Related Sections: Future Tech Green Tech Shift Vehicles
SHIFT: Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a fraud
Who wouldn’t like the idea of a fuel cell car running on clean, pure hydrogen, the universe’s most plentiful element? Its byproduct is sparkling, drinkable water, with none of that pesky pollution spewing out the tailpipe. And then if there's any energy left over when you're done driving, why, you could use that car's fuel cell to power your house! We can get rid of gasoline! And fuel cells, hey, they use those in spacecraft, don't they? This is some modern stuff, and at first glance, hydrogen appears to be a viable solution to all our energy problems.
Well, think again. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are a dumb idea, and those who are pushing them are frauds. They want to advance their own agendas, and couldn’t care less whether their cars are practical or not. They just want to make more money. In fact, their tired ideas for fuel cell vehicles have already been left in the dust by electric and hybrid vehicles, and there are a lot of good reasons why.
To give you an idea, mass producing a fuel cell-powered bus is going to cost $200,000 extra just for the engine, according to its designers at Caltech and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Pretty good, though, considering that just two years ago, the average cost of a fuel cell vehicle was a cool million dollars.
This huge cost issue is just the tip of this expensive iceberg. While some companies that are seeking funding for their fuel cell vehicle schemes say otherwise, the cars are notoriously impractical. I smell boondoggle.
These fuel cell cars need four times the volume to store an amount of energy equal to that of gasoline. Even though the energy-generating equivalent of hydrogen is lighter than its gasoline counterpart, you need a 60 gallon tank to store the same amount of energy that’s in 15 gallons of gasoline. These cars won’t go far before it’s time for more hydrogen.
Good luck with that, though, because so far there’s just one retail hydrogen station in the U.S. (run by, you guessed it, an oil company), far short of the thousands needed to make this hydrogen economy anything more than a pipe dream. The other experimental stations are nothing but showboat propaganda fronts that expend far more energy than they create. Anyway, the oil companies would be happy to invest in that costly infrastructure, because they know they'll get their money back. But it'll be coming out of your hide, just like it always has.
There are a variety of impractical ideas for using hydrogen to propel cars, but they're years — and maybe even decades — from being cost-effective. Most of these schemes seem to suspiciously somehow involve the oil companies keeping their greedy paws in the “hydrogen economy.” To give you an idea, one great proponent of the “hydrogen economy” is energy expert, former oilman and conservation guru George W. Bush. 
By Hydrotester at 8:54 PM ON 07/31/08
I will be getting a hydrogen vehicle shortly, from Honda. I have driven it in Japan and love... thus I was able to bring one back into the USA to socal where I will be part of a pilot program. My car works, it is not pie in the sky and it works better than my Benz that I paid $75,000 for. I's say you have been fooled because you actually don't have a clue what you are taking about. here is a link to the very car I own which is real and I have put almost 2000 KM on it.
By Joshikins at 9:19 PM ON 07/31/08
Uh, last time I checked they were working on a hydrogen gas pump that charged up with solar power and hooked up to say the local lake...Yeah it's a scam...
By kruton at 10:18 PM ON 07/31/08
Hydrotester, that's the same car the editorial is talking about. Please learn how to read.
By Doma Ka at 10:30 PM ON 07/31/08
Hydrogen aka Gas 2
Why just pay for electricity when you can pay for the electricity AND the medium.
"Hydrogen: Because you F ing NEED US." ~Big Oil
By steelew at 10:30 PM ON 07/31/08
I would much rather see hydrogen powered cars where the hydrogen was produced by wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric ... Then use battery powered cars that have lead, mercury and tons of other heavy metals and various toxins that are powered by coal burned electricity. Read the articles here on this site that say the carbon foot print of a brand new prius that hasn't even been driven one mile is that of a car thats already been driven 100,000 miles. Electric and hybrid cars are what is going to keep making global warming get worse because people think that they are perfect or no emission.
By SpeedBlue47 at 10:34 PM ON 07/31/08
Having a real car produced in a limited batch run doesn't mean that it is practical - they made jet-turbine cars in the fifties. The point here is, yeah, it works, but is there any point? The only point for this technology is if battery and capacitor technology lags so much that we need a more effective and long-range storage medium for electrical power. I don't think that will be the case for 90% of cases. With A123 Systems new Li-Ions having a 20 years life and capable of a full recharge at 440 volts in under 5 minutes, even bus systems will be able to switch to battery-powered electric motors and lose the trolley line.
I was a huge fanboy of the technology of fuel cells when they arrived on the scene, but when I saw how hard it was to procure the hydrogen portion of the equation - and how inefficient hydrolysis was and is - I knew that it was going no where.
It's OK, we have a host of battery technologies and motor designs on the way. If it feels cool to drive the Clarity, enjoy your Honda-subsidized high-tech joy ride. But if and when oil prices do become unbearable, people will be buying PEVS and PHEVS and FCVs. That make I can be sure of.
By GreenDelivery.net at 10:46 PM ON 07/31/08
Very good article, all very good points. I only disagree with the implication that fuel cells are an absolute dead end.
True, fuel cell vehicles are extremely expensive to build right now, but those are all prototypes and you can't compare the cost of any prototype with the cost of the same item mass-produced. That said, in order to get to the mass-production stage there would have to be a huge market so the other obsticles you point out will need to be overcome. The no-infrastructure, no-market conundrum will have to resolve itself over time, as it did with gasoline cars.
You are absolutely right that hydrogren is not a fuel (in the case of fuel cells), but a storage medium. Technically though, storing energy and taking it with us is the whole idea regardless of how it's used; it just happens that petroleum based fuels are the most efficient means of "storing energy to take with us" that we have now.
As far as producing the hydrogen, electrolysis is a very simple process but as you point out, current methods of producing hydrogen are very inefficient. This is the reason it doesnt make sense to produce hydrogen using electricity off the grid. By the time we convert the electricity to hydrogen, and then back to electricity, we only have 30-40% of the energy we started with. The only light at the end of this tunnel would be that with solar and wind prices coming down rapidly, it may be possible in the future to cost-effectively build massive hydrogen production plants where we have both water, wind, and alot of open space (offshore perhaps). Again, this is not proactical now, but may be when the cost/KW of solar power falls to about 20% of where it is now.
Also as solar efficency increase and costs drop, rural filling stations could produce their own hydrogen on-location. They are experimenting now with this is other counttries including Sweden and Iceland. Of course, there is some amount of hype involved because their PR forgets to mention that only one or two cars stop for fuel each day, and if there were more they could not produce the hydrogen fast enough (with current technology).
Another (far out) idea is using tiny-nuclear to produce hydrogen. Sounds far-fetched but Toshiba is already marketing a "personal" nuclear plant that is cheap, self-contained, maintenance free, about the size of a truck trailer, and can be buried underground and provide a small community with all of it's power for 20-30 years. In theory, and even smaller version could power individual hydrogen filling stations, or act as a hub in distribution of hydrogen to multiple stations. At the end of it's life, it could produce one final batch of hydrogen and oxygen to use to power it's own waste into the sun or Jupiter, or power the machine that would drill and transport the waste deep underground where we have virtually unlimited space for it. I am not saying that I personally think this would fly, but there are some that take the idea even further, all the way to lunchbox size nuclear cells (in the car) that power it for the entire life of the vehicle. This stuff is obviously way off, but someone has to think of it between now and a few hundred years from now when we are out of oil.
I disagree that any of the major auto makers with fuel cell development are "frauds". Yes, they are in it to make money, but they certainly are losing money now and a lot of it. They won't see any profits until (if) there is a mass market, and they know that won't happen on hype, it will only work if the product makes economical sense, and that will depend on improvements over existing technolgy, and a number of outside factors.
One of those other factors is, of course, the alternatives. I agree that electric vehicles operation on regular batteries have several advantages over fuel cell right now, but the one huge problem that EV needs to overcome is range. Not many people will buy a car that only goes 20-30 miles on a 6-hour charge. Multiply that range by 10x and I will be first in line. The whole idea of the fuel cell is to increase the range of the EV by providing a method for storing electricity that is much lighter, more space efficient, and (eventually) less expensive than current battery technology.
A perfect example is the Peugeot H2Origin:
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/peugeot-h2origin.htm
Using the best battery technology available now, it gets 60 miles on a charge. But add the fuel cells and that range extends to 180 miles. Furthermore, the hydrogen tanks are easily interchangable so you could (theorectically) stop by your local convenience store pick up an extra tank if you run out, and you are back on your way; as opposed to pluging in and waiting hours for your batteries to charge.
I agree that HEV is by far more practical than either EV or fuel cell with current technology, and that's why you see hybrids all over the place and not the others. However, if we look at hybrids as the final solution, and stop all other development, then we will find ourselves back where we are today several years from now when everyone is driving a hybrid, and since we are using less gass we drive more, and then more people get mroe hybrids and use more gas, and before you know it, oil demand is even higher than it is today... problem not solved.
I look at hybrids as a bridge of the gap between gas cars and no-gas cars.
Fuel cells are just kind of "battery", another way to carry our energy around with us. It is not clear yet which energy storage method with advance more rapidly and compete with oil in terms of it's efficiency at doing this job, but why not continue developing as many as possible until we find the right one?
By DelosWorld at 11:17 PM ON 07/31/08
I can't defend hydrogen powered vehicles for widespread use but in certain locations or in niche applications it may not be such a bad idea. For example Iceland is building a hydrogen infrastructure to power its vehicles. They have plenty of thermal/steam energy sources because of all the volcanic activity on the island so in this case they're converting heat energy to energy stored in hydrogen. The author states that you might as well charge an electric car directly but batteries are not always going to work well in very cold climates. Ever try to crank your car on a very cold morning? I wouldn't want to rely on a battery pack with lowered capacity in cold weather to get me very far.
Let's dispute some of the other rigid remarks:
Not for Sale
It's not unreasonable for any new product or prototypes of new products to cost a LOT. You don't get any benefit of lowered costs in a mass produced item until, well, you start mass producing. Just because DVD players cost thousands of dollars a piece when first introduced did not mean that they would not eventually become a cheaper product that can now be had for less than $50. Also the high costs of early prototypes or limited volume production runs may be small in comparison to the value of the data that a company could gather by the use of the product in the real world. And while the company may eventually decide to terminate a product offering (think EV1, the GM electric plug-in) it may also learn how to improve the product or make it more practical in everyday use. So leasing is a great way to get the product into the hands of a typical consumer. They could also let people use experimental vehicles for free but in the mindset of the author that would probably be an even more aggregious corporate abuse.
Is Hydrogen a Fuel?
Yes, when you burn it. Gasoline is also an energy storage medium that is storing energy emitted by the Sun millions of years ago. Scientists are developing ways to generate hydrogen other than from fossil fuels or electrolysis. For example, algae can generate hydrogen in a low oxygen environment. As a bonus algae can also be used to generate a biodiesel type fuel that can be more efficient (in terms of land use area and solar energy input) by a factor of at least 10 as compared to any other oily plant, tree, or nut. It's a twofer! And as I stated previously about Iceland that hydrogen is more portable and useful as a fuel in a vehicle than hot steam coming out of the ground. Batteries are also not the greatest idea in cold climates.
Can’t we just mine hydrogen from the ground?
You're right, we can't, at least not in large volumes. (Although helium is obtained from natural gas deposits which also contain small amounts of hydrogen gas, but just not in large volumes.) When fossil fuels get used up you won't be able to mine more of them out of the ground either. It's good thing that won't happen for at least several hundred more years, more or less. And while long distance distribution of hydrogen is a problem to imply that hydrogen stored in a vehicle's tank will dissipate quickly is rather misleading. If you were to compare the leakage rate of hydrogen from a vehicle storage tank with the self-discharge rate of just about any battery in an electric vehicle I'd bet you dollars to a donut that after a year or two or three the hydrogen powered vehicle would still run while the electric vehicle would not. The volume required to store hydrogen is generally larger than gasoline but you could say the same thing about ethanol. The volumetric energy content of hydrogen also depends at what pressure it's being stored (which is probably more of a safety issue). The author did not provide any specifics about the hydrogen storage that was cited for comparison.
Where will you get that hydrogen?
I ceded the point that hydrogen using present day technology is not such a great idea for large scale use. But you never know if better storage, generation, or distribution technologies will be developed by some schmarty in the future.
Plenty of Guff
That pretty much describes that entire paragraph which also includes the obligatory quantity of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) and corporate conspiracy theories.
Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Again I'll cite Iceland as being a good testbed for the use of hydrogen powered vehicles today and not in the distant future. The use of a hydrogen fuel cell to generate electricity to power a vehicle is also not required as hydrogen may also be injected directly into a relatively standard internal combustion engine, or at least modified close to the level of an E85 ethanol modified engine.
By Jonsul at 12:20 AM ON 08/01/08
I fully agree, why pay for something that's going to take decades to perfect when there are many great alternatives already around us working. Electric cars, ethanhol cars, air powered cars, etc.
Plus the use of fossil fuels to make hydrogen could actually make things worse.
check out this book on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen
By thexfile at 2:34 AM ON 08/01/08
whel i admit that hydrogen is not realy that good of a deal yes....
if you have watshed programs on variouse tv chanels like discovery you wil know there are other solutions to this gas problem...
some that are in fackt more handy and cleaver.
and ofcourse the reason why they are not gettng of the ground realy is the strangelhold of the oil companies.....
but there ar a few that sukseeding....
in the end i think we just have to change the way we live... and the way we build sittys....
i've been working in the construction industrie for years and i've trie to push change...
for instance if we make sitty's that way so we do'nt have to travel as much that would be a bigger benifit then just looking for a new fule...
but people are reluctant...
they stick to old idea's , not realy wanting to change...
and if you look outside the box like me , you get punished and isolated...
i have to fight dayly withe my fellow co workers just to get things made more easy....
in the end i think we just have to knock the sence in to eaverybody that having your own car is a privilage....
i explicitely do'nt own one !!
why ?
i live near al i need , 5 min from a mal , 10 min from a train and busstation , tram in front of the apartmant , and 2 busses in the street....
i have a nice bike i ride when it's not raining...
i chose to live here , to have this ease of life...
and we need to want that more....
to be honest if i go to my dad in belgium i feel stuck... why ?? becouse his house is somewhere nice of the side of a higway , but there is 1 bus an hour ( insted of 1 every 10 min where i live ) and the shops are like 20 min by car...
this is frustrating ....
i could not live somwhere , where i would have to spent al that time wasted just getting to a shop :-S
i walk 5 min and i have al i need , he drives 20 min and stil needs to travel more to get al he wants....
this is a stupide american model...
lukely i live in a part of holland where it's more sencible....
so stop shifting the problem to fule...
the bigger gains can be made by not needing al those cars in the 1st place....
but ofcourse the car and oil companies are not wanting you to realize this...
why would they ?? it would only hurt themselves...
so why not make a big confusing war so we forget the bigger more easy solution !!!
where have i heard that before ?? , o yes it's something the bush famely are realy good at ;-)
it al comes down to better planning...
if we plan better , and we make sacrefices we can do it sympeler and better !!
that's what we humans are good at , over thinking stuff....
By Yogurt at 4:51 AM ON 08/01/08
@XFILE: OH YOU FREAKY DUTCH!
Of course America has further to drive than Holland would! A bigger population means that everyone has to drive past each other to get somewhere. Your ideas are excellent for small little villages but tell the citizen of Atlanta, GA who average a 60 minute one way commute to work that they should be riding their bikes so it becomes a 3-6 hour commute.
I guess it doesn't take a war to get you confused. Then again I don't go blaming your leader for it either.
By Bruce Simpson at 4:52 AM ON 08/01/08
Snap... I wrote a very similar article a few months ago called The Great Hydrogen Myth
http://aardvark.co.nz/features.shtml
Perhaps it's true that great minds think alike (although they also say that "fools seldom differ" :-)
By Yogurt at 5:13 AM ON 08/01/08
Fools do seldom differ. For those who aren't so foolish and kept saying "There might be new technology to make hydrogen more viable" you might like the link. For those who are fools, keep being upset with the President of the United States like you understand anything.
By F at 8:43 AM ON 08/01/08
It is most likely misleading to state that hydrogen in not a fuel. Yes, it is an "energy storage medium", but then again, ALL fuels store energy. What makes some fuels better than others are their basic qualities, such as the quantity of energy stored and the ease with which that energy can be released.
Mr. White, you may want to qualify your statement.
By nicholasjh at 11:05 AM ON 08/01/08
As someone else said and I have been reading about as well Hydrogen can be produced by the Sun ala Algae, easy enough, "Scientists are developing ways to generate hydrogen other than from fossil fuels or electrolysis. For example, algae can generate hydrogen in a low oxygen environment. "
By Bratag at 11:40 AM ON 08/01/08
Hydrogen fuel buses are already in widespread use in Iceland complete with refueling stations. As people have mentioned the cost of the initial cars is expensive as they are individually created instead of mass produced. The real issue with hydrogen powered vehicles is the infrastructure for refueling. Right now there are thousands of gas stations and they meet consumer requirements. The demand for Hydrogen vehicles will not be able to take off until the issue of filling them up is resolved. Right now in China they are putting cars on the road at a very high rate and do not have infrastructure in place to meet demand for refueling and it is causing big problems with long lines at stations and gas running out a them.
Articles like the above should not be included on a tech site such as DVICE. Its more like an op-ed piece than a factual tech article.
By TheAdlerian at 12:33 PM ON 08/01/08
I liked the tone of the article simply because I'm tired of science fantasy, especially energy stuff, taking the place of fact. It's a constant tactic of crapitalists to sell dreams, which ultimately disappoint.
With that being said, I thought that Iceland has been making a serious switch to hydrogen. Is that true, or what? If so, it would be great to contact someone, a non-business person, to ask their impressions.
By Smurf at 1:57 PM ON 08/01/08
I' have actually seen the costs with these fuel cells in action. I work for the government and we had a fuel cell as a backup to solar at a communications site. The local university energy lab built and took care of the fuel cell until they realized that with the solar primary the fuel cell didn't run enough in one year to make it worth the cost of one tank of hydrogen. Needless to say it was removed and I have installed one new set of batteries in ten years at a cost of $2300.00. I think thats a bargain compared to ten years worth of hydrogen.
By Bratag at 2:28 PM ON 08/01/08
By Emperor Ho at 4:31 AM ON 08/02/08
I can't help but wonder who the author really works for. Or where he went to school.
Hydrogen is not a storage medium you idiot, it is an element, look on the periodic chart. Hydrogen is indeed a fuel, it burns, and like all things that burn it does so in the presence of Oxygen, Oxygen does not burn, it supports combustion. And Hydrogen is also the most abundant thing in the entire universe. And on this planet, with 3/4 of its surface covered by water, which is two parts hydrogen and one part Oxygen, making it the perfect fuel once you break the bond, there is plenty for all our needs. And yes it takes electricity to separate the water, to break the bond, but not that much. In fact you only need a normal car battery to start the engine, to start the process, once it is running and especially when the vehicle is moving it will produce far more electricity than is needed with the help of alternators. There is some 1200 cubic feet of hydrogen in one gallon of water. Adding solar cells on the body increases the electrical input. The electricity used won't move the vehicle nearly as far or as fast, plus you won't need huge banks of batteries, banks that contain either gallons of acid or dangerous chemicals. And for those still pushing gas, ever figure out the amount of energy used to bring the crude oil out of the ground, transport it halfway around the world, process it to get at the gas, then transport it across the country, the cost of all the different additives, then the truck that burns fuel to take it to the station where again a pump uses energy to get it into your tank. There is no fuel system that does not use up energy from other forms or sources to eventually move your car. And the water conversion systems that are out there now have the great advantage of not spewing poison into the air we breathe.
we are going to see lots of opposition to, and lots of disinformation about any system that the corporations can't attach a meter to so they can tap your wallet. Many great ideas and methods have been discovered over the past 100 plus years that don't require wallet tapping, you should be able to guess why we don't have them available. So beware of all the disinformation you will be seeing in the near future about fuel system and energy production. I will grant the author one thing he got right for now fuel cells are expensive, but if you think back the first VCR's cost $2,500, the first hard drives, of a whopping 10 megabytes cost $20,000, as did the first plasma screen TV's, and I remember reading not that far back the big announcement that RAM could be bought for only $1 a megabyte, that my friends was a huge drop in cost, HUGE. Look at the ads today and see what those things cost now, and they are still raking in the profits on them.
By oilcompaniessuck at 2:21 PM ON 08/02/08
Mass production will bring down the cost of electrolyzers , storage systems and fuel cells. As systems become available to the public the cost of hydrogen and the systems which create it will go down. Lets end the energy monopoly and promote energy systems we own ! Where is the fraud ? The auther will soon see clean renewable energy powering our future and wonder why this article was ever written .
By Brass_Orchid at 4:50 AM ON 08/03/08
Hydrogen, like all quantum matter, is stored energy already. The idea is to store additional energy in harmonic inter-particle relations as chemical bonds capable of exothermic reaction. Hydrogen is capable of this when it oxidizes. So is carbon. The goal is portable energy, stored in a usable form. The present carbonphobia and a belief that 12K years of glacial reduction is caused by 200 years of industrial activity is more of a problem. We already use hydrogen stored in a carbon matrix every day, as coal, oil, natural gas and other various petrofuels, produced by gravitation and solar and geothermal heat, forms of energy that are converted naturally into portable chemical fuels, such as methane, which pours from landfills in large amounts, assisted by anaerobic bacterial processes. In all cases, there is energy invested into creating energetic molecular states that can be later released by changing those molecular states by forming new chemical bonds. No battery or chemical fuel source works by any other method. The energy must be invested before it may be recovered and spent. Energy efficiency is more important to our present needs. Our present technology wastes a great deal of energy in its difference engines, most of which is absorbed by the environment at large, performing no useful work in the process. Technologically, we have not yet rolled over, much less stood up and taken a step. We haven't actually mastered fire yet.
By John Bailo at 2:06 PM ON 08/03/08
Hydrogen is a fuel. It can run a standard ICE directly with a slightly modified carburetor. This is how the Hydrogen 7 from BMW works. Yes, it can also be used in a hydrogen "fuel" cell to create electricity.
And the new research released from MIT this week shows that H2 can be generated cheaply from solar-wind.
Case closed: H2 Wins!
By Henry Bowman at 9:31 PM ON 08/03/08
So the author was a little lax in his terms, but his point is solid. Hydrogen is a battery, not an energy SOURCE like oil, coal, or nuclear where the effort required to dig it up and exploit it is much less than the energy contained in the material. Hydrogen will stop being a battery / storage mechanism / transfer mechanism only when we can MINE it somewhere at cheap rates like we can those other energy sources. Yeah, it's all over space, in the sun, and on really cold planets, and once we are able to get it from there to here it might start being an efficient SOURCE of energy. Until then, I agree with the author: stop blowing smoke up it.
By sikkdays at 12:03 PM ON 08/04/08
Wow, I can't believe the negative comments here. Everyone seems to think this article is about the science of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles being bunk. In actuality it is about the politics. Go rent "Who Killed the Electric Car?" this evening.
Thank you for the article.
By Cheap H2 at 3:46 PM ON 08/04/08
There appears to be a cheaper way to extract hydrogen from water. Quote from web article:
"'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution - Scientists mimic essence of plants' energy storage system"
By hydrohead at 6:54 AM ON 08/07/08
Honestly, this hole debate is a waste of time. Because unless there is some huge breakthrough in either physics or chemistry, it will always take more energy to make the Hydrogen then you can get out of the Hydrogen in fuel cells. Even if you are using wind or solar, would it not make more sense to just put that energy into the grid or store it a battery than to waste it in making Hydrogen and have less energy to show for it?
By weapon at 8:39 AM ON 08/07/08
I would just like to add that for under $200 I made my own Hydrogen cells with electrolyzers that run on baking soda and distilled water, installed them on my Mistubishi Montero Sport and have increased my gas mileage (alot) and engine performance. Thing is this technology has been around for a very long timw, it's easy, simple and cheap and anyone can do it, and no it's not a hoax.
By Jaimi at 8:58 AM ON 08/07/08
Your argument that hydrogen is not the greatest fuel *right now* and that people who want to push hydrogen are fraudsters, completely ignores the fact that no energy medium has ever been perfect from the beginning. Hydrogen is not perfect NOW, so let's not even pursue it! You sound the same as the other hucksters who want to keep gas around. Talk about pushing a hidden agenda!
By charles17 at 9:47 AM ON 08/07/08
good article... too many points to talk about... im sure the people before me have already said them anyway...
but i like how it points out that it is not going to be practical for any relevant timescale, oil companies and car companies are trying to greenwash and use hydrogen as an excuse to delay improvements to today's technologies, and that environment-raping posers should stfu and gtfo. lol... good article.
By charles17 at 9:48 AM ON 08/07/08
good article... too many points to talk about... im sure the people before me have already said them anyway...
but i like how it points out that it is not going to be practical for any relevant timescale, oil companies and car companies are trying to greenwash and use hydrogen as an excuse to delay improvements to today's technologies, and that environment-raping posers should stfu and gtfo. lol... good article.
By moviedemon at 10:05 AM ON 08/07/08
Whether you intended it or not your article, including the rather inflammatory title, almost comes off as a propaganda piece from the very oil companies you're criticizing.
You're right, hydrogen powered vehicles are a technology that is not ready for prime-time - and may never be.
But I hardly see a fraud being perpetrated here. Oil companies can yap all they want about creating a "hydrogen infrastructure" but nobody's beating my door down to sell me a hydrogen car - and nobody will until it's makes economic sense to do so- which may never happen.
Until then, we're in the experimenting phase which in the grand American tradition of automobiles, means putting a car on the road and "seeing what she'll do." Nothing wrong with that...
Basically, you're ranting about a problem that doesn't even exist yet.
By DanZ at 10:41 AM ON 08/07/08
When making blanket statements, at least have some numbers to back them up. The research is still being conducted, and the jury is still out. Perhaps it is premature to say that hydrogen fuel cells are a viable alternative to gasoline. It is also premature to say that they are frauds.
By Angwal at 10:57 AM ON 08/07/08
I disagree with the article. We are still searching for the best alternative fuel and maybe a couple of them might be viable. We'll have to see which ones survive. I still think Hydrogen is better than electric, right now, because we do not have any solar panel cars that can run as efficient and with as much horsepower as the hydrogen cars do. Yet the hydorgen is being produced by solar panels. So you get the horsepower and efficiency from the hydrogen and the energy for producing it from solar panels. It's a win win situation, I think.
By clean fuel for me! at 11:03 AM ON 08/07/08
I think it is important to point out that fuel cells have come a long way. Samsung is looking a introducing a cell phone that runs off of water in 2010. One company just recently introduced 2 versions of a hydrogen fuel cell generator for emergency backup power for laptops and cell phones. It used a chemical reaction to generate hydrogen on demand. It also had a removalbe canister that held the catalyst which could be traded like a propane tank at your local store. Cost is estimated at $600. So, if this same technology can be used for small things, certainly hydrogen-on-demand systems can be seen as a very viable future. Certainly it would be nice to fill up with only water and perhaps a canister of catalyst every 300 miles...but more importantly it would be the reduction of pollutants I am most concerned with. Yes, we would probably spend energy to get energy. But we do that now with gasoline...remember it is refined from crude oil! And yes, many of our power plants produce a lot of dirty emissions (especially here in the south where a large number of coal plants exist); And who in their right mind would want more nuclear plants when you have no Safe Place to put spent radioactive fuel..except into the sun (I don't like the idea of radioactive waste where it can contaminate drinking water and eventually me).
Obviously fuel cells and hydrogen on demand systems are still somewhat crude. Great advances have been made in both categories.
Hydrogen producing cells have been utilized in vehicles to enhance fuel economy as a hybrid system for over a decade. Some of it is only simple electrolysis and others use variations upon this process. More importantly, why haven't we seen this type of inexpensive modification added already to improve fuel economy? It works. Yes, there are limitations with current published technology (can't vouch for what is unpublished or purposefully squelched) but they seem so very close.
Lets just face it. We can either demand REAL government funding (like Pres Carter wanted back in the 70's) or we can continue to see our lives strangled more and more by fossil fuel and those who gain from it's production.
By Ricky at 12:27 PM ON 08/07/08
What about the Stan Meyer patented hho conversion of water on board a vehicle using 13.8 volts from a battery and altenater?
By Andy at 12:34 PM ON 08/07/08
Jeez, you'd think dictionaries didn't exist anymore....
Fuel = a material used to produce heat or power by burning
Battery = a combination of apparatus for producing a single electrical effect; a group of two or more cells connected together to furnish electric current; also : a single cell that furnishes electric current
Both fuel and a battery are energy storage mediums so is any other object such as the unused brain. Not all energy storage mediums are equally efficient.
Hydrogen is a fuel, not a battery.
Gasoline is a fuel, not a battery.
Hydrogen is acquired from water by breaking water down to its two components. Yes, it can be extracted from the earth in it's pure form in limited quantities and also from other substances. Hydrogen is so light and it's molecules so small that is usually manages to find it's way to the surface and float away into the upper reaches of our atmosphere.
Gasoline is not mined nor pumped out of the earth in the form we use, it is refined from oil.
It takes energy input to get either fuel.
The attraction of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles has been the clean emissions (pure water) vs other fuel burning vehicles and the lack of toxic batteries that electric and hybrid vehicles use. Any new technology is going to have higher starting costs.
As for the big bad oil companies being fuel stations for hydrogen, would you propose that we build an entirely new network of fuel stations in our already crowded cities and transportation network? I suppose all those E85 filling stations should have been someplace other than traditional gas stations too. Seriously, the infrastructure is there already, it makes the most sense to use it.
By paradox226 at 3:38 PM ON 08/07/08
I would like to see you to take an electric four wheel rig with 42" tires and a 8" lift to a off road competition. Oh and by the way Their are no electrical outlets there. plus it is obvious that you haven't done all the research on this topic. otherwise you would have stated in your article that Scientists are trying to find ways of storing Hydrogen as a liquid. They experimenting with containers that can maintain the pressure and Temperature needed to keep hydrogen as a liquid. Oh and for the energy problem well I know of an energy source that produces a lot more electricity than wind and solar power combined,Nuclear.
By ervin0072002 at 4:05 PM ON 08/07/08
HAHAHA that is a very opinionated view my friend. Yes true hydrogen is simply a energy storage tech. Yes true its electricity that we need. Electric cars are expensive (batteries cost too you know) they are extremely hazardous (they have chemicals that if ingested you die) even today’s cars are not that poisonous. And guess what.... we burn 144000 years of fossil fuel in one year at that rate those wells in the ground are drying up and real fast. Most of the world has no natural resources to oil anymore. the lucky few like USA are owned by rich greedy companies that wont let you get your hands on it, while electricity is more and more abundant every day. New sources of electricity solar/wind/wave all supplied by the sun. Best part about it is it gets replenished once every 24hours and earth receives 100000+ times more energy then the world currently consumes every day. PEOPLE FORGET ABOUT THE OLD WAY OF LIFE. ENERGY WILL COST NOW A LOT OF MONEY.
By Nahli at 5:10 PM ON 08/07/08
Did any one remember that the same number of electrons that are required to seperate hydrogen from oxygen is the same number of electrons that are released when the two combine. ...that means if all the electricity from a natural source (ie. wind) then you get nearly a 100% return... Of course electricity isn't the movement of electrons but the movement of an EM field...
Boing! I'm out!
By Reality Check at 6:33 PM ON 08/07/08
The goal isn't low cost - it's energy independence and clean energy. Fuel cells produce no harmful emmissions. The easiest way to generate the hydrogen for fuel cells is through electrolysis. This means electricity. You generate electricity using a plant which is safe, efficient, and produces no harmful emissions or pollutants of any kind, and which we have an abundance of fuel for - nuclear. The cost will come down as the system grows, but the point is that for energy independence we need nuclear power. Using nuclear plants to produce the electricity to produce the hydrogen for the fuel cell cars is essentially running our transportation indirectly with nuclear power. This means no more foreigh oil, no more smog in LA, no more greenhouse gas emissions from millions of tailpipes. All the problems associated with nuclear power are political, not technological.
By diggity1972 at 9:59 PM ON 08/07/08
my SUV runs on gas it runs very well on gas. i say drill here drill now. shut up hippies and take a bath. oh and one more thing my "carbon footprint" is bigger than yours
By alan112114 at 10:59 PM ON 08/07/08
Ok time to do some research guys.
A new much energy efficent technoly has be develped. the hydrogen is so much cheaper in enegry costs that it is able to compete with gasoline for a fuel source.
I is a boligacal process that mimics part of photosynthis.
Might be a Nobel in this one.
By RAVEN at 11:19 PM ON 08/07/08
Too many people are always assuming that the main way to get hydrogen is by the bomb process we use on submarines, something I'm extremely familiar with - electrolysis. Problem is, not only is it dangerous, it isn't that practical. But assuming that's the way car manufacturers are getting H2 is a bad assumption.
Several months ago, a friend of mine sent me a link to a site where an Asian car dealer (Bernama) was gearing up production of hydrogen hybrid cars. The car in question didn't use electrolysis, yet that key point seemed to be missed by everyone who criticized it at the outset without even checking the technology the hydrogen generator was based on.
Their system uses what they call a Hydroxene Generator, a non-electrolysis based hydrogen generator. Although they were mum as to the actual technology, it wasn't hard to figure out and even determine where they got the idea for the technology in the first place.
The Hydroxene Generator is likely a catalyst system to generate H2 from scrap aluminum and sodium hydroxide. Not enough power from that you say? Think again, space cadets.
A Green study I found details the kind of power and hydrogen output from such a reaction, stressing also the fact that there's high gain from low cost. This study concerned generating power in the Kilowatt range, I might add. Here is an abstract of the study in question:
Recycling of aluminum to produce green energy
Abstract
High-purity hydrogen gas was generated from the chemical reaction of aluminum with sodium hydroxide. Several molar relations of sodium hydroxide/aluminum were investigated in this study. The experimental results showed that hydrogen yields are acceptable and its purity was good enough to be used in a proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell to produce electricity. An estimation of the amount of energy produced from the reaction of 100 aluminum cans with caustic soda showed that the hydrogen production is feasible to be scaled up to reach up to 5 kWh in a few hours. This study is environmentally friendly and also shows that green energy can be produced from aluminum waste at a low cost.
Bottom line - water isn't the only way to get H2.
There's a term we used to use in QA when I worked for NASA - "Paradigm Paralysis". Everyone is so fixed on the idea that electrolysis is the only way to get H2 they've blinded themselves to other possibilities.
Even though this study was looking at producing electricity, the fact that they were able to produce highly pure hydrogen at low cost via a chemical reaction between scrap aluminum and sodium hydroxide is the key, and without using electrolysis. 100 aluminum cans producing 5Kw in a few hours?? Cool.
For those that don't get it, Sodium Hydroxide is an Alkali. Where do you think the term Alkaline in "Alkaline Battery" comes from?
This study, and the fact that car manufacturer Bernama has ordered 18,000 units with this technology isn't a pipe dream - it's a reality. Companies don't invest that kind of money without a sure bet on a return. What sucks is that a company in Malaysia is already to market with these things, while US automakers still sit with thumbs up their a** relying on expensive mideast oil.
Reference links: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09270248
http://paultan.org/archives/2006/08/15/lmg-tourer-with-hydroxene-technology/
By RAVEN at 11:39 PM ON 08/07/08
By the way I forgot to comment on Charlie White's original article and assumption that hydrogen only comes from electrolysis, natural gas, or something similar, or that H2 can only be obtained by a process that costs as much or more than it does to produce it. He may be correct in assuming that current US car based cells aren't that efficient, but to flame Hydrogen Fuel Cells as a whole as an unobtainable technology is not only just plain ignorant, it's irresponsible. There are too many "experts" that either fell asleep or failed physics and chemistry. As a former submarine sailor, even I knew there were other methods of generating H2 at lower cost than an electrolysis bomb. For the uninitiated, we used to call the onboard O2 generator the bomb because it used electrolysis to separate the H2/O2 molecules from water. Submarines keep the O2 in storage tanks, and bleed the H2 overboard as diffused gas. But while operating it's still dangerous as hell.
As another example of Paradigm Paralysis, I'd be willing to bet the majority of people reading here on DVICE, if not all, are of the mindset that metal can't corrode in space because there's no Oxygen. If you think that, you're wrong. NASA routinely protects its space satellites and instruments from corrosion in space. Can anyone tell me why corrosion (yes, rust) occurs in space? Charlie, you can't answer because you failed the Fuel Cell test... All you need to do is think about what elements are in space, and you'll have the answer. The Sun should give you a clue.
In conclusion I want to say to Charlie White that in the future, if you're going to flame something, try doing some actual research, and stop listening to the blonde intern's opinion on how to get Hydrogen before slamming it.
By 93fd3s at 5:13 PM ON 08/08/08
Forget H2...it's just another way for big oil to control us. Use straight electric vehicles...they aren't using the lead/acid heavy metals, it's Li-ion these days. Anyone can generate electricity at home via solar, wind or even muscle power if necessary. Given the current financial impacts of relying on a single source..there are many reasons to eschew H2 beyond just the technical.
4 minutes to recharge those batteries...wonder how far it would go if it weren't drag racing?
By thesandcreekkid at 12:02 PM ON 08/11/08
City people are so funny. I can't wait till all of you do get your electric cars and you're all sitting on the side of the rode in droves. Then I can use my big old 3/4 ton diesel 4wheel drive to tow your butts to the nearest wall charger. Get a clue. They (electric cars) will never be practical outside of a limited zone, i.e. major metropolitan areas. Of course if that means you stay in those areas and leave the rest of the country alone them by all means, get right on it.
By MidiMagic at 2:26 PM ON 08/11/08
Hydrogen is a fuel. It is NOT an energy source.
All of the energy in a tank of hydrogen comes from the process used to extract it from whatever they get it from. It has no energy until this is done.
Salt is NOT a catalyst for water electrolysis, and neither is baking soda. Both change the other gas produced. Salt produces chlorine instead of oxygen. Baking soda produces carbon dioxide instead of oxygen. Both of these produce lye.
A large part of the problem of bringing ANY alternative energy system to market is scaling it up to meet demand.
That idea of using scrap aluminum to generate energy has problems when scaled up:
- Is there enough scrap aluminum to do this?
- Is there a big enough supply of the other chemicals needed?
- How much energy is needed to make the aluminum and the chemicals?
- What do you do with the waste products?
- There is also a market for scrap aluminum as it is.
By Diggs at 3:46 PM ON 08/11/08
Hydrogen technology is not a waste.It will be a favored,practical,economic way to travel.In the future.What it sounds like to me,is that Mr.White is saying that it isn't viable today and that you shouldn't be caught up in the scam to buy a vehicle that you won't be able to afford or keep fueled cheaply.Agreed.However, for those other naysayers...........stop with the hating! It takes time to evolve a new technology.It is the oil companies that have tried to keep other technologies from seeing the light of day,correct?Thank god we've gotten to a point where others have pushed beyond that crap, and have designed and publicized new,cheaper technologies.I hope I live to one day see hydrogen power become a cheap,readily available power source for vehicles and other uses.STOP saying it is a waste of time people,when in fact is exactly the opposite.Like man would never fly,right?Or travel to space.Or have power from a light-bulb.Let's use what we have today but, support the advancement of a better means and a better way of life for our children.Remember them? the ones who inherit what we leave behind?We need relief today.But,they need a future.Push for hydrogen power.In the near future.Oh yeah, Xfile sounds really lazy.Let's give him everything and center all life around him.Plus, let's get him hooked on phonics.Just an idea.
By qadgetqueen at 12:09 AM ON 08/14/08
My problem is with the scientist that created all this fear mongering in the first place. Ten years ago we it was global cooling maybe even an ice age now. Now it’s global warming. Ten years from now when they need more government grant money half the earth will be cooling and half will be warming. What’s this got to do with this car? you ask . Its called rush to market because of the fear we must at least look like we’re doing something good for the envoment even if we’re not. I’m all for finding alternatives but I would like lots of thought and R&D put into cars and every thing else.
By josephus at 10:26 AM ON 08/14/08
Massachussetts now has a hydrogen station in Billerica, MA that opened a few days ago.
By scifikid at 3:59 PM ON 08/16/08
Can you get anymore cynical?
By fer at 10:37 AM ON 08/22/08
All of those terms is a feathfully true the oil is the chipper fuel but the natural gas(methane)more than oil
But imagine a car that use Hydrogen for about 6000 dollars used of course and 25000 new would you buy one
I have one that use water as hydrogen source my car is a BMW 5 SERIES also have a natural gas car at 1 dolar per galon of fuel, if anyone want see it come here to PERU and I will glad to show you, or send me an E-mail for pictures my name is FERNANDO JIMENEZ and my e-mail is icespc@hotmail.com
By DarrianAshoka at 1:53 PM ON 08/22/08
I believe hydrogen as a viable energy source is possible, but it is true that the major power companies will gain total control long before this is a common energy source.
Just like how the phone companies fought the internet as long as they could, then bought all the major ISP, so they would not loose control of information exchange.
They will also work in planned obsolescence, in stead of giving us the best tech available, in order to make it as profitable as possible and maintaining our dependence on them.
A friend of mine had bought a Honda Insight to convert into a fully electric car. He recently replaced the large heavy lead acid batteries with banks of 36V lithium batteries made by Dewalt, which are a type that do not heat up like most other lithium batteries we are familiar with. He dropped over 700# and now has even more range.
It is good for the electric company for people to use electricity for charging during the night when consumption is low and most industry is sleeping.
There is another energy source that may prove to be even better and 100% clean. There are a couple developers of pneumatic motors for cars that will run on just pressurized air of course. These motors are remarkably small and light weight, the fuel is light, and the pollution is nil. They have developed a car with over 200 mile range with carbon fiber tanks that will just split if in a serious impact, in stead of exploding. These high pressure tanks can fill in 4 hours over night, or within 3 minutes at a service station. The equipment the service station would need to buy for this would be much less expensive than setting up a hydrogen set up and they would not need to hook up to a large water source.
By atari lord at 11:51 AM ON 09/25/08
it seems to me that some people just dont want to accept hydrogen, yes these seem like serious issues, but lets face the facts here, if it really costs hundreds of thousands for one car, 2 years ago it would have costs a million, imagine 2 years from now, and as for the energy it takes to renew hydrogen, we do have access to an unlimited source of energy, the sun, we could build a hydrogen renewing station in space facing the sun at all times with solar panels, and every week we can send a ship up there to deposit the resources to create the fuel, and return with fresh hydrogen, this may seem a little to scifi, but its actually more plausible then many think, in regards to the containment of hydrogen, how it will leak through steel, make smaller tanks even though 60gallons hydrogen=15gallons gas, maybe people will have to live with the fact that they have to refuel more than twice a day(at least it will be cheaper), and as for the fear of oil companies control over it, well thats just the economy for you, not much we could do other than pray companies compete with generous prices
By awells at 9:13 PM ON 11/22/08
I think you wrote an article about something you have not a clue about. You and Bush must sleep in the same shoe box because there are thousands of people using Hydrogen to boost the fuel economy. The only reason it is not in mass production is there is almost no way to patent the gas only the generator. I would like to purpose sending you a generator to install on your car so next time you decide to write about it your somewhat educated on the subject. Or maybe you can use your depleted brain cavity to produce an alternative intelligence.
By len at 4:21 PM ON 02/11/09
Get real! You have no clue to what you pretend to write about.
By DIsgusted at 1:07 PM ON 04/06/09
This imbecile, as all critics are is not only ignorant of fuel cell technology, but does not see the bigger picture. What's more, his line of of thought is exactly what's wrong with this country; everyone is recalcitrant to change and is immediately and staunchly opposed to change just because the prospect does not offer revolution out of the box. Fuel cell technology is still an immature technology. Or do you knock it because you're content with Big Oil running everything? Perhaps you drive onew of those utterly useless electric autos that everyone finds so stylish? Do some research.
By wolf1dude at 8:53 PM ON 07/29/09
I have heard that hydrogen was used as fuel in gas form in Zeppelins as well as the source of lift, although a surprisingly large part of the envelope had to be partitioned for it.
on your cellphone!
Text DVICE to 72434
editor@dvice.com
wolf1dude:
I have heard that hydrogen was used as fuel in gas form in Zeppelins as well as the source of lift, although a surp...More »