Gorr, did you realize that all the H2 prototypes were funded by the governments? Did you also realize that the date for production and sale of H2 vehicles keeps getting pushed back and delayed?

There won't be any used H2 vehicles for sale in 2015, as there won't be any sold by then. But keep saving those pennies, as someday you'll be able to afford a really nice plug-in

↓↑report

In a way you're correct here, because nuclear fusion comes from turning hydrogen into helium, and the long term solution to our energy problems is fusion. The electric power it supplies will be so cheap and abundant that it may make converting our surface transportation fleet to plug-in a practical reality.

But until then, the short to mid term solution is alcohol fuels.

↓↑report

That's my point. Hydrogen product does not have to be from fossil fuel energy sources. It can be from nuclear, it can be from solar IF the process becomes efficient and widescale enough. It can be from geothermal or wind.

Your short term to mid term predictions may be correct as far as a transition is concerned. But the shills here who think it's solely going to be battery and biofuels...dead wrong. Biofuels do nothing to prevent other emissions which are more harmful to us as greenhouse gases in the immediate term. They also simply cannot be produced in large enough quantities to supply us with the amounts of fuel that is required for today's or tomorrow's demand. And they know it.

↓↑report

noz said, "Biofuels do nothing to prevent other emissions which are more harmful to us as greenhouse gases in the immediate term."

Shaking my head at the stubborn ignorance or wilful dishonesty.

Alcohols emit far less conventional pollution, including zero smoke, soot, and particulate matter, so no smog.

As for CO2, plant derived ethanol and methanol is part of the carbon cycle already, so carbon neutral, as is methanol from natural gas that would have been flared anyway from an oil well.

Worst case scenario - you burn some gasoline and use some fertilizer farming while waiting for alcohol tractors etc to come along, but net you have drastic, massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions anyway, even short term, in an alcohol economy.

The key concept is NET. Do you understand what that means?!

And quite frankly as any resident of Beijing can tell you, in many parts of the world, while global warming can be considered a priority, a shorter term more urgen prioirty is conventional pollution such as smog. And furthermore we are RIGHT NOW sending hundreds of billions Islamist terrorists every year. We can't afford to fiddle around for decades playing with impractical hydrogen showcase projects.

You've got to focus on the immediate problem. If your hair is on fire, you focus on that since it can kill you in minutes rather than, as you locks crackle, musing on your cigarette habit, which will kill you in 30 years, and indignantly rejecting suggestions to douse your head because it won't completely cure you of nicotine addiction.

↓↑report

Actually that is nonsense.

Alcohol fuels reduce emissions by about 10-30% depending on what toxic emission you wish to choose.

NMHC can be redued down by 20-22%, NOx by 25-32% and CO by 12-24% compared to reformulated gasoline. Toxic emissions of benzene and 1,3 Butadiene also decreased while aldehyde emissions increased (acetaldehyde in particular).

This is from SAE Technical Paper 961092.

So nonsense that it reduces smog to zero..utter nonsense. Dishonesty? How can you come here and claim such a thing and then lie yourself?

Carbon neutral? How about the burning of fields? Is that carbon neutral too? How much pollution does that cause if you claim you have to do that over much of the US?

If you want to talk about NET....then you use an energy source that is not carbon based, does not emit greenhouse gases, and is renewable and recyclable. Guess what trio do that?

I'll let you think about it.

Immediate problems about pollution are not going to be addressed by making burnable, carbon based fuels like alcohol fuels...that's utter rubbish.

↓↑report

noz, Hydrogen production doesn't have to be from fossil fuel sources - but 96% IS from fossil fuel sources, as that is the cheapest source. The non-fossil fuel H2 sources rely on electricity, but using H2 to store energy wastes 76% of the energy, compared to only 15% loss for battery storage.

Electricity doesn't have to be from fossil fuel sources either, only 72% is from fossil fuels and that percentage keeps dropping as more clean renewable sources come on line.

Biofuels CANNOT come from fossil fuel sources at all!

↓↑report

Do biofuels have carbon in them?

What sort of pollutants are emitted from biofuels? None?

↓↑report

Yes I know most of the hydrogen production is from fossil fuel sources but that can change.

Carbon based fuels like bio fuels are not long term answers.

For hydrogen to be clean, it will require an infrastructure that will not be based on carbon based fuels and sources. It will take money, it will take time, and it will take new technologies.

Your examples of battery powered aircraft is ludicrous. A heavy jet will never fly on batteries anytime soon and harvesting water to power a ship with hydrogen is already being done. The largest and key areas of transportation cannot be powered by biofuels that are carbon based (plant, etc) or based on combustion. While they may be greenhouse neutral, they are not clean. They may be cleaner, but they are not clean enough.

That is something you need to accept before you move on.

↓↑report

It's inefficient because it throws away 50% of the electrical energy in the electrolysis process. Iceland probably thinks they can afford that because they have enough renewable energy sources for their tiny population, but this concept is just not applicable to other industrialized countries.

The growth of the gasoline infrastructure was a very gradual process that followed the gradual adoption of ICE-powered automobiles into society. The gas station as we know it today did not become widespread until the 1930s, before that (and for some time after) gasoline was sold at pharmacies, drug stores or automobile workshops as a side business. This is still the practice in some developing countries where gasoline is sold in bottles at roadside stands.
The situation today is very different because automobiles are ubiquitous. A gradual adoption of hydrogen in the same way as gasoline is impossible because of the huge cost of the equipment, while alternative "green" approaches like biofuels and electricity have an infrastructure already in place and require minimal or no adaptation of existing technology.

Battery production has no worse of an environmental impact than other modern commodities. It's a matter of regulation and public awareness, nothing more. Fuel cell production, if it were to become widespread, would face the same environmental issues.
Lastly, batteries of any type are entirely recyclable, and there is in fact a healthy industry extracting valuable elements from them. I don't know about your country, but in mine, every store selling batteries is required to take used ones back. Car batteries are even sold with a 15€ premium that you get back when you return them.

↓↑report

Better efficiency than any biofuel process during burning.

What's more...hydrogen can be produced from any energy source. It's fully renewable in cycle.

Let us know when you think we'll have pocket-sized batteries to fly our 747's of the world. Or will we have to cover the whole earth and then some with your magic biofuels that have 20% energy efficiency and don't solve any of the noxious gas emissions?

↓↑report

The only H2 vendor in Iceland, Shell Oil, supplies only a few H2 fuel cell busses for public transit. Their plan to run Iceland on H2 fuels collapsed when the real costs were revealed and the Icelandic economy went downhill. Now Iceland is quietly going "all electric", as that is the cheaper more efficient option.

PS, NiMH batteries, and some LiIon batteries last much longer than typical fuel cells. So what will we do with all the USED fuel cells when they are no longer useable?

Noz, you complain about biofuel efficiency, but conveniently ignore H2 efficiency. Lets see: The combination of electrolysis, compression for storage and fuel cell is only 24% efficient. The combination of charger and batteries is 85% efficient. Going the H2 route uses 3x more electricity. If you think "20% efficient" biofuels are bad, consider that photovoltaic derived H2 would only be 5% efficient...

noz, please let me know when you think we'll have pocket-sized H2 tanks to fly our 747s.

↓↑report

They won't be pocket sized tanks for sure Chris M...but they will be flying that aircraft...while your batteries won't..and that's the bottom line.

↓↑report

Noz, I never proposed flying 747s on batteries, that was your strawman argument. Such large fast aircraft require a lot of energy, they need a fuel with high energy density, both by weight and by volume. H2 has high energy by weight, but very low energy by volume, making it too bulky for passenger jets. Hydrocarbon fuels, including biodiesel, have high energy density by weight and by volume, making them ideal for 747s and other passenger jets. Hydrocarbon fuels, including biofuels, cost a lot less than H2, and that is a major consideration for commercial use.

Smaller slower prop planes don't need as much energy as jets, and they could be powered by improved high performance batteries, or hydrocarbon fuels where longer range is needed. H2 fuel is too expensive for most private plane owners.

So, is there any aviation use for H2 fuel? Yes, for certain military aircraft with a tiny 1 or 2 pilot cockpit that dedicate most of the fuselage to the H2 tank, and whose owners are totally unconcerned with the costs involved.

↓↑report

Or maybe we discuss these issues because we CARE?

You know, even the most uneducated tinfoil hat crackpots at least comment on the given topic, instead of posting pointless insults.

↓↑report

I C...you care but no one else that opposes your views does.

↓↑report