Seriously gorr, it's baffling to me that you still say that kind of thing. After everything you've read, after all the responses you've gotten from people who know at least a little something about energy, physics, engineering etc., something should have sunk in.

If you electrolyze water at home, you're using electricity (that you already have at home) to do it... why then would you use the hydrogen to power your home, when you could use the electricity to power it directly?

Do you not understand what we've all been saying, or do just not believe us about things like conversion efficiencies or the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

↓↑report

Honda's Home Energy Station is already into its fourth generation. It's getting to be more environmentally friendly than the typical home energy use, but don't just read me, here's Honda:

"CO2 emissions for a household using the Home Energy Station are 30% lower than those for an average household using a gasoline-engine car and commercial electricity and heat.

Honda believes in a future society powered by hydrogen, and we are serious about our commitment to contribute to the development of useful refueling solutions."

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/home-energy-station.aspx

Of course, Honda is luck to have the support of the Japanese government. They've been experimenting with fuel-cell communities over there.

"Their are some significant benefits to this application, for example, the entire process poduces less greenhouse gas per watt than traditional generation. And no energy is wasted transporting the electricity where it's actually going to be used. Nearly every home in urban Japan is supplied with natural gas, making the implementation of hydrogen fuel cell power generation a simple transformation.

The Japanese government is strongly supporting this fuel cell technology. So much so that it has earmarked $309 million a year for fuel cell development and plans for 10 million homes--about one-fourth of Japanese households--to be powered by fuel cells by 2020."

http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/32778

↓↑report

letstakawalk: The Honda "home energy station" is powered by natural gas and costs $50,000, well outside most homowners budgets, even in Japan. The CO2 emissions might be less than an average household with a gasser and standard power and heat, but would be more than the CO2 emissions from a high efficiency home with a hybrid and solar panels - which would likely cost less! Not suprisingly, Honda would never have sold any without major government subsidies. For that matter, Honda would never have produced their H2 fuel cell prototypes without government subsidies, either.

I believe your figures are off a bit. $309 million a year for 10 years to install in 10 million homes implys a cost of just $309 each for those fuel cells, no way are they selling that cheap. At $50,000 each for the Honda home energy stations, that $3,090 million would only equal 61,800 units, a tiny fraction of that 10 million home goal.

GoodCheer: I'm afraid Gorr fell heavily for the Stan Meyers scam. That pretty fantasy is so much more appealing than dreary reality that he is now totally resistant to any reality based science and reason.

↓↑report

Chris M

1. Yes, the Honda system uses natural gas - to produce hydrogen for fuel-cell vehicles, as well as to provide heat and electricity for the home. I think you'll find that a very large percentage of American homes are already plumbed for natural gas.

"Natural gas is used in 61 percent of American homes for 64 million natural gas customers."

http://www.aga.org/Legislative/issuesummaries/SnapshotUSNaturalGas.htm

2. You're misinterpreting the Japanese support. That $309 million a year is for fuel-cell research, not specifically for buying fuel-cells. However, these subsidies are already paying off:

"Many of the companies participating in these programs see the sales and revenue potential of the technology within Japan’s competitive energy market and are announcing large-scale production within the next few years. Matsushita recently announced they would offer units to homeowners in April 2009 for a price below ¥1 million and by March 2011, it expects to sell between 3,000 and 5,000 units, with a target of between 60,000 and 100,000 planned for March 2016. Ebara Ballard is expanding its Fujisawa plant to be equipped to produce 1,500 units beginning in 2009, ramping that up to 10,000 units a year by 2011. Toshiba has also announced plans to increase its production volume to more than 10,000 fuel cells a year by 2012."

http://www.altenergymag.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=08.06.01&article=injapan

I know exchanges rates fluctuate, but that million Yen price tag that Matsushita is aiming for currently stands at about $11,000 US. I would imagine that as the assembly lines start humming, prices will go down. They predict prices will fall to 600,000 yen by 2015.

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080415/150496/

↓↑report

letstakawalk: Even the wildly optimistic installation figures mentioned in the article fall way short of "10 million", closer to 810,000. Still, it does show enthusiasm, and maybe they won't need as much subsidy if they can persuade enough homeowners to pay way too much for a fancy electric cogenerator.

Thanks for the pricing references. I noticed that the article didn't mention power capacity at all. However, going by typical fuel cell pricing, I'd estimate those home units to run somewhere between 1.8 to 3 Kw, more than enough for baseline but not enough to meet peak demand. Of course, an 80 Kw unit for automotive use would cost at least 26x more than that.

↓↑report

The last link, which makes reference to a Matsushita fuel-cell, says this:

"The rated output of the new system is as same as that of the existing model, 1kW. The new system enables part-load operation at 300W or higher. Although the highest power efficiency of 39% can be achieved at an output of 750W, the efficiency of 38% can be maintained at 500W-1kW."

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080415/150496/

It seems to me that the typical US household would do just fine with a 1kW system, although I'm sure with more efficient electronics in the home (fridge, LCD TV, better HVAC, CFLs) that number could be lowered dramatically.

"In 2007, the average monthly residential electricity consumption was 936 kilowatthours (kWh)."

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp

936kwh is about 1.3kW per day, if I'm correct. I see many sites quoting an average use of around 1.2kW per day...

As for an automotive fuel cell, well, that's why all these companies are investing in R&D. They are consistently bringing down the costs associated with fuel cells by developing more efficient membranes and minimizing or eliminating the need for expensive catalysts like platinum.

I can see you're going to continue to argue that hydrogen is a lost cause and a waste of time. However, several very large multinational corporations, along with the Japanese government, seem to disagree with you. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll read this blog, and thousands of engineers and scientists will all be instantly struck with the logic of your argument, and stop what they are doing.

I, on the other hand, will continue to watch the hydrogen economy grow and bloom. Those Japanese and German companies have never correctly predicted the development of the automotive market, anyway. Who do they think they are telling us what's coming next?

↓↑report

That's what GM and Ford are planning for their H2FCVs, as running on electricity cost about 1/5 as much as running on H2 fuel, and the large PHEV battery allows them to use a much less powerful and cheaper fuel cell for a range extender. I would not be the least bit surprised to see the remaining H2FCV makers follow suit.

Of course, if most local driving is electric, then there might not be enough demand for that pricey H2 fuel to keep the expensive H2 infrastructure going.

↓↑report

Chris M

As my comment above has shown, the current natural gas infrastructure is more than capable of providing all the hydrogen a hydrogen fuel cell owner would need. As well as reducing the cost of residential electricity (which means those who want a pure EV would find them even cheaper to operate!).

There's also the bonus of getting rid of all those tacky, expensive, and wasteful power transmission lines. Think of all the copper and aluminum that could be put to better uses!

↓↑report

letstakawalk: It isn't a natural gas supply problem, it's a demand problem. Those steam reformers and purifiers and H2 storage tanks and compressors and meters and dispenser hoses all have to be paid for (unless subsidized) and there will be maintenance costs (unless more subsidies?). If there aren't enough H2 fuel sales to pay those costs, the facilities will be closed - even government subsidies won't last forever.

As for using natural gas fired fuel cells for home co-generation, those units tend to produce a fairly steady power output while household power demand fluctuates wildly, so sometimes they produce more power than needed, sometimes less. The "grid" is still needed to redistribute and even out that power, so those power transmission wires are still very much needed. It's kind of a moot point, as the high cost per Kw (more costly than solar cells!) and having to still pay for natural gas will severely limit sales.

↓↑report

"Those steam reformers and purifiers and H2 storage tanks and compressors and meters and dispenser hoses all have to be paid for (unless subsidized) and there will be maintenance costs (unless more subsidies?)."

Let's see. I can buy the Matsushita unit, rated at 1kW and a 10 year lifetime, for approximately $11,000 (plus shipping, and installation, natch - but let's ignore those for now since the US gov will give me a tax credit for installing one)

"Assuming the service period of 10 years, the system ensures the durability for 40,000 hours by the improvement of fluorinated polymer electrolyte membrane."

This unit would provide heat, hot water, and electricity for my home, effectively taking me off the grid. I don't actually own a car, so I don't need it to produce surplus hydrogen for my vehicle. My monthly cost would be, what, about $91 a month. Yep, I'd be a sucker to buy one and never have an electric bill again. Sure, I'd have to pay for the natural gas, but since I no longer need a gas furnace, or a gas water heater, I'll assume the costs would even out on that expense (seriously, I'm tired of looking up factual data to back up my arguments while you pull yours out of who-knows-where).

Some pretty smart people are working very hard to accomplish something you continue to insist won't work. I wonder who'll be more successful?

Wouldn't you like to know who's using fuel cells near you? Maybe you can go ask them how they like them.

http://www.fuelcells.org/db/

↓↑report

Let's not forget the fact that natural gas is still a fossil fuel and thus contributes to rising atmospheric CO2 levels, no matter if you put it through a fuel cell directly, reform it to get hydrogen or just burn it.

↓↑report

Das Boese

True, nat gas is a fossil fuel, but using it decreases the overall CO2 emissions:

" CO2 emissions for a household using the Home Energy Station are 30% lower than those for an average household using a gasoline-engine car and commercial electricity and heat."

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/home-energy-station.aspx

That's why Japan is so interested in fuel cells - they are able to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when fuel cells are used:

"A recent study commissioned by Ballard Power Systems and Plug Power and independently verified by the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT) show that global greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions through the year 2025 from hydrogen and fuel cell technologies could be in the range of 30,000 to 115,000 kilotonnes."

http://www.altenergymag.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=08.06.01&article=injapan

"Greenhouse gas emissions are lower than gasoline-powered internal-combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

Producing hydrogen from natural gas does result in some greenhouse gas emissions. When compared to ICE vehicles using gasoline, however, fuel cell vehicles using hydrogen produced from natural gas reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60%.

...Current estimates indicate that using natural gas to produce hydrogen during the transition period to a hydrogen economy would increase overall U.S. natural gas consumption by less than 5%."

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/natural_gas.html

↓↑report

Indeed it does lower CO2 emissions, but in the typical fashion for H2 supporters, you're ignoring one important question: Are there ways to achieve a similar or higher reduction in CO2 emissions at the same or lower cost? And the answer is a fat resounding YES INDEED.
An intellectually honest comparison would pose the home energy station against a natural gas powered CHP unit and LNG car, in which case the cut in emissions probably wouldn't look that great anymore, especially considering the fact that both of the latter can be had for a fraction of the cost of the former.
But going even further, as Chris has kindly pointed out, for the price of one home energy station there are several alternatives that cut CO2 output far more dramatically and cost much less.

↓↑report

Thanks for acknowledging the benefits of fuel cells. I accept that there are other ways to decrease CO2 emissions, and the micro-CHP units are certainly quite affordable about half the current cost of admission for a fuel-cell unit (all prices likely to decrease over time):

"Unit cost for 2 to 6 kW systems is on the order of $10,000 to $20,000. The cost for installation should be moderately more than a conventional heating system for the additional natural gas line and the additional venting and electrical requirements. One manufacturer estimates installation cost for a system that modulates between 2 and 4.7 kW to be about $4,000 for new homes."

http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/Electrical-Electronics/combined-heat-power

So, it makes absolute sense to me, based on the decrease in emissions, and the relative low-cost of home power generating systems (either fuel cell or nat gas CHP), to have a vehicle that is powered by fuel cells powered by either nat gas or hydrogen derived from nat gas!

Thanks for helping me to illustrate that by using our natural gas infrastructure, we can cut GHG emissions substantially, while lowering the overall cost of powering our homes, and at the same time generate a fuel source for fuel-cell vehicles.

Fuel cells will also be employed in larger scale power generation, so the cost of providing electricity from the grid to charge your batteries (for those of you who insist on pure EVs) will also paying and polluting less!

"Fuel cells convert the energy stored within fossil fuels into electricity much more efficiently than traditional generation of electricity using combustion. This means that less fuel is required to produce the same amount of electricity. The National Energy Technology Laboratory estimates that, used in combination with natural gas turbines, fuel cell generation facilities can be produced that will operate in the 1 to 20 Megawatt range at 70 percent efficiency, which is much higher than the efficiencies that can be reached by traditional generation methods within that output range."

http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/technology.asp

↓↑report

"My monthly cost would be, what, about $91 a month."

That's the cost for the capital. You've neglected the costs for the energy.

According to data from the EIA, the residential sector (which consists of roughly 100 million houses in the US) consumes:

1.3E12 kWh of electricity/year
4.7E12 ft3 of NG/year
0.76E6 bbl/day of petroleum.

1 ft3 of NG contains about 0.29 kWh,
1 bbl heating oil contains about 1710 kWh, so these numbers translate to (average house, average month)

1000 kWh of electricity
1100 kWh of NG
395 kWh of oil

So ~2500 kWh/month (somebody please check on this... math errors happen. But 3.4 kW average power passes my 'gut' test).

So if all of that was coming from NG, at a price of $14/million BTU (man they like to use odd units)... which is $47/MWh, your NG bill would be on the order of $120/month in an average house. I don't get NG service, so I don't know if that number is a reasonable one to use, that number was from 2005.

In the winter, when you heating loads may exceed your electrical loads, there is a simple solution of having duplicated heating systems, one that uses the waste heat directly and one that uses waste electricity. (Or you can hope the net metering works about and simply push that extra electricity into the grid).

But in the summer, when your heating loads are minimal, you still have to generate the electricity you need, so your highly efficient combined heat and power system is now just a power system. Of course if you don't buy back electricity in the summer months your net metering definitely will not work out.

↓↑report

Also, 40,000 hours is 4.5 years, not 10.

↓↑report