Toyota to start selling hydrogen fuel-cell car in 2015
By tovarichpeter Follow Wed, 8 Aug 2012, 10:13am 5,087 views 60 comments
In South San Francisco CA 94080
Watch (1) Share
Quote
Permalink Like (1) Dislike Viewing Comments 1-40 of 60 Next » Last » See most liked comments
|
Premium member tovarichpeter is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
http://cafcp.org/
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
Why go with hydrogen if the primary fuel source is methane? Wouldn't methane cells ultimately be more efficent and take advantage of an already existing infrastructure?
Follow
Befriend
94 threads
438 comments
Kent, WA
John Bailo's website
New renter says
The energy derived from methane comes from its hydrogen atoms, so methane is less efficient since the H2 has to be stripped from it before use.
Hydrogen is the best all around fuel because it is like a universal energy carrier.
For example, I can make hydrogen from solar power, from wind, through "artificial leaves", from natural gas, using nuclear processes...
Some have said the 21st century could be the years of the Hydrogen Economy. One can imagine a whole new currency, based not on paper or gold, but on the production of hydrogen.
Follow
Befriend
34 threads
2,106 comments
The number one problem with hydrogen is that it actually takes more energy to make it than what it itself produces. So its inefficient as a fuel source. Conversely, electricity is also made from wind, solar, methane, and so on.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
John Bailo says
Sorry, no.
You are likely thinking of the hydrogen-hydrogen bond energy in molecular hydrogen vs carbon-hydrogen bonds in methane. Yes hydrogen hydrogen bonds contain more energy but to make a given amount of energy as hydrogen gas from methane will require a larger portion of energy as methane OR energy supplied from an external source (e.g. solar power, from wind, through "artificial leaves", from natural gas, using nuclear processes...).
I also take exception to your claim that hydrogen is the best all around fuel. Hydrogen sucks. It not naturally available in great quantities and is difficult to transport and store. Fossil fuels on the other hand are awesome. Gasoline, diesel and other medium chain hydrocarbons fuels are liquid at most terrestrial environments, pack a hell of a lot of energy in a given amount and are easy to store and transport. If we had more we wouldn't have to worry about using hydrogen except as rocket fuel. Yes there is the carbon argument but how are we proposing to make mass quantities of hydrogen again?
That's right, coal, or methane. We have a have a hell of a LOT of methane!
If we do need to transition to a gaseous transportation fuels all else being equal methane makes far more sense than hydrogen. Is all else equal or are the production cost/conversion efficiency/reliability of hydrogen fuel cells that much better than methane fuel cells?
Follow
Befriend (8)
203 threads
4,407 comments
Davis, CA
This dolt like being posed with a hydrogen-power Hummer:
Because he knew this BS is a cheap redirection away from more realistic solutions to our oil problem.
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
edvard2 says
You are right, Fuel cells are an expensive little machine but becoming cheaper.
Hydrogen cost will equate to about $5.00 per gallon. Were you wondering why OPECkers have not raised their prices over that 5 dollar mark ? They can't keep the price down for many reasons. QEs, demand, supply, litigation, etc.
Humans will opt for the cheapest energy no matter what, including death !
Your home would be on low voltage DC if AC wasn't cheaper.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
Personally I like the idea of bi fuel diesel/cng vehicles. As I've posted before these are slightly modified diesel engines which use a small amount of diesel fuel to ignite a compressed charge of CNG. The energy consumption is about 5-10% diesel with 90-95% CNG
With such a setup one gets the power and efficiency of the diesel with the low fuel costs and emissions of CNG. The infrastructure already exists, the technology has been around since the 30s, the fuel sources are plentiful. The trucking industry is getting into the act so hopefully some of that tech will trickle into the personal transportation.
Follow
Befriend (2)
33 threads
3,458 comments
Hydrogen as an energy carrier is an incredibly dumb idea. Why?
Because it is much more efficient just to use the raw energy (whatever it is, electricity or natural gas) directly rather than suffering the big energy losses that will take place when producing and compressing hydrogen to a usable and storable form, as well as the energy used to TRANSPORT the hydrogen to filling stations (distribution losses) .
For the details, read
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E13.pdf
There are also a more detailed list of papers at
http://www.efcf.com/reports
A short summary:
If you already have high-grade energy in the form of natural gas or electricity, it makes zero sense to use that energy to manufacture hydrogen. You actually end up making more CO2 this way, as well as simply getting less bang for your buck.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
justme says
Yep! Well said.
If however one would like to use hydrogen as a mechanism to harness energy generated by solar, wind or nuclear then perhaps hydrogen may be a viable choice. I'd guess a system using leased swappable battery packs would be superior. Just MHO, no data to back that up.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
New renter says
To be fair hydrogen can be generated on site. Distribution losses can be minimized that way.
Follow
Befriend (9)
161 threads
1,544 comments
Premium
Now if they can only find a good way to produce energy from methane. We can round up all our politicians and the massive amounts of gas they produce can energize the whole world. At least they will be useful for something
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
justme says
We will be out of gas within 100 years. The stories you are told about having centuries worth of natural gas, be skeptical. Besides CNG is a pollutant as well.
Developing nations & Free world Humans now demand pollution free vehicles, with Hydrogen we eliminate the risk and cost of war accessing that source of energy.
We need a RELIABLE fuel.
Hydrogen is already here and proven effective. Check it out. http://cafcp.org/
Suzuki's Crosscage, a hydrogen powered bike.
Follow
Befriend
94 threads
438 comments
Kent, WA
John Bailo's website
New renter says
Not available? Ever hear of water, H2O? Hydrolysis processes are being added as storage to solar power plants in England and Germany.
And as far as transportation and storage, Northern Europe has a vast network of hydrogen pipelines. In fact, hydrogen is a competitor to expensive overhead power lines and is less "lossy".
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
John Bailo says
Water? You mean that waste product?
As a source of molecular hydrogen - and of course that is what we are talking about when we speak of hydrogen as a fuel. There are NO appreciable natural sources of molecular hydrogen anywhere on this planet. All molecular hydrogen must be created.
Water is a major source of molecular hydrogen and is abundant but contributes no energy* itself. ALL the energy in molecular hydrogen has to come from somewhere. If molecular hydrogen is generated from water via hydrolysis then ALL the energy in the molecular hydrogen comes from an external source. That is the energy harnessed in the hydrogen fuel cell or an internal combustion engine (ICE). The waste product of either engine is water which again needs to have energy applied to make molecular hydrogen to be used as fuel. The majority of that energy in the US will likely come from coal or methane.
Neither generation nor utilization is 100% efficient. You will need to account for the energy lost in each step of the cycle just as one should in the discussion of any other type of energy cycle.
Now as for your assertion of hydrogen transport costs vs electrical costs you may be right, I have not seen any cost or efficiency #s for hydrogen transport. However I do know that worldwide electrical grids are in the process of being upgraded to dramatically improve transport efficiency. Power has been so cheap losing a few KW here and there hasn't been that big a deal. We shall have to see once the upgrades are completed what the losses of electrical transport are.
Now if you compare the transport of hydrogen to methane that is a different story. Almost all communities in the US already have a methane piped directly into homes, much less filling stations. Why build a second, redundant system? In Europe methane isn't as common for home use but the major transport pipes are already in place.
Given the inevitable losses incurred from making hydrogen from methane and the already existing methane infrastructure we have in this country using hydrogen as a fuel makes no sense at all - unless there is something else to consider?
Well?
*energy is defined here as the difference in molecular bond energies between molecular hydrogen and water.
Follow
Befriend (2)
33 threads
3,458 comments
TMAC54 and John Bailo,
On this topic (Hydrogen) you are uninformed. Learn the science of energy. Read the papers I pointed to.
Follow
Befriend (2)
33 threads
3,458 comments
New renter says
Yes, in principle (if not in practice) this is true, if you have abundant electrical energy from clean sources (which we do not, but leave that aside for the moment).
But man-made hydrogen is still much more lossy than just charging a battery with that electricity directly.
Follow
Befriend (2)
33 threads
3,458 comments
Let me spell out a fundamental truth that many people are not aware of:
Making hydrogen from water and electricity, and then turning the H2 back into electricity and water, by ANY method (*) is ALWAYS less efficient than just using the electricity directly in the first place.
(*) And yes, when I say ANY method it really means ANY method. Yes, fuel cells included.
This is A LAW OF NATURE. It is an example of the most fundamental laws of physics, known as the laws of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy.
These laws CANNOT be circumvented! There is no "invention" or "technology" that will change this fundamental fact!
Oh, and I think also that the general public often does not understand the word "efficiency". It is defined as E(out)/E(in). That is, the fraction of usable energy output you get from a certain energy input. For any process or machine it is always LESS THAN 1, and very often much less than 1.
For example, if the efficiency of a machine or process is 0.6, it means you lost 40% of the energy (as heat, generally) and only 60% came out the other end.
Follow
Befriend (2)
33 threads
3,458 comments
In response to TMAC54
The fact that we will run out of natural gas does in no way imply that man-made hydrogen is a good idea from an energy efficiency standpoint.
Follow
Befriend (2)
33 threads
3,458 comments
I'm going to start using that term "man-made hydrogen" more. It may help getting the point across.
Follow
Befriend (2)
33 threads
3,458 comments
lostand confused says
That statement was good for a joke about politicians, but as we all should be aware, methane (CH4) is basically what natural gas is. We use it all the time for heating, industrial production and in electrical power stations all across the country.
Follow
Befriend (2)
33 threads
3,458 comments
John Bailo says
Wrong. Electrical power distribution is about 93% efficient in the US. Hydrogen distribution, including compression either before or after the pipeline (most likely after because of technical difficulty) would be nowhere close to 93% efficient.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
justme says
Can you back that number up with a reference?
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
TMAC54 says
CNG costs about $2.14/gal gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) here in northern CA at a PG&E station:
http://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_SCHEDS_G-NGV2.pdf
Filling at home is even cheaper @ $1.35 GGE
http://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/GAS_SCHEDS_G-1.pdf
Mind you here in northern CA we haves some of the most expensive utility rates in the country. Other parts of the country are likely to see even lower prices.
TMAC54 says
As for the availability of methane the 100 year supply is not taking into consideration the methyl hydrate reserves known to exist at the bottom of the world's oceans. These add anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years of energy supply at current consumption levels.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/methane-hydrate-technology-fuels-a-new-energy-regime/article4178875/
Heck even without these reserves 100 years is pretty impressive.
Now does $5/GGE for hydrogen still sound good?
Didn't think so.
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
justme says
Engineering today is working on more efficient batteries and cheaper more efficient Hydrogen processing as well as more wind farms, thermo energy etc. etc.. Most people acknowledge we will have to rely on a combination of energy sources. You seem adamant on stopping hydrogen. Did you invest heavily in CNG ?
You are passionate in your anti hydrogen protest. Do you believe the present engineering and prototypes are a scam to rip off the public ? Are you under the impression that natural gas is cheaper therefore an answer to ALL our future energy needs ?
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
TMAC54 says
TMAC54
From the wikipedia article on the hydrogen economy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy
Efficiency as an automotive fuel
Main article: Hydrogen fuel
Hydrogen has been called one of the least efficient and most expensive possible replacements for gasoline (petrol) in terms of reducing greenhouse gases; other technologies may be less expensive and more quickly implemented.[48][49] A comprehensive study of hydrogen in transportation applications has found that "there are major hurdles on the path to achieving the vision of the hydrogen economy; the path will not be simple or straightforward".[4] Although Ford Motor Company and French Renault-Nissan cancelled their hydrogen car R&D efforts in 2008 and 2009, respectively,[50][51] they signed a 2009 letter of intent with the other manufacturers and Now GMBH in September 2009 supporting the commercial introduction of FCVs by 2015.[52]
Seems pretty clear to me.
How about you - do YOU have an investment in the hydrogen economy?
Follow
Befriend (13)
51 threads
2,632 comments
Premium
People are adamant about preserving their lifestyle and resisting change.
The high cost of energy is going to do away with suburbs and the car. Don't count on Magic Fuels of the Future (tm) to save Springfield and the Sedan.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
thunderlips11 says
I would not write off the car just yet. AS I've pointed out above CNG is cheap and readily available. CNG only vehicles can be an excellent solution, just ask IWOG. As I pointed out above taking the next step to bi-fuel diesel/CNG cars can solve many of the problems of today's cars with only minor changes to existing products. Further development may make them even more attractive, for instance hybridization with super capacitors may help in-town performance at minimal cost. I have seen claims that a diesel engine can be designed to run on lubricating oil - imagine the longevity of an IC engine with a constant supply of fresh,clean lubricant.
IMHO diesel and CNG have a lot of potential.
Follow
Befriend (2)
33 threads
3,458 comments
New renter says
You bet I can:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_ele_pow_tra_and_dis_los_of_out-power-transmission-distribution-losses-output/
Unites States was at 6.39% in electrical transmission losses in 2004.
Follow
Befriend (2)
33 threads
3,458 comments
TMAC54 says
TMAC54,
I want to stop hydrogen because it is a genuinely BAD IDEA that will make all our lives much worse than they have to be. YES, hydrogen is a total scam. It is supported by people who are ignorant of the facts, engage in wishful thinking, do not care about the consequences, or simply want to preserve the status quo of our oil/coal/carbon-based energy economy as long as they can get a way with doing so. Or some combination of the above.
Why are you questioning my motives instead of reading the science? I have provided ample reading material that will analyze and spell out in detail why H2 is an amazingly bad idea.
I have not said anywhere that CNG is a permanent solution to anything. You are putting words in my mouth. All I said was that man-made hydrogen, whether from CNG or electricity or any other source, is a waste of the otherwise good energy put into the process.
Believing in the hydrogen-fairy prevents us from taking productive steps to save fossile fuels and develop renewable energy sources. THAT is why I am against it. Plus it is a colossal waste of taxpayer money.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
justme says
Agreed.
Remember all the hype for corn based ethanol? How's that working out for us non-farmers so far?
That said ethanol may be of some use IF cellulose based ethanol ever comes to fruition. Until then though ethanol is better used in cocktails than fuel tanks
Fun fact, a few years ago a fungus was discovered in Patagonia that is capable of producing diesel fuel DIRECTLY from wood!
https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/fungi-based-biofuels/
In addition the US military has set a goal to switch to 100% biofuels by 2040:
https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/fungi-based-biofuels/
The future is looking bright for Diesel and CNG.
Follow
Befriend
34 threads
2,106 comments
TMAC54 says
My point wasn't about the cost of the engines and drivetrains but rather the fuel itself. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than hydrogen itself produces. So it is by just the energy form itself inefficient.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
justme says
Thank you.
Follow
Befriend (2)
33 threads
3,458 comments
someone says
By the way, for the record, and not mean as a slight of TMAC54 or any other poster, but the above site is nothing but fluffy hydrogen propaganda. There is no science behind it.
Follow
Befriend (3)
13 threads
2,208 comments
San Jose, CA
Premium
justme says
Sounds like the NAR
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
justme says
I am still not getting any merit from your anti Hydrogen Argument other than the fuels present cost to process.
Let's pit the Hydrogen industries against the propane industries and see if the costs will soon become competitive. That is the American way. I also see opportunity for the average citizen to eliminate the need for PGE with this technology. Yes I did invest in the fuel cell manufacturer "Ballard". When they where offering personal size units.
Hopefully readers will peruse the organization and maybe test drive a "fluffy" hydrogen car as I and friends & family have. They frequently have local organized car shows and allow one on one questions with engineers and college students who will continue improvements and reduce costs of this energy source.
&feature=related
Lease a B-Class F-Cell vehicle
http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/benz/green#module-6
Be one of the first to lease a B-Class F-Cell vehicle - the first Zero Emission Mercedes-Benz available. A limited number of these vehicles are available for customers in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area.
If your fear stems from the Hindenberg derigible incident. Hydrogen is ten times safer than gasoline. If a gas tank ruptures it spreads along the ground.
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
New renter says
Your statement is difficult for me to understand. Are you saying that the use of Hydrogen will not allow us to save oil, gas, coal etc. ?
You also state "The use of hydrogen prevents us from developing other energy sources". Why ?
I believe, Developing Hydrogen powered vehicles means we would no longer be ADDICTED to fossil fuels.
k
Hydrogen being the most plentiful element in the cosmos, Doesn't get much more renewable than that.
I am not aware of any taxpayer contributions, but if it cripples the OPECkers cartels, Would you pay some colossal taxes ?
Follow
Befriend (2)
33 threads
3,458 comments
Sigh, TMAC54. Have you understood anything of what I have written at all?
TMAC54 says
Saying that H2O is plentiful therefore H2 is plentiful is as dumb as saying that since CO2 is plentiful then C is plentiful. It is just plain wrong!! You need to add in MORE energy than what you get back out to make H2 from H2O and C from CO2.
Do you need more examples? A pile of ash does not make firewood plentiful. A pile of dung does not make food plentiful.
TMAC54 says
You just don't get it, do you. We currently get most of our electricity from Coal and Natgas, which are fossil fuels. So H2 is made from fossil fuels, either directly or indirectly, and at a lower efficiency than by just using the electricity directly in cars.
EVEN IF we had ALL our electricity from solar and other use-it-or-lose-it resources, it STILL does no make energy sense to produce man-made hydrogen. Man-made H2 is still a net LOSS of energy relative to just using the other sources directly.
What is the problem here, do you just not believe me, or is first-year college physics too difficult to comprehend? Any person with a modest knowledge of physics can tell you that what I say here is the absolute and incontrovertible truth!
I guess the hydrogen fairy has the power to make people completely blind to simple truth.
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
justme says
Name calling is an Interesting approach to solving world energy concerns. You are passionate about your use of existing resources, much like present day gubmint borrowing 16 trillion dollars ignoring imminent dangers.
Yes the cost to produce hydrogen is expensive. We invite innovative minds to improve this technology to mitigate shock that WILL be realized when other sources are depleted. Your plan is to exhaust existing resources. Hydrogen's plan is to provide alternate and even primary benefits to energy's needs far into the future.
Follow
Befriend (2)
33 threads
3,458 comments
TMAC54 says
Oh, since I have explained that hydrogen is a fraud, I just must be "passionate about my use of existing resources". That just a plain lie. I want to save as many existing resources as possible. And what on earth does that have to do with the level of the public debt? That's the most twisted analogy I have seen in a long while, and that is to say something.
TMAC54 says
Hello? I have explained that the cost of H2, by the laws of physics, must be higher per usable energy unit, than the cost of the electrical energy put into the process of making the H2. It CANNOT be less. No innovation or technology can ever change this fact. Both the cost and the CO2 emissions from making hydrogen will be substantially larger than using electricity directly for productive purposes.
How many times do I have to say this? Have you actually read and understood what i have tried to explain to you?
Man-made hydrogen is an awful waste of existing resources. End of story.