See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: SHIFT: Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a fraud
Source:
dvice.com
URL Source: http://dvice.com/archives/2008/07/shift_hydrogen.php
Published: Jul 31, 2008
Author: Charlie White
Post Date: 2008-08-02 12:19:18 by mirage
Keywords: None
Views: 214
Comments: 16
Who wouldn’t like the idea of a fuel cell car running on clean, pure hydrogen, the universe’s most plentiful element? Its byproduct is sparkling, drinkable water, with none of that pesky pollution spewing out the tailpipe. And then if there's any energy left over when you're done driving, why, you could use that car's fuel cell to power your house! We can get rid of gasoline! And fuel cells, hey, they use those in spacecraft, don't they? This is some modern stuff, and at first glance, hydrogen appears to be a viable solution to all our energy problems. Well, think again. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are a dumb idea, and those who are pushing them are frauds. They want to advance their own agendas, and couldn’t care less whether their cars are practical or not. They just want to make more money. In fact, their tired ideas for fuel cell vehicles have already been left in the dust by electric and hybrid vehicles, and there are a lot of good reasons why. Not for Sale To give you an idea, mass producing a fuel cell-powered bus is going to cost $200,000 extra just for the engine, according to its designers at Caltech and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Pretty good, though, considering that just two years ago, the average cost of a fuel cell vehicle was a cool million dollars. This huge cost issue is just the tip of this expensive iceberg. While some companies that are seeking funding for their fuel cell vehicle schemes say otherwise, the cars are notoriously impractical. I smell boondoggle. Is Hydrogen a Fuel? Can’t we just mine hydrogen from the ground? These fuel cell cars need four times the volume to store an amount of energy equal to that of gasoline. Even though the energy-generating equivalent of hydrogen is lighter than its gasoline counterpart, you need a 60 gallon tank to store the same amount of energy that’s in 15 gallons of gasoline. These cars won’t go far before it’s time for more hydrogen. Where will you get that hydrogen? Good luck with that, though, because so far there’s just one retail hydrogen station in the U.S. (run by, you guessed it, an oil company), far short of the thousands needed to make this hydrogen economy anything more than a pipe dream. The other experimental stations are nothing but showboat propaganda fronts that expend far more energy than they create. Anyway, the oil companies would be happy to invest in that costly infrastructure, because they know they'll get their money back. But it'll be coming out of your hide, just like it always has. Plenty of Guff Somewhere Over the Rainbow Poster Comment: Hydrogen will save us at 100x the cost of gasoline!
Fuel cell cars are available today. But wait, you can’t really buy the Honda FCX Clarity — you must rent it for $600 a month. Why? Because if this wasn’t a publicity stunt, you’d have to buy the FCX for its real cost. The car makers are secretive about how much it's costing to build these vehicles, but you can bet it's well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece.
No, hydrogen is not really a fuel, but an energy storage medium. It's more akin to a battery that soaks up energy when it’s extracted from something else, and then delivers that energy when it’s used. And, it takes a lot of energy to create that hydrogen. The energy must come from other sources, such as natural gas, or elaborate electrolysis using platinum membranes that separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water, using, um, electricity. What? Using electricity to make hydrogen that's then turned back into electricity? Yes, it’s the laws of physics at work, where you have to put in energy to get some out. So you must use electricity or gas (or maybe solar energy) to make this stuff. So yeah, it works like a battery, except a whole lot more expensive. Why not just charge up an electric car instead?
No, there's no such thing as a hydrogen well. It doesn’t just gather in one place like oil or natural gas does, but quickly dissipates into the atmosphere because of its simple atomic structure. Because of that number-one position on the periodic table, hydrogen is difficult to store and corrodes pipes. It’s a clever escape artist, and can even slip between the molecules of steel or aluminum containers. So hydrogen can't be stored long-term — it must be created on the spot by stripping it from other molecules.
The oil companies would like to provide the infrastructure for such a “hydrogen economy.” The oil companies say to you, "No, don’t use electricity from your house to charge up that electric vehicle — depend on the oil company’s filling stations to get where you want to go, as you’ve always done." 
There are a variety of impractical ideas for using hydrogen to propel cars, but they're years — and maybe even decades — from being cost-effective. Most of these schemes seem to suspiciously somehow involve the oil companies keeping their greedy paws in the “hydrogen economy.” To give you an idea, one great proponent of the “hydrogen economy” is energy expert, former oilman and conservation guru George W. Bush.
We're all for innovation, but the fantasy of cost-effective hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is just a distraction from the real work that needs to be done: perfecting electric and hybrid natural gas/electric vehicles, charged by electricity generated by clean and renewable nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power. These technologies are here now, and the associated batteries are getting more efficient at a rate that’s significantly faster than the snail's pace of impractical fuel cell technology. Maybe someday hydrogen fuel cells will be practical for personal vehicles, but not today, and not for a long time to come. Don’t be fooled by the self-serving frauds that keep trying to tell you otherwise.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: mirage (#0)
(Edited)
I think I remember reading that it requires five to ten joules of electrical energy (produced by conventional methods, such as burning petroleum) to produce one joule's worth of hydrogen fuel. It's just another gimmick that makes people think they're "saving the planet" by using something other than gasoline in their cars.
Most of this "save the planet" stuff is just a secular religion where people put themselves in the place of the Messiah. To paraphrase George Carlin: The Planet has been here for 4.5 billion years. People have been here for a couple hundred thousand. The Planet will be here long after we're gone. The Planet will be fine. The PEOPLE, on the other hand, are screwed.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogen...presidents_initiative.html
Govenator Arnold wants to push a hydrogen highway. What he doesn't tell anyone is that he and the NRDC, who wrote his environmental policy, have investments in natural gas, the main source of hydrogen.
When fusion is a clean source of nuclear energy, this would all make sense. Of course we're spending all the money we could be using on that research in no-bid military industrial contracts instead of merit-based awards and results-oriented funding renewal reviews.
Fusion, ethanol from cellulose, and solar have all been "just around the corner" or "20 years away" or "10 years away" now for close to 30 years. Are we actually any closer now than we were in the 1970s? Remember, Carter was talking about all of this stuff. If it were actually viable, wouldn't it be here?
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
Nothing is viable until it's "discovered." Give it time, and I'll concede: free markets. Right now, our foreign policy of intervention and our legal climate are anything but a free market with respect to energy.
And, it takes a lot of energy to create that hydrogen. The energy must come from other sources, such as natural gas, or elaborate electrolysis using platinum membranes that separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water, using, um, electricity.
#2. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#1)
#3. To: mirage (#0)
#4. To: mirage, *Agriculture-Environment* (#0)
"You have delusions of adequacy."
#5. To: farmfriend, mirage (#4)
#6. To: buckeye (#5)
When fusion is a clean source of nuclear energy
#7. To: mirage (#6)
#8. To: mirage (#6)
Fusion, ethanol from cellulose, and solar have all been "just around the corner" or "20 years away" or "10 years away" now for close to 30 years.
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#9. To: mirage (#6)
It is here, or it was here. There are a lot of powerful forces at work to deprive you of energy independence, the worst of which is the government. They want their taxes. Next is the energy companies. Every time someone advances efficiency in solar panels, batteries, etc, a big oil company is there to buy them out and bury the patents. Watch what happens to NanoSolar, they developed a method for 'printing' solar cells that's 10 times less costly than the usual methods. They'll be gone shortly. Then there's the auto companies. They have a bazillion dollars invested in equipment for producing internal combustion engines that manage, at best, 13% efficiency. They're not going to switch over to producing electric vehicles that approach 100% efficiency without a huge fight. As long as the technology is put in useless devices like cell phones, TeeVees, iPods, etc, there's no problem, but put it in something to actually make life better for people, LOOK OUT! Everybody's unhappy & fighting against it.
Remember, Carter was talking about all of this stuff. If it were actually viable, wouldn't it be here?
#10. To: Elliott Jackalope (#8)
From the website: NanoSolar
Want to Buy Panels? We are presently already sold out for the next 12 months. We are working hard to scale our production capacity as fast as possible. Please sign up above to be notified of availability.
So, still not really available.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
#11. To: Esso (#9)
Very true. Just try and put up an ethanol still for fuel or create your own biodiesel. Government says they want you to do this, then BATF comes in and whacks you. So, would someone tell me why we keep re-electing this people instead of taking to the streets and demanding their heads?
There are a lot of powerful forces at work to deprive you of energy independence, the worst of which is the government. They want their taxes.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
#12. To: mirage (#11)
Six corporations that own the majority of our media. "The hypnotized never lie."
#13. To: buckeye (#12)
That's why you have to know how to read the news. The figures and locations are probably correct. However, journalism schools teach now how to have people come away from a story with the "feeling" you wish them to. You can see that here on 4. Its very successful. That's why I read for nuggets and discard the rest of the crap.
Six corporations that own the majority of our media. "The hypnotized never lie."
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
#14. To: mirage (#13)
The timing and lack of news on a particular issue are similar. Nobody on the alphabet cable/satellite soup could keep a straight face when talking about Obama and change without mentioning Ron Paul if they were honest.
#15. To: buckeye (#14)
Obama is a blank slate upon which people are projecting what they want to see as well as to expunge themselves of whatever sins they think they are guilty of. There is no history to draw on to tell what Obama is about other than his radical/Marxist friends. Note that Obama refuses to articulate any plans and those that he does articulate are immediately shredded. Even his Berlin speech said .. nothing. Ron Paul on the other hand, immediately articulates a plan and indeed personifies change because he has a past and a reputation. Just how I see it from here. You're welcome to challenge this viewpoint.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
#16. To: mirage (#15)
Excellent analysis - thanks.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest