Probably less than zero.

Already idiots are going back to buying trucks....so we can kiss our progress forward goodbye for another decade or so I'd say.

↓↑report

I'd agree with "less than zero" for sales in N. America. Most of the EVs featured here will never make it to any meaningful production under the best conditions, and we're looking at the bleakest economic picture of my lifetime ahead.

Without a sales and support infrastructure, it's unlikely that electric vehicles from all but the largest companies will make it to these shores from Europe/Asia. I'd count on eventually seeing cars from Daimler, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Nissan -- from Pininfarini, uh... not really.

They can sell all the cars they build in Europe, with its high fuel prices. What's the incentive to export?

↓↑report

If it does well in Europe, there is a possibility that a US company may decide to import it under their own brand name. There are plenty of examples of foreign cars being imported and re-badged.

If one of the "Detroit 3" won't do it, perhaps Tesla Motors might.

↓↑report

Dr. Bromer meets Ted Kaczynski.....

↓↑report

Are you high on something. There is no free energy in water.

↓↑report

Gorr, with your irrational rants, you are doing more to discredit the "Hydrogen Hype" than anything I could ever hope to achieve. Thank You!

As for "It's actually popular in the mental war that communism peoples type of mentallity do to believers." What does that mean? I understand each word, but the sentence makes no sense.

"where mosus said and repeated to f*cking separate the water molecule"?? I've known f*cking to do some wonderful things, but it never produces hydrogen!

↓↑report

More of the green conspiracy stuff. Ah give it a rest already. Hydrogen is not an alternative, it is difficult to store, costs a lot to transport, it expensive to make. Compare this with electric which is cheap and easy to make, easy to store and transport. Yes batteries are not perfect, but what, compared to Hydrogen? Oil?

↓↑report

How do you generate the hydrogen? H2 does not occur naturally here on earth, hydrogen is bound to other elements and it takes electrical or chemical energy to break those bonds and produce free H2 gas. There are much more efficient ways of using that electrical or chemical energy than to produce H2.

The combination of charger and battery is 85% efficient in storing electric energy, the combination of electrolysis, compression for storage, and H2 fuel cell is at best 24% efficient. Going the H2 route takes 3x more electricity, takes up more storage space, and costs considerably more.

H2 offers NO advantages over "swappable" battery electrics or "powered roadways", but H2 is far more expensive and much less efficient.

The future is electric, and all the political clout the oil companies can manage won't prevent it.

↓↑report

Actually it does. You keep thinking of hydrogen as an energy source of should be...it isn't. I could not possibly describe the concept of using hydrogen as eloquently as the book I suggested people read.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. To not try and utilize that is absurd. And thinking in the conventional ways you do will only lead to not even beginning to accept the realities of using hydrogen.

The future is electric...but not batteries. How about ships? How about aircraft? Battery technology will never...in the span we need things to happen...offer a solution. Even for cars...batteries a poor way of propelling cars.

As the author of Smelling Lands suggests, we need to look at energy as a currency and exchange from one form to the other is the key.

The concept of energy currency is largely ignored. And people begin to think merely the way you do. Hydrogen contains more energy per unit mass than any other chemical...almost 3X that of gasoline.

There are many....MANY challenges to open the door to the hydrogen era. But I think it will happen. It has to...there is no other sufficiently energy dense fuel out there. It may not happen in our lifetime, but it will happen. Unfortunately, 100% of the time, anyone who suggests such "radical" concepts is vehemently attacked and ridiculed.

Hydrogen and electricity will go hand in hand.

↓↑report

No, noz, I do not think of hydrogen as an energy source, except for nuclear fusion in the sun. As for that book you mentioned, I didn't rush right out to read it but I suspect it whips up hysteria about potential problems, then assumes there can only be one answer and ignores or belittles anything other than the authors favorite solution. The author also ignores issues of efficiency and cost, but a true solution to any problem cannot ignore those issues. If our goal is to replace CO2 producing fossil fuels using our limited supply of renewable electricity, we quite literally cannot afford to waste 2/3 of it by storing it with less efficient H2!

Hydrogen has the most energy per gram of any chemical fuel, but it is an extremely bulky fuel with a very low energy per liter, much less than other fuels. That bulkiness is a major drawback for fueling autos, limiting the range, and requiring large expensive high pressure or cryogenic tanks. For ships, weight is less of a drawback than volume, so we'd be far more likely to see battery powered ships than H2 powered - especially since batteries would cost far less than the equivalent fuel cell and H2 storage tanks!

I once saw a proposal for a liquid H2 fueled airplane, the liquid H2 tank was bigger than the passenger fuselage. It was not considered practical and was never built. Still, for very large rockets, and perhaps certain specialized aircraft applications, the weight advantage of H2 fuel could overrule the many disadvantages.

But we were discussing automobiles, not ships or aircraft. The cost of automotive H2 storage tanks is higher than the cost of automotive LiIon batteries. For automobiles, H2 fuels offer NO advantages over "swappable" batteries or "Powered roadways", and has several disadvantages, including reduced efficiency and much higher costs. A solution that costs too much to implement is no solution at all.

Are you concerned about CO2 emissions and fossil fuel depletion? Then choose the more efficient less expensive plug-in solution.

↓↑report

I disagree. Sorry but batteries and plug-ins are not the solution if you are going to get the energy to source those plug-ins from fossil fuels. You're going nowhere with this.

And no, that book is not what you think it is. Having an open mind warrants a read...if you can't, that's too bad frankly.

There are many CURRENT limitations to using hydrogen...but we're not talking about current...we're talking about future. And not too far along either.

Unfortunately your assumptions about the book and author are way off base. And none of what you think you have preconceived is true.

You have not offered any solution whatsoever to providing new and cleaner energy sources for transportation. Cars are only a small part of transport....and even then, using batteries and plug-in technology is a stop-gap at best.

I will maintain that a hydrogen and electricity future will prevail. Bio nonsense and stuff like that is just that.....nonsense made to keep us on a controlled and limited resource.

It would behoove you to read the book and understand what the author is saying before you judge the context of the book and the author himself.

↓↑report

Sorry, noz, but you've failed to refute a single argument I made. Yes, batteries are not a "source" of energy, merely an energy carrier, but H2 also is not a "source" of energy, just a lot less efficient and more expensive energy carrier. If I haven't offered a solution, neither has the H2 hype - and it's lower efficiency and higher cost, compared to batteries, should be considered a step backwards.

You say "the book is not what you think it is", but you utterly failed to state where I'd made any errors in my argument. My opinions were based on what information I could gather on the net, not having any copies of the book in the local library to read. The author, David Sanborn Scott, is vice-president of the International Association for Hydrogen Energy, he has a financial interest in keeping the hydrogen hype going and cannot be considered unbiased. On the other hand, I don't work for any company involved in transportation, I have no financial bias, I simply want the best most efficient and cost effective options to be available.

Two can play "the future will solve all those pesky problems" game. We could see a 5x to 10x improvement in LiIon battery capacity leading to "thousand mile per charge" EVs. We could see Zn-air, Al-air, Li-air batteries offering 5x to 25x the capacity of current LiIon batteries, giving greater range than any H2 fueled vehicles in a smaller package. We've already seen these potential major breakthroughs demonstrated in research labs. We could see a dramatic reduction in the cost of such batteries, possibly with improved capacity reducing battery pack sizes.

It would take over 100x reduction in costs to make H2 fuel cell cars cost competitive to current IC engine cars, but a modest reduction would make plug-ins cost competitive, and a 10x cost reduction would make plug-ins much cheaper than current cars!

We could even see the design and construction of "powered guideways" that could provide power "on the go" giving plug-ins with small batteries a virtually unlimited range! You can't do that with hydrogen!

It is the oil companies that are the biggest producers of H2, with the cheapest source of H2, and they are the biggest promoters of H2 as they want to sell that profitable new fuel and keep their stranglehold on our transportation needs.

↓↑report

Noz, you really understand "Smelling Land" and the book's main thrust: the world's energy system will eventually be dominated by electricity and hydrogen—with both being produced by non-carbon sources.
I’d be interested in how you discovered Smelling Land.
Chris would be well advised to get a copy of the book. It’s obvious he’d made up his mind about plug-ins and cannot consider anything else. He would be wise to read Smelling Land’s chapter 27—the Great Enemy of Truth, where the author speaks about the three ways of acquiring knowledge: accretion, integration or substitution. Chris remains in the accretion stage—in which he doesn’t want to consider other ways of looking at the system. “Just let me keep on my track—I don’t need more info—I have all I need, forever and ever.”

Back to the plug-ins. These cars might work for a short time, for tiny trips in town. What do you propose, Chris, for the endless supply of used-up batteries? What will you do with all that lead? You’re not looking at the system, the life-cycle costs of these cars. What does it take to make and service the batteries? What is their life expectancy and most of all, what will it take to dispose of all those lead-gorged devices?

Finally, for David Scott to be VP for the Hydrogen Association as a disqualifier is silly. His knowledge of hydrogen energy systems led to this position—which is unpaid. Moreover, the association is a professional one and doesn’t manufacture anything. It’s like blaming a librarian for being on the board of the Library Association—OMG, you mean the librarian promotes books? Can’t listen to that biased person! Please don’t make such infantile suggestions, Chris.

↓↑report

Chris..it's you have not refuted a single issue....

I asked you a very simple question...how do you propose to power large vehicles like aircraft and large vessels with batteries?

It's already been proven that hydrogen power is required to launch space vehicles all the time...ironic really considering you claim hydrogen is dense and heavy yet it's used in an application where weight is most critical..far more so than cars. The irony is comical.

So....I'll wait for your answer.

Look beyond 10-20 years...it'll become clearer for you.

You don't seem to understand that while other technologies progress...so does the progress of solving problems with using hydrogen. So yes...2 can play that game...and when those issues are solved, no battery will match the elemental energy properties of hydrogen.

↓↑report

Hi Marianna:

Thanks for your reply.

You are correct that the key to understanding this book is to look at it from a systems engineering point of view...something lacking in most engineers and technical people.

I deal with systems all the time. I work at JPL and am a mechanical design engineer working on satellite technology that is used for weather pattern and oceanographic reseach applications.

Since I'm very interested in such issues such as the environment, etc...I do alot of research and participate in many scientific seminars, conferences etc on the subject matters...some very abstract and narrow...some very broad.

I came across Smelling Land actually via a friend of mine who lives in Victoria, BC. He sent me the book for my birthday. This book is not publicized at all here in the States....which is really too bad.

I would be very interested in learning more about your dealings and views in this industry so if you'd like to take the convo offline, please do so by sending me an email at armmat@gmail.com.

Noz

↓↑report

Marianne Scott: Any relation to David Scott, or is the same surname just a coincidence?

The local library doesn't have a copy of "Smelling land", and I'm on a tight budget, unwilling to shell out money for a book which appears to rehash all of of the same old arguments I've already seen from other H2 promoters, if the table of contents is any indication. Please check out this site: http://www.hydrogendiscoveries.com/ and tell me if "smelling land" has any pro-H2 argument not found there.

You've certainly mischaracterized me, as I've always been an avid learner, eager to learn new things. I used to be enthused about hydrogen, until I learned more about it and realized why it is such a poor choice for automotive use. I'm wondering if that "accretion stage" charge could be applied against you - "Hydrogen is the Answer, I won't listen to any arguments against it, I don't need more info..."

What I propose to do with "used-up" batteries is recycle them. Lead acid batteries have been routinely recycled for over a century, dating back to when they were first used with wind generators to power electric lights in remote farmhouses. NiMH and Zebra and lithium batteries don't contain lead or cadmium or mercury, and they are also recyclable. You see, all of the elements that were in the new batteries are still there at the very end, batteries fail only because the internal structure breaks down. The "used-up" battery can be re-manufactured into brand new batteries - efficient, very little waste, and less expensive than mining new metals. So, what will you do with the endless supply of worn-out fuel cells? Yes, they do wear out, the PEM membrane erodes away, and while the lifespan has been improved up to 100,000 miles, they still don't last as long as LiIon batteries. NiMH hybrid batteries have already lasted over 10 years and 300,000 miles.

I never said David Scott was unqualified, I said he "cannot be considered unbiased". Even if being VP of the International Association for Hydrogen Energy was unpaid (which I doubt) he still gets royalties from his book and adulation from his fans. Being biased doesn't mean he is wrong or dishonest, as it is possible to be biased and correct, but it does mean that extra skepticism is warranted.

noz, I never proposed powering ships and planes with batteries, I'm not under the delusion that there can only be one solution for transportation fuels. But, come to think of it, I've already seen battery powered aircraft carrying a pilot, one several years ago by Paul McCready of AeroVironments, and one this summer that flew for several miles. Slow and limited, yes, but batteries are nowhere near their theoretical maximum. Experimental battery designs have already achieved 5x to 25x the energy density of existing LiIon batteries, if perfected that would be enough to make a battery prop or a hybrid electric jet engine possible. Battery powered ships are old hat - before the development of nuclear power, submarines were routinely powered by lead acid batteries, and we've got much better batteries now.

No, batteries won't match the "elemental energy properties of hydrogen". Good thing, too, as one of those properties is extreme low density, literally "lighter than air". That makes it difficult to store enough on board in any reasonable amount of space. Proposed solutions include very high pressure 10,000 psi (yes, 5 TONS per square inch!) tanks made of expensive carbon fiber, large expensive dewar flasks for ultracold liquid H2, or even more expensive and very heavy metal hydride storage. Also, H2 is the smallest molecules and can leak through any material, dissolves into steel turning it brittle, and leaked H2 quickly rises to the ozonosphere where it reacts with and removes ozone. UV hole, anyone?

↓↑report