Hydrogen advocate responds to DOE funding cut
GM HydroGen4 fuel cell Equinox - Click above for gallery
AutoblogGreen reader responses to the huge cut in DOE hydrogen vehicle spending was mixed, but mostly in favor of shifting limited federal money away from H2 and into batteries and cars with plugs. Strong hydrogen vehicle advocate Greg Blencoe is keeping up the fight, though, and has written a lengthy response to the Obama administration's decision.
Fortunately, the hydrogen industry only has a PR problem. While it is a huge PR problem, plug-in battery vehicles have a huge technology problem.
Blencoe's general agrument is that America's oil addicion needs all the help it can get, just ask Toyota. When the problem is so huge and America so sick on oil, any potential help, any doctor, should be consulted. When the facts come out, Blencoe says, hydrogen vehicles will beat battery-powered plug-ins and, "history will put plug-in battery technology in the same category as the dot-com companies, real estate bubble, and corn ethanol disaster."
He also belives the Obama and DOE Secretary Steven Chu will change their minds about this decision once they get the facts. Trouble is, Chu and Obama don't seem to be the shoot-first, think-later types. Yes, they want to move quickly, but that doesn't mean they're hasty. Plug-in advoate Paul Scott thinks that the DOE's shift won't be retracted. In a recent email, he writes, "Listen closely... that sound you hear is the banging of the final nail in the fuel cell coffin. Sweet music to our ears, my friend."
[Source: Greg Blencoe, Paul Scott]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
jharlan 9:30AM (5/10/2009)
If a technology dies without huge public funding it raises a question about it's economic viability. I keep asking these dreamers "how much are these things going to cost per copy?" They never answer. That in itself raises suspicion. Here is a question that is easily answerable. How much does it cost to field an electric car? Tinkerers are building them in their garages all over the place. I personally have 2 friends with electric cars they have built themselves. One is an NEV, and one is a converted Nash Metro.
If they are that concerned about oil addiction, they should be advocating C4 and biofuel conversions. The infrastructures are pretty much already in place and the conversions are relatively simple, but noooo, we have to have enormously expensive hydrogen fuel cells. It just makes me suspect that most of them stand to gain financially from the continued infusion of tax dollars. Not gonna happen. Get over it!
Reply
zamafir 2:15PM (5/10/2009)
Yup, the two big issues I have with hydrogen vaporware is the cost of the cars (hundreds of thousands) and the method in which the super majority of commercial viable hydrogen is produced (fossil fuels). Neither of those concerns are typically addressed by the rabid fans of hydrogen mostly because there is no viable answer right now.
harlanx6 9:47PM (5/10/2009)
Zamafir you are absolutely right.
Jon 9:31AM (5/10/2009)
Killing hydrogen cars is a bad idea. Hydrogen cars are not very different from gas-powered cars from the consumer perspective and therefore will be necessary, along with hybrids, to wean people off oil. Trying to kill it off does not help the green car movement.
Electric cars are more viable now than they have ever been but do you think the average consumer will trade their gas-powered car for a car that is limited to a couple of hundred miles (and in some cases, can't even reach the maximum speed limit)? I sometimes travel 1200 miles in one journey - it'd take me a week to get there. That's not progress - that's going backwards.
Sure, people say that hydrogen production is an inefficient process but that's because it's early technology. Efficiency would improve over time if given a chance (which it looks like the DOE isn't inclined to do). Neither hydrogen nor electric cars are a perfect solution to the problem right now. They both have issues.
The whole problem we have right now is that we built our infrastructure around oil and now we can't get away from it. So committing to one technology a second time is a really bad idea. Multiple green fuels will give us a "Get out of Jail Free" card in the future if we need it.
Reply
downtoearth 11:20AM (5/10/2009)
Jon...
1. Hydrogen cars are not killed. Only postponed because there is a better option on the horizon. Every conscious efficient technology enthusiast knew hydrogen will loose with electricity at least in the short term.
2. Hydrogen cars are about converting natural gas to H2. This is the only thing that makes some sense. Inefficiencies of electrolysis (60%) and fuel cells themselves (60%), giving combined 36% conversion efficiency wipe out the option of producing hydrogen from electricity. Makes no sense.
3. When producing hydrogen from natural gas (likely the temporary fuel of future, particularly after the oil peak), an option of burning it in combined cycle power plants (60%) or in heat and power plants (90%) to produce electricity for EREVs (85% of charge/discharge/electric motor propulsion) needs to be evaluated. It returns combined efficiency of 51% or 77% respectively depending on how you burn the gas. This will likely wipe out even powering fuel cell cars from natural gas made H2.
4. If you go for chemical hydrogen storage, you'll likely hit the same durability wall as in case of batteries with chemical hydrogen tank loosing capacity over time and fill/drain cycles.
5. Honda FCX Clarity cost about USD 1 million and can be leased only in one place in the universe. BYD F3DM first PHEV in series production costs USD 22.000 and does 31 miles of real life all electric range as Wikipedia editors quote.
6. You still need a battery in hydrogen cars to enable energy recuperation when braking.
7. It's nice you're some sort of exception and cover long distances. Vast majority of customers don't.
downtoearth 11:31AM (5/10/2009)
Jon...
did I say...
8. We have infrastructure for PHEVs/EREVs (nightly charging when load is very low).
9. We have not even a trace of infrastructure for hydrogen.
I mean, come on! There are few things in this world as obvious as facts that hydrogen is D.E.A.D while EREVs are given (a painful) birth.
downtoearth 11:36AM (5/10/2009)
Jon...
did I say...
10. Electric cars can be introduced gradually. Just extend battery capacity a bit. Not for 50 miles at the very start but, say, for 15 miles. And downsize the ICE engine a bit. Stepwise improvement dramatically slashing fuel consumption.
11. Fuel cell can't be introduced gradually on the other hand. They are either full blown FCEVs or no one at all.
I'm going cycling right now. At least it's environmentally friendly.
Tohe 9:52AM (5/10/2009)
What we need is a focused strategy to solve the energy problem, not a diversion! not many doctors, nurses or folks with dead end careers.
Reply
jpm 4:07PM (5/10/2009)
well put! yes!
this guy is clearly pissed off b/c his job is a stake
now he can't make the FCX Clarity payments with his big gov't handouts
Tohe 5:52PM (5/10/2009)
Yeah JPM, just when we thought unemployment rates were stabilizing, there goes the hydrogen crowd.
Chris M 6:44PM (5/10/2009)
Of course Blencoe is getting hysterical, his company is totally dependent on the hydrogen hype, it fails and he goes bankrupt. I warned him that he should hedge his bets and diversify, but I don't think he will take advice from me, a known enemy of the hype.
Nicholas 7:21PM (5/10/2009)
@Chris M
I never heard of Blencoe before, but now I see him everywhere: Youtube, Blogs, Twiter. The man is an attention whore.
al 9:55AM (5/10/2009)
Jon you say that hydrogen production is inefficient as its early technology. Thats one of the problems with fuel cells as i understand it. Hydrogen production isnt new or improving, we have been doing it for ages, and its expensive and wastes alot of energy.
Now batteries are much more likely to improve and do, curretly 6-8% a year. but with all the new demand in batteries for longer range, faster charges we could see a leap coming soon, just look at the early potential of the stanford nano wire battery, MIT battery research and even eestor. Also Hydrogen fuel cell has a massive loss of energy in its conversion from electricity to hydrogen which battery doesnt.
Reply
Yanquetino 10:51AM (5/10/2009)
"The hydrogen industry only has a PR problem." ...?
Huh. I had the opposite impression. Their PR didn't seem to have any problem swaying CARB, did it?
"Plug-in battery vehicles have a huge technology problem." ...?
Yet hydrogen doesn't?! As only one example, how about energy efficiency?
http://teslafounders.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/slide026.gif
(Courtesy of Martin Eberhard.)
Not to mention the very difficult challenges of extracting, compressing, transporting, storing, distributing the hydrogen!
I have long had the impression that those who advocate hydrogen (Shell, Exxon, Chevron, Greg Blencoe himself) are primarily interested in one thing above all else: SELLING us the hydrogen, once the oil supply starts to dwindle. Heaven forbid that consumers install solar panels and/or wind generators on their homes and drive for free!
This is why I opine that the feds have made a proper decision. The oil industry most certainly has more than enough wealth to research, develop, and commercialize hydrogen without picking the taxpayers' pockets.
Reply
Tohe 11:26AM (5/10/2009)
I agree 100%. But this fight is not about the 41 million, it is about infrastructure and the many billions of dollars such investment represents.
downtoearth 11:28AM (5/10/2009)
Yanquetino...
It's a well proven method of blatant and blunt promotion to say that black is white while white is black.
It works because average Joes not interested on the topic likely do believe what press says.
I encounter it any time when tracking diesel vs hybrid debate. Every nonsense presenting diesels in light colors is brought out and stated as something absolutely true and obvious. Alternatively, opinion starts to be presented instead of facts.
Debunk it with hard sources and undeniable, carefully referenced data and your interlocutor will spew even more nonsense, calling your valid hand crafted, clean and solid point a bogus, obviously without quoting a single source denying them.
Yanquetino 1:11PM (5/10/2009)
Tohoe:
You say that "this fight is not about the 41 million, it is about infrastructure and the many billions of dollars such investment represents."
Yup, billions. No question. However, let's remember who recently made the biggest annual profit in history, despite the recession:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22949325/
Yet they need OUR tax dollars to fund the infrastructure to SELL us their next, up-and-coming fuel-of-the-future?
Well, let's see... CARB recently spent tax dollars to subsidize four hydrogen stations at $1.7 million each:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/04/08/carb-grants-6-8-billion-for-four-hydrogen-refueling-stations/
With last year's profit, Exxon alone could have covered that subsidy for... nearly 24,000 stations!
Chris M 11:22PM (5/10/2009)
Blencoes article is a series of quotes from Toyota officials, taken out of context, to make it look like Toyota is all for fuel cells and not batteries. Problem with that is that Toyota has already announced production of plug-in hybrids and EVs, both coming years before any fuel cell cars, and even Toyota exec Reinert who is "bullish on the promise of fuel cells" admits that fuel cells still have "cost issues" and "Energy storage is still an issue" - in other words, it costs to much and there are problems with H2 storage. Their tenative plans for introduction of H2FC cars depend on solving both cost and storage issues first, but there is no such issues delaying the production of Toyota plug-ins.
So Blencoe is wrong, the administration isn't "completely going against Toyota", like Toyota they are supporting plug-ins. Also, the've already changed their mind from continuing the H2 boondoggle to cancelling support to concentrate on more promising alternatives.
The H2FC "PR problem" is caused by:
1. Absurdly high costs.
2. Over 40 years of promises broken and production delayed due to that intractible cost problem.
3. Attempts to ignore or hide the cost problem from the general public.
4. The arrival of solutions that are cheaper and more efficient, thus better.
Sorry, but no amount of propaganda will overcome that PR problem. As for the supposed battery "technology problem", well, it didn't stop Tesla Motors, and it isn't stopping the GM Volt project, and it isn't stopping plug-in programs for almost all auto makers to be delivered in the next 4 years. Moreover, breakthroughs already demonstrated indicate improvements of 5x to 20x in battery energy density will arrive on the market fairly soon, enabling BEVs with a range far in excess of any H2FC car. Really, compared to the H2 cost issue, the battery tech problem hardly even counts.
Oh, but H2FC certainly beats batteries by a huge margin when it comes to high prices!
Chris M 11:24PM (5/10/2009)
Great analysis, Yanquetino. It's interesting to note that some H2 promoters are claiming a mere 12,000 stations, properly distributed, would be sufficient, that would cost only half of Exxons profits, and the other oil companies also racked up record profits as well. If each spent just 10% of their profits to install H2 stations, that would be more than enough - but they won't, not only because the executives love their bonuses and perks, but because they recognize that it is a very risky investment. That's why they want the government to fund all the infrastructure costs, then if the H2 hype fails they won't be out anything, but if in the unlikely event all the breakthroughs occur to bring the costs way down and sales take off, then they'll swoop in and snap all them up for pennies on the dollar (can't have socialist government run them, the conservatives would squawk) and continue raking in record profits.
(sorry for the double post, it was a "cut and paste" error)
gorr 11:09AM (5/10/2009)
Now that the taxmoney funding is stop, then we might see full hydrogen products hit the open market. It's because of the subsidies that we don't see green products hit the market.
Reply