Hydrogen fuel-cell cars not yet in starting gate

Calgary Herald ^ | Feb 25, 2010 | Fiona Anderson

[thackney]

Hydrogen fuel-cell technology has made significant progress, but it will still be some time before cars fuelled by hydrogen will be affordable, Arturo Elias, president of General Motors of Canada Ltd. told reporters Wednesday.

GM -- which was showcasing its fleet of eight hydrogen-fuelled cars the company is using during the Olympics -- has said in the past it hoped to commercialize a fuel-cell vehicle by 2015.

"But there are some challenges," Elias said.

Those challenges include ensuring the infrastructure for refuelling is in place and lowering costs.

Hydrogen-fuelled cars are electric cars that get their power from hydrogen rather than the more traditional battery. And that technology is promising, Elias said.

"But like all technologies, we'll have to go through a cycle of learning to reduce the cost and make that technology available."

There have already been remarkable improvements with the current second-generation technology, which is half the size and 100 kilograms lighter than the first generation, Elias said.

So the technology is progressing "but we are a bit of a ways still from having commercial, affordable fuel-cell vehicles," he said.

Will the hydrogen fuel-cell cars be out by 2015? Maybe for commercial and government fleets that can have their own refuelling stations, Elias said.

"Is it going to be widely available and affordable? I don't think so."

Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles have no emissions other than water vapour, said John Tak, president and CEO of the Canadian Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association.

And hydrogen is readily available. Not only can it be produced from a broad range of energy sources, like natural gas and coal, as well as from electricity, it is also often an industry byproduct.

The eight GM cars now in town are being fuelled by hydrogen that is a byproduct from a plant in North Vancouver that had been venting it, Tak said. And in Canada there is enough waste hydrogen to fuel 200,000 vehicles,

The fleet of 20 hydrogen buses operating in Whistler will reduce greenhouse gases by more than 60 per cent compared to diesel buses, he said. If the buses use the North Vancouver plant's waste hydrogen, which they plan to, the reduction will be 90 per cent.

Major corporations like Walmart, Coca-Cola and Whole Foods, are realizing the benefits of hydrogen and using hydrogen fuel-cell forklift trucks for their distribution centres, Tak said.

In the case of Walmart, "this is a powerful corporate end user known for driving costs down, increasing productivity and they are investing in this technology," Tak said.

When costs are reduced, Tak believes more people will turn to hydrogen-fuelled vehicles.

Most people would love the car they drive to be 100-percent electric, Tak said. "But they'd like it to be able to do what their car does today."

[thackney]

Shawn Cook (left) of the Canadian Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association explains the fuelling process to president and managing director of GM Canada Arturo Elias (centre) and federal International Trade Minister Peter Van Loan during Wednesday's tour.
Photograph by: Glenn Baglo, PNG, Vancouver Sun

- - - - -

Hydrogen-fuelled cars are electric cars that get their power from hydrogen rather than the more traditional battery.

Misleading statement. Neither is a source of energy, but rather a storage system for energy from another fuel.

[Signalman]

Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles have no emissions other than water vapour,

Since water vapor far exceeds the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, won't a nation with millions of hydrogen powered cars on the road INCREASE global warming?

[Huebolt]

Just use the HICE (hydrogen internal combustion engine) and GO! Ford had one back in 2000. BMW has one out now. Just a few adjustments and zoooom! Make the hydrogen with nuclear power and solution = permanent.

[hosepipe]

The greatest hydrogen storage system ever devised has been invented..
Its called gasoline..

[Pecos]

“Since water vapor far exceeds the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, won’t a nation with millions of hydrogen powered cars on the road INCREASE global warming? “

The EPA will then declare water vapor to be a hazardous substance, and Algore will find away to exploit that by selling water vapor indulgences.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“Neither is a source of energy, but rather a storage system for energy from another fuel.”

True — except for primary batteries (i.e. non-rechargeable, disposable). These are a source of chemical energy. Of course, they would be ridiculously expensive to use to power an electric car.

[thackney]

Make the hydrogen with nuclear power and solution = permanent.

Hydrogen made by electrolysis is far more expensive than steam reformation of Natural Gas.

Also, we import most of our Nuclear Fuel in the US.

[Darksheare]

Yes.

But don’t tell the global warming true believers that.

[norraad]

Looooooosers, for decades now we've had to see these photo ops with suited up a holes stickin’ H in gaudily painted up vehicles saying it's all just around the corner.

[ClearCase_guy]

Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles have no emissions other than water vapour

[SNIP]

And hydrogen is readily available. Not only can it be produced from a broad range of energy sources, like natural gas and coal, as well as from electricity, it is also often an industry byproduct.

1) If natural gas and coal have emissions, then the Hydrogen in the fuel-cell is not produced "emission free". They're just hiding the emissions.

2) They seem to be claiming that Hydrogen can be produced from electricity. That would be fun to see.

These people are brain-dead. No one should pay attention to them.

[utherdoul]

I want my fifties car powered by a micro nuclear reactor. Hell with these wussy fuel cells.

[Revolting cat!]

Where are they gonna get hydrogen if not from Saudi Arabia again?

[DannyTN]

"Misleading statement. Neither is a source of energy, but rather a storage system for energy from another fuel. "

That's not misleading. As far as the car is concerned those are the sources. They aren't the original source which is your point.

But I could care less what the original source is, as long as it's cheap and we aren't funding terrorist states.

A lot of people seem hung up on the questio of whether it might take more energy to produce the hydrogen than traditional gasoline. I don't care if it takes 10 times as much energy. I care only about end user cost and defunding terrorist states.

[thackney]

I would hope, steam reforming of our own Natural Gas.

[DannyTN]

I think we should be building nuclear plants like crazy, because they are proven viable sources of energy.

Then we should provide energy from the plants to hydrogen plants and battery chargers at direct varible cost without any overhead. Let traditional electricy users pay for the overhead.

This would produce very cheap hydrogen and allow us to end our dependance on foreign oil.

[thackney]

But I could care less what the original source is, as long as it's cheap and we aren't funding terrorist states.

Most Hydrogen is made by steam reforming Natural Gas. If our domestic drilling continues to have the obstacles from the environmentalists, NIMBYs and Democrats, expect that gas to increasingly come from Qatar and Russia.

[thackney]

Do you understand most of our Civilian Nuclear Fuel is imported?

Figure S1. Uranium Purchased by Owners and Operators of U.S. Civilian Nuclear Power Reactors, 1994-2008 Deliveries

Uranium Marketing Annual Report
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/umar/umar.html

[Question Liberal Authority]

A lot of people seem hung up on the questio of whether it might take more energy to produce the hydrogen than traditional gasoline. I don't care if it takes 10 times as much energy.

So you would burn 10 gallons of gasoline to produce an amount of hydrogen equal to 1 gallon of gasoline?

How would that reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

You want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, the answer is simple. Drill for it in America.

[Huebolt]

Nuclear breeder reactors using leftover weapons program material would last an estimated 10,000 years. Natural gas may last that long, I don’t know.

[Huebolt]

Nuclear breeder reactors using leftover weapons program material would last an estimated 10,000 years. Natural gas may last that long, I don’t know.

[gogeo]

The eight GM cars now in town are being fuelled by hydrogen that is a byproduct from a plant in North Vancouver that had been venting it, Tak said. And in Canada there is enough waste hydrogen to fuel 200,000 vehicles,

This is new...and excellent!!!

[Huebolt]

And there’s thorium, not popular because it cannot be used to make a-bombs. Much more plentiful than anything else.

[dangerdoc]

It’s a good thing I have a hydrogen well in the back yard. It’s right next to the Unicorn barn.

[DannyTN]

"Do you understand most of our Civilian Nuclear Fuel is imported?"

Yes I do. But the right questions are:

• "How much would we spend on foriegn nuclear fuel vs foreign oil.?"
• "Of those foreign suppliers which are muslim or terrorist supporting states?" Some of the foreign nuclear fuel suppliers are dictatorships, but that's still better than supporting a terrorist state.

We spent $5.5 billion in 2007 on importing nuclear fuel. about 50% of our fuel was imported. And that's to support somewhere over 100 nuclear plants operating in the U.S. So if we built 50 more plants, we could expect our foriegn imports to double, assuming price neither increase due to demand, nor decreased due to economies of scale".

Top Countries Providing Nuclear Fuel to U.S.
Last year, America imported almost half of its foreign nuclear fuel supplies from the Netherlands, Russia, Canada and France.
1. Netherlands … US$1.1 billion (19.4% of world total for US nuclear fuel material imports)
2. Russia … $935.8 million (16.9%)
3. Canada … $610 million (11%)
4. France … $508.7 million (9.2%)
5. Germany … $429.4 million (7.7%)
6. Belgium … $42.8 million (0.8%)
7. South Africa … $7 million (0.1%)
8. Switzerland … $4.4 million (0.06%)
9. Romania … $3.9 million (0.05%)
10. Israel … $3 million (0.05%).

I don't see a terrorist state on the list.

Compare that to oil. In 2008 we imported 8.133 million barrels a day and Saudi Arabia and Venezuala were in the top five countries importing to us. So 8.133 million * 365 days * $70/barrel = $208 billion/year.

With Nuclear, we would be sending a lot less funds to foreign countries for fuel and the money would be going to friendlier states.

[dangerdoc]

How do you think they will get that hydrogen into a car?

[Frantzie]

Good posts. The joke too is Canada and the USA have probably the most energy in the world. Canada has more oil than Saudi Arabia. The U.S. probably does too. Coal diesel, shale oil, offshore, gas in perma frost in AK, the list is almost endless.

The big advantage of domestic energy production: Jobs, Wealth Creation & tax revenues.

This is the only thing that may save America from insolvency.

[norraad]

First we must ask permission from Bush, Sneakyman Inc. et al.

[DannyTN]

"So you would burn 10 gallons of gasoline to produce an amount of hydrogen equal to 1 gallon of gasoline?"

No, that would be stupid. But a gallon of gas has about 125,000 BTU of energy and costs $2.50. Let's say it took 1,250,000 BTU of enery produced by nuclear, and you could buy that electricity for $2.00.

I don't care how much total energy I use. I care only about the total cost $2.00 nuclear/hydrogen vs $2.50 gas. And I care about what countries we are sending money to.

Now in reality in reality it doesn't take 10 times the amount of nuclear energy to produce that hydrogen. I read a report two years ago that the hydrogen industry believes it can deliver hydrogen for about $2.12 a gasoline gallon equivalent.

[norraad]

believes

[DannyTN]

"believes"

So let them demonstrate it.

If they really can prove that it's viable and they can produce and deliver it for that cost, then it would make sense as a nation to ramp up our nuclear plants and provide incentives to create the distribution network as soon as possible.

Then with my idea of letting them have electricty at variable cost which should lower the cost considerably further, we could be back at $1.50 a gallon of gas equivalent and not nearly dependent on foreign countries.

[Huebolt]

Back in the glorious days of “The Atomic Age”, (see the Jetsons), electricity was to be so cheap it wouldn’t pay to actually meter it. Just a monthly fee like telephone.

[Huebolt]

Hydrogen from electricity?

Chemistry 101. Electrolysis. WATER + ELECTRICITY = HYDROGEN + OXYGEN

The only problem is WHERE DO YOU GET THE ELECTRICITY. Burning stuff to make it is obviously pretty stupid. That's why nuclear is the answer for at least 10,000 years at current consumption. That's both all commercial electricity AND hydrogen for cars.

[ClearCase_guy]

Your equation is correct.

But that's not what they said. They said Hydrogen can be produced from electricity. That would be ELECTRICITY + ELECTRICITY = HYDROGEN. And that won't fly.

Electrolysis extracts hydrogen from H₂O, using electricity. But electricity by itself will not get you hydrogen.

It may be nitpicky, but a lot of BS comes thru the Corrupt Liberal Media when we allow them to say things are "kind of" true.