Although a little harsh, I can't say I don't agree. California is always two steps forward and 3 back. I have a lot of respect for the strides they have taken in being a leader in solar, cutting pollution, etc.. But they are so ass backwards and screwed up in so many other ways.

I think they are up a big creek with a really small paddle and will be so for many years to come.

↓↑report

This nonsense will end once Gavin Newsom is elected Governor of California.

↓↑report

And on the other hand I'm actually now thinking about moving to California. You think hydrogen is a bad idea? Then why did the University of Waterloo successfully create a hydrogen engine conversion on an SUV that drove from Detroit to Toronto with half the fuel consumption of a factory model of the same SUV?
Hydrogen as a fuel is better than gasoline.
It's when people start trying to create hydrogen out of thin air that the rest of us look like serious idiots.
It's a fuel and needs to be distributed the same way as gas.
The only difference is that it's more efficient at it's job.

↓↑report

The New Great Race - - Tesla versus Clarity

http://www.newamerica.net/blog/climate-action/2009/new-great-race-tesla-versus-clarity-12104

↓↑report

UberSil: The University of Waterloo has several projects at WatCAR (Waterloo Center for Automotive Research), including race cars, solar cars, ethanol, propane, hybrids, off-road racing, software engineering, and, yes, hydrogen fuel cell cars.

H2 fuel cells are twice as efficient as internal combustion engines, but the improved efficiency doesn't come from Hydrogen, it comes from the fuel cells. Use Hydrogen fuel in an internal combustion engine and there is no gain in efficiency and a notable drop in power output. Combining the poor efficiency of internal combustion engines with the bulky low density nature of H2 gas makes for very short driving ranges! A Prius converted to run on H2, at a conversion cost of $70,000 (not including the Prius) had a range of only 80 miles per tank. Filling the trunk space with extra tanks (at extra cost) boosted the range to just 150 miles. And that is with hybrid efficiency!

Even worse for H2 is that batteries and chargers are 85% efficient at storing electrical energy, but the combination of electrolysis and compression for storage and H2 fuel cell is only 24% efficient at storing electrical energy. Batteries are 3x more efficient! It is no wonder that both Ford and GM are concentrating their efforts on EVs and plug-in hybrids, relegating H2 fuel cells to a possible future "range extender" role only. Of course, introduction of improved batteries, rapid charging systems, or battery swap systems could make H2 fuel cell vehicles obsolete before they arrive.

↓↑report

Have you even done any research about Hydrogen? Or do you just believe what the media tells you? Hydrogen is dirtier than oil. It takes energy to make it, energy to compress and cool it, energy to transport it, and the fuel cells are horribly expensive and inefficient. Not to mention that Hydrogen has to be stored under immense pressure, which is essentially like driving around with a bomb.

↓↑report

I agree totally with Matt (and with the linear planning of Gov. Schwarzenegger) and disagree greatly with "MG" and the fuzzy scare logic he is employing in his argument.

-all of those problems are readily solvable given time and investment, and none of them are totally monolithic or unique to hydrogen. Indeed, the same answer is true for electricity generation; it may come from dirty power now, but that is a rectifiable problem.
-and the "driving on a bomb" suggestion is retarded, but not unusual: they said the same thing about gasoline propulsion back in the turn of the 20th Century. Such a suggestion is even more silly now than it was then because we have had an entire century's worth of development in hazardous material storage since then.

↓↑report

Dirtier than oil? With the most common pathway for well-to-wheel (which isn't the cleanest) hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are much cleaner than oil. There is no contest.

Also, anything with stored energy on board can be considered a "bomb". Do you know much energy is in 14 gallons of gasoline? That's many times more stored energy than what's stored in hydrogen vehicles! Wow, I DROVE A BOMB TO WORK TODAY! There are valid arguments against hydrogen but I'm tired of hearing the FUD.

↓↑report

Ah, the here come the hydrogen heads.

"There is no contest."
W R O N G. There is plenty of contest from biofuels and EVs. Hydrogen may be (barely) cleaner than oil, but it's certainly dirtier than everything else, including natural gas, and certainly far more expensive.
The problems with hydrogen are not rectifiable because they arise from its very physical properties.

I was just waiting for the "but people thought gasoline was dangerous too!" retort. That belief was never widespread, and it was just that: A myth, ironically in part perpetuated by the EV industry back then.
Conversely, the dangers of compressed hydrogen -well, any compressed gas- are real. Pressure tanks don't usually explode like a bomb, but you know, a bottle of compressed air with its valve knocked off can go through a solid brick wall and blow a hex nut through a wooden door. And the pressure in those is far lower than in automotive tanks.
Hydrogen itself is a highly flammable, often explosive, colorless, odorless gas that diffuses through many materials and burns with an almost invisible flame. Gasoline is far from harmless itself, but at least is fairly safe in liquid form and the vapor is easily detectable by smell.

↓↑report

The topic was Oil vs FC. Of course diesel hybrids and other technologies and bio fuels can compete. In terms of oil, H2FC, no matter which fuel pathway, is much cleaner and consume much less energy than a conventional gasoline vehicle (www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/HV/300.pdf). Argonne and many other credible sources have been reporting for decades. This is basic stuff and yet none of you bring any credible sources to back up the claims.


What problems are not rectifiable? These cars just aren't bob the builder cars. They have been crash tested and certified for on road use. If they are so dangerous, do you think auto companies would put them on the road with a class act waiting to happen? Auto companies are/were private businesses. If they thought they could build a car and sell them in mass quantity at a profit, they would.

You might call me a hydrogen head but I'm more of a "get-us-away from-foreign-oil" head. I don't care which technology it is. I support EV, PHEV, FCHVs. Each technology has it's pro's and cons. Have you driven an EV or PHEV in cold climates? I have, and as much as I'd love to have a PHEV TODAY, the battery technology just isn't here unless you want to make sacrifices. We should be joining together to support technologies that help us attain this goal.

↓↑report

Those H2 storage tanks are holding pressures of 7,000 psi (FCX Clarity) to 10,000 psi (GM), that is 3.5 to 5 tons PER SQUARE INCH! That's why those tanks have to be made from exotic and expensive carbon fiber composites, steel isn't strong enough. Any failure of that tank would lead to an explosion, not a "mere leak", even if the H2 didn't ignite - and it ignites very readily.

That makes H2 quite a bit more hazardous than your average petrol tank. .

↓↑report

I think what Cosmosis means is, when you "burn" hydrogen (H2) all you get is H20. There are no noxious or deadly gases that come out the tailpipe. In that respect, there is no contest, all other fuels are more polluting.

↓↑report

Oh, anybody who is scared of compressed gases should check out the safety regs on compressed gas containers. Even the compressed air tanks for paintball markers have to be able to take a bullet and not "explode." These tanks are made to leak if damaged, and are designed so that they discharge their pressure in a controlled fashion. Even if you happened to somehow rupture a hydrogen tank over a fire, a BLEVE is very unlikely. What is more likely is that you will have several minutes of steel melting colorless fire spewing from a hole. Is that dangerous? Sure. Have you ever witnessed a gasoline car fire? Same steel melting flame, just colorful and spread all around the car, consuming the entire vehicle, making a rescue very unlikely.

↓↑report

There`s to be seen a lot of polemic answers to this post, it's a pity that people repeat in such a convinced manner half-certainities and arguments who do not with stand on a real basis.

The only more efficient way (than a Hydrogen - powered Hybrid fuel cell vehicle) on a well-to wheel (WTW) basis is a pure battery vehicle that gets it's electricty directely from renewable energy sources solar and wind.

Each argument, oil and an internal combustion engine are more efficient or more clean are abolutely NON-SENSE and untrue.

The real dates (valid for 2009):

Key assumptions (efficiencies):

Coal - electricity: 35 %
Gas - electricity: 45 %
Biomass - electricity: 30 %
Coal - Hydrogen: 65 %
Gas - Hydrogen: 75 %
Biomass - Hydrogen: 70%
Battery & PCS: 85 %
Fuel cell & PCS: 50 %
Electricity transmission: 92%
H2 compression & distribution: 86%
Renewable electricity - Hydrogen: 80 %
Electric motor efficiency: 90 %

Efficiency chains:

Internal combustión engine- crude oil: 17 %

EV-Coal: 24% WTW.
EV-Gas: 32 % WTW
EV-Biomass: 21 % WTW
EV- renewable electricity (solar, wind, hydro): 69 %

H2-FCEV - coal: 27 % WTW
H2-FCEV - gas: 32% WTW
H2-FCEV - biomass: 32% WTW
H2-FCEV - renewable electricity (solar, wind, hydro): 34 %
H2-FCEV - renewable termocycles: 42 %

If you take a clear look, the most efficient way is directly used renewable electricty, 4 times more efficient than Oil-ICE and 2 times more efficient than Hybrid fuel cell vehicle based on hydrogen extracted from renewable electricity.

What people always forget is that hydrogen can extracted from much more primary energy resources.
The comparison also shows that all WTW chains are more efficient for Hydrogen propelled Fuel cell vehicles (based on 2009 efficiencies), exept direct usage of renewable electricity with Li-Ion batteries in pure electric vehicles.

That means, that all the people that are that keen about HEV or PHEV's do not want to realize that they will still rely on (foreign) oil, and that the overall efficiency of their HEV or PHEV will be always worse than the corresponding WTW chain for H2- fuel cell hybrid vehicles.

I also do not understand why people are creating these opposits between battery vs. fuel cells. Each of the technology has it's advantage and drawabacks, but they complement each other. Fuel cell propelled cars need a battery and/or supercapacitor for hybridization, and the pure battery electric vehicle seems to be still years away to be fully economically feasible.

Why does the government in teh states not try to push BOTH technologies with the objective to have sinergies in development of both and drift away from (foreign) oil. In lot's of applications there maybe will be in a near future feasibility for pure batetry electric vehicles, but in a lot's of applications there will be better a hybrid propulsion system.

Is the "hybrid" with internal combustion engine the tribute to both oil companies and electric utilities? Maybe it is the most "convenient" and comfortable way for carmakers to not crash with interets of both.

This would certainly explain the "Anti-Hydrogen" and "Anti-fuel cell" climate that this people are bringing up, which is not necessarily the same, but is confronting batteries and hydrogen.

Don't consider me a Hydrogen advocate, but i want the people to realize that interest are moving policy, and people should first think about all options and real efficienies on a WTW basis before they are repeating the (wrong) arguments of other (influenced) people.

Thanks, stand strong for change,

Dietmar

↓↑report

A common tactic of H2 advocates is to compare the "best case" scenario of H2 to the "worst case" for batteries, in an attempt to make H2 look better. The figures Dietmar quoted reminds me of that, with below average figures for fossil fuel to electrical efficiency, and listing the record high efficiency for electrolysis - yes, high temperature electrolysis has hit 80% electrical efficiency, but only if the heat energy input is ignored. Room temperature electrolysis is closer to 50% efficient. The record high efficiency of natural gas-electricity is held by the GE H system combined cycle generating plant at 60%, that would lead to a EV-Gas WTW efficiency of 47%, quite a bit higher than for H2-gas WTW efficiency quoted.

But even the figures Ditmar used showed EVs only fractionally lower efficiency than H2 when using coal, tied on natural gas, and 2x more efficient using renewable electricity.

Which leads to another tactic the H2 promoters use. They assume that all increased use of electricity for BEVs will come from polluting coal, but somehow, all that H2 will come only from renewables and clean natural gas! Fact is, both electricity and H2 are made from all of the same energy sources, but for renewable sources, electricity has to be made first, and as we've seen, batteries are much more efficient with that electricity. Not only that, but the plan is to start with providing most of the H2 from steam reformed natural gas and steam reformed coal, as that is much less expensive than other H2 sources. H2 from renewable sources is put off until some vague far future time.

↓↑report

So, Chris, you don't like H2? Got it.

Why can't we have both? PHEVs with fuel cell range extenders, at least until the battery tech comes around. I mean, you've gotta have a battery in the fuel cell vehicles anyway, why not make it a 40 mile battery with a xxx mile hydrogen range extender? Why does everyone always think one or the other? I think the way this thread started was I said that Arnold did the right thing in affirming his [prior] commitment to hydrogen refueling stations. Can anyone say without a doubt that he should not have done that; abandon the people he made commitments to and leave them high and dry with hydrogen vehicles they can't fuel? WTF? Investments have been made, they should at least be brought to fruition. Sometimes integrity counts even if it's not the absolute 100% best solution to a problem.

↓↑report