Slashdot Mirror
California Drivers Can Tank Up WIth Hydrogen
Country_hacker writes "News site TBO.com is reporting ChevronTexaco has opened a hydrogen fuel station in Chino, California, and has plans to open five more. Servicing three (or more) Hyundai SUVs, these prototype fueling stations are a part of a five-year cost-sharing program put on by the Department of Energy. Could this be the 'egg' in the alternate fuels 'chicken or egg?' scenario?"
Besides, why Chino, of all places... why not somewhere people might actually care to buy it, like say The People's Republic of Berkeley, of SF central?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
The 'egg' in this whole thing is demand. I'm totally for hydrogen powered vehicles but companies aren't going to invest the money in the infrastructure until there is a market for it. A refueling station is great, but there are only three cars that are going to be able to use it.
What needs to be done is some kind of joint effort between auto makers and fuel companies to simultaneously release H fueling stations and H powered cars. This is a nice first step, but it's not going anywhere until there is widespread adoption.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
This is not part of a 'chicken and egg' situation. Lack of fueling stations is not what's holding back hydrogen cars. What's holding them back is: (1) lack of range (due to the low energy density of compressed hydrogen gas, and lack of practical alternatives), (2) cost of hydrogen itself, and (3) the still very high cost of fuel cells. The last point is important, since hydrogen as a fuel makes very little sense for internal combustion engines -- since the hydrogen is made from natural gas, you might as well just burn natural gas in the vehicle, or a liquid fuel derived from gas.
BTW, if it's oil independence you want, Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel is already very competitive at today's oil price (it would be competitive with oil at $25/barrel.) Expect many more synfuel plants to be built if oil stays expensive.
As long as the hydrogen is coming from fossil fuels, as it is now, it would be silly not to build them as hydrogen/electric hybrids.
At a purely practical level, it'd make them more fuel-efficient, which would give you more miles on a tank of hydrogen, which would let you go farther before having to find a scarce hydrogen station for a refill.
ie, with a hybrid, you could get further out of Chino before having to return.
Of course, another way to get more efficiency, and more mileage, before having to refill, is to NOT BUY A HEAVY, INEFFICIENT SUV.
Bright idea, that. "Yeah, we'll have one station for filling up, and ask people to use the least fuel-efficient vehicle available, so they'll have minimal range on a tank of hydrogen."
Disadvantages:
- short range (only about 180 to 185 miles)
- higher purchase price (about $5000 more for a new car)
- limited number of CNG refueling stations (have to plan refueling stops ahead)
- cannot use the car for cross-country trips due to insufficient network of CNG stations
- There is the occasional moron who thinks I'm a carpool lane violator and turns on the high beams behind me
- There is the occasional dumb cop who thinks I'm a carpool lane violator and pulls me over, only to let me go 2 minutes later
I expect a hydrogen car to have similar advantages and similar disadvantages.
Dedicated Linux servers (root access) $45 p.M.
But ethanol is a crappy idea - it's got a lot of drawbacks, and it essentially needs to be "grown". A much better alternative is the old Vegetable oil way of doing things - BioDiesel. Almost every filling station in Europe stocks Diesel and BioDiesel works in most if not all Diesel engines. The enormous benefit is the turnaround time, as it is a continuous, rather than a batch process (for those Chemists out there).
Let's not go changing most of the mechanical parts if all we need to change is the fuel...
BioDiesel, grown from Rape Seed etc, would give not only American's reason to get the farms up and running again, but also third world countries - a lot of farmers will grow this stuff and sell it very cheaply, to be refined elsewhere. BioDiesel _will_ revolutionise the European lorry (sorry, truck) market, such a shame that the USA won't be able to partake - you're far too reliant on petrol (the stuff you normally fill up with). 10 years, and you may be ready, Europe is ready NOW. Let us be your Guinea pig. Do you hear that [insert current UK Home Secretary]???
While much of the masses have been hoodwinked into believing hydrogen fuel is alternative, an important detail few realize is that hydrogen is NOT an energy source ... it's only a tranport medium.
... yep, "big oil"/energy producing companies, as some others have already pointed out.
Where is most of that hydrogen going to come from?
In the end, folks will pay more for more complicated vehicles which cost more to operate - and there will likely be about the same, if not more pollution than now when factoring in the production of the hydrogen fuel; producing energy is still a messy business - even solar and wind power create pollution, though admittedly much less than say coal, but I digress.
In a nutshell, "hydrogen" is NOT a energy source, but rather only a transport medium - the way to truly reduce pollution from energy production/use is less consumption and/or more efficient energy production methods.
Ron
An even better idea is Fischer-Tropsch diesel with the synthesis gas coming from gasified biomass. This uses all the energy in the plant -- cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, everything -- not just starches or oils produced in seeds. You can even extend it by providing the steam for gasification using nuclear energy (instead of by burning some of the biomass).
So, if what we're talking about is a storage/transmission system, how does hydrogen add up? Very badly is the answer.
To store any usable quantities of hydrogen requires one of the following: extremely low temperatures, extremely high pressures, or some chemical to absorb it. Low temperatures are not practical for automotive applications because it requires constant energy input to keep it cold. Extremely high pressures or absorbing it into hydrides are sort of practical but you end up with either a very large, expensive high pressure tank that holds a small amount of hydrogen, or you end up with a large, very expensive bit of palladium or whatever that's going to hold a small amount of hydrogen.
So getting hydrogen requires a very expensive and inefficient process which (today) is derived from fossil fuels. It can only be stored in small quantities and the storage itself is extremely expensive. Oh, it also does best with fuel cell engines which also require extremely expensive catalysts (more palladium, etc).
So in the end we come out with numbers in the neighborhood of a $150k vehicles that has a range of 150 miles and has a cost per mile of 50 cents, just for the fuel. Sounds like a winner to me!
Compare this to electric cars. Electricity is distributed and available everywhere. There are green sources of electricity which are cost-competitive, and improving. The big expense in electric cars is the battery. Lithium is the best choice, and it is coming down in price rapidly. Range on a lithium battery cars can go over 200 miles.
When you look at the pros and cons, the only advantage we see in the end for hydrogen is that it can be refuelled quickly. You pump it into your car and go on, just like with gasoline. But are the downsides worth it?
I can't help but think that this whole hydrogen thing is an enormous, almost fraudulent exercise in scamming subsidies from the government to support a technology which is outrageously expensive. I would rather see natural gas refueling stations, rather than see stations that sell hydrogen extracted from natural gas.
I also have a feeling that part of the push for hydrogen is a push to maintain huge barriers to entry in the auto manufacturing industry. It will require enormous technology resources and patent portfolios to produce a hydrogen car. With electrics, on the other hand, anyone can do it in his garage, once batteries become available. That must be scary to the industry; they haven't faced any new entrants into the market in a long time.
Stop hydrogen!
From TFA : The Chino center will use natural gas as a feedstock, to use the extensive natural gas infrastructure that is already in place. "Natural gas is an established, very efficient way to make hydrogen," he said.
If you can get away without laying new pipe all the better. Since the source of the hydrogen right now is still predominantly fossil fuel based (directly or indirectly) burning hydrogen in your house doesn't really do much. Even if the energy stored in your hydrogen came from electricity you're still not any further ahead if you're just going to convert it back to electricity at your house.
Ok. Being able to tank up at your house would be pretty cool. Erm... but I'm just thinking about propane. I think there's some sort of certification one needs to go through before they can fill up a truck (please feel free to correct me) Something similar would probably apply to hydrogen as well.
Sure it'd be nice to generate your own hydrogen from solar/wind, but really its not all that different from generating electricty for yourself. I guess the one plus for hydrogen over electricity is storage. With a big enough tank I suppose you could stock up gas over the summer and burn it come winter. It'll be really interesting to see where the hydrogen economy heads in the next few years.
Hate to Reply to Myself (tm Slashdot Inc.), but i forgot one other thing: another research group has been working on storing H2 as a Nickel-Metal Hydride. Sound familiar? It's the same method used for batteries of the same name. They fill a tank with fine, fine metal powder (mostly Ni), and pressurize H2 into it. The H2 bonds to the powder at the molecular level, which means you can squeeze ~1,000 times more hydrogen into the same size tank. To get the H2 out, you actually have to apply a small amount of heat to the tank. A fraction less efficient, but much safer than your post would suggest.
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
...and it was produced by Standard Oil, right?
You can make Hydrogen with a nuclear reactor. you can also make it with pretty much any steam source.
1 cold war era nuclear bomb could potentially generate enough hydrogen to run the state of texas's autos for 2-3 months or more, if every car in texas was converted over to H.
(Info provided to me by a Navy nuclear engineer)
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
So if I put a substance in my *GAS* car, that is highly explosive in confied spaces (such as the interior of a *GAS* engine), where that substance was never supposed to be, I wonder what might happen--
It isn't just that the substance is explosive. It's how it is handled. Improperly handled explosives tend to explode.
Nork.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
This is just pie-in-the-sky stuff right now. Sure they can put up expensive refueling stations for million dollar vehicles but who thought they couldn't.
The question should be asked, why are they doing it? It has no practical purpose other than to PROMOTE the dream of a hydrogen economy. It's still very much a R&D project but the Bush Administration keeps promoting it like it's going to happen this decade...
IMO, it so current fuel efficient technology( hybrids ) uptake is slowed down. We can't have slowed oil industry profits now can we.
Bout time? Sorry, but you're still waiting unless you've got the $$ and contacts to get one of these prototype vehicles. Hey, it's cheaper to get a ride up to the space station and visit the fuel cells up there.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
They said that the process should eventually allow a 1-liter tank to hold enough H2 to give a Civic-size car a 1,000 km range (assuming it was using a fuel cell). The heat (they said it doesn't take much) comes from the battery pack (most/all fuel cellers have them).
Now as to whether hydrogen is or isn't a 'great fuel', I don't know. But safe it most certainly can be.
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Biodiesel has been energy-positive for quite some time now. It doesn't yet allow for making a profit, though, at least not with U.S. fuel prices. Maybe in europe. Check out "Energy Balance/Life Cycle Inventory for Ethanol, Biodiesel and Petroleum Fuels". Specifically, "the energy yield of biodiesel is (3.2/0.83) 280 percent greater than petroleum diesel fuel". You could also read the cited paper, "Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus". (PDF) The significant paragraph follows:
In other words; biodiesel has very slightly lower energy density but far superior return as compared to normal diesel. The PDF also describes emissions, which are better on biodiesel.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Read:m osphere.htm
http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/2004/Hydrogen/at
It explains why Hydrogen released into the atmosphere is a bad thing.....unless we are a lot more careful with H2 than we are with every other fuel we use today, we will be making matters worse, and that isn't counting the fact that the technology still isn't up to speed to make the entire process efficient. A hydrogen economy requires that you produce it, currently from natural gas or water, store/transport it, then feed it to a fuel cell. Right now, the only way to produce Hydrogen without releasing CO2 is to crack water with clean electricity from solar/wind/hydro/nuke power...The fuel cells are delicate, expensive to manufacture, and require expensive materials that have to be mined (OMG he said the M word). Platnium is $800+ an ounce these days....people will be jacking your hydrogen car just to tear apart the fuel cell for the Pt in it......
This whole thing is a waste of our money, the technology is not there, and the advantages don't come close to breaking even with the disadvantages...we need to concentrate on making vehicles more efficient, and start looking seriously at changing power generation world wide over to nuclear or finding a way to sequester the CO2 produced by powerplants.....I think the money being pissed away on hydrogen cars would be a lot better spent on fusion research.....why not spend the cash to recover some helium3 off of the moon for fusion testing....
More than anything I think the goverment supporting Hydrogen research is a way for them to go through the motions, while they line their pockets with more money from Big Oil and Big Coal...and I am talking Everyone in DC, not just the current admin.....
1. When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend.
2. Do not eat iPod shuffle.
Hydrogen is actually not that unsafe. The thing about hydrogen is that when it leaks, it goes straight up, REALLY fast. This makes it much safer then what we currently use today in many ways.
An antidotal story is that about a month or two back at National Semiconductor in South Portland Maine, they had a hydrogen explosion. Basically, a guy with a hydrogen truck pulled up to the building and got ready to pump the hydrogen into the tanks. When he went to go ground himself, he created a spark and this caused an explosion. Now, this truck isn't your average car, we are talking a freaking tank of liquid hydrogen under massive pressure.
So, what happened? The explosion was loud enough that people inside the building thought an airplane had crashed (they are right next to an air port). The operator of the truck was totally unharmed. The explosion went straight up. It made a lot of noise, but did no damage. The high pressure of the tank meant that instead of the explosion running into the tank and, well, exploding, it acted like a blow torch. No one got hurt, and in the end the only thing that happened was that they just left the truck slowly burning its fuel until away until it was empty.
In a properly designed car, safety is not a problem. You just need to make sure that your gas tank is well ventilated. So long as it can't build up and has a place to go, a hydrogen explosion is really not that bad. They are quick, loud, and straight up. It is an engineering probably easily solved.
That said, I am not a fan of hydrogen. Hydrogen is cleaner the gas to be sure, but his a low energy density (IE, you need a bigger tank or you are not going to go as far), and more importantly, it is just a method of power translation. Hydrogen is like a power cable to your house, not the actual power plant. Hydrogen just takes dirty power (coal) or expensive power (nuclear, green) that we already blows some of the energy to the wind, and then stuffs it in your car.
What we REALLY need to do is solve the power problems with the grid that we have right now first, THEN start worrying about cars. Once we can get some sort of green energy that is cost effective and reliable to replace our dirty and expensive methods of generating power, then you talk about wasting energy to create hydrogen.
Personally, I think we are much better off working on hybrid technology and maybe slapping a solar panel or two onto SUVs to give them a little more power. People have shown that they are willing to buy cleaner cars at a slightly increased price just for bragging rights. It might not be everyone, but it certainly is a start. Use traditional methods of cleaning up cars first, green up the power grid, THEN worry about making cars clean.