Blencoe is just buttering his own bread. Since storing electrons in batteries is 4X MORE EFFICIENT than storing them in H2 and H2 is several times MORE expensive than gasoline even when 98% of it comes from reformed natural gas, we need divert money FROM fuel cells and INTO battery research ASAP!

H2 is a loser for general transportation! Hell, it makes MORE sense just to convert our current cars to burn natural gas rather than wasting all that energy converting natural gas to H2 only to use it though tremendously expensive and fragile fuel cells.

H2 is however a good way for greedy corporations to steal tax money from foolish & corrupt pandering politicians who want to look “green” to ignorant & misinformed voters. This is what Blencoe is REALLY all about.

Reply

↓↑report

So, according to Blencoe, it's going to be cheap, non-subsidized, and completely powered by wind.

If they can make that all come true, then I say go for it.

Personally, I think it's going to be expensive, powered largely by fossil-fuels, and won't get anywhere without massive subsidies, but hey, go ahead and prove me wrong, if you can.

Reply

↓↑report

i agree with tim.

in addition, while H2 requires and entirely new infrastructure, most people could use their current infrastructure (a plug in the garage) with battery electric (BEV) or plug-in hybrids (PHEV).

also, rapid recharge technology is already available for EV's allowing for extended range.

and while honda MAY have limited quantities of FLEET H2 vehicles available in 2010, almost 2 dozen companies are working on highway speed BEVs and PHEVs for the CONSUMER market in the 2010-12 timeframe, including Mitsubishi, GM, VW, Nissan, Volvo, etc.

Electric cars are the viable future of personal transportation. H2 is science fiction that diverts valuable capital from the BEV and PHEV markets.

Reply

↓↑report

Blencoe's website is pretty amusing. He has all these "Hydrogen Facts" that are all really predictions about the future, based on adding up an incredible number of back-of-the-napkin type estimates.

This must be some new usage of the word "fact" that I have never before encountered. I don't think it has much in common with the traditional meaning of the word.

As Yogi Berra once said, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future".

Reply

↓↑report

I know the plug-in battery advocates will be lining up to trash hydrogen in the comments section. Here is my response in advance:

http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/hydrogen-fact-9-plug-in-battery-advocates-try-to-use-a-misguided-argument-against-hydrogen-to-distract-attention-away-from-the-numerous-problems-with-plug-in-technology/

Let me say that I personally hope that plug-ins work out. They can help us get off of oil. But they have a lot of problems as the link above describes.

I am not against plug-in technology, but it is important to be realistic about it. There is a reason Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, GM, Daimler, etc. are aggressively pursuing hydrogen fuel cell technology.

And the oil companies are not in favor of hydrogen. There is no conspiracy. GM has been pleading for hydrogen fueling stations to be built, but the oil companies have refused to do it.

I personally am in favor of a company like GE (who does not have a psychological addiction to fossil fuels) replacing the oil companies:

http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2008/05/12/prediction-ge-will-replace-the-oil-companies-as-the-main-provider-of-transportation-fuel-by-becoming-a-force-within-the-hydrogen-industry/

I don't know why the topic of hydrogen cars generates such an instant negative emotional response. But this issue is too important not to have a balanced discussion. It's a shame people can't just agree to disagree instead of having venomous comments tossed around.

Greg Blencoe
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.

Reply

↓↑report

Yes, hydrogen cars would really be the ultimate car for the future...if it weren't for the fact that EVs exist.

Like BlackbirdHighway, I would like to see them try to make it succeed without ANY subsidies. I would personally support them if they can make it happen. Let's start by expanding the network of H2 refueling stations WITHOUT subsidies. I think they will see it's not that easy. The current largest hydrogen network in the US is the California Hydrogen Highway, and that was DEFINITELY subsidized.

The ten "things" aren't even all facts. A lot of it is just projections by industry members from Honda and GM. Anyone can promise the world esp if it's something they are trying to sell: ethanol, biodiesel, PHEVs, BEVs, hydrogen, they all promise that they will work out. It remains to be seen which one will really work out.

Reply

↓↑report

@Greg Blencoe
It would help if there is any indication that hydrogen cars can be made affordably or that clean hydrogen fueling can be made widely avaliable for cheap.

Maybe it's the backlash from the "who killed the electric car" film, but lately I haven't seen hydrogen "fanboys" around, so of course everyone here is definitely biased against hydrogen (b/c it's obvious a lot of us are BEV/PHEV "fanboys").

The hydrogen industry really needs to get the public on it's side. Yes Honda's Clarity will help, but it's still being leased and that's only one car (and so far it's not avaliable yet). This is coming at a time when other technolgies like biodiesel, bioethanol, BEVs, PHEVs etc. are all developing at a rapid pace. It's no wonder this is a competitive time, so don't expect people to be unbiased.

Reply

↓↑report

I have an idea. Let's remove ALL tax subsidies, break up ALL monopolies and let US use FREE market competitive capitalism to decide WHICH energy technologies are BEST FOR US instead of letting politicians decide which is best for their political spin and campaign contributors.

So much for corn ethanol, nuclear and its ugly step sister hydrogen which ALL require massive amounts of socialist tax redistribution to survive. Cellosic ethanol and Electricity via coal, wind, wave, tide, geothermal and solar are ALL currently receiving PRIVATE non-taxpayer capital funding because they will one day SOON be profitable AND sustainable.)

Remove the subsidies and let the NATURAL
market choose the best SELECTION!

Hydrogen like nuclear fusion belongs in space or on fantasy TV.

Beam me up, Scotty.

Reply

↓↑report

I think Tim said it best right here -

"storing electrons in batteries is 4X MORE EFFICIENT than storing them in H2 and H2 is several times MORE expensive than gasoline even when 98% of it comes from reformed natural gas",

and the argument for me ends right there.

The NiMH batteries used in the Toyota RAV4 seem to be going strong 7 years later,,, and let's not forget we've come several generations of battery tech since then.

Batteries can be charged from solar panels / wind turbines effectively for free,,,, there are people doing it already with their EVs,,,, and I think that scares the hell out of a lot of people in the energy biz.

H2 is a nice *product*, in theory, but in practice it's just somebody wanting to sell me fuel.

... however if you can work out how to retrofit gasoline cars *cheaply* to run on H2, then work out how to store it, then work out where to get it from *efficiently*, then work out how to make a fuel cell for less than a million bucks, then sure, go nuts. until then it's science fiction, and divisive and distracting science fiction at that.

Infrastructure?

3-phase electricity supplies are pretty much everywhere, and the DOE has determined that the mass adoption of battery EVs will actually bolster the electricity grid, rather than stress it.

Infrastructure - check. Possibility of *free* fuel from the sun if you so desire - check.

my only question is why these questions are still being asked in this forum?

Reply

↓↑report

"And the oil companies are not in favor of hydrogen."

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=hydrogen-en
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9013382&contentId=7034732
http://media.cleantech.com/2091/exxonmobil-and-partners-to-develop-hydrogen-fuel-system
technologyventures DOT chevron DOT com /commercialize_tech/hydrogen_energy_stations.asp
www DOT total DOT com /static/en/medias/topic1612/Total_2007_hydrogene_fuel_cells.pdf

Come on, we're smarter than that.

"There is no conspiracy. GM has been pleading for hydrogen fueling stations to be built, but the oil companies have refused to do it."

Yeah, they don't want to build stations to *dispense their own product*. Shouldn't that give you just a wee hint as to their confidence in the success of this technology? They have every *interest* in it succeeding, but don't want to sink money in a losing venture any more than GM does.

"I don't know why the topic of hydrogen cars generates such an instant negative emotional response"

If you'd ever actually respond to the efficiency argument, you'd have your answer. That's our main gripe with hydrogen, more than anything else -- it's incredibly wasteful. We also think it's a heck of a lot less likely to succeed and significantly more dangerous, but that's not the main point.

By the way -- shouldn't that be a clue to you as to the likely success of hydrogen technology, that the people you're looking to be early adopters -- green-minded individuals -- generally oppose the technology?

Oh, and for the future -- the next time you want to try to calm plug-in advocates, don't point them to a link full of straw men arguments that we've already extensively debunked on this blog, mmmkay?

How about this: if you *really* believe in your technology, don't just ditch as soon as your arguments are debunked (as you essentially always do around here), don't skip the facts that are inconconvenient to you, and don't make straw men of the other side. How does that sound?

Reply

↓↑report

I no BEV advocate giving batteries a free ride as Glen would suggest. Check my last couple of posts. The battery tech is still not ready for prime-time IMO. I argue that strongly all the time.

But the bottom line was hit by Tim in the first post. The hydrogen cycle is terribly inefficient. Hydrogen was a green poster child until people finally wised up and started actually crunching the numbers, and discovered how poor the efficiency of the cycle is.

We are not just facing petroleum supply issues. We are facing energy supply issues. Issues that are better helped by 80% efficient technologies than 20% efficient ones.


That "Hydrogen Facts" slagging BEVs is a farce.

Do the same comparison with a current hydrogen car:

Drive to grandmas house? Grandma has electricity there are no hydrogen stations anywhere near.

Expensive? Yes an electric supercar (Tesla) cost ~$100000. How much is a slow basic fuel cell car today?

Dirty Electricy? I love how the electricity to create hydrogen will be from clean sources, but electricity to power BEVs will be from dirty sources.

Reply

↓↑report

Why do people get a little acidic when the hydrogen advocates pipe up? Because nobody likes it when somebody tries to put one over on them. I don't know about everybody else around here but the old hydrogen "bait and switch" leaves me wondering where we would be if all of the money and effort put into hydrogen had gone into EVs instead.

Reply

↓↑report

wow greg is getting OWNED however i do like to make a few points myself....

"Expensive? Yes an electric supercar (Tesla) cost ~$100000. How much is a slow basic fuel cell car today?"

a fuel cell focus is almost a million bucks however if mass production would occur maybe the cost will be i dunno 50 grand? Knowing one of the persons who actually worked on the project (he was a welder to modify the car for the new propulsion system ). Either or I still see these cars on the road, however, what they are not telling us is what maintainence is needed and how many miles have been racked. The only proof of long fuel cell miles is some buses i remember reading on Greencarcongress.

Heh subsides someone put their money where their mouth is, hydrogen always had a helping hand to evolve and look where it is... no one is close to owning a h2 vehicle with the exception of the rich ass Honda Clarity drivers. Look how mature battery technology went WITHOUT THE HELP OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING... just imagine if battery was favored first before hydrogen.... we wouldn't have this discussion by now...

I'm still waiting on a link for the highest mileage fuel cell vs highest mileage on a battery (RavEV only comes close at 100k miles )

Pretty much the idea behind H2 is zero emissions right? Well what's wrong with zero emissions from an EV car? People bitch about "OH YOUR JUST MOVING THE POLLUTION TO ANOTHER LOCATION" why the fuck isn't the same argument put towards H2? People think just because hydrogen is an abundant source automatically assumes its so easy to put it in our cars!

Look you can go buy a prius and then slap a 10000 conversion on it (A123 Hymotion comes in mind) and make a small difference (which is what 35 grand after everything?) You let me know when I can get a h2 car for almost the same price although I understand its still not zero emissions but at least my petrolium usage will decrease substantially since I"m a EV MODE abuser on my prius with the stock NIMH battery... imagine if I had one of those suckers on board!!!

I dunno Greg personally I think the oil companies hate the utility companies for stealing a majority of their energy profits when battery technology really matures and the cost comes down....


So Greg you going to link me to the highest mileage fuel cell car? I"m waiting!

Reply

↓↑report

rofl just to add rei owned up greg pretty good in his post at this link http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/greg-blencoe-challenges-t-boone-pickens-to-learn-the-following-ten-things-about-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars/

but those who are lazy i'll copy and paste what he said because it contain details i didn't even know!

[quote]

I don’t know if you censor opposing comments on this site or not, but here goes:

1. “On June 16, 2008, Honda will make the FCX Clarity the first hydrogen fuel cell car in the world to be produced at a fuel cell production facility.”

Yeay. And?

2. “The FCX Clarity passed all the same rigorous tests required by U.S. safety standards that other Honda models have endured. So you can drive the FCX Clarity with confidence.”

I’m looking through 49 CFR 571 right now, and amazingly, I’ve missed where the US has *any* safety checks for hydrogen related accidents. Imagine that! Surely there must be *something* in there for, say, ensuring that any hydrogen leak doesn’t cause pooling under a roof, spark suppression systems for people to install, roofs designed to be blown away without damaging other nearby structures, and all of the normal NASA hydrogen safety guidelines. Right? After all, what would be the point of mentioning that otherwise?

3. “Hydrogen fuel cell cars will cost the same as their gasoline counterparts once they reach a production volume of 1 million units, General Motors Corp.’s head of research said yesterday.”

Mmmhmm. And how exactly are you planning to make the ~100 grams or so of platinum cost less than the current $6k, let alone the cost of all the other components and manufacturing? Oh wait, that’s right, you’re relying on some magical future innovation that’s going to make you need less platinum without reducing power output (and thus increasing system mass, bulk, and price of other components), right?

And since when is “1 million vehicles per year” a good starting point for a new technology, anyways?

4. “As shown in Hydrogen Fact #7, the cost of hydrogen produced today from wind power (without any subsidies) would be less than the equivalent of gasoline at $3.50 per gallon.”

Nice try, quoting numbers on “how cheap wind power is” without bothering to consider that it varies tremendously depending on the wind resource. A few blessed sites have very strong, sustained wind. Most of the wind resource in the world is not like that. Secondly, you cite *peswiki* as a source of information on how efficient electrolysis is? Oh, please. 100% efficient electrolysis requires about 40kWh/kg, but today’s commercially viable systems are 60-70% efficient. That’s over 60kWh/kg, not 50. Your assumption of a 75% capacity factor for electrolysis powered by wind is just plain silly; wind doesn’t have near that capacity factor, so unless you’re using battery banks (which I don’t see any calculations for), that’s right out. In your “refinery” analogy, you ignore how much easier petroleum is to deal with than hydrogen; in fact, despite all the petroleum, hydrogen is probably the single most troublesome component at modern oil refineries. Your pipeline figure relies on “yet to be developed” technology (you seem really dependent on that, I’ve noticed, yet you seem to love to criticize batteries for yet to be developed technology) to halve costs. Nowhere in any of your calculations do you account for leakage. Nowhere in any of your calculations do you account for maintenance costs — only capital costs. That’s a serious “whoops” if I’ve ever seen one.

5. “As shown in the following analysis, wind power could produce enough hydrogen to replace all of the gasoline and still provide 50% of the electricity in the U.S.”

Virtually any kind of power has enough *potential* to provide for all the world’s energy needs orders of magnitude over. The issue is always economics.

6. “The cost of hydrogen from wind power given above included $0.34 per kilogram to cover the entire cost of the monthly payment on a 20-year loan for $2 million which is the current cost of a hydrogen fueling station. Therefore, the cost of hydrogen from wind power would be equivalent to less than $3.50 per gallon of gasoline and would include paying the cost of the entire hydrogen infrastructure.”

Yeah, in an imaginary world where you can build things once and they last forever.

7. “The Toyota FCHV is a mid-size SUV (Highlander Hybrid) powered by a hydrogen fuel cell that gets 80 miles per kilogram of hydrogen and has a driving range of 480 miles.”

No contest.

8. “The Toyota FCHV was driven last September from Fairbanks, Alaska to Vancouver, British Columbia and the vehicle “performed without a glitch for seven days and 2300 miles.” Here is a YouTube video of the trip.”

And Kris Trexler drove his EV1, a vehicle that was *never designed* to be long range, about *3000 miles*, *without a charging infrastructure of any kind*. Your point?

9. “General Motors Corp. said on Friday it is accelerating its hydrogen fuel cell program, shifting work from laboratory to engineering groups that aim to develop the technology for mass production.”

I love how it’s always the positive news for you, but never the negative. Hey, how’s California’s “Hydrogen Highway” going for ya?

10. “Larry Burns from GM gave the following quotes in his inspirational speech on April 2, 2008 at the National Hydrogen Association annual conference”

Wow, really, could you please focus on facts rather than “This exec heavily invested in the technology says this…”?

When will you hydrogen advocates *EVER* address how grossly inefficient electrolysis + fuel cells are, the *fundamental limits* on how high it is even possible to get, how much of a pain hydrogen is to handle (thus imposing fundamental limits on how cheap it could ever become, compared to dirt-cheap electricity), NASA’s safety guidelines for handling hydrogen (since they’ve been doing it for decades), or compare hydrogen fuel cell vehicles with EVs using *modern*, fast-charging batteries?

Comment by Rei | May 29, 2008
[/quote]

ouch... does anyone want to defend Greg? I think he deserves a helping hand LOL, honestly Greg I don't even know what you read or what you saw but CEOs of companies are never the ones making a difference... I believe the difference is made from individuals like the usual scientist or engineer trying to use educated and proven facts to compile something for the world.

It seems to me Greg you've just been told what to believe and had faith in whatever that person is promising for... despite that person's lack of credentials...

Good luck with your company though! I hate to see your investments go to waste because you seem like a good guy with a heart wanting to make a difference.

Reply

↓↑report

Picture that says it all:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png

Reply

↓↑report

He makes a few good points, but I really don't see how driving range relates to the efficiency of storing energy in batteries vs hydrogen. They're completely separate issues, and if you ask me, the range thing is irrelevant when you consider the distance driven in the vast majority of drives. Of much more significance is the overall efficiency of your fleet of millions of vehicles. If you need twice as much or more electricity production with a country full of fuel cell cars as compared to BEVs, that's a serious issue.

Basically he just says that the lower efficiency of hydrogen storage is justified by the low efficiency of gasoline powered vehicles, which is obviously a little odd.

I also don't understand why he's attacking BEVs on the grounds that the electricity is often not very clean, since this also applies to a hydrogen economy.

To be honest, I think hydrogen range extended BEVs are pretty interesting, and might be a good long term solution, but I don't know if the cost will outweigh the benefits as compared to a Volt like vehicle running on a cellulosic ethanol for example.

Anyways, I'm just impressed that there actually are some experts who still back the hydrogen economy. I thought we had all jumped the boat.

Reply

↓↑report

I normally do not comment on this but some of the things that are being said are just silly.

To everyone that thinks EV and battery technology got where it is today without government support is either trying to pull a fast one or just doesn't know their facts.

EV technology got were it is today because other governments such as Japan put taxpayer money into to it. Granted that is not our US taxpayer money but at the end of the day it is government support. So the idea that the Pirus and the rest got to mass production because of market forces is just wrong.

Heck even some the US national labs have been working on this type of technology. So it would be safe to say that any new advancements down the road is even more likely to come from solutions found by government research and support.

Almost everything we use today be it transportation or communications came about because government support.

Please know I am not saying we need government support to solve all our problems. However, they do have a role to play and have been playing a role for decades.

Just for the record this post is mostly directed at Tim who said this, "Cellosic ethanol and Electricity via coal, wind, wave, tide, geothermal and solar are ALL currently receiving PRIVATE non-taxpayer capital funding because they will one day SOON be profitable AND sustainable"

While yes they are receiving private money but they are also getting taxpayer money at the same time. Or they are receiving the private money because government support are in place to protect it. Check it out.

Cellosic ethanol - Check out the current Farm Bill, also look at the DOE budget for the past few years.

Coal Plants - This one is to easy. These guys get millions in tax breaks from local and state federal governments. Just like Natural Gas and Oil power plants. They also can receive government backed loans when building a plant.

Wind and Solar - yes they are the future but one of the biggest reasons private money is flowing into those fields is because of tax credits that they get! Check out any green blog and the on going struggle to keep these tax credits in place.

Wave - to my knowledge does not have any tax breaks but those companies have been founded and funded mostly in research labs funded by public universities (tax payer money).

Geothermal - is one I will let you pass on because I am not sure. However, there is a push for that technology to receive investment money from DOE and tax breaks. Or my favorite which is government backed loans. Granted the loans come from banks but without the government backing the banks would not make the loans.

As you can see the government does/has played a role in all those things. Sorry to burst your free market bubble.

Reply

↓↑report

I'm no expert on the matter here, but I found this all very interesting. Here are some of my own thoughts though.

It seems to me the best argument, and a very good one at that, is "storing electrons in batteries is 4X MORE EFFICIENT than storing them in H2." Also, the infrastructure is already in place, which is hard to ignore. Especially since hydrogen's #1 problem right now is the fact that they don't have an infrastructure. The vehicles are pretty close to being ready for mass production, if not ready, but there is no infrastructure to support it.

Paolo said "the DOE has determined that the mass adoption of battery EVs will actually bolster the electricity grid, rather than stress it." Is that true, how could that possibly be true? If everyone were to switch over to BEV's, and all plug into the electric-grid to charge over night, would that stress it? I would like to see a link supporting that if possible...

In terms of maintenance. Batteries, as you may have noticed with every one you've ever used, need to be properly discharged and recharged. I don't know much about the technology, this comes from personal experience. But batteries need to be replaced every so often... Does this hold true for BEVs?

We bring up the case of the Tzero and the Tesla Roadster for range. I think those vehicles are great, but Glen brings up a good point. The range to recharge ratio is just not feasible. No one wants to wait an hour for their car to be recharged, especially if you take it on a road trip. I hear a lot about fast charging batteries but do they exist? those batteries that can be charged in 5-20 minutes? If they do, what the hell are we waiting for?

Today, the only BEV that can meet consumer demand is the Tesla Roadster at $100,000. When I say it can meet consumer demand, I mean it can perform the equivalent of a gas powered vehicle. The FCX is available for lease to a select few for $600/month, that is significantly cheaper but not available to everyone... My question is (after watching "Who Killed the Electric Car?") why has the electric car not made a comeback when there are so many advocates out there, ones with technical knowledge like you guys ;-)? Help me out, I don't want to buy a PHEV or an ICE...

I don't think it makes sense to advocate for two technologies unless they are going to be used together as a hybrid, so help me out.

Reply

↓↑report

For quick charging: The i-Miev is supposed to be under $30k, and has a 30 minute 80% quick charge.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03/21/new-york-2008-autobloggreen-drives-the-mitsubishi-i-miev-w-vid/

But generally for a full Gas replacement, the battery tech still isn't there.

But the hydrogen answer is even less there. There is no infrastructure and that ~4X efficiency deficit is not something that can be swept under the rug. The $600/month to lease a FCX Clarity is not indicative of it's price. This is essentially extended real world testing where the consumer pays for the privilege of doing the testing. These cars probably cost more than a Tesla to produce.

IMO the near term efficiency answer belongs to:

Small efficient ICE cars: (Fit,Yaris)
Efficient HEVs (Prius)
Efficient PHEVs (Volt?).
Clean efficient diesels (2009 Jetta).
City BEVs (i-Miev).

Hydrogen is always the tech that is 20 years into the future. If I were placing a bet, I would go with have a fast charge 10 year life automotive battery before then.

If you actually have the 10year life fast charging battery, why would you go Hydrogen?

Reply

↓↑report

giyad said "If everyone were to switch over to BEV's, and all plug into the electric-grid to charge over night, would that stress it? "

The grid is sized for the peak demand which occurs during the day. This is why overnight charging will not stress it. If everyone starts plugging their car in during the day this would be a different story, but this could easily be prevented with smart metering and billing which reflects the actual intraday price of electricity instead of a flat rate.

Reply

↓↑report