I think PFCV's will be the ultimate config - it's easy to store hydrogen, than build 1 or more powerstations on every corner. It will have the same 40 mile (and up to 100 miles eventually) initial EV range with a hydrogen fuel cell for long trips.
Two ways:I can't figure out if all of these post our being sarcastic are not. How is using electricity to convert water to hydrogen so you can create electricity a better deal than just electricity???
... my hero ...Texas,
Of course, if one were to ship liquid hydrogen, one would use as much as possible of the vented hydrogen as the energy source for the transport.
All your other points are well taken.
Geothermal - Japan is an island situated on the Pacific Ring of Fire.Rant and rave against hydrogen all you want, but Iceland and Japan, which have been historically resource poor, will finally be resource rich island nations.
Ha! Now I know you have lost it. Please explain to your fans exactly how Japan, which now imports most of it's energy, is going to first eliminate all of that imported energy demand, then use extra energy to generate the hydrogen? Where are they going to get the energy? Sun? Wind? Tidal? Nuclear? If they started today with an Apollo like project how long would it take? Please give us the details of your thoughts.
Wow, that is such an obvious solution to the compression issue - 90% sounds good enough to me - forget heavy batteries, here comes lighter than air hydrogen!There is a very efficient process that removes this step, and it is very simple. Do the electrolysis under very high water pressure. The separated gasses are already compressed. Compressed gasses stores energy, aside from the energy of hydrogen itself. The compressed gasses can also be utilized just like in cars running on compresed gas, but after the decompression step, you can use the gasses for the fuel cells. The Dutch were the first to pioneer the approach of doing electrolysis under high pressure and temperature... The overall efficiency if you can recapture the energy of the compressed gasses plus the energy value of hydrogen is nearing 90%, but still not as good as some energy recharged unto batteries.
... and those who continue to follow the old cookbook engineering paradigm will fall to the two groups who exploit their weakness:I don't believe in throwing dice to make decisions or evaluations. The universe we live in has certain constraints. The laws of thermodynamics are irrevocable. Water runs downhill. The mere fact that life exists dictates the fundamental constants and balances of the universe. One can rely on the laws of probabiliities: Ocam's razor, "Murphy's Law". Physical processes have certain limits and implications. Designing a product is a process of making a series of best judgements and cost implications out of a sea of almost infinite possibilities. Design is the process of making these specifications explicit. Yes there will be new discoveries, in some case unexpected, but they will be made by those who have a deep understanding of their work.
... and yet, when we allow only the "knowledgeable" to select our only paths, we end up spending close to $1 trillion to develop the Tokamak, with no results ...... and those who continue to follow the old cookbook engineering paradigm will fall to the two groups who exploit their weakness:
1) visionaries, who can see beyond the "common knowledge"
2) genetic algorithms, which will pursue all options, allowing the solutions that consumers prefer to evolve
The visionaries are still constrained by many things. Cost, physics, to name just two.
Genetic algorithms are very useful in nature. There are, for example, gazillions of insects in the world; permitting RANDOM mutation and selection to change the population is therefore possible, the cost of a single insect with a bad or useless outcome is insignificant. You could implement a genetic algorithm in a computer, where the cost of each calculation is very low (because memory and computes are very, very cheap).
Government and industry can't work like that with energy projects. The cost of a blind alley is significant and we avoid it by focussing on the likely and finding ways to rule out the unlikely.
If a technology requires high capital cost, several significant breakthroughs or even just one "breakthrough" that's really a stop at the wall of physics, it's best to consider the alternatives.
... so we should allow all paths to proceed without interference, as each will innovate to increase their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses. You only have to look at the automotive industry in general to see how multiple solutions, which optimize different aspects, find their niche markets.Jason,
What you say is true, but this is only a part of the picture. Let me give you a quote and mantra from the leader of one of the most innovative and visionary companies, ever, Andy Grove, CEO, president and chairman of Intel, "The devil is in the details." Yes, vision will lead to new paradigms and breakthroughs. But, the vision will be unfulfilled, and litter the dustbin of history, if it doesn’t comply with the inexorable contraints of reality. The details that that will make or break it.
Where is your "evidence of fact" that fuel cells cost $150,000? Honda and Toyota are moving forward with their FCV's, so I doubt fuel cells are anywhere near that expensive.The efficiency in using PV to directly charge batteries is 2 to 3 times greater than any sunlight to hydrogen process. Once you get hydrogen, you have to use electricity to compress it. Then you put it into a fuel cells which are very expensive, typically 100 times more expensive per kW output than conventional internal combustion engines. The fuel cell then has an efficiency of 60% and only works above -20F (i.e. southern states). The losses in generating and using (high pressure) hydrogen make it an expensive alternative to the grid/16 kWhr battery. Those are the facts.
Your information is out of date, which is exactly why all tech should be allowed to move forward.Electric is the future. All this talk of hydrogen is a lot of hot air. I was a beliver in hydrogen for awhile, but when you research it, you find it is just not viable. The cost of transportation, splitting, storage, infrastructure, and so on is not needed. When you can simply plug a car in, you got every other tech beat.
EEstor is developing a capacitor, not a battery.Regarding the batteries this Jason guy mentions. Better check on eEstor. They have made a battery that takes all of 3 mins to charge, and it will be coupled with a car from ZENN motors. It will be a major challenge to Volt and other electric vechiles. Of course a battery that can be charged in 3 mins takes a lot of amps, and household electric services will have to be upgraded.
ZPM has licensed MDI's (Tata) tech for an Air Car in the US.The car that TaTa motors in India is coming out with beats hydrogen also. It runs on compressed air, and will be avaible even sooner than the Volt.
The two configs which will eventually win out will be PFCV and rapid recharge BEV. Compressed air and ethanol will end up being the low cost vehicles for the poor, while PFCV and rapid recharge BEV will be the high performance vehicles for the wealthy.Tom,
20X Cost factor, per kW, that's why I think we should look also at H2 ICEs. Ford already has the engine and so does BMW.
Old articles: http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=18794
To me, the only real way to move to all electric is to transition, as I stated above, from gasoline to hydrogen to ? to full electric, depending on the advancements in battery tech.
I think GM has a good stop gap with the Volt, but Ford and Honda may have the jump on the Hydrogen front, but GM is still my pick because they are not far behind on Hydrogen.
It must kill you to see all the pieces coming together for hydrogen. Small, high pressure tanks, cheap fuel cell stacks, EV systems and components cost reduced in REEV's, so that fuel cells and hydrogen tanks can swap right in later.Is that just the cost of the tank or all of the systems needed:
Do realize those tanks are over 4 inches thick of extremely expensive carbon fiber, have limited life and will probably need to be water tested every 5 years? That's what the DOD currently requires for high pressure tanks that travel on the road. Only $64 for 16 kWh? Bull$%^&. YOU ARE DREAMING... PLEASE WAKE UP.