"Driving a hydrogen-powered car in 2030 will be a common thing"
The headline is not made up of my own words. Instead, this is what Nabil Kassem, professor at Stockholm's Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) stated in an interview for El Diario Vasco after Kassem gave a lecture on hydrogen technologies in the Universidad de Navarra.
Prof. Kassem stated that fuel cells are the most promising technology for our energy future, a future some call the Hydrogen Society. He not only envisions hydrogen in cars, but believes that fuel cells will have applications in micro power plants, household appliances, and in heating and air conditioning units. On the issue of cost, Kassem said that the moment hydrogen starts being produced on a large scale, it will become cost competitive. How will we obtain it? Kassem referred to a Japanese project that wants to create "oceanic gardens" where solar energy would be used to create electricity and then hydrogen.
When speaking more about cars, Prof. Kassem stated that cheap hydrogen cars won't be available until 2030-2040, because this new technology needs a 50-year span to be developed completely. Nevertheless, he claims, we will be able to buy the first hydrogen cars at reasonable prices by 2015. I hope that they're as good looking as the Pininfarina Sintesi pictured here.
Related:
- eTec builds a hydrogen-fueled Chevy Silverado
- Ballard out of automotive fuel cells, still working on buses
- The latest solution to the hydrogen problem: biodiesel?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Silver 12:20AM (2/29/2008)
There is one thing wrong with a hydrogen powered car...what about cold environments? The water vapor that is produced would freeze up inside the pipes....
Reply
Lad 9:04PM (2/28/2008)
I still think the decision to support H2 car development was invented to deflect government funding from BEVs by the oil and auto companies. And in this White House it was a slam/dunk because it's full of oil people. Also remember the current largest source of Hydrogen is hydrocarbons. A new fuel? No! not when it takes fossil fuels (oil and gas) to produce it. Next time you see that Chevron Human Energy ad on TV, remember these guys are not above lying to you. They profess to developing clean energy when it's business as usual. It nothing more than propaganda from the fossil folks.
Reply
A.Brien 9:37PM (2/28/2008)
Nearly all the analysts predict that hydrogen cars will win on the long run. this guy say 2015 to 2050.. Maybe it's because that technology will
cease a lot of existing jobs and business, engine factory, car maintenance, car parts, oil,goverment
researchers, so on. But it will create lots of new jobs too. If the existing car compagnies do not adopt it soon then i think it will permits new start-up car compagny to appears and in 2015 or before gm, toyota, volkwagen and the rest will have
lost 50% of the markets. Why , because it's a simpler technology and it cost less. Cars will finnally do like microwave and computer, smaller price and better quality. The hydrogen will come from water electrolysis near the device or car and a big infrastructure is not necessary. Peak oil
will be the day that some gadjet appear with inside
hydrogen production from water is made in that gadjet.
Here is an article that split the truth in half because that compagny is tied a little bit with
other cars compagnies and goverments.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=24613
Reply
TX CHL Instructor 9:54PM (2/28/2008)
Hydrogen is the perfect fuel... for people with more money than sense, or who can freely spend other people's money. It is NOT 'green' in any meaningful sense of the word; for starters, is is the most potent ozone-depletion agent ever produced by man, and it is not possible to contain it 100%.
Those of use without money to burn will have to choose greener, more economical, and safer energy sources.
Reply
JDP 2:36AM (2/29/2008)
Things are going to have to change in the hydrogen industry to prevent news stories like this: http://www.examiner.com/a-1216659~Truck_Leaking_Gas_Shuts_Conn__Highway.html
I still think that straight electric drive, using renewable (wind/tidal/hydro/solar etc) power would be the better way to go.
Reply
jake 3:13AM (2/29/2008)
How about using that electricity directly instead of creating hydrogen. Hydrogen only makes sense if there is some direct way to create it directly without going through electricity. It just wastes too much energy in the process. I can see that there is some potential in hydrogen, but the technology so far is far from green and is not any better than electricity. There still needs to be some kind of big breakthrough to drastically bring down costs & create hydrogen cleanly (without wasting energy you can use elsewhere).
Reply
Peekoyle 7:26AM (2/29/2008)
Logically, Hydrogen makes no sense at all.
But when you incorporate the Economy, Governments, Big Oil and Auto Companies and mammoth amounts of cash... commonsense goes right out the window.
There will be no stopping the Great Hydrogen Juggernaut.
Reply
MarkR 8:12AM (2/29/2008)
lets all hop on the H conspiracy wagon why don't we?
Please. I always find it amusing when naysayers bash hydrogen because its inefficient to produce, because, these are the same people that would have me and everyone else drive an electric car that can only make it a couple hundred miles max before it needs a frickin' day to recharge. talk about inefficient. As a person that likes to take vacation road trips, electric tech doesn't cut it. not to mention I'd be screwed if I wanted to make a overnight trip to the hunting lease 200 miles away, 30 miles from the closest town and off grid. Hydrogen has a more realistic chance of viability for longer haul trips and ability to quickly recharge.
and, "Things are going to have to change in the hydrogen industry to prevent news stories like this: [craxh causing leaking hydrogen]."
are you kidding? Hello, refined Petrol is just as violent and more harmful to the environment. thank about it if that were full of 97 octane gas. there would be the need for a hasmat team and an environmental clean up, environmental impact assessment, millions of dollars in damage even without an explosion. With hydrogen, if it doesn't go up in flames what do you get? a bunch of H gas disbursing into the atmosphere, no hasmat clean up, no negative localized environmental impact. and if it blows? you get fire containment, road damage and water vapor as the result. A truck loaded down with bateries and it crashes and burns? you could have an even worse envormental impact than Gasolean.
Reply
Snowdog 8:25AM (2/29/2008)
It is not a conspiracy to say hydrogen production and fuel cell usage is a very inefficient cycle. It clearly is.
Energy is going to become more and more expensive and efficiency more important. Throwing 40% of the energy out the window on the hydrogen conversion cycle is just not going to fly.
Batteries make more sense today, especially in multi car families (the majority) were the electric can be the main commuter and gasoline the long haul trip runner.
In the future some hybrid of Batteries and super caps will most likely have charging time down to minutes.
My take is electrics are ahead now and will remain ahead indefinitely. No conspiracy theories needed.
Reply
Craig 10:40AM (2/29/2008)
Hydrogen Efficiency: I think efficiency is going to be one of the biggest plusses with Hydrogen. We are talking about converting Water to Hydrogen and Water through Electrolysis. There are already mentions in Norway about producing large Electrolysis machines that would create the Hydrogen to fill your car with on-site. So, fuel stations would produce their own Hydrogen to fill their visitors. Add that with Solar Panels, and you have a self-sustainable station that only needs to bring in water.
Reply
jj 10:48AM (2/29/2008)
I agree with Peekoyle.
Any 'expert' that says hydrogen hasn't read Hype About Hydrogen. We just want to go back to the gas-fill-it-up routine because we're so hooked. I dont need a study to tell me hydrogen is a no go because I'd be willing to pay a fifth of gas prices as opposed to 3 times the price of gas prices.
Reply
KarenRei 11:49AM (2/29/2008)
Craig: Efficiency is *the* main problem with hydrogen cars. you get about 35-40% tank to wheel efficiency, and then on top of that, assuming your electricity comes from a thermal power source, you get ~40% efficiency in the power plant, 95% efficiency in transmission, and up to 85% efficiency in electrolysis. Total efficiency, thus, is less than gasoline. EVs are generally at least twice as efficient as hydrogen cars, and usually significantly more efficient than both gas and diesel.
For more detail, read my writeup (with references) here:
http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/greenwiki/Hydrogen_car
MarkR: Yes, the conspiracies are ridiculous. I've sometimes gotten so frustrated with the conspiracy theorists that I've actually been tempted to draw I comic of a person in a tinfoil hat as a carnival barker, standing next to a sign that says, "You must believe in at least this many conspiracies to be accepted as a green."
That said, let's look at your post:
"because, these are the same people that would have me and everyone else drive an electric car that can only make it a couple hundred miles max before it needs a frickin' day to recharge"
1) My Saturn has a 12 gallon tank and gets ~28mpg. That's only 336 miles. "A couple hundred miles" is hardly a big sacrifice.
2) Modern li-ion batteries are perfectly capable of fast charging (5-10 minutes). All that's needed is fast chargers, which are certainly cheaper to build and install than gas pumps and big underground gas tanks. Our grid already has enough power, according to the DOE, for 84% of US cars, trucks, and SUVs to convert to PHEVs. And it's not like it's *harder* to build more electricity infrastructure than it is to build more oil infrastructure.
"not to mention I'd be screwed if I wanted to make a overnight trip to the hunting lease 200 miles away, 30 miles from the closest town and off grid."
There's almost nowhere in the US more than 50 or so miles away from electricity infrastructure. Heck, just *without* rapid chargers or common charging stations, just with our *current* infrastructure, RV parks have split-phase (two 120V cycles) at 30 or 50A (that's a lot of juice!), and rare is the place in the US without an RV park more than 75 or so miles away.
Hydrogen has a more realistic chance of viability for longer haul trips and ability to quickly recharge.
"Hello, refined Petrol is just as violent and more harmful to the environment."
1) It distinctly is not more violent. Check out the above link where I discuss this using references to NASA safety data.
2) While gasoline *leaks* are certainly worse for the environment at the ground (hydrogen is much worse for the ozone layer), ordinary usage of gasoline is better for the environment than hydrogen due to its greater well to wheel efficiency. This means CO2, NOx, sulfur, particulates, etc.
"thank about it if that were full of 97 octane gas. there would be the need for a hasmat team and an environmental clean up"
Um, no. People spill petroleum all the time when working with their lawnmowers. Only massive petroleum spills require a time-consuming cleanup. Of course, spill *that* much hydrogen, and you're at risk for taking out a city as it disperses into a fuel-air mixture ignitable by static (far smaller sparks can ignite hydrogen than gasoline), in addition to doing major ozone damage.
"if it blows? you get fire containment, road damage and water vapor as the result."
You've obviously never worked with hydrogen. Go to youtube and search for hydrogen explosion. Or watch the Mythbusters Hindenburg ep (they couldn't test their experiment normally because as soon as they lit it, it'd explode; they had to slowly pump the hydrogen in) . Just touch a lit taper to a mere party balloon full of the stuff and it'll shake your walls. You're looking at a volume like one ten-thousandth of what you'd have in a car. Hydrogen detonates something fierce.
"A truck loaded down with bateries and it crashes and burns? you could have an even worse envormental impact than Gasolean."
No, you don't. First off, modern automotive batteries don't readily burn, unlike traditional li-ions. Secondly, automotive li-ions aren't very toxic and contain no persistent chemicals or heavy metals. The cathode in traditional (non-automotive) li-ions is toxic in its original form, but when it breaks down to cobalt oxide, it's the same stuff you find in some pottery glazes.
A few electric cars, such as the Tesla, use traditional li-ions. Most new ones, however, use the next gen automotive cells -- phosphates, titanates, spinels, etc. And ultracaps like EEStor's have nothing even remotely toxic in them; they're just a stable ceramic between nickel, stainless steel, or aluminum plates.
Reply
John 12:11PM (2/29/2008)
The key problem is how to produce hydrogen from WATER, not oil. We need to get away from oil as fuel altogether, mainly to get out of that awful middle east area and those terrorists.
Hydrogen is the way to go. All plug in electric vehicles do is create more pollution on the end of utility companies. No benefit to the enviroment.
Reply
Throwback 3:56PM (2/29/2008)
I am not a H2 expert as some on this board appear to be. However from a car lovers perspective, the H2 concepts look light years better than the plug-ins do. The Honda FCX and this concept in particular are very well done. The Aptera maybe more efficient, but is way out there styling wise. I would not under estimate how important styling is to the average car buyer. Car companies want to sell cars, however they may be powered.
Reply
KarenRei 5:26PM (2/29/2008)
"Hydrogen is the way to go. All plug in electric vehicles do is create more pollution on the end of utility companies. No benefit to the enviroment."
Lol. You realize that the energy from electrolysis comes from electricity, too, right? You're just wasting more of it.
"The Honda FCX and this concept in particular are very well done."
I actually love the Aptera's styling, although that could be because I've watched too much sci-fi ;) For some more down to earth styling on affordable EVs, check out the VentureOne and the Mitsubishi i MiEV (both the "Sport" and basic version). For more expensive, there's the Tesla Roadster, the Lightning Car, the Wrightspeed X1, the Fisker Karma, and a bunch of others that look like fairly traditional sports cars of different varieties -- sleek, streamlined, fast.
Of course, there are no unsubsidized affordable fuel cell vehicles, thanks to all that platinum and the very stringent requirements of a PEM. The FCX has a subsidized lease of $500/mo. Fuel cell vehicles need to be reduced in price by a factor of ten to be cost competitive:
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,66111,00.html
Until then, they're just a pie in the sky concept. As the article notes, 40% of the cost of a fuel cell is the catalyst (the platinum), so even if you can nearly eliminate all of the other costs, you've still got a *long* way to go. The cheapest individual fuel cells I've ever seen are about $3k/kW, and even if you pair the cells with ultracapacitors so you don't have to have the cells provide the full power needs at all times, you'll still need at least 5kW or so, so at least $15k in fuel cells alone. $20k+ is more realistic. Then there's all of the *other* components -- the carbon fiber hydrogen tank, the electric motors, the body, and so on. By comparison, EVs are affordable today, unsubsidzed, and will only get cheaper with mass production. The *target* for most fuel cell producers, when producing in bulk, is to get under $1500/kW:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/distgen/equipment/fuel_cells/cost.html
That'd still be ~10k for the fuel cells stack alone. Then there's the cost of the (expensive) hydrogen infrastructure, to fill up with expensive hydrogen (it's expensive and will always be expensive because it's not found raw in nature like petroleum, and because it's a major pain and liability risk to transport and store; neither of these things will change over time.)
Anyways, styling is up to the designer and isn't really locked in to a particular vehicle. Both EVs and hydrogen cars need very good aerodynamics to get good range, they both have some bulk to deal with (batteries versus fuel cells + hydrogen tank; hydrogen cars tend to have more bulk total, but similar weight) but beyond those shared constraints, it's up to the designer.
Personally, I think it's dumb to choose a vehicle that destroys the environment more than a gasoline car, costs more to buy (if they'd even let you do so), has worse performance, is powered by a literal explosive, *and* costs a fortune to fuel. But perhaps that's just me :)
Reply
Doramius 5:33AM (3/02/2008)
I would like to know where people think we're going to get all the space for solar panels, wind stations, and farmland for ethanol production -from? The creation of space for these devices is causing more harm than benefit. Not all places have open desert, and you can't run lines great distances without power loss. It's physics.
On top of that. people tout all electric cars are the best way to go. Brilliant thinking....but where is the power coming from? All electric cars are great, but they are ahead of their time.
What I get razzed about is my view on nuclear energy. "No doubt he works for big oil or the government." I hear thinking from people touting solar, wind, and the like. They are great energy sources, but they still need to be refined. Sure criple the economy and kill off 3/4 of the population by starvation and anarchy because people can't feed themselves or afford to live or travel ANYWHERE.
Nuclear is safe and clean. And the waste is useful. Even certain cancer treatments, and small power sources use nuclear waste. There is still energy in them. As time goes by, we'll be able to research it further and tap tons more out of it. And modern nuclear plants are safe, smaller, require less materials, last longer, have less waste, and provide more output than older larger stations do. Then you can power your happy little electric car. Or if you want power, you can then cheaply run the electrolosis process to create hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell cars.
Hydrogen can also be mixed with gasoline to get 3-4 times the mileage a tank of gasoline alone would get and it requires very little hydrogen to do so. for the combined mixture, you might pay the same amount of money for 3 times as many miles as you would have on a standard tank of gas. Thus reducing the amount of carbon emissions, and using less fuel.
Nuclear is the only thing that can easy energy problems NOW. By the time the other so-called "green" energy technologies are researched "properly" (smooth move with the ethanol and toppling economies around the world), developed and deployed, China will have developed using old fossil fuels, because it is the cheapest energy available. China is a nuclear nation, so if efficient use of nuclear powered energy is used instead to power cars and other devices, you'll seriously save the world from major pollution.
Reply
Rojo 8:11PM (2/29/2008)
There's so much I wanted to spout on this one, but most points have already been covered... Oh and Karen, uhh want to maybe go get a coffee or something sometime? Ha!
Anyway, there are a couple things left to beat on, I think...
Many love to harp on the energy density of batteries but continually mention 'what if' scenarios. First, a HUGE percentage of the population (myself included) would have no issues with a 40 mile range as far as daily commutes are concerned. Personally, I could go 3 or 4 days without a recharge. Second, people seem to think battery technology is as good as it gets, as if the tech isn't advancing by leaps and bounds. By 2030, batteries and capacitors will likely be so advanced (hurray C nano-tube ultra caps?) we'll probably get three times the range of a modern ICE vehicle on a single charge. Also you must consider that the market is already moving in that direction with high battery demand from hybrids alone. This is spurring more R&D day by day specifically for vehicles' needs rather than relying on technology meant for laptops and cell phones.
For those who seem to believe that all power generation is dirty (John), consider that numerous areas get power from greener sources than coal fired plants, mine included (hydro). Even assuming we stayed with coal plants (which we won't), the pollutants will be moved away from densely populated areas while still being insanely more efficient than ICEs at power generation. Hopefully by the 2030-40s, fusion power will be emerging as the go-to method of power generation which will effectively put all of that to bed anyway.
Leave the energy production to the more efficient, much more regulated top-tier rather than generating it at the inefficient end-user a la ICE or PEMs. Then, use the very efficient energy transport systems that are already in-place all over the planet to get that energy to those that need it. Surprise! 99.9999% of those in developed countries that would need to plug in their vehicles can do so *right now*.
Reply
Chris M 10:09AM (3/02/2008)
Ah, predictions are so often wrong. After all, there have been predictions that H2 fuel cell cars would be common "in just a few years" several times since 1965, only to fail due to stubbornly high prices for fuel cells and H2 storage and H2 fuel. It would take several breakthroughs in both fuel cells and H2 storage, not yet seen, to make H2 cars "affordable", let alone "cheap". The cost of storage alone is enough to make H2 cars overpriced, The combination of high storage cost and low efficiency rule out H2 ICE cars.
While it is possible that H2 fuel might someday be cost competitive with petrol and diesel fuel (especially if given a very large tax advantage), it cannot possibly become cost competitive to methane or electricity, as those are the main energy sources for H2 production. The overall efficiency of electrolysis and H2 storage and PEM fuel cells is approx. 24% - compare that to 85% efficiency for charger and batteries. Why throw away so much electricity?
Many affordable "plug-ins" will be sold before 2015, making H2 cars obsolete before they even arrive on the market. We have already seen several breakthroughs in battery technology to improve performance and lower cost, and the construction of "powered EV hiways" would completely eliminate the "short range long drive slow recharge" concerns for EVs.
Reply
zafer ustuner 10:09AM (3/02/2008)
there are too many people here commenting without chemistry knowledge, I can assure you that we can produce hydrogen from water very efficiently by developing our electrolysis methods. I already know a hundred tricks to get it to work better if I am going to use it massively for hydrogen production. please do not compare basic laboratory electrolysis to a fully functional hydrogen factory. there are some chemical compounds that can be added to water to make it faster.(but when you do that it is not green anymore)
the thing I am not convinced is if we use electrolysis, we waste a lot of water. And I mean a lot. By the way, I am not talking about dirty water or sea water. I am talking about clean water a sole H20 compound . because if you don't have clean water, forget about efficient electrolysis. and the amount of clean water is very limited already. we might not be able to find drinking water in 30 years. Unless someone comes up with an efficient method for separating sea water into its elements.
another way of producing hydrogen is up there in the atmosphere but we will need flying stations to collect H ions which is quite non feasable.
Reply
Bill 11:14AM (3/02/2008)
If you're producing hydrogen at home via electrolysis, you are indeed stuck with a room temperature efficiency of at best 50%.
Otherwise, how do you store and transport it?
The only practical solution for a passenger vehicle is compression - and that eats a huge amount of energy (especially if you crank it up to 700 bar)
Again, using the electricity directly in passenger vehicles is much more practical.
Reply