The guy writing this article acts like he's presenting facts, and yet spews a lot of misconceptions.
1) Electrolysis machines are now 90+% efficient, i.e. put in 1 kWh of energy, get out .9 kWh of chemical energy.
2) He acts as if the oxygen produced by the electolysis is simply thrown away. That would be moronic, since it's a useful resource
3) He calls it expensive because there are so few. EVERY prototype and limited run vehicle is expensive, as is the nature of limited runs
4) He completely ignores the fact that HFCs can be refueled quickly without greatly damaging their capabilities, unlike batteries
5) He states that Hydrogen will never be useful for cars, since batteries are easier right now, which is VERY short-sighted, considering the range and performance limitations of battery chemistry
6) He ignores the fact that lithium for batteries comes from Bolivia, which is using that resource the way OPEC uses Oil.
Fuel cells are a viable technology, and they may very well be the future of cars. Right now batteries make for a great stopgap, but Hydrogen makes much more sense for long distances and better use of Earth's resources

↓↑report

Ah, Jason... I opine that you have misconceptions about what you are calling misconceptions. Here is just one source that summarizes the problems with hydrogen (there are many more):

http://www.pluginamerica.org/images/Bossel_E13.pdf

Now, if you have a source with verifiable data that shows an improved 90+% efficiency for electrolysis, by all means pass it along!

↓↑report

Interesting article, but a little old. Working on a NASA project we've spoken with them regarding the energy needs of a electrolysis system. There are major complexities in operating one (mainly keeping the water vapor from mixing in with your H2 and, in our case, O2 gasses) but the raw efficiency numbers were about 90%. The losses many articles quote include energy 'lost' to compression, but much of that can actually be recovered by using decompression of stored H2 to cool the fuel cell (it means less losses to drag from radiators). Also to be pointed out is that hydrogen can be electrolyzed at off-peak times, while plug-ins will tend to be charged during the day, when energy usage is already near peak most of the year.

Also to be noted, batteries are not the 100% efficient energy storage devices they are often billed to be. Heat generated in batteries (a significant amount of cooling is devoted to them in most scenarios) is energy lost, which occurs both during use and charge cycles. The faster they are charged or discharged, the more energy lost to heat. Losses in a hydrogen system do tend to be larger, but not to the point where it can't be offset by greater versatility in range and peak energy usage.

↓↑report

Very enlightening, Jason! Your work with NASA appears to be revising the previous energy efficiency estimates for hydrogen. Please take a look at this slide by Martin Eberhard:

http://teslafounders.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/slide026.gif

Substitute the percentages that NASA is telling you, and recalculate the number of miles a Clarity could go per MWh of electricity (assuming that 1 KWh at the tires provides about 5.77 miles of driving for either kind of vehicle). Rather than 1,440 miles, is it now closer to the EV's 4,900 miles? If so, you will change a lot of minds in this forum.

↓↑report

Their numbers, as I'm using this are as such: 90% electrolysis, 98% pumping (minor losses when done slowly, as opposed to a typical air compressor, which is high flow) 50% efficiency of a 'typical' fuel cell (that number comes from researchers at CAR here at OSU) and then I'll take your number for what it's worth (what sort of losses are included? I fear that I may be counting some of the fuel cell's losses twice, as batteries have losses, as I said)
.9*.98*.5= .441% net efficiency

441 useful kWh per mW consumed
yields about 2579 miles, according to your 'miles per kWh', which again, may very well be true, I simply do not have a source on that.

↓↑report

Jason: Okay! Using your percentages, including the "slow" pumping at 98%, the Clarity would be about 1/2 --instead of 1/3-- as efficient as an EV, right?

↓↑report

Yanquetino, the place where it makes up the difference is in range. When you go to recharge batteries you have two options:
Go slow, which is very efficient, but, well, slow (95+% charging efficiency at 'trickle' charge rates). This rate would depend on the battery, but a reasonable estimate is an 8 hour charge from 70% DOD (dead, as far as the battery is concerned) to 0% (0 is full with DOD, the opposite of SOC)
Rapid charge.
Rapid charging can be as bad as 50% efficient. I know Tesla claims to be able to do it at all, which is awesome (up till now, and for all battery chemistries I've seen, rapid charges greatly reduce the life of a battery, as does High DOD (depth of discharge). Rapid discharge has the same consequences, as can be seen by the varying mileage an EV can get. Go nice and easy, and you can squeeze a LOT of power from a battery, but in non-ideal conditions, they're no more efficient than Fuel Cells, at about 50%.
You can operate somewhere in the middleground, obviously, but it is important to remember that to charge a 1kWh battery is NOT just going to take 1kWh of power from the grid.

↓↑report

JASON:

Don't waste your time trying to convince these idiots about hydrogen. They can't see beyond a 5-10 year span of time at any given time. While advances in hydrogen storage and usage are going on all the time (quietly I may add), these morons keep re-iterating stupid out-of-date articles and links and rather meaningless numbers.

I agree with you and hold the belief that hydrogen will be used for long range, heavy transports first. It may or may not be used in the auto industry but heavy ground transport will be very likely before any batteries power long range, long haul, 80000lb big rigs or trains.

Working here at JPL, we have some interesting things going on with hydrogen. What division of NASA are you at?

↓↑report

Noz: Ah. So I am an idiot, huh? My, that was kind. Thank you so much.

↓↑report

Jason, even using your figures, going the H2 route would still takes about twice as much electrical energy as batteries would. But I'm afraid that your "90% efficient electrolysis" is a bit misleading, it is for very high temperature high pressure electrolysis and doesn't take into account the energy needed to achieve that high temperature, just the electricity. Add in the heat energy input, and efficiency plummets.

Yes, high temperature electrolysis does present a difficulty in separating the H2 from the "water vapor" (steam), and that separation becomes increasingly difficult at higher pressures, but that high pressure is what H2 researchers are hoping to use to reduce the energy needed to compress H2 for storage.

As for that supposed "quick fill" advantage of H2 over batteries, not only is there rapid charging, but there is also battery swapping, and the potential of "powered roadways" for recharge power while travelling, and even developments that could increase battery capacity 5x to 20x that could make all-day "thousand mile per charge" BEVs possible.

Many H2 proponents pin their hopes on numerous techonological breakthroughs occuring sometime in the future, but battery breakthroughs are also occuring, batteries start with a huge advantage in both efficiency and costs, and future breakthrougs are unlikely to erase that advantage.

Yanquetino: You should realize that Noz has an inflated ego and likes to look down on "outsiders". Of course, because of his NASA job, he tends to overlook such trivial issues as "high cost" and "efficiency", for him, only technological sophistication and futuristic complexity counts.

↓↑report

Actually Yanquetino,

I actually wrote another entry that didn't seem to go through but it was before you wrote your own reply. I'll simply repeat what I said earlier which was that I didn't mean to include you specifically in the former email of mine BECAUSE you showed an open mind to what others had to say....which is more than I can say for most around here.

So my apologies for grouping you in the idiot group.

↓↑report

ChrisM:

Your ignorance comes through again...hehe. But that's OK. I can understand where you're coming from.

Budget is a huge issue with my group. So much so that we can't do anything without going through huge scrutiny before making or doing anything. But since you are ignorant of these facts, I'll let it pass as "you just haven't a clue what you are talking about."

There are many things we do here at NASA that are backward-ass and not very functional or sophisticated. But the specific things we are talking about here are not in that category and beyond your understanding...simply put. Talking out of your rear about hydrogen isn't going to change the fact that breakthroughs are real...no matter how blue in the face you turn.

As for ego...well...pot calling the kettle black is a bit ironic on your part. Usually ego comes from extreme closed-mindedness and one-track mindedness....which is a very strong trait of yours. If you ever choose to get off your high horse about things, perhaps then you'll stop seeing others as a mirror image of you.

↓↑report

Noz, budget is a huge issue because NASA and other government agencies often go over-budget, but I'm very glad to hear that you are putting an effort into being more frugal at work. As taxpayers, we sincerely thank you for that. But the obvious question is, since you are so concerned about costs at work, why do you so casually ignore cost when it comes to H2 fuel cells?

I never said that the H2 breakthroughs "weren't real", just that batteries start with a huge advantage in cost and efficiency, and since battery breakthroughs are also real, it is unlikely that H2 will ever overcome those battery advantages. It's like trying to catch up in a race when the other runner has a head start and is just as fast as you.

↓↑report

""Noz, budget is a huge issue because NASA and other government agencies often go over-budget, but I'm very glad to hear that you are putting an effort into being more frugal at work. As taxpayers, we sincerely thank you for that. But the obvious question is, since you are so concerned about costs at work, why do you so casually ignore cost when it comes to H2 fuel cells?""

Who's ignoring costs of fuel cells? We all know they are expensive...but the payoff is huge. The obvious question should be why are you so one-dimensional? Again...for about the millionth time...if it wasn't for research and "costs" of doing it, where would you be today with all the technology you so hypocritically enjoy? Now that you are the winner of all the work that has gone into what you take for granted, you seem eager to not allow an further in something that is important for the future.

""I never said that the H2 breakthroughs "weren't real", just that batteries start with a huge advantage in cost and efficiency, and since battery breakthroughs are also real, it is unlikely that H2 will ever overcome those battery advantages. It's like trying to catch up in a race when the other runner has a head start and is just as fast as you.""

Actually you did...and you do. You consistently backpedal your point of view....consistently. The hydrogen/battery issue isn't a competition. It's not a race. Each technology has a place. There are areas where batteries cannot be used...and most likely never will be. So it's not even a matter of advantage. This is a concept that has been impossible to get across to you. I honestly don't know why anyone bothers to try anymore with you. So it's not even a matter of advantage.

This is the most important concept that you so desperately need to understand before you move on.

↓↑report

Unlike some people, I am willing to admit when I am wrong if there is proof that I'm wrong. Noz, while you keep claiming I'm wrong, you've never actually presented any proof of error, only differences of opinion! Noz, can you point to a single post anywhere, where I said or even implied that "H2 breakthroughs weren't real"?

We're waiting...

As for "backpedaling", there's nothing to "backpedal", from the beginning, I've pointed out that H2 storage was expensive, H2 fuel cell were extravagantly expensive, and that electrolysis and fuel cells were only 1/3 as efficient at storing electrical energy, compared to batteries. All those still apply.

Noz, you're still trying to use that "strawman" argument, pretending that I'm "battery only obsessed", even after I've pointed out my support for the potential use of sails, biofuels, and even nuclear power for ships, and biofuels for vehicles and airplanes. I've even been willing to admit that H2 is a great fuel for very big rockets, where its high energy density per Kg overrides its many disadvantages, including its very low energy density per liter. Each technology has its place, I understand that. But please understand that, just like there are areas batteries cannot be used, there are areas that H2 cannot be used, there are areas H2 will never be economically competitive for, and most likely never will be.

Now, in some areas, there's no competition between batteries and H2 - big H2 fueled rockets and portable battery powered electronics come to mind - but when it comes to the automotive area, there most definitely IS competition between H2 and batteries. Few people would choose "both", and only one will triumph in the road vehicle area, not both. You've already admitted that it will be several decades before H2 will be "ready for the road", by that time, plug-ins will already be established. Why would anyone bother with less efficient more costly H2 powered cars and the ifrastructure it needs once plug-ins become the standard?

↓↑report

""Unlike some people, I am willing to admit when I am wrong if there is proof that I'm wrong. Noz, while you keep claiming I'm wrong, you've never actually presented any proof of error, only differences of opinion! Noz, can you point to a single post anywhere, where I said or even implied that "H2 breakthroughs weren't real"?

We're waiting... ""

No need to wait...just go back and read your comments in previous posts and it's clear you are extremely one-sided and biased and slam any technology other than batteries without much thought. You regurgitate the same efficiency specs without considering the entire system....probably because if you did, it wouldn't be so pretty for you.

The proof is in your comments. Pretending you haven't said you don't believe in H2 has been in every single comment you've made. I won't waste my time copy/pasting your comments here if that's what you mean.


""As for "backpedaling", there's nothing to "backpedal", from the beginning, I've pointed out that H2 storage was expensive, H2 fuel cell were extravagantly expensive, and that electrolysis and fuel cells were only 1/3 as efficient at storing electrical energy, compared to batteries. All those still apply.""

Sure many things apply...to any technology including batteries. Your thought process can't get a grip with the fact that with new ways of providing H2 storage, costs go down. And the fuel becomes more useful to more people. You keep basing your argument solely for electrical energy generation...I'm not. Understand that first before you move on.

""Noz, you're still trying to use that "strawman" argument, pretending that I'm "battery only obsessed", even after I've pointed out my support for the potential use of sails, biofuels, and even nuclear power for ships, and biofuels for vehicles and airplanes. I've even been willing to admit that H2 is a great fuel for very big rockets, where its high energy density per Kg overrides its many disadvantages, including its very low energy density per liter. Each technology has its place, I understand that. But please understand that, just like there are areas batteries cannot be used, there are areas that H2 cannot be used, there are areas H2 will never be economically competitive for, and most likely never will be.""

You've not been willing to admit anything. And yes...you're back-pedaling even now...LOL....big time. This is the first and ONLY time you've ever mentioned that H2 has a place and will be used in places batteries cannot be used. Now that you've been squeezed into a corner...your second face comes out to the rescue. For you to think that in the future H2 will never been economically competitive is ludicrous. It only highlights how closed-minded you are.

Biofuels in present form are a joke. Just like batteries and H2, they'll need more development before they are either clean or viable to replacing current fuel requirements. Nuclear? Possibly if we can figure out a way to use it safely on transports.

Of course, there's a trend here that needs to be pointed out...all these technologies can be made to work if money and effort is put into them to make them work. Which is cleanest? Which is most abundant? Which is most reversible? It's not just about efficiency. And you can't expect people to respect you if you cherry pick what you want to give a chance to succeed.

Indeed....we are waiting. We're waiting for you to get your story straight with what you type here over and over again. And putting words in my mouth about what I believe doesn't work too well for you.

""Now, in some areas, there's no competition between batteries and H2 - big H2 fueled rockets and portable battery powered electronics come to mind - but when it comes to the automotive area, there most definitely IS competition between H2 and batteries. Few people would choose "both", and only one will triumph in the road vehicle area, not both. You've already admitted that it will be several decades before H2 will be "ready for the road", by that time, plug-ins will already be established. Why would anyone bother with less efficient more costly H2 powered cars and the ifrastructure it needs once plug-ins become the standard?""

I have no doubt that some areas batteries will dominate. I've already said this a million times. I'm not sure why it has to be said again. Likewise, H2 as a CHEMICAL fuel will dominate because it's so clean, abundant, etc. You can't base your future solely to develop plug-ins. This isn't a choice...it's two energy currencies used for different things. As soon as you grasp that concept, get back to me.

↓↑report