Hydrogen might not be the answer?

[Natoma]

Oh really? So we can't eliminate losses of storing liquified and compressed hydrogen by using solid state hydrogen storage, or metal hydrides? Oh, and there's no way to obtain H2 other than by electrolysis utilizing the age old technique, nevermind biotech and nanotech.

Then the author glosses over the whole problem of electricity storage, which traditional batteries are terrible at from a density, lifetime, and pollution point of view. He does not mention the fact that if you don't use hydrogen for storage, you'll have to use flywheels, thermal, compressed air, superconducting rings, or some other form, such as a futuristic nanotech chemical battery that hasn't been invented yet.

The electric car died because the batteries were immensely expensive and had a high failure rate. Even today, if the electric batteries in a hybrid break down, which they do (MTBF 5 years), they cost anywhere from $1000-$5000 to replace.

Moreover, there is little discussion by the author of the total amortized cost per driver to upgrade the entire electricity grid, for the current grid cannot carry enough power to recharge 100 million vehicles everynight, in addition to powering everything else.

Yes, it is probably the case that hydrogen will never be as efficient as lithium-ion storage, then again, will lithium-ion storage ever reach the energy density of gasoline or fuel cells by weight? Or the reliability of internal combustion or fuel cells?

The author seems to have his own axe to grind, his "electron economy", but conveniently doesn't cover the third possibility, that we'll all be driving flex-fuel vehicles using biodiesel or other renewables and won't be using electricity at all, because the efficiency of biological processes at storing solar energy densely still rules everything.

Aren't you guilty though of the same things you're accusing the author of?

In terms of infrastructure and storage, an "electron economy" is far more feasible than a hydrogen economy. Both will require significant technological advancements to be at least as energy efficient as our current hydrocarbon economy, but the former will not require a huge investment in new infrastructure like the latter.

 

[DemoCoder]

No, I am not guilty of the same thing, because I do not rule out of the alternatives. I make no assertions about complete infeasibility of hydrogen. There is a difference between saying "hydrogen problems can never be solved" and saying that the author computes costs of hydrogen economy and rules out technological improvements with *no proof* provided, yet glosses over computing the full costs of an 'electron economy' I am merely pointing out that the "electron economy" has negatives and hidden costs that have not been fully accounted for.

The author is guilty of a strawman comparison, I am not, since I am trying to criticize the strawmans, the burden of proof is on the original author to prove his claims.

The fact is, you can't talk about massive hydrogen infrastructure costs, rule out any improvements to generation, storage, and distribution, and then hand-wave over required revolutionary improvements in battery technology and electrical distribution. Just like one can't compute the cost of ethanol by ignoring all the energy inputs and economic opportunity costs, especially with respect to land use.

Any notion of switching from fossil fuels, especially in transportation, to completely electric vehicles, would requirement completely radical changes in distribution and storage, and these engineering challenges are unsolved for hydrogen and for battery charged vehicles. Sure, you can sell a few electric cars piecemeal, but if millions were being produced and driven each year, we would face significant challenges, most of which are ignored in these hydrogen comparisons, which whine about setting up hydrogen gas stations and storage tanks.

If you don't think the former will require a large investment, I invite you to calculate the electrical load of 100 million electric cars on the nation's roads and compare it to the carrying capacity of the current grid, which we know is rotting away. The median annual mileage per person is something like ~10k miles, and a typical (non-SUV) EV will consume an average of 0.3 kWh/km, so in one month, you're looking at 400 kWh of extra consumption. A typical household already consumes about 800kWh in a month, so we're looking at an increase on the nation grid of 50%. That means not only more generation plants (a 50% supply improvement), but an increase in transmission capacity. Some people are predicting this will cost about $1 trillion, or anywhere from $5000-$10,000 per vehicle, a non-trivial amount of infrastructure spending, coupled with an unproven political will to embark on a major commitment to upgrading the grid.

Then there's the problem of the charging systems overloading the electrical systems of older houses, requiring installation of new special purpose circuitry for many Americans, and if you want fast-charging, it's even worse.

But this is precisely my point. Analysis of hydrogen economy uses cradle-to-grave or well-to-wheel efficiency analysis and then compares it to EV at the outlet to the wheel, which is apples and oranges.

 

[nelg]

If you don't think the former will require a large investment, I invite you to calculate the electrical load of 100 million electric cars on the nation's roads and compare it to the carrying capacity of the current grid, which we know is rotting away. The median annual mileage per person is something like ~10k miles, and a typical (non-SUV) EV will consume an average of 0.3 kWh/km, so in one month, you're looking at 400 kWh of extra consumption. A typical household already consumes about 800kWh in a month, so we're looking at an increase on the nation grid of 50%. That means not only more generation plants (a 50% supply improvement), but an increase in transmission capacity. Some people are predicting this will cost about $1 trillion, or anywhere from $5000-$10,000 per vehicle, a non-trivial amount of infrastructure spending, coupled with an unproven political will to embark on a major commitment to upgrading the grid.

The only possible oversight is that the grid, as it is, is meant to service peak demands. If EV charging can be done off peak hours, the impact can be minimal.

 

[Sxotty]

In terms of infrastructure and storage, an "electron economy" is far more feasible than a hydrogen economy. Both will require significant technological advancements to be at least as energy efficient as our current hydrocarbon economy, but the former will not require a huge investment in new infrastructure like the latter.

Please quit saying this.

It is not as efficient we just didn't pay the energy cost. And petroleum will not last.

Sure we can make petroleum from oil shale (way way way less efficient and guess what else the current process would take all the water from the Mississippi river to provide enough oil to meet our gas needs as of 2000)

We could make petroleum from coal, but you are talking much lower efficiencies as well.

The reason everyone is so excited about fossil fuel efficiency is really mostly a logical fallacy, they simply ignore the millions of years of work that nature put in for us.

Yes you could say the same of the sun, but it is quite different in that it is a fairly continuous output and using solar cells won't mean it runs out any faster.

Furthermore while petroleum is on the way out, perhaps LNG can stave off our needs for awhile, but after that what? If you burn all the rest of the fossil fuels that will last so long as those who want to dismiss alternative energy claim guess what you end up with? You end up with an atmosphere that is far below OSHA standards b/c it simply has too much CO2 in it. That is not even worrying about the greenhouse effect.

Whether or not hydrogen is the answer is definitely up to question, but the article is simply not doing a good job of being objective. Perhaps the authors goal was to inject a dose of reality into the hydrogen mania, but you don't do it this way.
Instead try something like this

Farrell, A., D. W. Keith, and J. J. Corbett (2003) A Strategy for Introducing Hydrogen Into
Transportation. Energy Policy 31: 1357-1367.

Keith, D. and A.E. Farrell. (2003) Rethinking Hydrogen Cars. Science. 301: 315-6. July 18.

They are a bit old, but poke plenty of holes in the issue of the hydrogen economy, but do a much better job of being rational about it.

 

[pax]

Isnt it still a basket of energy issue. We'll use all of it as much as we can and transfer some forms of energy into transportation fuel production. Finding massive gas fields up north heck a trillion cubic feet of gas reserve was found in the southern part of the province here this summer. Petcoke is the latest in the energy sources that was largely unused that is now going ahead replacing more expensive oil.

I dont see why there couldnt be both hydrogen and electric cars in the mix. Who killed the electric car docu said that the nickel based batts were very reliable and outlasted the cars on average...

 

[DemoCoder]

The only possible oversight is that the grid, as it is, is meant to service peak demands. If EV charging can be done off peak hours, the impact can be minimal.

Sure, but frankly, I wouldn't trust consumers to have friendly usage patterns, given they don't take minimal effort to conserve power today. We see it with people leaving on lights, using HVAC more than needed all through the night, buying halogen lamps, etc.

1) people's driving patterns won't match the patterns required to extract max mileage, so if an EV claims X miles per charge, better figure 50-80% of that.

2) I think you'll see people forgetting to charge, and ending up having to plugin during work hours to "top off" the battery.

You need plugin hybrids to fix this problem IMHO.

 

[nelg]

Sure, but frankly, I wouldn't trust consumers to have friendly usage patterns, given they don't take minimal effort to conserve power today. We see it with people leaving on lights, using HVAC more than needed all through the night, buying halogen lamps, etc.

1) people's driving patterns won't match the patterns required to extract max mileage, so if an EV claims X miles per charge, better figure 50-80% of that.

2) I think you'll see people forgetting to charge, and ending up having to plugin during work hours to "top off" the battery.

You need plugin hybrids to fix this problem IMHO.

I agree. I was just mentioning that there will be a sizable portion of this 'new' demand that could be serviced with minimal impact on the existing infrastructure.

In that vein I think technology such as that from VRB look like it might be an interesting way to maximize utilization. Actually the idea of filling up your car with an electrolyte may prove viable.

 

[Mintmaster]

Umm you are not up on that then
SMR is 78% efficient. The very best electrolysis is somewhere below 45%

Or as wiki says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming

That's what I said. I know electrolysis is a lot less efficient than steam reforming, yet I don't see these alternative green techniques (suggested by DC) being economically viable even compared to electrolysis. Hence the use of "let alone".

 

[bloodbob]

Umm you are not up on that then
SMR is 78% efficient. The very best electrolysis is somewhere below 45%

Yes lets use fossil fuels to produce hyrdogen. We are probably better off making fuels cells that can run on methane.

Oh and hyrdrogen is nearly as bad for the green house effects because it leaks a whole lot better then CO2 and hydrogen is a green house gas.

I favour catlytic cracking using High Temperature Nuclear reactor ( preferable thorium fuel Molten Salt Reactors ).