I’ve heard this countless times, from everyone from casual observers to longtime, exceedingly smart environmentalists. I think people fall in love with the whole “it emits nothing but water vapor” part and never examine the incredible hurdles it will take to engineer a fuel cell and on-board storage that will work acceptably well in a car under all manner of conditions, plus the challenge of generating all that hydrogen in a way that makes it a better deal than an EV or PHEV.

And yes, I recommend Joe’s book, The Hype About Hydrogen, every time. It’s still the best treatment I’ve seen on the topic. I also tell people to look up the papers by Ulf Bossel, who has done some very thorough analysis of HFC vs. EV transportation.

“Toyota plans to have a test fleet of plug-ins by 2010 using lithium-ion batteries that are more expensive than nickel-metal-hydrides and carry more safety and reliability risks.

“We know it needs to be more than seven miles, but it won’t be 40,” Jaycie Chitwood, senior planner for advanced technologies, said of Toyota’s target range.”
So who’s got those batteries???

Pug in hybrids that burn fossil fuels are quick fixes that can easily evolve into FCV.( which is Larry Burns’ postion). But given exponetial function in 15 to 20 years the transportation sector is back to where it is today in terms GHG emissions with hybrids. ALSO the infrastructure .. Let’s imagine that there are long range, large, fast EVs.
90% of European and 60% of North American drivers DO NOT have garages or driveways with easily accesible electrical supplies> infrastucture?? Most commentators extoll plugging in the car overnight>solar power off the table, unless there is some plan to keep the sun up 24/7. or build huge batteries somewhere.
Quick charge??? convienience is a big part of driving. so,the strain on a conventional electrical grid would also require huge infrastructure investments. EG to charge a 35kw battery or cacpacitor in ten minutes would require a 250KW connection. It is possible but also very expensive. Currently things like aluminium smelters are the only concerns so equiped. Then, the question of where all that eletrical energy comes from must be adressed. If its “unreliable” sources like solar, wind or tidal, which are desirable (no GHGs) hydrogen is a much better option as it can be stored and transported . FCV ARE ELECTRIC CARS.

When electric motors are used to power such cars, and the same kind of performance claimed for these models will still be delivered, the switch to electric will be found to mean very little.

As we have discussed before, it all depends on where the energy comes from. My looks at the costs of wind and solar still come out with discouraging answers.

A comment I posted in response to a Financial Times article says more completely what I am trying to say about how dangerous it is to have too much enthusiasm for electric cars, as such.

Green General Motors
by Jim Bullis 04 Mar 2008 07:30 PM

Can GM make a go of greener technology?

Green technology at GM might not be going in the right direction. There is a widely held misconception that electric vehicles are automatically green.

When the main concern was smog in places like Los Angeles, the electric car was a real solution, where power for the car was generated at a power plant outside of the basin. By diluting the combustion products, and scattering them over the world, the situation seemed reasonable. And there are some efficiency advantages for large power plants.

But the efficiencies are not that much better than the automobile engine, and for coal fired power plants, the amount of CO2 due to use of coal means that Green House Gas emissions from electric operation are about the same as gasoline powered cars. And CO2 is now known to be the critical world problem.

But the GM “answer” is to use the “extended range electric vehicle” as a practical way to “shift more energy to transportation.” (See this statement on page 12 of a presentation by Peter Savagian, Engineering Director, —, General Motors at http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/PDF/presentation-sm.pdf )

This would be an ideal plan if electric power were to come from sources such as wind or solar apparatus. With natural gas fueled power plants it would not be a big step backward. But the reality in the US is that coal is almost free compared to other fossil fuels, and the capital investment needed to make wind or solar systems that could carry the added load is not yet economically viable. Like water runs down hill, the economic balance will run down to a comfortable and inexpensive level, where large, inefficient cars, will use electric motors powered from coal fired generators.

Well meaning people will feel green about this, since they will think their cars are “zero emission” vehicles.

Good use can be made of electric motors, as in plug-in hybrids, etc., but these are only “green” if the vehicles are constructed to use a lot less energy.

GM will make a go of green technology when they pursue an approach such as that shown at http://www.miastrada.com. (I have an interest in Miastrada Corp.)
——————
(End of paste)

It remains to be fully considered whether it will be possible to get meaningful government action to ban coal. I think this might eventually be possible if we first cut way back on the amount of energy needed from the sources that would then remain.

Personal transport based on hauling 1.5-3 tonnes of metal to move a 0.08 tonne occupant is DEAD whether it is powered by petrol, electricity, compressed air, corn juice, whatever.

The automotive corpse will twitch for a few more decades until folks realise the simple solution is to contract settlements to enable walking and cycling for 95% of transport.

I’m all for the advancement of technology. Technology such as cars that perpetuate obsecenely low energy efficiency to achieve their objective is evidence of human de-evolution.

Humans should be achieving more and more with less and less energy, the opposite is actually what is happening.

A standard petrol powered car uses ~0.5% of the energy contained in the fuel to move the occupant. An electric car weighing roughly the same might be a little better at ~2%. Surely humans are smart enough to do better than this to move around?

Look at hybrids in the U.S. They were introduced in the 2001 model year. They managed to reach 2.1% market share in 2007. The nation’s vehicle fleet won’t seriously be affected until they reach 50% of sales, which might be 10 years from now. This is for a technology that is completely compatible with no barriers to adoption. FCVs and BEVs will find it to difficult to achieve this rate of adoption because they do have barriers to adoption (they might be small in the case of BEVs, but the infrastructure issue is huge for FCVs). Plug-in hybrids could duplicate the HEV adoption curve.

Let’s say the fuel cell lifetime and cost issues could be solved by 2020 (I think the fuel cells are at one fifth of their lifetime targets right now). By 2026 they are less than 2% of the market. They might reach 50% of the market by 2040.

But to alter the 2050 vehicle fleet significantly, we need technology that reaches 50% of the market by 2030. FCVs wont’ do that. HEVs and PHEVs will, and BEVs (which don’t have technological problems to solve like FCVs) will have a place as well.

And if FCVs did manage to achieve 50% earlier than I guess above, their fuel will cost three times as much to drive per mile as a BEV if it is made from renewable energy, which it must if we are to meet our greenhouse gas emissions targets.

FCVs are a lousy bet.

I don’t understand the Hydro Quebec comment, as their production numbers aren’t all that large. They could not, for example, produce enough hydrogen to power U.S. passenger vehicles.

http://money.cnn.com/ 2008/ 03/ 05/ news/ companies/ bigoil_hydrogen/ index.htm

Perhaps this link will spark more attention:

http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

It is GM’s electric concept car the Chevy Volt. If more people begin to demand alternative fuel cars, we should be able to speed the rate at which the technology is developed.

We have started an Investor Forum where Investors can meet and discuss topics like this:

http://investor-forum.thesubway.com/

http://tinyurl.com49ww7w

lg

The first electric vehicles were direct conversion from cars fitted with electric motors and a dozen of batteries. That was the first appearance of EV’s that eventually lost popularity

coz of crude design and the inconvenience of long charging hours.

But with the introduction of fuel cells EV’s got a new life and has a promising future to become the main choice in urban transport.

Related Sites:

Electric Plug-in Cars;
Hybrid Electric Cars

With some retooling of our motors we should alleviate the corrosive effects of hydrogen on internal parts. A car would need just enough stored fuel to start it. Once started, an on-board hydrogen electrolysis unit takes over to produce fuel as needed. It will take a strong outcry from the people of this Nation to make it happen, so let’s do it. I have contacted my state represenatatives with this very plan. Retooling and remaking our infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles will create many new jobs, reduce pollution, and reduce our dependancy on oil.

Europe already serves hydrogen at stations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykl2PH2B-tM We need to keep it simple and safe. Serve noncombustible water, not hydrogen fuel.

hydrogen paper link: http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/advocate/ad43fcev.htm

[JR: You seem to have forgotten that you need massive amounts of energy to split hydrogen out of water, a very stable molecule. Hydrogen is a dead end (see here) — and zero-carbon hydrogen would cost more than four dollars a gallon.]