gasoline vehicles with refueling times of five minutes for four kilograms of hydrogen. As part of a two-year initiative, the Energy Department will make $2.4 million available in fiscal year 2012 with a 50% cost share being provided by the award winners. The projects selected for negotiation of award include:
  • California Air Resources Board (Sacramento, California) - This project will analyze an operating hydrogen refueling station that uses natural gas to produce hydrogen. This station has an on-site storage capacity of over 180 kg of hydrogen and is capable of delivering over 60 kg of back-to-back fill-ups in less than one hour.(DOE Award: $150,000)
  • California State University and Los Angeles Auxiliary Services, Inc. (Los Angeles, California) - This project will collect data from hydrogen refueling architecture deployed at California State University - Los Angeles. This station will be publicly accessible 24 hours per day and will fuel up to 20 hydrogen powered vehicles daily.(DOE Award: $400,000)
  • Gas Technology Institute (Des Plaines, Illinois) - This project will analyze operational, transactional, safety, and reliability data from five hydrogen fueling stations. The project will deploy its hydrogen compressor technology at these stations, which will be accessible to the public for fueling commercial vehicles, government-owned vehicles and consumer fuel cell electric vehicles. (DOE Award: $400,000)
  • Proton Energy Systems (Wallingford, Connecticut) - Proton Energy Systems will conduct two projects. This fist will provide operational data from two existing stations that integrate hydrogen generation, compression, storage and dispensing. The stations generate fuel cell-grade hydrogen from water through on-site, solar-powered electrolysis. The research team will collect data on station operation, maintenance, repair and energy consumption. (DOE Award: $400,000)
Additionally, Proton Energy Systems will lead a second project to deploy an advanced high-pressure electrolyzer at an existing hydrogen fueling station and nearly double the dispensing capacity of its storage tanks. (DOE Award: $1 million)

The Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy accelerates development and facilitates deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies and market-based solutions that strengthen U.S. energy security, environmental quality, and economic vitality. Find out more about DOE's support of research, development and deployment of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.


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
  • 100 Comments
      PeterScott
      • 3 Months Ago
      @"in the U.S. more than half of the electricity is made from coal and reasonable studies conclude, that hydrogen fuel cells from even natural gas has way less well-to-wheels CO2 emission than even EVs. But these are just simple facts, therefore, not even worth taking them into account." Not worth taking into account, because as usual, what you call facts are figments of your imagination. US electricity is not more than half from Coal. Unless you consider 32% more than half: http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-07-12/commentary/32644551_1_natural-gas-gas-glut-coal-industry Likewise, C02 emissions are not way less than from FCV. CO2 emssions are actually way less from Grid source BEV vs Grid sourced H2 C02 emissions are about equal for US Grid sourced BEV vs Nat Gas sourced H2. Also BEV uses less total energy regardless of how you run the comparison. The results are even better for CA GRID, where the EV trumps everything, having the lowest total emissions and the lowest total energy: Info from the 2012 Greet model: http://greet.es.anl.gov/results
      • 2 Years Ago
      As I assume no one analyzed thoroughly this more than 100 pages long incredibly comprehensive and complex report (PDF link in the article) here are some excerpts from it to help understand why it is admittedly the most important demonstration ever on fuel cell vehicles / hydrogen infrastructure: "National Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Learning Demonstration Final Report"" "Conclusions and Future Directions" "The Learning Demonstration project was the largest single fuel cell vehicle and hydrogen infrastructure demonstration in the world to date, and the first time such comprehensive data were collected by an independent third party and consolidated and analyzed for public dissemination." Simply put: the largest demonstration ever on Earth about the topic. Wow. "This project addressed the critical need for technology validation to bridge the gap between R&D and commercial readiness of the vehicle and station technologies... Through seven years of real-world validation the project deployed 183 vehicles travelling 3.6 million miles through 500,000 trips, resulting in 154,000 hours of second-by-second data... The project also deployed 25 hydrogen fueling stations that produced or dispensed 152,000 kg of hydrogen through more than 33,000 fueling events. The technical results from this project have exceeded the DOE expectations established in 2003." So, the technical results from this project not only achieved, but have exceeded the DOE expectations. That's why [i.e. steady progress] automakers are increasingly focusing on fuel cell development. And now the final conclusion: "From all of the project results... it is our conclusion that FCEVs have advanced rapidly in the last seven years. As the automotive OEMs and other researchers worldwide continue to focus on the remaining challenges of balancing durability, cost, and high- throughput manufacturability, we are optimistic that improvements will result in a manageable incremental cost for fuel cell technology. We therefore expect continued progress to lead to 36 several vehicle manufacturers introducing thousands of vehicles to the market in the 2014–2016 timeframe." http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/learning_demo_final_report.pdf Yes, you read that right: [Not less than] 36 vehicle manufacturers introducing thousands of [fuel cell] vehicles to the market in the 2014–2016 timeframe. Looks like FCEVs don't need too much luck / miracle / etc. to enter real mass production real soon.
        • 3 Months Ago
        *36 = several #pdfformattinganomaly
        Chris M
        • 3 Months Ago
        " We therefore expect continued progress to lead to 36 several vehicle manufacturers introducing thousands of vehicles to the market in the 2014–2016 timeframe." Hmm, what does that remind me of? Oh, yea, all the other rosy predictions of thousands of fuel cell cars to be sold in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012,,,, The old "Fuel cell cars will be for sale in a few years" prediction that has been going on for over 40 years. When 2016 comes and goes, I won't be the lest surprised if H2-FCVs still aren't quite ready for prime time...
      Dave
      • 2 Years Ago
      I'm seeing a lot of dueling estimates on the cost of hydrogen. The simple truth is that there is an economy of scale necessary to make hydrogen affordable. The cost of the equipment is much easier to swallow when spread over a large fleet. With many vehicles on the road, hydrogen is affordable (just as bulk hydrogen used in petroleum processing and fertilizer manufacturing is already very affordable) but getting over the chicken/egg hump to that economy of scale requires long term investment by hydrogen suppliers. "(20 cars/day) $9.29/ kg (30 cars/day) $7.34/kg (100 cars/day) $5.40/kg (250 cars/day) $3.34/kg" www.cleancaroptions.com/Hydrogen_costs_per_mile.pdf
        Dave
        • 3 Months Ago
        @Dave
        BTW - This report is dated 10/19/2009 so I believe the numbers were calculated before the recent drop in natural gas prices.
      Peter
      • 2 Years Ago
      Wouldn't converting natural gas to H20 and C02 in say a Honda civic natural gas be more efficient than converting it to H2 and then using a fuel cell to convert it to electricity in a Honda Clarity?
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Peter
        'On-Site Hydrogen Production Cost: Cost estimates from the Learning Demonstration energy company partners were used as inputs to an H2A analysis [6] to project the hydrogen cost for 1,500 kg/day early market fueling stations. H2A is DOE’s suite of hydrogen analysis tools, with the H2A Production model focused on calculating the costs of producing hydrogen. Results from version 2.1 of the H2A Production model indicated that on-site natural gas reformation could lead to a cost range of roughly $8–$10/kg and on-site electrolysis could lead to a hydrogen cost of $10–$13/kg. Note that 1 kg hydrogen is approximately equal to the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, or gallon gasoline equivalent (gge). While these project results do not achieve the $3/gge cost target, two external independent review panels commissioned by DOE concluded that distributed natural gas reformation could lead to a cost range of $2.75–$3.50/kg [7] and distributed electrolysis could lead to $4.90–$5.70/kg [8]. Therefore, this objective was met outside of the Learning Demonstration project using distributed natural gas reforming.' Note that even at the higher cost through electrolysis, the effective cost per mile driven is still around the same as current US costs, due to the higher efficiency of fuel cells, with the Hyundai SUV, as big, heavy not very aerodynamic vehicle rated at 72mpge. Presumably in the real world it would get a bit less than that, but that is still way more than any ICE.
          JakeY
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          "Hyundai SUV, as big, heavy not very aerodynamic vehicle rated at 72mpge." Do you have the link to this (as a EPA sticker or on the fuel economy site)? The only two vehicles rated by the EPA don't do particularly well (52MPGe for the F-Cell and 60MPGe for the Clarity): http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_sbs.shtml Although in general, I do agree the NGV doesn't do well in efficiency. The CNG Civic only gets 31 MPGe combined. It makes up for it in terms of lower fuel costs: CNG only costs 2.13/gge (according to EPA) about 4-6x less than the current cost of hydrogen (and still less than projected costs of hydrogen). http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/32336.shtml @Peter The Civic CNG has a 7.8 gallon equivalent tank and a EPA combined range of ~240 miles. This is the same as the Clarity and better than the E-Cell. So at this point the NGV would be much cheaper to operate (it'll still be cheaper to operate when hydrogen reaches its cost targets) and has essentially the same range. As for which one is cleaner, it depends on the efficiency of the reformer and the hydrogen car. Last I looked, the efficiency of local reformers are about 60%, so that would make the CNG Civic equivalent to about 52MPGe in efficiency, exactly the same as the F-Cell. So if your hydrogen is made from a local reformer, it would seem the CNG Civic is a better choice (similar efficiency, more range, much cheaper fuel). Hydrogen does give you the option of buying more expensive, but renewable fuel though.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Months Ago
          @DaveMart
          JakeY You seem to assume that Hyundai will be distributing their FCV in the US. It's much more likely that they will be delivered in South Korea, and also in the Scandinavian nations Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Hyundai presents the Tuscon ix35 FCV range as 404 miles, and 73 mpge. http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/htac_may2012_hyundai.pdf
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          @JakeY: How the heck are you going to get EPA numbers for a car not yet in production? I think you know the answer to your question as well as I do. No doubt in practise the Hyundai will do rather worse than the initial figures, just like just about every other car, ICE or battery. However Hyundai have substantially increased the efficiency from the previous version, which was at similar levels to the Clarity. The price of natural gas in the US is at extraordinarily low levels at the moment, in fact far less than the cost of production, and something has to give. A sustainable price might be at around double present prices, which of course would also hit the price of hydrogen from this source, but would not affect CO2 free production by electrolysis: 'Electrolyzer efficiency is 74.6% based on hydrogen’s lower heating value (LHV); it uses 44.7 kWh per kg of hydrogen produced.' http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10001_well_to_wheels_gge_petroleum_use.pdf Electrochemical compression to 12,000 psi takes around 3kwh/kg: http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review12/pd048_lipp_2012_o.pdf For the most efficient other compression technology, you use around 7kwh. In these cases on an LHV basis the total energy is including production comes to 47.7kwh/kg to 51.7kwh/kg. Note that the very energy efficient pathway seems to be somewhat speculative, but around 50kwh/kg seems safe. So if I am correct and they can't continue to sell natural gas for less than it costs to produce, then electrolysis is attractive. It should be noted that outside of the US present natural gas prices much higher than in the US mean that this is already the case. It is hopeful that the costs per mile would still be about the same as present petrol prices.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Hi Peter. The review panels conclusions are based on actual data, with the exception of the cost of hydrogen, for the reason given above, that they have not built any full scale hydrogen stations. So there is nothing hopeful about them. The range of the latest Hyundai Tucson is given at 402 miles on 5.6kg of hydrogen, which is a bit more than you would get on 5 and half gallons of petrol! ;-) http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/03/hyundai-fcev-20100304.html#more Here is a test drive in one: http://www.caradvice.com.au/124489/hyundai-ix35-fcev-review-first-drive/ It is really just like driving a super smooth and quiet ICE car. Note: 'The Koreans have worked out that if they can capture just 20 percent of the hydrogen by-product produced by their industries, they can fuel up to 500,000 fuel cell vehicles every year. Essentially that means the fuel already exists and is currently simply wasted..
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Cracking link, LTAW, thanks!
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Unfortunately they are interested here in the metric of CO2 emissions rather than energy efficiency per se, but the information given clearly shows far less CO2 from fuel cell vehicles rather than natural gas. They also state: 'In light-duty vehicles, these fuel cells have demonstrated system efficiencies of 53 to 59% (see figure 2.6)—more than twice the efficiency that can be expected from gasoline internal combustion engines (ICEs)' Your take on roughly comparable present efficiency at the present time is probably in the right ball park between natural gas and reformation and use in fuel cells. However even in the time between the DOE's assessment in 2006 and 2011 fuel cells rapidly improved, and that improvement has not stopped, so that on page 21 they give a figure of 200 grams of CO2 per mile for hydrogen from fuel cells produced from natural gas as compared to 270 grams for a natural gas vehicle, on a well to wheels basis for 2035-45 using their technological assumptions. The real advantage of the fuel cell route is the flexibility of having many possible sources for the hydrogen though.
          Peter
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Very helpful Dave, and if the review panels are actually factual (and not just hopeful), bodes some promise for hydrogen, particularly when gas costs go up. While that cost (and the cost of the fuel cell) will go down in volume, to pick the winning horse I have to ask how far does a tank of H2 get you?
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Natural gas has to be compressed as well as hydrogen, which has both an energy and a financial cost.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Here's an independent range evaluation of the Toyota FCHV-adv. "The average fuel economy resulting from the day’s driving was 68.3 miles/kg and the total hydrogen stored on‐board at 70 MPa was calculated to be 6.31 kg. The speed profiles were analyzed and compared to standard driving cycles, and were determined to be of moderate aggressiveness. The city segments of the route had average speeds slightly greater than the UDDS cycle and the highway segments were close to the HWFET & US06 cycles. The average acceleration for the highway driving was very close to the HWFET cycle, and the city portions had average accelerations lower than the UDDS and US06 cycles. We feel that the route accurately reflects realistic driving behaviors in southern California on a typical weekday, and is an appropriate benchmark to use in the verification of a fuel cell vehicle’s range." http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/toyota_fchv-adv_range_verification.pdf
          JakeY
          • 3 Months Ago
          @DaveMart
          @DaveMart I'm honestly asking if you have a link to the sticker because I'm assuming the number is from the EPA test and sometimes the sticker is released by the manufacturer (since the testing is done by the manufacturer and not EPA) before the number is posted on the government fuel economy site or before the car is delivered for general sale (this was the case for the Volt and the Leaf). I was assuming Hyundai has put the SUV in limited lease (like the Clarity and F-Cell linked) since Hyundai said they would make 500 in 2012. I wasn't trying to be snarky if I gave that impression.
        DaveMart
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Peter
        Nope. Reforming and compression is around 70% energy efficient. Fuel cells are around 2-3 times as efficient as ICE, so even after reforming losses you use way less gas. This ignores the other route discussed in this report, on-site electrolysis, which can in principle involve no fossil fuel use at all.
          Chris M
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          Assuming your 70% reforming / compression efficiency is correct, and 50% to 60% efficiency of the fuel cell, and 90% efficiency of the motor and drive train, overall efficiency runs 31% to 38%, which is better than the 15% to 30% efficiency of ICE engines. Of course, using a fuel cell that runs directly on natural gas, thus avoiding the energy losses of reforming, would achieve higher efficiencies, and since compressed natural gas has 3x better volumetric energy density compared to compressed H2, a CNG-FCV would get a much greater driving range, too. Solid oxide fuel cells like the Bloom Box can run directly on natural gas.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          So downmarked for giving the efficiency of reforming and compression? Some people really cannot stand the facts - it interferes with their fantasies. Still, stupidity is invincible in protecting prejudice.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          @Chris. I think I was perhaps a bit optimistic in 70% after compression, I spoke from fallible memory. We seem to be at around 50kwh/kg after compression from my links, which is around 66% efficient on an LHV basis for electrolysis. Good figures on reforming are a bit difficult to come by, as there are many different pathways, but Wiki gives the efficiency as 65-75%, and then you need to compress it, the figures for that varying between around 3-7kwh/kg I'd much prefer a methanol fuel cell, and don't rule out SOFC either, it is simply that I don't rule out hydrogen FCs and they are furthest advanced.
          throwback
          • 2 Years Ago
          @DaveMart
          To some people anything but BEVs are evil.
      krona2k
      • 2 Years Ago
      Wow, see you here in 2015 people, it should be fun!
        Spec
        • 2 Years Ago
        @krona2k
        Of course as we draw close to 2015 a new revised date will be given.
        Chris M
        • 2 Years Ago
        @krona2k
        I'm looking forward to it, seeing what excuses they'll come up with for yet more delays for production - or silence when they can't admit they've cancelled. But even if they do pull off the unexpected and start actual sales of H2 vehicles at a reasonable cost, and somehow rush-build enough H2 fueling stations to make them usable, I'll still be pleased with the resulting reduction in oil use, in spite of having to eat crow. Fact is, either way, plug-ins will still greatly outnumber H2 vehicles, just as they do now.
        Dave
        • 2 Years Ago
        @krona2k
        Its going to be interesting. I think the OEMS will easily build a financially compelling case for high end fuel cell vehicles (Mercedes S class and full size boat and horse towing trucks and SUVs) but it will be a long while before they can build a car to beat a Prius in total cost of ownership.
      Dave
      • 3 Months Ago
      The report is based on $8/MBTU while the current cost of natural gas is less than $3/MBTU http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/
      PeterScott
      • 2 Years Ago
      From the PDF. Electrolysis yields $10-$13/KG H2. I believe a Clarity will go 60 miles/KG. 16.7 cents/mile According to Consumer Reports: http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/12/leaf-volt-tests-show-electric-cars-cost-less-per-mile-to-operate.html A Nissan Leaf costs 3.5 cents/mile. Less than 1/4 the operating cost. As Elon Said, in a recent interview. "The math is so super obviously in favor of batteries"
        PeterScott
        • 3 Months Ago
        @PeterScott
        @DaveMart "You are not looking at a 3 times efficiency gap with using electricity. You are looking at that gap with a hypothetical future electricity system generating the electricity very efficiently, not the present grid.How much will that upgrade to the grid cost?" I am talking about using a KWh of electricity to either power an EV, or have it turned into H2, and use it to power a FCV. So it doesn't matter what grid the electricity comes from, as it will be the same grid in either case. All the conversions put the FCV at about 1/3 the efficiency on the same KWh or electricity from the same Grid. As far as Grid upgrades, if you start power H2 vehicles from the Grid, you will need 3 times the energy over EVs for the same miles, so FCVs represent a bigger strain on the grid than EVs. The Math is Super Obvious...
        DaveMart
        • 3 Months Ago
        @PeterScott
        Nicely cherry picked. From the pdf: 'Cost estimates from the Learning Demonstration energy company partners were used as inputs to an H2A analysis [6] to project the hydrogen cost for 1,500 kg/day early market fueling stations. H2A is DOE’s suite of hydrogen analysis tools, with the H2A Production model focused on calculating the costs of producing hydrogen. Results from version 2.1 of the H2A Production model indicated that on-site natural gas reformation could lead to a cost range of roughly $8–$10/kg and on-site electrolysis could lead to a hydrogen cost of $10–$13/kg. Note that 1 kg hydrogen is approximately equal to the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, or gallon gasoline equivalent (gge). While these project results do not achieve the $3/gge cost target, two external independent review panels commissioned by DOE concluded that distributed natural gas reformation could lead to a cost range of $2.75–$3.50/kg [7] and distributed electrolysis could lead to $4.90–$5.70/kg [8]. Therefore, this objective was met outside of the Learning Demonstration project using distributed natural gas reforming.' So you have simply used present costs with no volume at all, exactly in the way that anti-electric car people did for battery vehicles. Perhaps you would also show the costs per mile for a Nissan Leaf with a 400 mile range?
          DaveMart
          • 3 Months Ago
          @DaveMart
          You are not looking at a 3 times efficiency gap with using electricity. You are looking at that gap with a hypothetical future electricity system generating the electricity very efficiently, not the present grid. How much will that upgrade to the grid cost? Once again, you are cherry picking arguments, and also simply evading the range limit issue on a battery electric car. I prefer the DOE's estimates to yours, funnily enough.
          PeterScott
          • 3 Months Ago
          @DaveMart
          They are arguing that in theory the could build a distributed H2 infrastructure to deliver cheaper hydrogen. But how much would that distribution infrastructure costs, who is paying for it, how is it amortized? Their numbers seem very questionable on the Electrolysis side simply because you are looking at 3x efficiency gap vs electricity. It is hard to imagine how they turn that into only a 2X cost gap when they need to pay for a new distributed hydrogen infrastructure. Even if you take this theory as doable, it is still twice as expensive to run the future fantasy H2 car, on future fantasy infrastructure. As far as the Leaf, if you need to go 400 miles. Buy a Volt.
          skierpage
          • 3 Months Ago
          @DaveMart
          For f***s sake would you stop writing reams of paragraphs about what you want to talk about while bending what other people say to fit into your arguments and then insulting them? @PeterScott makes a completely obvious point about grid-powered cars, but you have to waste paragraphs talking about other things. Bloody hell.
          DaveMart
          • 3 Months Ago
          @DaveMart
          In fairness I should say that the DOE over the short term see EREVs like the Volt as competitive. However over the longer term it is obviously a more limited idea, whether from the POV of reducing oil consumption, CO2 emissions or whatever. My main reservation is that long term it is difficult to take cost out of a combination of ICE and batteries, and both BEVs and fuel cell cars are inherently simpler with less parts and better cost reduction potential. That does not mean that I am not very pleased by the success of the Volt.
          Chris M
          • 3 Months Ago
          @DaveMart
          The figures for H2 from steam reformed natural gas is somewhat better, but still more expensive than "driving electric". It is not surprising that both Ford and GM have changed their future H2 vehicle plans to make plug-in hybrids, with the H2 fuel cell relegated to "range extender" role only - and that's assuming sufficient H2 fueling infrastructure to support "range extender" use, instead of the current "H2 island" strategy.
          DaveMart
          • 3 Months Ago
          @DaveMart
          Chris M: You are making false comparisons, since not even the Tesla S has anything like the range of, for instance, the Toyota FCEV, especially if you adjust the range for comparable driving on highways etc. It is excellent news if Ford and GM have switched to the idea of a fuel cell range extender, since that is an approach that I have always advocated, and greatly reduces the cost of the infrastructure for both as you don't need to put in a plug at every road side location, whilst with much charging carried out at home many fewer hydrogen stations would be needed. I did not know that they had both decided to go to this, especially with a decision, you say, to not produce any full FCEVs. Perhaps you would provide the links which substantiate this?
        Letstakeawalk
        • 3 Months Ago
        @PeterScott
        Tesla has been on the losing side of two legal suits - so I'm going to suggest that the company (while exceedingly competent in building BEVs) might not have the most logical and reasonable outlook on the world beyond their company.
      brotherkenny4
      • 2 Years Ago
      This is probably about the right amount of support. I like EVs in the near term, but hydrogen has some potential. I think it really has several issues that need to be resolved before commercialization. I am a little worried that because the exhaust is water, either from combustion or fuel cell, people see it as environmetally benign, but that depends on how it is made, and how it is stored (hint: hydrogen is the leakiest gas in the world). For those of you who want to kill hydrogen, just insist that the way it should be generated is by electrolysis of water using solar panels at everyones homes. I say that because the real support for hydrogen comes from the fact that it is now made by reformation of natural gas (a process that keeps you tethered to the industrial masters) and because it is still years away, meaning no need to stop burning oil, but things will be better in the future...things will be better in the future...things will be better in the future.... Ahem, excuse me, the mantra was taking over. However, make the best way to produce it one that provides individual independence and watch support whither and die. So, to kill hydrogen, produce a small electrolysis and compression unit that runs on solar energy.
        • 3 Months Ago
        @brotherkenny4
        @brotherkenny4 " I am a little worried that because the exhaust is water, either from combustion or fuel cell, people see it as environmetally benign" People who see it as environmentally benign because the exhaust is water, simply "forget" that gasoline cars' emissions contain roughly the same amount of water as FCVs and nobody complains about it. "For those of you who want to kill hydrogen, just insist that the way it should be generated is by electrolysis of water using solar panels at everyones homes..." People who want to kill hydrogen also "forget" that e.g. in the U.S. more than half of the electricity is made from coal and reasonable studies conclude, that hydrogen fuel cells from even natural gas has way less well-to-wheels CO2 emission than even EVs. But these are just simple facts, therefore, not even worth taking them into account. #hydrogenisevil
        Dave
        • 3 Months Ago
        @brotherkenny4
        "(a process that keeps you tethered to the industrial masters)" Apparently, hydrogen is produced by our "industrial masters" but food, clean water, solar panels, houses, and BEVs are not? I can tell you this for certain - whether or not HFCEVs become commonplace, we will still be dependent on nearly all of the same corporations for our survival and way of life.
          Marcopolo
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Dave
          Another volunteer, Dave, leaves Ezee's tavern to join those defending the Science labs on the hill ! Brotherkenny4, like all puritans, is proving a difficult recruit as he divides those supporters around the Banner of St Elon, on whether St Elon himself is a "industrial master". St Elon supporters are more and more to be found at Ezee's tavern, fingering their purses and wondering about the female laughter heard coming from the rooms above.... The war drags on.... In the far distance, night falls as Carney and PR shiver in the cold, try to get the bio-lamp lit to penetrate the gloom, so they can fill in the latest reams of government forms......
      PeterScott
      • 2 Years Ago
      Page 2 of the PDF after the index offers some answers to the "Why" question, for those of who don't think H2 numbers make sense. Every car company is partnered with a Petroleum company, and they are the ones desperate to have H2 be the choice over EVs. With EVs the Petroleum companies are shut out. With H2 it is business as usual. Partners on Page 2: GM -Shell Daimler-BP Kia-Chevron Ford-BP So that answers the Why. On the Cost front: The pricing of H2 production averages around $10/KG, which leads to a 16 cents/mile operating cost. While creation of large scale H2 production/distribution infrastructure would improve that, there is NO SIGN of that actually happening. If you can actually buy an H2 Vehicle in 2015 it will have worse operation costs than an EV, or even a Gas powered car, unless the fuel is subsidized heavily. Put that in perspective with EVs. EVs have a higher upfront costs than a gas powered car, but they have a MUCH Lower operating costs without any subsidy. And they are still a hard sell, you will see people whip out TCO spreadsheets to argue against EV economics. H2 Vehicles will have both higher upfront costs AND higher operating costs, it won't take a spreadsheet to show the economics of H2 cars don't fly.
        DaveMart
        • 3 Months Ago
        @PeterScott
        You really don't give up on peddling misinformation, do you? The cost you quote for hydrogen is once more the cost at present trial level, and nothing to do with the likely future cost. In your ideological obsession you once again ignore that there is no such thing as a BEV with a 400 mile plus range, and so your comparisons are worthless. The DOE has a vast number of experts who have done rigorous testing and are happy with the technology. Then there are your prejudiced and irrelevant rants to weigh against them. Hilarious.
        Marco Polo
        • 3 Months Ago
        @PeterScott
        Peter Scott Your problem is that philosophy, or idealism, distorts your capacity to see the issue without bias. Your example of auto-manufacturing and Oil company JVC's into Hydrogen technology as being sinister or immoral, restricts your ability to be objective. You continue to repeat that the infrastructure would be too costly, thereby rendering FCV technology unfeasible on economic grounds, yet in the next breath, you also claim that FCV technology is supported by Oil companies who not only have easily the capacity and capital to quickly effect the infrastructure, having already created similar LPG networks. (The Oil companies already own the distribution sites). These are the sort of contradictions that indicate your beliefs are based on well meaning prejudice, rather than facts.
          PeterScott
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Where do I say it is sinister. That is your reading. The petrol companies definitely have more riding on H2 over EVs than do the automotive companies. If you dispute this, post your counter argument, not Ad Hominems about my bias. It isn't a contradiction. The infrastructure problem is a chicken and egg problem, no one wants to invest the huge amounts of capital unless there is an almost guaranteed payback, and there isn't. So petroleum companies may want to see H2 vehicles make bigger inroads than EVs, they still may reasonably be skittish of risking huge amounts of capital on infrastructure.
        Letstakeawalk
        • 3 Months Ago
        @PeterScott
        PeterScott I agree that the per mile price of an FCV won't be as low as a BEV, if the BEV is powered directly from the grid and if the FCV is fueled using hydrogen created by electrolysis using the same power. However, there are many other options available to produce hydrogen more inexpensively, so in those cases it is very possible that the per mile cost of fueling an FCV will be much closer. There are also other "costs" that must be considered, and the biggest is the cost of time spent traveling - ie refueling time. Most people aren't excited about the idea of waiting 30 minutes to an hour or more to recharge a BEV, which is why BEVs aren't really being considered as long-range vehicles. FCVs with refueling times equal to current gasoline refueling are much more acceptable to those who are likely to travel longer distances where total time spent traveling is a major "cost" consideration. Time is money; an FCV spends a fraction of the time refueling as a BEV.
          Letstakeawalk
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          "BEVs and PHEVs have the market sewn up. There's no room for a third type for passenger cars until gasoline becomes vastly more expensive." I disagree. BEVs and PHEVs have only a fraction of a percentage of the overall market - hardly "sewn up". FCVs only have to be a better option than a gasoline ICE in order to become competitive and begin to occupy marketshare. There's plenty of room for BEVs, PHEVs, and FCVs all in the same market.
          skierpage
          • 3 Months Ago
          @Letstakeawalk
          A PHEV spends less time refueling too. Yet again I ask... who exactly is going to buy an FCV? BEVs and PHEVs have the market sewn up. There's no room for a third type for passenger cars until gasoline becomes vastly more expensive.
        PeterScott
        • 3 Months Ago
        @PeterScott
        What misinformation? This is the cost of H2 for vehicle fueling. When is it changing? You keep talking about "the future" like it is going to magically solve all hydrogen issues. The simple passage of time isn't going to change the economics, you need massive capital/infrastructure investments, that are not on the horizon. All of your H2 arguments are based on future utopian FANTASIZING, NOT REALITY. As for your often repeated 400 mile plus range dig at EVs: EREVs like the Volt solve the range anxiety, and the drive across country issues for EVs, and it is a real world, practical solution here today. Much more practical than trying to drive a FCV across country. But for many a hundred mile BEV will be perfectly fine. I haven't driven my personal car, more than 70 miles in a day, in over a year. My car is gas powered, so I could, it is just that everything I need is easily within a 35 mile radius. I still had longer trips, but I used trains/planes/carpooling. I could just as well, have been driving a Leaf and it would have imposed no additional limitations on my personal transportation. EVs/EREVs are real world efficient vehicles already here and already delivering extremely low operating costs. FCVs are the perpetual fantasy vehicle of the future, running on the fantasy infrastructure of the future, but reality is a harsh mistress, even if you could actually buy one in the often mentioned 2015 date, they will be expensive to buy, expensive to operate and with very limited places to fuel them.
      • 2 Years Ago
      The newly opened station in Orange County dispenses H2 that is produced on site from a high temperature fuel cell using feed stock from the waste treatment facility. Peter is correct. You can expect 60 miles per kg with the Clarity.
        goodoldgorr
        • 3 Months Ago
        60 miles per kg is like 60 mpg, that's a way good number because the clarity is not a small car. probably a smaller car can acheive 70 to 80 miles per kg. All that without the recharging time and small range problem of a bev. Many should be interrested to buy.
      DaveMart
      • 2 Years Ago
      The London fuel cell taxis are on the road now, with refuelling facilities: http://www.climate-change-solutions.co.uk/pictures/content484/4-3_dennis_hayter_-_presentation_session_4_hayter.pdf 'A new Air Products hydrogen fuelling station, that will be used to fuel the taxis as they transport VIPs to and from the Games, will shortly be opened at Heathrow Airport in an exciting addition to the developing London hydrogen network. This new station will connect up with the fuelling station already in operation in the city, supporting London’s hydrogen bus fleet and adding to the vital infrastructure powering hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles across the UK. The vehicles and refuelling site form part of the Mayor’s vision to promote innovative zero and low emission technologies in the capital to clean London’s air and tackle pollution. London already boasts the UK’s only zero-emission bus route running with a fleet of five hydrogen buses.'
        Letstakeawalk
        • 3 Months Ago
        @DaveMart
        The taxis are pretty neatly designed - Lotus was involved. http://www.lotuscars.com/engineering/case-study-hydrogen-fuel-cell-taxi
        DaveMart
        • 3 Months Ago
        @DaveMart
        Sorry, wrong link S/be: http://fuelcellsworks.com/news/2012/07/20/hydrogen-powered-taxis-to-transport-vips-at-the-olympic-games-this-summer/
      PR
      • 2 Years Ago
      This includes Honda Clarity cars? that hurts.
    • Load More Comments