What's "a dead end from a technological, practical, and climate perspective"? Hydrogen fuel cell cars
Honda FCX Clarity - Click above image for high-res gallery
Joe Romm has long battled with vocal hydrogen vehicle proponent Gerg Blencoe on the value of H2 vehicles. They've made bets, given suggestions, and just plain disagreed about everything when it comes to hydrogen vs. plug-in electric vehicles. I doubt Romm's latest missive is going to change the situation.
Romm has published a lengthy post over at the MIT Technology Review on the "dead end" of hydrogen vehicles and why the U.S. DOE was right to slash funding for future work. Most of the first piece (it's the start of a series) is taken from Romm's 2005 journal article called, "The car and fuel of the future," from Energy Policy (PDF). As should be obvious from the headline, Romm methodically goes through and explains why hydrogen fuel cells are just not the right choice for transportation. A few highlilghts:
- Hydrogen is the most challenging of all alternative fuels, particularly because of the enormous effort needed to change our existing gasoline infrastructure.
- The most promising AFV [alternative fuel vehicle] pathway is a hybrid that can be connected to the electric grid. These so-called plug-in hybrids will likely travel three to four times as far on a kilowatt-hour of renewable electricity as fuel cell vehicles
- The new generation of hybrid PZEVs such as the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape hybrid have substantially raised the bar for future AFVs. These vehicles have no chicken and egg problem (since they can be fueled everywhere), no different safety concerns than other gasoline cars, a substantially lower annual fuel bill, greater range, a 30% to 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and a 90% reduction in tailpipe emissions. The vehicles do cost a little more, but that is more than offset by the current government incentive and the large reduction in gasoline costs, even ignoring the performance benefits.
- A push to constrain carbon dioxide emissions actually delays the introduction of hydrogen cars because sources of zero-carbon hydrogen such as renewable power can achieve emissions reductions far more cost-effectively simply replacing planned or existing coal plants.
Gallery: Tesla Model S
[Source: MIT Technology Review]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
jharlan 3:51PM (6/15/2009)
Is he right, Gorr? That's been my position all along.
Reply
gorr 3:53PM (6/15/2009)
There is nothing as silly as these anti-hydrogen folks asking to re-join human flesh corpses type of civilisation because they are actually in a human flesh corpses type of civilisation. They try to get rid of their souvenirs when they did and still do human genome experimentations in laboratory instead of f*ck*ng with religious songs into their heads like any biology do. Never do business with someone that don't know that energy is free and unlimited. It's a dead wish from 99.9% of humanity because energy was the old word for religion. As i said there is sufficient energy here for 100 billions cars and ships and trains and airplanes for the next million years approximatelly without polution.
Reply
ufgrat 4:24PM (6/15/2009)
So... where's the energy come from to liberate the hydrogen? Hydrogen is a battery-- You put energy into producing hydrogen, you get slightly less energy out.
If you're doing a bussard ramjet in space, where hydrogen is plentiful in free form, sure, it's a great source of energy. On earth, where the hydrogen is locked up in water or hydrocarbons... not so much. It's an energy carrier, not an energy source.
Chris M 4:43PM (6/15/2009)
We don't know that energy is free and unlimited, we think its expensive and rare. Therefore, Gorr, please take your own advice and stop doing business with us. There are other websites that believe just as you do, all enthused about "free energy". Go play with them and leave us unbelievers, autoblog green, GM, Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, Chrysler, Tesla, Aptera, electric companies, A123, LG Chem, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Volvo, Enerdel, Ford, US government, Better Place, Altairnano, Zenn, alone.
downtoearth 8:17PM (6/15/2009)
Leave gorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr alone, I'm a fan of the nonsense he writes and they way he does it, LOL.
Don J 1:38AM (6/19/2009)
Uh . . . What heck are you talking about? You sound like an insane street person.
Chris M 10:49PM (6/19/2009)
Oh, another fan of High Weirdness! Don't worry, downtoearth, Gorr rarely follows advice, even his own. And look, he's already posted new rants!
Don J, please understand that every successful blog with open comments tends to get at least one nutter, and with Gorr, AutoBlog Green has a real champion! Most of us just tune him out, unless we're in the mood for a little amusement.
polo 4:01PM (6/15/2009)
"The total well-to-wheels efficiency with which a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle might utilize renewable electricity is roughly 20% (although that number could rise to 25% or a little higher with the kind of multiple technology breakthroughs required to enable a hydrogen economy). The well-to-wheels efficiency of charging an onboard battery and then discharging it to run an electric motor in a PHEV, however, is 80% (and could be higher in the future)—four times more efficient than current hydrogen fuel cell vehicle pathways."
That says it all right there. It will be much cheaper to build zero-carbon energy plants to power EVs as they replace ICEs than it would to power hydrogen cars (which also would require an incredibly expensive fueling infrastructure built from the ground-up).
That hydrogen R&D money should all go toward developing cheap, longer range batteries. When batteries start carry significant access capacity you'll start seeing those utility-buy-back programs mentioned in the article.
Reply
gorr 9:49AM (6/16/2009)
Please notice that hydrogen apply to cars but trucks, ships, airplanes, electrical generation trains and machinery too. We don't need this hydrogen infrastructure as the hydrogen can be made and recirculated on-board into the devise. Gm, toyota, cia, us army, autoblog green, chinese goverment, europe goverment, canadian goverment, medias, wall street traders, every richs, every poors, each and every one have put treats to energy because they don't know that we live forever and that i will notice the name of the 1 folk that will put on the market for cash money a devise working with a water electrolizer and this one folk will be popular and hatred by millions of folks for a lot of time.
willyolio 4:35PM (6/16/2009)
anyone who knows anything about hydrogen production has known this for years. hydrogen fuel cells suck ass. i got excited about them in elementary school. i took chemistry in high school. fuel cells are cool, but not useful, technology.
efficiency is they key. then there's other downsides to add to that: increased complexity, storage problems, etc.
i stopped being a supporter of hydrogen after i got an education.
Chris 4:16PM (6/15/2009)
I bet all of the battery fanboys have hard ons now. Electric vehicles for long term is a farce. Expensive, heavy and just impractical. Of course it will cost a lot of money and time to convert gas stations to hydrogen stations.. or will it? It won't but anti-hydrogen goons want people to believe that. We're talking about THE future fuel, not some hyped up vaporfuel like E85. The technology is in it's infancy for hydrogen much like it was when battery power was.. actually, battery power is still in it's infancy too.
Reply
downtoearth 8:21PM (6/15/2009)
Chris, be realistic.
1. We have usable affordable durable electric motors. We do not have usable affordable durable hydrogen motors (fuel cells).
2. Storing hydrogen? Either a cryogenic or uberpressure tank (big, heavy, expensive and will always be considering what such tank has to bear with) or chemistry. In which you'll likely hit the same walls as in case of battery chemistries (low energy density, capacity decay over time and cycles).
3. Well-to-wheel efficiency of electric cars beats the one of fuel cell ones.
What else do you need to have to be convinced.
Chris M 6:17PM (6/16/2009)
Chris, if you think electric vehicles are a "farce", then you must conclude that H2FC vehicles are an even bigger farce. After all, those H2FC vehicles also have electric motors, plus they require batteries to run the car until the fuel cell can get started and supplement the fuel cell and store regenerative braking energy. The H2 storage tanks cost more than the equivalent EV battery, and the fuel cell costs several times more. The cost of driving on H2 fuel is a lot more than the cost of driving electric, and always will.
IIRC, the cost of installing one H2 fuel dispensing system is about $1,800,000. For that price we could install 750 EV charging outlets, high power, complete with meters, and located in just about any parking lot anywhere.
Lazybones 10:17PM (6/17/2009)
" Electric vehicles for long term is a farce",
Now consider that the EV is on sale now, we have city cars / sports cars & DIY cars available to buy not lease, not give back, but to truly own and drive. You can't say the same for H2 period!
"The technology is in it's infancy for hydrogen"
The first H2 concept vehicle was the 1966 GM Electrovan, 43 years later we still can't buy a Hydrogen car. We've only been driving cars for 100 years in total!!.
Face it, the car makers have focused so much on the car & its technology. They have overlooked the issues of supply/demand & storage. The window of opportunity for Hydrogen is closing not the other way around.
Whoever came up with the idea of "well to wheels" inadvertently helped kill H2 technology.
Travis Gintz 4:17PM (6/15/2009)
The whole REASON gov'ts are pushing Hydrogen is beause its something ELSE that they can tax. the crap out of and control. They don't care about efficiency.
Think about it, gasoline may not be regulated by the gov't, but the gov't is greatly involved in all aspecs related to Oil.
Reply
Greg Blencoe 4:21PM (6/15/2009)
(Sebastian, do me a favor and post some excerpts from this on a separate blog entry like you did above so as many people as possible can read what I have to say. I want to make sure this is ALL OVER the internet.)
I'd like to start out with a simple question:
What credibility does Joe Romm have?
Has he ever worked for a car company? How does being a government bureaucrat and then non-profit blogger make your opinion credible? Why does anybody pay attention to him?
It's hilarious how just about everybody's opinion besides EXTREMELY smart car companies like Toyota and Honda matters. Based on this logic, one would get their medical treatment from somebody who never went to medical school.
This applies to me, too. I always tell people, don't listen to me. Listen to Toyota and Honda. All I'm doing is repeating what Toyota and Honda (the REAL experts) are saying.
Moreover, did you notice that nearly all of Romm's references are from 2000-2005. He needs to stop living in the past! It's 2009! For example, here is what he says about Toyota:
"Bill Reinert, US manager of Toyota’s advanced technologies group said in January 2005, absent multiple technology breakthroughs, we won’t see high volume sales of fuel cell vehicles until 2030 or later (Truett, 2005). When Reinert was asked when fuel cells cars would replace gasoline-powered cars, he replied ‘‘If I told you ‘never,’ would you be upset?’’ (Butters et al., 2005)."
Romm has been recycling this quote for the last 4 1/2 years. But how do Bill Reinert and Toyota REALLY feel about plug-in battery vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles? Here are some Toyota quotes from 2009 (Romm apparently hasn't caught up on his reading lately - or maybe he's in COMPLETE DENIAL):
Here are three excerpts from a MUST-READ article by Jim Motavalli titled “Toyota’s Problem With Plug-in Hybrids” that was published on June 2, 2009 on Bnet.com:
“Instead of the 100 miles per gallon equivalent that some proponents claim, the plug-in reality is between 50 and 55 mpg…”
“Miller said that the promise of the lithium-ion battery pack—used in both PHEVs and pure battery EVs—has led to ‘inflated expectations beyond the technical realities.’”
“Miller said that battery technology has lagged behind that of hydrogen fuel cells.”
http://industry.bnet.com/auto/10001607/toyotas-problem-with-plug-in-hybrids/
Furthermore, check out this Bloomberg article from May 18th titled "Toyota Questions Cost, Batteries of Plug-In Hybrids" which includes the following excerpt:
"Toyota Motor Corp. said U.S. consumer demand for plug-in hybrids, a technology backed by President Barack Obama, may be limited by the vehicles’ price, recharge time and battery durability.
Toyota estimates sales of hybrids that can be recharged at household outlets may be 50,000 units a year at most and could be as few as 3,500, Bill Reinert, U.S. national manager for advanced technology, told a National Academy of Sciences panel today in Washington. Sales of Toyota’s Prius, the best-selling gasoline-electric vehicle, were almost 159,000 last year."
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=arvp1GgT74o8&refer=japan
Moreover, here is a quote from Justin Ward from Toyota at the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) 2009 World Congress in Detroit in April:
"We feel that there is a place for EVs in the future, but what is that place? It’s pretty challenging for a full-range larger vehicle. We do see a market for the smaller, shorter range EVs. The key is to make sure your grid is clean. We don’t talk much about it these days, but we are still working very, very strongly on fuel cell technology."
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=86767&cat=8
And here is a direct quote from Bill Reinert of Toyota in an Energy Tribune interview at the beginning of the year (e-mail me if you want the link since I can only post three links per comment):
“Having said all that, I’m still very bullish on the promise of fuel cells. There are several manufacturers that are turning out very promising cars, cars that couldn’t be realized without using fuel cells. Most of us have solved many of the initial problems including energy density and cold weather performance. We still have some cost problems, but at least we can see a clear pathway. Energy storage is still an issue, but we’re learning how to design around that.
I think the biggest issue facing the emergence of fuel cells has nothing to do with the products and everything to do with the infrastructure. Despite all the work the auto companies have done to develop the cars, there isn’t a corresponding effort on the infrastructure side. We can develop the best car in the world, but if the customer can’t find fuel for it, they’re unlikely to adopt it.”
Here is a quote from a New York Times blog entry on January 12, 2009 (again, e-mail me if you want the link since I can only post three links per comment):
“Masatami Takimoto, a Toyota executive vice president and board member, disclosed the company’s hydrogen plans in an interview at the show. ‘By 2015, we will have a full-fledged commercialization effort,’ Mr. Takimoto said.”
Why doesn't Romm ever bring up all of this recent information from Toyota?
As the AutoblogGreen entry posted earlier today by Sebastian said, 115 Plug-in battery Priuses with $10,000 battery packs in various parts of the country over an entire year are getting LESS THAN 50 MILES PER GALLON!!!
Smart companies like Toyota and Honda already know this. This is why they are so negative on the technology.
And here is what Bill Reinert from Toyota had to say about the Toyota FT-EV which is an EXTREMELY small battery-only vehicle with no trunk and only a 50-mile range (again, e-mail me if you want the link since I can only post three links per comment):
“Within Toyota, we’re working on a niche electric vehicle. At the North American International Auto Show in Detroit this year, we showed a concept of what our current thinking is. A small, city car with relatively limited range, that’s reasonably affordable, targeted at non-traditional markets. But it’s not intended to be a mass-market car. We’re looking at sales volumes of thousands not millions. To produce an electric vehicle that’s truly intended for a mass market, a replacement for your current gasoline car, we’re going to need a battery chemistry that isn’t currently available.”
What does Romm have to say about the Toyota FCHV-adv hydrogen fuel cell vehicle which is a mid-size SUV that has a 516-mile driving range in the Japanese 10-15 test cycle and a driving range of more than 400 miles in real-world driving which can be fueled in a few minutes and has trunk and passenger space comparable to conventional vehicles?
And why doesn't Romm (supposedly "Mr. Global Warming") talk about how half of the electricity in the U.S. comes from coal and 20% comes from natural gas? This is a really "clean" way to power plug-in battery vehicles.
While I admit that the hydrogen to power the initial fuel cell vehicles will come from natural gas (which is still A LOT better than gasoline), this is only a bridge to hydrogen from wind power and then solar power.
Romm and other plug-in battery advocates are the BEST FRIEND of the oil companies. When you support a technology that is not viable for mainstream consumers, you are supporting the status quo.
Instead, he should be an advocate of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles where the hydrogen is produced from wind and solar power. The goal should be to make the transition from hydrogen from natural gas to "green" hydrogen as soon as possible.
Like I said at the beginning, JOE ROMM HAS NO CREDIBILITY. What has he ever done in the auto industry? What has he ever created? Again, don't believe me. But you should believe Toyota and Honda. They are the REAL experts.
One very ironic piece of information is that Romm drives a Toyota Prius!!! And yet he doesn't trust their judgment with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and plug-in battery vehicles!!!
The hydrogen car revolution will happen no matter what Romm says or does.
Perhaps Romm should put his money where his big mouth is and use his "expertise" to start a company that sells plug-in battery vehicles against the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles from Toyota and Honda.
It will not be long before people start calling this guy Joe Wrong.
Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.
"Hydrogen Car Revolution" blog
Reply
meme 4:43PM (6/15/2009)
To save everyone the time of having to read the propaganda that Greg is literally being paid to post (flag his posts if you don't think astroturf has a place on this board), I'll sum up:
I'm going to appeal to authority. My "authority" isn't peer review, but the PR statements of automakers.
Appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority.
I'm going to keep appealing to this (often outdated) PR, even when the best I can find is them saying is that the companies I specifically chose haven't completely abandoned fuel cells yet.
Appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority.
As usual, I'm not going to counter any of the technical points, but continue to appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority.
Argument about how EVs are powered by coal, hilariously transparently ignoring the fact that anything related to power sources that you damn EVs with will damn H2 3-4 times over.
Appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority.
Appeal to authority.
meme 4:51PM (6/15/2009)
Oh, and even though our resident astroturfer seldom reads replies:
Hey, Greg: doesn't Wintergreen Research's forecast of 32.7 million total EVs shipped by 2015 and China's EV production goal (and when China sets an industrial goal, they usually hit it) of 500,000 per year by *2011* make your skin itch? :)
Keep pointing vaguely at Toyota (which will be commercially producing for sale two EVs within the next couple years) and Honda (which will be commercially producing for sale one electric motorcycle within the next few years) -- the world's two biggest hydrogen proponents, neither of which are actually going to be commercially producing hydrogen for sale in the same timeframe. And that's the world's two biggest hydrogen proponents! Because no matter how much you spam us, your bank account is still going to go dry, and finally we'll be able to stop having to listen to your paid tripe.
XYZ 6:05PM (6/15/2009)
"I always tell people, don't listen to me."
The best sentence I have ever read from this moron.
Snowdog 6:53PM (6/15/2009)
Typical empty Blencoe "he said, she said" post. Doesn't change the basic facts:
H2 Electrolysis cycle uses 3X the energy of EV cycle.
There is essentially no H2 infrastructure, building one would cost hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. Anyone with a an electrical outlet can charge their EV or PHEV.
There is no affordable fuel cell and no solid idea when one will arrive. Batteries while expensive are in the range of middle class afford-ability. Volt arrives in 2010.
So mediocre efficiency, no real cars, no infrastructure, no seeming way to get there without a hundred billion or so of taxpayer dollars.
And a lobbyist trying to get those tax dollars.