What Changed DOE Secretary Steven Chu's Mind About Hydrogen Fuel Cells



Natural gas now being retrieved from shale provides an enormous source of hydrogen.

He'll never use the word "fracking," but thanks to that new drilling technique, the U.S. Secretary of Energy now admits he's changed his mind about hydrogen fuel cells. That's because the abundance of natural gas now being retrieved from shale also provides an enormous source of hydrogen that, when coupled with new reforming technology, produces energy with a low carbon footprint.

When Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, was named Secretary of the Department of Energy in the Obama Administration, he quickly redirected much of the Department's automotive research efforts into battery electric vehicles. So much so that proponents of hydrogen fuel cells complained loudly that the Secretary was starving their research efforts.

Automakers will no doubt welcome the Secretary's change of heart. General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Daimler, BMW and Hyundai, not only have decades-long development efforts in this area, they claim they can have fuel cell cars showroom ready by 2015.

This is not to say Secretary Chu is giving up on battery development. He's not. Indeed, he expects big strides in battery development in the next decade. But it seems possible the Administration is looking to fuel cells as a "Plan B" in case BEV sales don't meet expectations. That would be an astute move.


John McElroyJohn McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit" and daily web video "Autoline Daily". Every month he brings his unique insights as a Detroit insider to Autoblog readers.


EVs aren't selling in the volumes that automakers need to break-even.

So far electric car sales are running well below the levels that, just a few years ago, proponents believed would materialize. This is true in the biggest global markets including the United States, Europe, Japan and China. Despite big percentage gains in sales compared to last year, they are not selling in the volumes that automakers need to earn a return on the billions they've invested in this technology. They're not even close to break-even.

And it's about to get worse. Under government mandates, more automakers are introducing more EV models and increasing manufacturing capacity. A moribund segment is about to get saturated.

Secretary Chu doesn't see it this way. "Well first, I don't agree with that," he says in an interview. "If you look at the business models of the companies, there was a slight lag in the Chevy Volt. But the Chevy Volt is selling very well."

The DOE has a cost target for batteries of $125 per kilowatt. Currently the cost is in the $500 to $600 range.

He believes that improvements in batteries will make electric cars more viable in the future. "The level of systems measurement, having nano-micro things inside the battery, and having a microprocessor whip through and test all the modules, is not there yet. But it's a very real possibility," he says. "And when you have that you can charge faster. Before a cell wears out you can swap one out and put in another, so the cost of the warranty becomes much less."

The DOE has a cost target for batteries of $125 per kilowatt. Currently the cost is in the $500 to $600 range. At a recent DOE conference titled "EV Everywhere" in Dearborn, Michigan, participants from major automakers expressed skepticism they could achieve that cost target in the next decade.

Even Secretary Chu recognizes it won't be easy. "The challenge is: can you get there by 2022?" he asks. "We will need improved battery system technology, so we can use more of the full capacity of the battery."

And so his epiphany on fuel cells is well timed. "I was not that high on hydrogen fuel cells," he admits, "but several things changed my mind. The most important thing that changed my mind is that we have now natural gas in abundance."

Hydrogen is a good insurance policy just in case the BEV segment falls flat on its face.

It's not just the abundance of natural gas now available in the United States that awakened the Secretary to the possibilities, it's how hydrogen can be extracted from natural gas that fascinates him.

"We have an emerging technology where you take natural gas and you burn it in a partial oxygen atmosphere, generate the electricity, capture a lot of the heat energy, and you also get hydrogen and carbon monoxide," he explains. "You take the carbon monoxide (and) pass it over in a steam process called a shift process. You get a stream of hydrogen, you get a pure stream of carbon monoxide and you get electricity. That will change things."

He notes that the carbon monoxide can then be used for "enhanced oil recovery," or in other words, it can be for hydraulic fracturing. Despite the fact that many environmentalists despise anything to do with fracking, this newfound interest in fuel cells keeps the Administration on track with its goal of adopting green-energy transportation. Besides, as green-car mandates go, it's a good insurance policy just in case the BEV segment falls flat on its face.

"The economics are looking good," the Secretary says about hydrogen-from-natural gas, "the carbon footprint looks much better."


John McElroyJohn McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit" and daily web video "Autoline Daily". Every month he brings his unique insights as a Detroit insider to Autoblog readers.



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
  • 136 Comments
      Rotation
      • 2 Years Ago
      A low carbon footprint, ha. With natural gas, you're oxidizing carbon which was locked up in the crust for hundreds if not thousands of years. That's not low carbon.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Rotation
        Most problematic is the method in which it comes out of the ground. You can't discount the negative effects of fracking and say 'oh, this is just a wonderful zero carbon fuel source'. Then there's also all the energy that is needed to turn the natural gas into hydrogen. But hey, it's all in the green marketing, ya?
      Neil Blanchard
      • 2 Years Ago
      Fracking for gas ADDS a lot more carbon to total; not only from the materials used and the direct added energy -- but also from all the leaked methane out of the ground that is released by the fracking but not collected by the well. Then there is the energy used to steam reform the natural gas into hydrogen. There is the transportation of the hydrogen, and the compression of the hydrogen, etc. I'll bet in the end it is not much better than gasoline -- or certainly worse than burning the CNG directly in cars... Neil
      • 2 Years Ago
      @PeterScott As you are continuously and falsely accusing me of making up facts here is the U.S. EPA official website's information about using coal for electricity: "Energy and You" http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/index.html And it still shows a diagram of using 49.61% coal for electricity generation. Also I repeat for you Honda's statement here (which was the point): "Honda - Robert Bienenfeld Senior Manager, Environment and Energy Strategy American Honda Motor Co., Inc.: “Fuel‐ cell electric vehicles are very promising because their well‐to‐wheel CO2 profile is very good, and compare very favorably against battery electric vehicles..., since the US energy grid is so dirty. Even when the US grid is cleaned up, fuel‐cell electric vehicles look quite good.” And that's the point: "...since the US energy grid is so dirty." Now - after your never ending accusations and misinformations - I have no other choice, but to firmly state this: You are just an idiot.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @PeterScott And here's what the World Coal Association website states about coal to electricity generation worldwide, (including the USA and this global site also happens to state a 49% for it) Source: IEA 2010 South Africa 93% Poland 92% PR China 79% Australia 77% Kazakhstan 70% India 69% Israel 63% Czech Rep 60% Morocco 55% Greece 52% USA 49% Germany 46% http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/coal-electricity/ So lots of countries in the world (e.g. a pretty large one as China with 79% coal to electricity) Honda's statement is even more true: "Fuel‐ cell electric vehicles are very promising because their well‐to‐wheel CO2 profile is very good, and compare very favorably against battery electric vehicles..." But arguing with idiots (like you) is just pointless and futile.
          Snowdog
          • 2 Years Ago
          @krisztiant: "ridiculous rantings and deadly biased boring opinions on a blog." Except you are the only ranting here. All we have done is offer the correct and current data from the governement agency tasked to track that information, and in return you dig a bigger hole by continuing to cite out of date sources, while hurling insults and Ad Homeniem attacks.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @All the biased people When will you recognize that your ridiculous nitpicking doesn't make any difference about the point, what e.g. American Honda Motor Co. et al. states: "Honda - Robert Bienenfeld Senior Manager, Environment and Energy Strategy American Honda Motor Co., Inc.: “Fuel‐ cell electric vehicles are very promising because their well‐to‐wheel CO2 profile is very good, and compare very favorably against battery electric vehicles..., since the US energy grid is so dirty. Even when the US grid is cleaned up, fuel‐cell electric vehicles look quite good.” That's what counts and nobody cares about some random enthusiast - with no actual power - ridiculous rantings and deadly biased boring opinions on a blog.
          JakeY
          • 2 Years Ago
          @krisztiant The IEA gets their data from the EIA (see page 110 / PDF page 112 of linked document), so I don't see anything wrong with looking at the EIA source directly for the most updated information: "United States ... Sources of efficiency and emissions data ... The Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the Department of Energy (DOE) is required to publish, and otherwise make available to the public, high-quality statistical data that reflect national electric supply and demand activity as accurately as possible. Data are collected on a unit basis. The EIA collects heat-rate data with the following forms and maintains a database as well as issuing its own reports such as Electric Power Monthly and Electric Power Annual.50" http://www.iea.org/ciab/papers/power_generation_from_coal.pdf The EIA will always have the most up to date and accurate information on the US grid (there is no bias at all because they just collect and report the data). All secondary reports on the US grid mix are based on their data, including the EPA/eGrid link you gave earlier: "The Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) is a comprehensive inventory of environmental attributes of electric power systems....eGRID integrates many different federal data sources on power plants and power companies, from three different federal agencies: EPA, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Emissions data from EPA are carefully integrated with generation data from EIA to produce useful values like pounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) of emissions" http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/faq.html
          PeterScott
          • 2 Years Ago
          As I suspected, instead of accepting correct data, you just keep hurling insults and using old cherry picked data. @"Are you also implying, that the U.S. is the whole world, where BEVs will solely operate?" No, but it was you who claimed: ".. in the U.S. more than half of the electricity is made from coal ..." Which makes the US data the most relevant to your bogus claim. You will really get much farther in life if you learn from your mistakes instead of attacking people who provide the corrections.
          Chris M
          • 2 Years Ago
          PeterScott wrote: "but instead of learning from your mistakes when pointed out, you start tossing out insults and sink into reality denial." Then Krisztiant so very kindly decided to prove him absolutely right, especially on the "tossing out insults" part.
          PeterScott
          • 2 Years Ago
          Nice that you found slightly less old, second hand data to cherry pick. But what is wrong with modern, actual direct government sources? Don't like what they have to say? http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6550 ". In March 2012, coal's share of total generation was 34% compared to natural gas at 30%. " Or you can keep tabs on the Main page that shows this trend is likely to continue. Top story this month: 2012 is going to have record Coal Plant retirements coming this year. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/ "Moreover, based on EIA data, the approximate 9 GW of coal-fired capacity retirements expected to occur in 2012 will likely be the largest one-year amount in the nation's history. " So you could actually realize you were wrong, use the correct info from now on, or you could keep cherry picking old data and hurling pointless insults at people posting the truth. What's it going to be?
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott Are you really a complete idiot Peter? Are you seriously calling the current data on the World Coal Association's  official website a cherry picking? Are you also implying, that the U.S. is the whole world, where BEVs will solely operate? And first of all: Should I care to reply to you wasting my time with this? Answer: no, I shouldn't. Thus, I don't even care your predictably stupid reply, as I just got deadly bored with this mindless debate on exactly nothing. But, If you will, just continue it alone. Have fun!
        PeterScott
        • 2 Years Ago
        Did you read the caption of that Diagram? "Year 2005 data" The basic dishonesty of your continuing to dredge for old inapplicable data is ridiculous. Especially when several people (even some on your "side") have pointed out the grid is now under 40% coal and have supplied you with several links. Exactly who do you think you are fooling? Only yourself. This is just like the Series Hybrid discussion where you made some completely faulty assumptions but instead of learning from your mistakes when pointed out, you start tossing out insults and sink into reality denial.
          Ziv
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          Kris, I would not have called the EIA's documents, "biased retards opinions on a blog", but if that is your opinion you are entitled to keep it. The funny thing is, coals share of our electricity is obviously dropping. How fast it is dropping and how far it will drop is up for debate, the drop is not. But that isn't really the important part of the hash slinging going on. BEV's will prosper or fail on their own merits, and incentives that will shape those apparent merits, to be honest. How clean electricity is really doesn't matter to most of us, or it matters little. If we can get a Volt for a net price of $30k and a fuel cell car for a net price of $60k, it won't matter how elegant fuel cells could be. It will only matter that we can't afford them.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          @Ziv Check out what the World Coal Association website also states about coal to electricity generation worldwide as well. http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/coal-electricity/ I base my posts on reliable sources not biased retards opinions on a blog. I'm really sorry to say this, but that's the evident case.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          Ahh, Ziv (imitating you) Actually people disagree with all the automakers' statements which I cited word for word. Actually, I lost interest in arguing with hopelessly biased people, who are just praising endlessly BEVs / fighting against FCEVs. This - from an objective point of view - is simply just ridiculous  / incredibly boring and a sheer wasting of time, therefore, I let you proceed in praising endlessly BEVs . Have fun doing so!
          JakeY
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          "It also cannot change, that you are just an idiot, it just can affirm this fairly evident fact." I don't think there should be a place for ad hominem on ABG. Keep in mind there is no prize or punishment for "winning" or "losing" on ABG! Here's another link with 2011 data (coal was down to 42% by then), just to add to Ziv's point: http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states @Ziv I agree that hybrids will be playing a bigger role in the next decade. After all, it had a decade long lead (and is now considered "mainstream", even though sales are still only at around 3% of the market). I think cheaper hybrids like the Prius c will lead the way (although it seems other brands are having a lot of difficulty competing in the market, which doesn't bode well for those auto execs who argue for a "wait and see" approach to plug-ins). I would be happy if in 2020 plug-ins are at the same position hybrids are today (1 million hybrids sold in the US in the first 9 years); the President and DOE seems to have the same goal. I have no comment on what kind of sales figures to expect for FCVs at least until they start sales (I think pockets of California with a nearby fueling station will obviously be the biggest market, but I don't know how they will expand beyond that and find buyers in other areas; I think the roll out might take even longer than the slow rollout for plug-ins like the Leaf and Volt). I think oil prices and the general state of the economy will also play a big deal. If oil prices are low neither plug-ins nor FCVs will be attractive (even hybrid sales will suffer). The US public seems to have a very short term memory in terms of oil prices. And if the economy is still in the dumps, people will not be willing to pay the premium for a "green" car.
      Marcopolo
      • 2 Years Ago
      Marcopolo, - Upstairs-Ezee Tavern The latest news from the front ! It was a bad day for the FCV forces, the mercurial and often brilliant FCV leader, Krisztiant (Often compared to Rupert of the Rhine) recklessly attacked the coal fields, where he was ambushed and repulsed by the BEV forces lead by Peter Scott. The cause of Kriszant's defeat, seems to have been his dependance on out-of -date maps, and the inability of Cavalry to cope with the terrain. The question of why he decided to pursue the capture of a fairly irrelevant and dying area, when he could have more effectively crushed the disorganized forces besetting the far safer and more valuable natural gas fields, only he can answer ! His retreat was marked by one of the bitterest exchanges of the war to date! No doubt with the wise counsel of LTW, and the steadying influence of the reliable Dave Mart , Krisztiant will cease being petulant, rally, and concentrate of winning the main issues. Meanwhile, nothing has been heard from the far distant crop failures and with winter coming on, Carney and PR are worried that with the last of the government money long since spent, the goat eaten, and the crop failed, should they burn the remaining furniture (along with the ethanol advertizing signage) to stay warm, or wait for a new delivery of government forms ?
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Marcopolo
        Hi Marco, Yes, it was a tiresome day as somehow it became similar to an action movie where the all times protagonists simply fight alone against an entire army, since no one provided me with any common sense help. (I had only the remote support of almost all the major automakers' CEOs - as I cited them word for word - but it wasn't effective, as they simply are not considered relevant on ABG) About this incidental coal thing: as one of the true believer of Battery God tried to use this recent change of coal usage in the U.S. as an ultimate weapon for no one knows what avail, I just simply pointed out that almost every official government / industry website still shows the exact same data what I was referring to. But the main purpose was to point out that it is almost irrelevant to the case what is at hand here (using Robert Bienenfeld Senior Manager, Environment and Energy Strategy American Honda Motor Co., Inc. very clear statement). Especially, as you also see it with an unbiased insight, that some coal electricity generation in the U.S. (so not in China, Australia etc.) was replaced by natural gas, which makes their (i.e. true believers) argument about the 'evil' hydrogen from natural gas - which is one of the the article's actual topics - simply ridiculous, as they claim exactly this: Hydrogen from NG = Evil Electricity from NG = Holy Thus, that's the newest equation, what we have to learn now, if we - for some reason - want to devote ourselves unconditionally to the one and only true and holy God (Battery). Hallelujah.
          PeterScott
          • 2 Years Ago
          Marco at some point it just become cruel to keep encouraging him. He might figure it out someday.
          Marcopolo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @ krisztiant Excellent rally !
        PeterScott
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Marcopolo
        "About this incidental coal thing: as one of the true believer of Battery God tried to use this recent change of coal usage in the U.S. as an ultimate weapon for no one knows what avail" Except of course that isn't what happened at all. It was a simple correction of facts that you massively over-reacted to, revealing yet again, your "debating skills" and true colors. Some sample of that skill and decorum. To Me: "You are just an idiot.", "It also cannot change, that you are just an idiot, it just can affirm this fairly evident fact." About the use of the Governments Energy information page as a source: "I base my posts on reliable sources not biased retards opinions on a blog.
      winc06
      • 2 Years Ago
      It does seem to me that there is no reason to believe that a fuel cell electric vehicle will sell any better than a battery EV. There is every reason to believe that it will be more expensive and price affects sales. Law of supply and demand. The amusing part is that the mighty engines of private enterprise that are so praised for innovation admit that they will not do further development without large infusions of taxpayer money. No doubt they will expect their customers to pay for that development again when they buy the car.
      • 2 Years Ago
      @Spec Here's your request of "cite something".about automakers abandoning battery electrics (just some quick random googling for you to down-vote) "It’s been a rough spell for electric cars, with automakers abandoning sales targets amid tepid demand..." http://junkscience.com/2012/04/12/plug-in-leader-discusses-ups-and-downs-of-americas-e-v-transformation/ "China’s private buyers have shown little appetite for electrics. They are reluctant to try the new technology for the same reasons that demand for battery-powered cars has faltered elsewhere:.. ...all-battery powered cars would enter mass production only late in the decade, closer to 2020" http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/04/23/batteries-dead-on-chinas-electric-vehicle-push-not-so-fast/ "Global EV Demand Stuck At 2%-4%" "Another way of putting this: with plenty of efficiency improvements to be found in the Internal Combustion Engine, automakers will continue to emphasize those technologies, in effect relegating the EV to the niche role..." http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/10/global-ev-demand-stuck-at-2-4-unless/ And you can find thousands of similar articles from different sources by yourself (if you don't skip them as well). Now you can start down-voting the entire Internet. Ready? Alright! 3.. 2.. 1... Down-vote...
        Spec
        • 2 Years Ago
        Of course people vote you down because you post misleading crap. You said "launching fuel cell vehicles and abandoning battery electric ones". And to back it up you post a quote of "abandoning *sales targets*". Yes, sales are weaker than some thought they would be. They are doing a bit better than I would have thought considering the economic conditions and the drop in gasoline prices. But no one that is building electric cars has said they are quitting. You lied and got caught. Don't make stuff up if you don't want to get voted down.
      Nick
      • 2 Years Ago
      Mr Chu's Asian Beaver DOT com :)
      JakeY
      • 2 Years Ago
      Nothing much new in this article, but this part was interesting: "We have an emerging technology where you take natural gas and you burn it in a partial oxygen atmosphere, generate the electricity, capture a lot of the heat energy, and you also get hydrogen and carbon monoxide" So it makes both electricity AND reforms natural gas to hydrogen at the same time. The efficiency compared to a typical combined cycle plant is the most important part though.
        PeterScott
        • 2 Years Ago
        @JakeY
        @krisztiant Perhaps the word "realistic" confused you. Realistic solutions are those that are scalable and economically feasible (at minimum). Research projects are not yet realistic solutions, only a smaller percentage of research ever breaches the gap to become a realistic solution. Right now the only realistic source for Hydrogen production is Natural Gas.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          In case it bypassed your attention I highlight it again: "Sun Catalytix, a Massachusetts-based company founded by Dr Nocera, was awarded a $4m contract by the Department of Energy to commercialise the process." They are already commercializing the process as it is clearly the most efficient / economic way of generating hydrogen in the very near future. Fossils fuels don't last forever, but hydrogen actually does (at least until our universe lasts).  Our nature used this process successfully for millions and billions of years, which even makes life possible on Earth. That is what you should understand already, instead of fighting pointlessly against hydrogen.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @JakeY
        @PeterScott You (in your reply): "Thus as Natural Gas is the only realistic source of Hydrogen..." The answer is a simple no. By artificial photosynthesis - using only the sunlight - we can produce hydrogen from water very efficiently or even hydrocarbon fuels adding CO2 from the atmosphere to the process. Listen: The Economist - "The Difference Engine: The sunbeam solution" "In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama drew special attention to the $122m research programme on artificial photosynthesis that is underway in laboratories across California. “They're developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars,” said the 44th president." "Two different catalysts are required: one to split water into hydrogen and oxygen; another to convert carbon dioxide and hydrogen into hydrocarbons. The various components for doing this will then need to be engineered into a practical bench-top system for demonstrating not only that solar fuel can be made efficiently and economically, but also that the process can be scaled up for commercial application. Current state of technology: ...At present, the JCAP team uses a carpet-like structure of microfibres made of a silicon-based semiconductor similar to those employed in photovoltaic solar panels. But instead of generating electricity, the charge-carriers produced by the semiconductor drive the catalytic process for splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. Special membranes vent the oxygen away, while collecting the hydrogen." ...Platinum is excellent for splitting water into storable hydrogen and oxygen, but it is far too expensive to use on a commercial scale. A more practical substitute has been developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where Daniel Nocera and his colleagues have perfected cheap and durable catalysts based on cobalt and phosphate, and, more recently, on nickel and borate.  Sun Catalytix, a Massachusetts-based company founded by Dr Nocera, was awarded a $4m contract by the Department of Energy to commercialise the process. The company aims to develop solar-fuel stations..." Naturally countless other versions are under development already, which are even more promising than this one. And the final words of the article: "Your correspondent is gratified to see that artificial leaves are sprouting everywhere—and promising to make the world a greener place" http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/02/artificial_photosynthesis Conclusion: you should read a little bit more and post considerably less misinformation this way. Just try it for the benefit of ABG.
        PeterScott
        • 2 Years Ago
        @JakeY
        Agree, that was most interesting part of the article. Don't know why you were voted down for that. Because wtth current SMR methods you could just build a CNG Prius and get similar GHG/Energy use from NG and save a Billions to Trillions on Infrastructure if you wanted to introduce a Natural Gas transporation system. But depending how these combined cycle plants work it would at least make running them on H2 better than just running a CNG Prius which could be done cheaper/easier all around.
          DaveMart
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          The fact that hydrogen, just like electricity, can be produced from a vast number of resources in manifold ways passes you by, doesn't it? Some are more efficient both energetically and economically than others, but the field is always changing. In an effort to make it more renewable, biomass for for gas production is often talked about. Well, pyrolysis with outside heating from solar or nuclear could produce a relatively efficient path to using the biomass, far more so than simply burning it as natural gas. Those many other techniques do not however fit into your meme of comparing hydrogen production from electrolysis unfavourably with electricity for batteries, and so you ignore any complicated real world considerations, as they somewhat highlight the unwisdom of blanket proclamations and dismissals. This is aside from the fact that efficiency cannot be realistically calculated without consideration of what application we are speaking about. You can't practically speaking drive 400 plus miles in a heavy car using batteries. You can using hydrogen.
          PeterScott
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          Ooops cutoff. Thus as Natural Gas is the only realistic source of Hydrogen, a new SMR combined cycle plant may actually make it more economically viable than simply using the CNG. I would even H2 advocates would agree that this is pretty big.
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          @PeterScott No, it's not big. But I posted for you what actually is indeed big [i.e. artificial photosynthesis] Also: being not biased doesn't mean being an H2 advocate. Only extremely biased battery advocates - staying in a distortion field - see the world this way. If you want to understand things a little bit better, then stay clear of your distortion field (it'll help a lot).
          PeterScott
          • 2 Years Ago
          @PeterScott
          "The fact that hydrogen, just like electricity, can be produced from a vast number of resources in manifold ways passes you by, doesn't it?" No. But the only viable source for Hydrogen that goes beyond astroturfing, is Natural Gas.
      Nick
      • 2 Years Ago
      Oh please please not again with this hydrogen nonsense!
        porosavuporo
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Nick
        Hydrogen is actually not a bad fit for fleets of long haul trucks and coach buses etc. For regular small cars, BEV is a much better solution.
          porosavuporo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @porosavuporo
          Can't really do carbon capture in a truck.
          Vlad
          • 2 Years Ago
          @porosavuporo
          ...except we get hydrogen from natural gas. Might as well burn it directly in the engine, technology is here since 80s. Amount of carbon released into the atmosphere will be exactly the same.
      Ziv
      • 2 Years Ago
      Ahh, Kris, now I understand! And calling people who disagree with you 'biased retards' is how you take the high road in this discussion. Now I understand. Jake, I agree with you on hybrids, but I will be curious to see how two competing drivers work to shape the popularity of the five main types of cars we are going to see in the next 10 years, traditional ICE, hybrid ICE, PHEV20-EREV40, BEV's, and fuel cell vehicles. I think that there are two competing drivers pushing for the success or failure of each. Inertia and the classic tipping point event. Inertia supports the traditional ICE, it is successful, cheap and uses less fuel than it did just ten years ago. Inertia also supports the hybrids, they have been out for quite a while and there are now several car makers making them in a wide range of car types. The PHEV20-EREV40 benefits to some extent from the inertia of people choosing cars similar to the ones they have bought before while giving most of the benefit of a BEV with none of the range limitations. But both the BEV and the fuel cell could see a tipping point event which would catapult them into a much larger portion of the market. BEV's if their price drops $5k-$7k in a few years, and fuel cells if they ever get sold at a price under $30k net. I give BEV's a reasonable chance of succeeding in that. Fuel cells, not so much.
      EZEE
      • 2 Years Ago
      :D
      jjmcavoy.law
      • 2 Years Ago
      Type your comment here There is room for all these technologies. One size does not fit all.
    • Load More Comments