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?"
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.
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]???
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!
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.
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