Hydrogen fuel-cell technology, it's still a California thing. At least, it is according to the US Department of Energy.

The DOE has announced the details of its latest round of funding for technology dedicated to advancing hydrogen fuel cell vehicle development, and almost all of the recipients were from the Golden State. The largest of the six projects that are slated to receive a combined $7 million in funding is from Pasadena-based Materia, which is getting $2 million to cut the cost of compressed hydrogen storage systems. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories and San Francisco-based Ardica are each receiving $1.2 million for their planned hydrogen storage system improvements, while $1 million will be doled out to Malibu-based HRL Laboratories. The DOE says such projects are "critical to the widespread commercialization of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies."

California continues to be a veritable Ground Zero for US hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle advancement. Earlier this month, the first group of Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell vehicles were shipped into the Port of Los Angeles. And this spring, Cal State Los Angeles received a new hydrogen refueling station. Only one of the country's 11 publicly accessible hydrogen refueling stations is outside of California. And the California Energy Commission recently awarded a $27.6-million grant to FirstElement Fuel Inc. to build a network of 19 hydrogen stations throughout the state. Perhaps one day, these new storage advances will come in handy. Check out the DOE's press release below.
Show full PR text
Energy Department Awards $7 Million to Advance Hydrogen Storage Systems
May 19, 2014

The Energy Department today announced $7 million for six projects to develop lightweight, compact, and inexpensive advanced hydrogen storage systems that will enable longer driving ranges and help make fuel cell systems competitive for different platforms and sizes of vehicles. These advances in hydrogen storage will be critical to the widespread commercialization of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.

Materia of Pasadena, California will receive $2 million to reduce the cost of compressed hydrogen storage systems. The project will demonstrate a novel resin system that reduces the use of expensive carbon fiber composites for high pressure storage tanks.

PPG Industries of Greensboro, North Carolina will receive $1.2 million to demonstrate a novel high strength glass fiber that is stronger than the carbon fibers used today at half of the cost.

Sandia National Laboratories of Livermore, California will receive $1.2 million to systematically screen low cost alternative materials for use in hydrogen storage systems.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory of Livermore, California, will receive $1.2 million to develop a reversible, high-capacity storage material that can bond to and release hydrogen in a vehicle, reducing the amount of hydrogen that needs to be pumped in the tank.

Ardica of San Francisco, California will receive $1.2 million to transition and scale-up a low-cost production process for the production of aluminum hydride, a potential high-capacity hydrogen storage material.

HRL Laboratories of Malibu, California will receive $1 million to develop high capacity reversible hydrogen storage materials that have properties needed for practical hydrogen storage applications.

Learn how fuel cell technology generates clean electricity from hydrogen to power our buildings and transportation in this Energy 101: Fuel Cell Technology video. The video illustrates the fundamentals of fuel cell technology and its potential to supply our homes, offices, industries, and vehicles with sustainable, reliable energy.

Learn more about the Energy Department's broader efforts to develop affordable, efficient fuel cell and hydrogen technologies on EERE's Hydrogen and Fuel Cells page.


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
  • 42 Comments
      CoolWaters
      • 1 Year Ago
      DOE can waste money. The Volt technology killed any need for hydrogen.
      Marco Polo
      • 1 Year Ago
      For those who see EV's as a vindication of their hatred of oil companies, or a symbol of social revolution, I suppose it's only natural for those folk to get so upset with HFCV technology. But for less emotional and more practical environmentalists, HFCV technology has some very attractive advantages. 1) HFCV technology can potentially power heavy transport 2) Long range travel. 3) Familiar operation 4) Fast refuelling 5) No economic disruption (in fact, massive employment creation) 6) Zero emission vehicles. (leaving the long tail pipe argument aside) 7) Global distribution. 8) Much wider acceptance. (same as exiting vehicles) 9) commercially viable These are very compelling reasons why this technology is attractive to both governments, and the automotive industry. Mass production can reduce the cost of FCV production, (alternatives to platinum are already in development), and the cost of operating an HFCV should be about 1/3 the cost of a gasoline/ diesel vehicle. The argument that the world would be better off with EV's, is true..., but ignores the reality that EV sales are largely restricted to niche applications for passenger vehicles in affluent markets with significant government incentives, and 2 wheel vehicles. Without a significant 'breakthrough' in EV ESD capacity, there is no potential to expand beyond those markets. As Dave posted, "Both technologies are a work in progress". That's very true, and apart from those with an ideological bias, we should be grateful for as many technologies that remove gasoline/diesel/bunker oil pollution from the atmosphere as possible.
        Joeviocoe
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        PHEVs blow away that entire list.... leaving no room for FCV to gain market share past a few fleet niches. Everything Tony said is accurate. FCVs can only meet that list, if the Infrastructure were to be built immediately. But it cannot. And there will be no demand for FCVs until the infrastructure is in place... because no potential buyer will agree that your list represents present reality.
        Joeviocoe
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        PHEVs blow away that entire list.... leaving no room for FCV to gain market share past a few fleet niches. Everything Tony said is accurate. FCVs can only meet that list, if the Infrastructure were to be built immediately. But it cannot. And there will be no demand for FCVs until the infrastructure is in place... because no potential buyer will agree that your list represents present reality.
        Joeviocoe
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        --"EV's are basically limited to passenger cars, and two-wheel vehicles in affluent urban situations." There you go again... comparing Hydrogen's "future, someday, if H2 stations are everywhere Potential" with a very narrow minded, short sighted "yesterday's" view of BEVs. EVs have ALREADY moved beyond "affluent urban situations"... well into the suburbs and middle class. Yet, FCVs have not even moved beyond automaker selected folks with demonstration leases in Los Angeles.
        Jon
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        "but ignores the reality that EV sales are largely restricted to niche applications for passenger vehicles in affluent markets with significant government incentives, and 2 wheel vehicles. Without a significant 'breakthrough' in EV ESD capacity, there is no potential to expand beyond those markets." BEV's are currently only in affluent markets while HFCEV's are.. nowhere to be seen. This argument you present is tired and simply false. No break through is needed to bring widescale EV adoption. Economies of scale and steady improvement are already making it a reality. HFCEV's are still a lease only science project. The only thing holding EV's back is the lack of the established automakers to embrace a disruptive technology. Apart from government incentive they have no real reason to deviate from the established tech that people are still more than willing to buy. HFC are an interesting research project and may have usefulness in some sectors (grid storage, spaceflight, aircraft, heavy trucking) but they simply make no sense for passenger vehicles. The *only* substantive advantage they have over BEVs is recharge time. That alone is not worth the disadvantages. When the average BEV driver will only visit a charging station a few times per year. Batteries are quickly catching up in recharge time anyway.
        Joeviocoe
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        --"EV's are basically limited to passenger cars, and two-wheel vehicles in affluent urban situations." There you go again... comparing Hydrogen's "future, someday, if H2 stations are everywhere Potential" with a very narrow minded, short sighted "yesterday's" view of BEVs. EVs have ALREADY moved beyond "affluent urban situations"... well into the suburbs and middle class. Yet, FCVs have not even moved beyond automaker selected folks with demonstration leases in Los Angeles.
        Jon
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        "but ignores the reality that EV sales are largely restricted to niche applications for passenger vehicles in affluent markets with significant government incentives, and 2 wheel vehicles. Without a significant 'breakthrough' in EV ESD capacity, there is no potential to expand beyond those markets." BEV's are currently only in affluent markets while HFCEV's are.. nowhere to be seen. This argument you present is tired and simply false. No break through is needed to bring widescale EV adoption. Economies of scale and steady improvement are already making it a reality. HFCEV's are still a lease only science project. The only thing holding EV's back is the lack of the established automakers to embrace a disruptive technology. Apart from government incentive they have no real reason to deviate from the established tech that people are still more than willing to buy. HFC are an interesting research project and may have usefulness in some sectors (grid storage, spaceflight, aircraft, heavy trucking) but they simply make no sense for passenger vehicles. The *only* substantive advantage they have over BEVs is recharge time. That alone is not worth the disadvantages. When the average BEV driver will only visit a charging station a few times per year. Batteries are quickly catching up in recharge time anyway.
        Tony Belding
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Marco Polo
        I must dispute your assertions, sir! Under "advantages" of HFCV, you listed: "2. Long range travel." However, until a fabulously expensive hydrogen fueling infrastructure is built, this supposed advantage does not exist. Meanwhile, BEVs can travel across the country now with only minor inconveniences. "3. Familiar operation." That's actually a disadvantage when compared with the less familiar but more convenient operation of BEVs which can charge at home and begin every day with full range. "4. Fast refuelling." Yes... And yet, that is more than countered -- for most people, who don't drive very long distances regularly -- by the benefits of BEV home charging. "5. No economic disruption (in fact, massive employment creation)." Err... I'm not sure I even understand this. Anything that requires massive employment creation must, logically, be very costly and inefficient. This reminds me of the myth about hurricanes and earthquakes being good for the economy because of the construction boom that follows! "8. Much wider acceptance. (same as existing vehicles)" HFCVs haven't been widely accepted by anyone yet, and I have no idea why you'd expect them to be. Compared with gas cars, they only offer restrictions and high cost. Why do you expect the general public to buy into that? "9. Commercially viable." This also remains to be seen. But even if they are theoretically or technically viable, that's not going to matter if nobody wants to buy them. I just don't see how you sell this. What is the selling point? "...but ignores the reality that EV sales are largely restricted to niche applications for passenger vehicles in affluent markets with significant government incentives..." Well, I don't believe that is reality at all! Right now cost is the only big hangup, and the cost of BEVs can be brought down through iterative cost reduction and economies of scale (just as happened decades ago with the ICE). If BEVs are too expensive, then I don't see any possible way to argue for HFCVs as an alternative, since they will require exactly the same kind of cost reduction efforts to ever become affordable.
        Joeviocoe
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        PHEVs blow away that entire list.... leaving no room for FCV to gain market share past a few fleet niches. Everything Tony said is accurate. FCVs can only meet that list, if the Infrastructure were to be built immediately. But it cannot. And there will be no demand for FCVs until the infrastructure is in place... because no potential buyer will agree that your list represents present reality.
        Jon
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        "but ignores the reality that EV sales are largely restricted to niche applications for passenger vehicles in affluent markets with significant government incentives, and 2 wheel vehicles. Without a significant 'breakthrough' in EV ESD capacity, there is no potential to expand beyond those markets." BEV's are currently only in affluent markets while HFCEV's are.. nowhere to be seen. This argument you present is tired and simply false. No break through is needed to bring widescale EV adoption. Economies of scale and steady improvement are already making it a reality. HFCEV's are still a lease only science project. The only thing holding EV's back is the lack of the established automakers to embrace a disruptive technology. Apart from government incentive they have no real reason to deviate from the established tech that people are still more than willing to buy. HFC are an interesting research project and may have usefulness in some sectors (grid storage, spaceflight, aircraft, heavy trucking) but they simply make no sense for passenger vehicles. The *only* substantive advantage they have over BEVs is recharge time. That alone is not worth the disadvantages. When the average BEV driver will only visit a charging station a few times per year. Batteries are quickly catching up in recharge time anyway.
        Joeviocoe
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Marco Polo
        --"EV's are basically limited to passenger cars, and two-wheel vehicles in affluent urban situations." There you go again... comparing Hydrogen's "future, someday, if H2 stations are everywhere Potential" with a very narrow minded, short sighted "yesterday's" view of BEVs. EVs have ALREADY moved beyond "affluent urban situations"... well into the suburbs and middle class. Yet, FCVs have not even moved beyond automaker selected folks with demonstration leases in Los Angeles.
      Hal
      • 1 Year Ago
      More taxpayer money gifted to the oil industry.
        lad
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Hal
        Hal, you got it. It's the way politicians pay off Big Oil and subside the auto industry. Hydrogen is made from oil and natural gas and is delivered by oil companies; Gorr is again all wet with the idea of using electrolysis for hydrogen. The process is way too expensive and is too slow to produce hydrogen for a mass market. Fuel cell research was introduced as a red herring by the Washington politicians for the benefit of the oil companies as a way to divert attention from the success of Battery Electric Cars and to continue the campaign money flow from Big Oil to electable politicians. Simple...compressing hydrogen to high pressures then filling car cylinders with it, is creating highway bombs waiting for a reason and place to explode.
        lad
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Hal
        Hal, you got it. It's the way politicians pay off Big Oil and subside the auto industry. Hydrogen is made from oil and natural gas and is delivered by oil companies; Gorr is again all wet with the idea of using electrolysis for hydrogen. The process is way too expensive and is too slow to produce hydrogen for a mass market. Fuel cell research was introduced as a red herring by the Washington politicians for the benefit of the oil companies as a way to divert attention from the success of Battery Electric Cars and to continue the campaign money flow from Big Oil to electable politicians. Simple...compressing hydrogen to high pressures then filling car cylinders with it, is creating highway bombs waiting for a reason and place to explode
        lad
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Hal
        Hal, you got it. It's the way politicians pay off Big Oil and subside the auto industry. Hydrogen is made from oil and natural gas and is delivered by oil companies; Gorr is again all wet with the idea of using electrolysis for hydrogen. The process is way too expensive and is too slow to produce hydrogen for a mass market. Fuel cell research was introduced as a red herring by the Washington politicians for the benefit of the oil companies as a way to divert attention from the success of Battery Electric Cars and to continue the campaign money flow from Big Oil to electable politicians. Simple...compressing hydrogen to high pressures then filling car cylinders with it, is creating highway bombs waiting for a reason and place to explode
      goodoldgorr
      • 1 Year Ago
      Ahhh, hydrogen will be there for the forseeable future. This is the thing that can capture the output of solar panels and windmills more efficiently then the grid because solar and wind are intermittent and unpredictable so you need to tap the energy and store it immediately. actually solar and windmills are useless without hydrogen electrolysis. There is freaks that said to use batteries to store excess energy, this is impossible and costly, hydrogen on the other hand is cheap to store and have more value because it is mobile replacing costly and very polluting gasoline/diesel. It's been since 1973 that we need it badly and it's about to happen. This site is miserable because at greencarcongress the majority is enthusiasm about hydrogen. A hydrogen fuelcell car is hybrid by definition and it don't need extra components to be hybrid, sure bev are also hybrid but it cost more then fuelcell, it's heavy and still recharge in a long time. Fuelcell naysayer will be surprised by the future wide acceptance of fuelcell cars and it's not big oil fat that want to promote hydrogen, on the contrary they hate hydrogen competition and they pay directly bloggers and some scientists to oppose hydrogen, this is known data. People will adopt hydrogen immediately because mainly of long range, no pollution and most of all quick refueling without the hassle of finding a fast charger and wait 40 minutes. The overall cost will be cheaper then gasoline and the durability is almost infinite and they are not affected by cold or heat like teslas and leafs. It's already a world wide success. The price of gasoline will decline because of hydrogen and we can't say that with batteries that are here since 5 years approx. because they didn't catch at all.
        goodoldgorr
        • 1 Year Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        It's big oil capital done to politicians and scientists that retarded hydrogen. Politicians had given billions of subsidies to promote batteries everywhere to independent labs, car manufacturers, battery companies, universities, etc. All that resulted in 10 years of misery. Now it's time to fight big oil (exxon, chevron, gestapo, chavez, Saudi-Arabia, Canada, cnbc news, half the corporation of the world, 100% of the investment banks of the world where the petro dollars transit and are invested, wall street dealers, u.s army, scientist of the world, greenpeace, arms business, meteo news stations., nascar, ford )
          james
          • 1 Year Ago
          @goodoldgorr
          What you just wrote is basically inintelligible. Anyone who has looked at the facts with 1/2 a brain knows that Hydrogen is simply a bait a switch by the Fossil Fool industry to try and get consumes to not replace their ICE with a battery based EV and instead wait for this mythical unicorn Fool Cell car because they told you it was going to be the Next Big Thing. It is also the fallback position of Fossil Fool companies because they will control the production of Hydrogen (which will be made from Fossil Fools) so everyone will still be dependant on them and they will make huge profits. In fact, Hydrogen will never be viable unless and until it can be made cheaply without pollution from H2O and only if the Cells can also be made cheaply and last a long time. Then there is the fact that a new and very extensive/costly infrastructure for delivering/refueling will have built and paid for. No thanks, I prefer to control my own fuel source through Solar PV.
          james
          • 1 Year Ago
          @goodoldgorr
          What you just wrote is basically inintelligible. Anyone who has looked at the facts with 1/2 a brain knows that Hydrogen is simply a bait a switch by the Fossil Fool industry to try and get consumes to not replace their ICE with a battery based EV and instead wait for this mythical unicorn Fool Cell car because they told you it was going to be the Next Big Thing. It is also the fallback position of Fossil Fool companies because they will control the production of Hydrogen (which will be made from Fossil Fools) so everyone will still be dependant on them and they will make huge profits. In fact, Hydrogen will never be viable unless and until it can be made cheaply without pollution from H2O and only if the Cells can also be made cheaply and last a long time. Then there is the fact that a new and very extensive/costly infrastructure for delivering/refueling will have built and paid for. No thanks, I prefer to control my own fuel source through Solar PV.
          james
          • 1 Year Ago
          @goodoldgorr
          What you just wrote is basically inintelligible. Anyone who has looked at the facts with 1/2 a brain knows that Hydrogen is simply a bait a switch by the Fossil Fool industry to try and get consumes to not replace their ICE with a battery based EV and instead wait for this mythical unicorn Fool Cell car because they told you it was going to be the Next Big Thing. It is also the fallback position of Fossil Fool companies because they will control the production of Hydrogen (which will be made from Fossil Fools) so everyone will still be dependant on them and they will make huge profits. In fact, Hydrogen will never be viable unless and until it can be made cheaply without pollution from H2O and only if the Cells can also be made cheaply and last a long time. Then there is the fact that a new and very extensive/costly infrastructure for delivering/refueling will have built and paid for. No thanks, I prefer to control my own fuel source through Solar PV.
          james
          • 1 Year Ago
          @goodoldgorr
          What you just wrote is basically inintelligible. Anyone who has looked at the facts with 1/2 a brain knows that Hydrogen is simply a bait a switch by the Fossil Fool industry to try and get consumes to not replace their ICE with a battery based EV and instead wait for this mythical unicorn Fool Cell car because they told you it was going to be the Next Big Thing. It is also the fallback position of Fossil Fool companies because they will control the production of Hydrogen (which will be made from Fossil Fools) so everyone will still be dependant on them and they will make huge profits. In fact, Hydrogen will never be viable unless and until it can be made cheaply without pollution from H2O and only if the Cells can also be made cheaply and last a long time. Then there is the fact that a new and very extensive/costly infrastructure for delivering/refueling will have built and paid for. No thanks, I prefer to control my own fuel source through Solar PV.
        Grendal
        • 1 Year Ago
        @goodoldgorr
        There has to be compelling reasons to make the switch to hydrogen. What are those reasons? You point out the fueling is similar to gasoline. Is the price better? Does it have advantages that make it more desirable than just buying gasoline? If people are going to convert away from their gas car they have to have a reason to do so. I'm not against it, but I'm just not seeing where it is the better choice over what people already have.
          Dave
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Grendal
          Current technology puts mass produced fuel cell system cost a ~$50 per kw, but, in order to be competitive with a Prius (for example) it needs to be at ~$25 per kw. And platinum loading needs to drop from ~.2 grams per kw to ~.02 grams per kw. Toyota, Honda, GM, Hyundai, Mercedes, and others believe that these goals are achievable. And, of course, sustainable hydrogen production is necessary. I personally believe that fourth generation nuclear plants will eventually produce the lion's share of hydrogen, but currently, the most cost effective renewable hydrogen source is biomass: http://www.istc.illinois.edu/about/SustainabilitySeminar20131024.cfm BEV fanboys like Joevicoe pretend that current BEVs are cost competitive, and that electricity is produced from unicorn farts, and that lining the streets of the world with chargers is a reasonable proposition. FCEV fanboys like gorr pretend that current FCEVs are cost competitive and that hydrogen is produced from unicorn farts. The truth is that they are both works in progress. And we will need them both more and more as China and India consume more and more of the world's supply of petroleum. The fact that these technologies are not ready to compete head-to-head with today's relatively cheap petroleum doesn't mean that they never will.
          gpmp
          • 11 Months Ago
          @Grendal
          What Grendal is not saying here is that everything about electric cars will be different in 10 to 15 years (price, charging speed, range per charge, charging options, variety of models, etc.), and that there won't be a point in time where the average buyer will see HFCVs as more compelling than EVs. He's being too polite by half, but that's his style.
          Grendal
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Grendal
          So don't expect any compelling vehicles anytime too soon. I can live with that. It took the advent of lithium ion batteries before battery technology became somewhat compelling. Prior to that, BEVs where an uninteresting alternative to gas and diesel engines. They are still an expensive alternative but the advantages to certain buyers give them a market to sell to. Thanks for your answers. So 10 to 15 years and we will see something that will start to pull people away from gas and diesel in a meaningful way. Nice. I look forward to seeing what happens.
          Dave
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Grendal
          "There has to be compelling reasons to make the switch to hydrogen." The cost of petroleum and ICE cars is going up. The cost of hydrogen and fuel cell cars is going down. When they cross (probably in the early to mid 2020s) there will be compelling economic reason to switch. In the meantime, the OEMs will take a loss on whatever compliance cars are necessary to satisfy CARB. The USA, Japan, Korea, and Europe have good reasons to avoid dependence on Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, Iran, and Saudi Arabia for oil. Biomass and nuclear will eventually free us from that burden. That is why our governments are pushing this as well as BEVs.
          Grendal
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Grendal
          I understand Dave. I also appreciate your information and informing me of the possibilities. The points I made are what are plaguing me about HFCVs right now. With the Model S you have a number of compelling advantages that drive demand for the car. Some of those are environmental but most are just the fact that is a compelling car. You and LTAW have convinced me to not be against the fuel cell technology, so I am not. That said I am still trying to look at this from a consumers standpoint. Why make the switch other than environmental reasons? Will it be better than a gas car? If so, when? Will there be HFCV racing?
          Joeviocoe
          • 11 Months Ago
          @Grendal
          Dave, how's your monumental strawman doing? Nobody is suggesting that we could or should " line the streets of the world with chargers". That is your friend, C.E. Thomas talking. And his Hydrogen Shilling has been debunked dozens of times before.
          gpmp
          • 11 Months Ago
          @Grendal
          What Grendal is not saying here is that everything about electric cars will different in those 10 to 15 years. Price, charging speed, range per charge, variety of models, etc., and that he doesn't expect HFC vehicles to ever be more compelling than electric vehicles to your average buyer. He's being too polite by half, but that's his style.
      james
      • 1 Year Ago
      What you just wrote is basically inintelligible. Anyone who has looked at the facts with 1/2 a brain knows that Hydrogen is simply a bait a switch by the Fossil Fool industry to try and get consumes to not replace their ICE with a battery based EV and instead wait for this mythical unicorn Fool Cell car because they told you it was going to be the Next Big Thing. It is also the fallback position of Fossil Fool companies because they will control the production of Hydrogen (which will be made from Fossil Fools) so everyone will still be dependant on them and they will make huge profits. In fact, Hydrogen will never be viable unless and until it can be made cheaply without pollution from H2O and only if the Cells can also be made cheaply and last a long time. Then there is the fact that a new and very extensive/costly infrastructure for delivering/refueling will have built and paid for. No thanks, I prefer to control my own fuel source through Solar PV.
        • 11 Months Ago
        @james
        James, take a look at what the http://www.hydrogenhouseproject.org is doing.
      Letstakeawalk
      • 1 Year Ago
      Wow... $7 million. That's like, the cost of a decent beach house and a pretty nice boat. Keep making it rain, DoE.
      lad
      • 1 Year Ago
      Hal: You got it. It's the way politicians pay off Big Oil and subside the auto industry. Hydrogen is made from oil and natural gas and is delivered by oil companies; Gorr is wrong with the idea of using electrolysis for hydrogen. The process is way too expensive and is too slow to produce hydrogen for a mass market. Fuel cell research was introduced as a red herring by the Washington politicians for the benefit of the oil companies as a way to divert attention from the success of Battery Electric Cars and to continue the campaign money flow from Big Oil to electable politicians. Simple...compressing hydrogen to high pressures then filling car cylinders with it, is creating highway bombs waiting for a reason and place to explode
        Jon
        • 1 Year Ago
        @lad
        Everything in your post was accurate until the last paragraph. While HFCEV are not practical for many reasons, danger of explosion is not one of them. Saying HFCEV's will explode is akin to saying BEV's will catch fire. Any time you pack enough energy into a vehicle to make it travel hundreds of miles there is a potential for a violent release of that energy. Design the vehicle correctly and you can mitigate the risk. HFCEV and BEVs are both likely safer than conventional vehicles.
          brotherkenny4
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Jon
          Perhaps engineering can make hydrogen safe, but I think the point is that hydrogen has the widest range of concentration in air that can be ignited and explode. That is simply a fact of physics that cannot be changed. So indeed, if you pack enough energy into a car to make it drive a long distance, you have the chance of fires and explosions. In the case of hydrogen, because of the broad fuel/air ratio under which it is explosive, and because it is the fastest diffusing gas in existence, if there is a leak, it is far more probable that it will find an ignition source, and also a higher probability that it will fill the passenger compartment.
      Letstakeawalk
      • 1 Year Ago
      Wow... $7 million. That's like, the cost of a decent beach house and a pretty nice boat. Keep making it rain, DoE.
      CoolWaters
      • 1 Year Ago
      DOE can waste money. The Volt technology killed any need for hydrogen.
      CoolWaters
      • 1 Year Ago
      DOE can waste money. The Volt technology killed any need for hydrogen.
      Letstakeawalk
      • 1 Year Ago
      Wow... $7 million. That's like, the cost of a decent beach house and a pretty nice boat. Keep making it rain, DoE.
      Letstakeawalk
      • 1 Year Ago
      Wow... $7 million. That's like, the cost of a decent beach house and a pretty nice boat. Keep making it rain, DoE.
    • Load More Comments