Forget Hydrogen: Here They Are, The Two Fuels of The Future Page 2
Can Tesla Raise More Than $1 Billion On Soaring Stock Price?
Investors in startup electric-car maker Tesla Motors [NSDQ:TSLA] have had quite the wild ride... Read More
- #4LEADERBOARD RANK
- 2896ARTICLES CONTRIBUTED
- 1943COMMENTS POSTED
Add to circle
Also See
-
2012 Ford Focus Gives Letterman a Late Show...
-
Ford: Using Apps To Maximize Your Electric Car...
-
2013 Ford C-Max Hybrid: Is It The Ideal Modern...
See more video »
Ethanol
Currently, the corn-based ethanol used in the U.S. is not economically viable without massive government subsidies (the same could be said for electric vehicles). Gasoline prices will have to rise substantially before it becomes competitive.
Nonetheless, in 2007, the U.S. Congress passed a mandate that the U.S. must use 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. It's not entirely clear how this will happen.
There are also serious questions about the wells-to-wheels carbon balance of corn ethanol, as well as other concerns over its water usage (as high as 8 gallons per gallon of fuel), displacement of food crops, and other concerns.
Canes & grasses
The sugar-cane ethanol used in Brazil is now twice as productive per acre, but import tariffs prevent us from buying it for U.S. gasoline supplies.
The ultimate promise lies in biomass ethanol from things like switchgrass, as well as custom designed algae that gain energy from photosynthesis and actually excrete ethanol compounds. All of those technologies, however, are still in the research and prototyping phase, and they're unlikely to have a noticeable impact for 10 years or more.
Automakers, however, like ethanol. Adapting vehicles to run on it is far less costly than engineering electric vehicles from the ground up, and consumers don't have to change their habits. They just have to get used to fewer miles per tank, since a gallon of ethanol contains less energy than a gallon of gasoline.
Electricity better on carbon
At the moment, electricity (even from coal-burning powerplants) has the best carbon footprint per mile driven. Compared to a 25-mpg car, fueling an electric car even on the dirtiest power grid in the country emits less carbon per mile than burning gasoline.
When you double the bogey to 50 mpg, you get a handful of edge cases where burning gasoline is marginally lower-carbon than driving the same mile on grid power.
A 2007 study jointly authored by the Electric Power Research Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council provides the details. The first volume looks at greenhouse-gas emissions, the second volume at U.S. air-quality analysis.
Engines get way less thirsty
By 2020 or before, electric cars are likely to be cost-competitive with gasoline vehicles (depending on oil price, of course!) as the price-performance of lithium-ion cells falls at 6 to 8 percent a year, as it has in the consumer Li-ion cell market since 1989.
It's worth noting, however, that gasoline and diesel vehicles will get far, far more fuel efficient with significant doses of advanced technology: turbocharging, direct injection, variable valve timing, and better transmissions.
J.D. Power predicts direct injection will be fitted to 25 percent of U.S. vehicles in 2015; industry analyst IHS Automotive predicts the number will be 38 percent the following year. Almost 9 out of 10 vehicles will have variable valve timing in 2016, IHS says, and turbochargers will comprise either 12 percent (IHS) or 25 percent (J.D. Power) by then.
The full-size sedan of 2025 (e.g. Ford Taurus) might weigh one-third less, have a drag coefficient as low as 0.22, and be powered by a 1.8- to 2.0-liter direct-injected turbocharged engine putting out 300 horsepower--which could conceivably return 35 to 40 mpg in regular use. That's just half the carbon output of a similar car today
What that means is that gas cars will get more efficient fairly quickly, and that's the bar that electric vehicles will have to compete with in 2020 and thereafter.
The infrastructure question
We've spent 100-plus years building a retail distribution infrastructure for gasoline to fuel cars, and that's the strongest.
After that, all households, multiple dwellings, and businesses at least have 120-Volt electricity widely available onsite. While 240-Volt power is needed for recharging battery electric vehicles in practical timespans (6-8 hours vs. 12-16 hrs), that's a much easier problem to solve than building a brand-new distribution infrastructure for another fuel.
Related Articles
-
![Tesla owners & supporters gather in Statehouse in Austin to support company [photo: John Griswell]](http://static.hgmsites.net/images/cache/tesla-owners-supporters-gather-in-statehouse-in-austin-to-support-company-photo-john-griswell_100424739_130x80.jpg "North Carolina Wants To Make It Illegal For Tesla To E-Mail Customers")
North Carolina Wants To Make It Illegal For Tesla To E-Mail Customers
-
Tesla To Issue More Stock, Pay Off Energy Dept With Proceeds
-
2013 Nissan Leaf Final Ratings Issued: 115 MPGe, 75 Miles Of Range
-
Diesel Cars: Six Important Things Everyone Should Know (But May Not)
-
Electric Cars: Eight Important Things Everyone Should Know (But May Not)
-
Follow Us
On Facebook
Most Popular This Week
More »
Tesla Model S Vs Chevy Volt: Owner Compares Electric Cars 
Electric Cars: Eight Important Things Everyone Should Know (But... 
Is Tesla About To Offer Battery-Pack Swapping For Model S? 
BMW CEO To Germans: Get Over Your Angst, Buy Electric Cars... 
Diesel Cars: Six Important Things Everyone Should Know (But May... Find Green Cars
Photo Galleries
More from High Gear Media
- Follow Us
Have an opinion?
Gav Posted: 1/24/2011 12:58pm PST
As for electricity vs E85 in New Zealand? With regular gas at $5.80 USD/gal here, people will not pay a premium for E85. I believe electric vehicles will triumph much quicker down here than in the USA.
I'm confident it'll be a 'one horse race' here soon, when electric vehicles start to appear.
For example, there's a yank living in my city (New Plymouth) who went to all the effort and expense of importing a flex-fuel car from the USA in order to run it on E85. He explained how disappointed he was that no one sold the fuel here. Chances are, no one will either.
Chris O Posted: 1/24/2011 1:07pm PST
One item that I was less comfortable with was the "free-market" comment. If we are going to control MPG using CAFE standards, I don't really see that as a free market anymore than I see EVs with a $7500 rebate as free market.
I didn't understand the comment that 90% of the carbon output from a car comes from the fuel. And in the next sentence that number changes to 75%. Is the 75% number for 2020 and the 90% number for 2010? What did I miss?
Later
John C. Briggs
Michael Coates Posted: 1/24/2011 3:23pm PST
Great analysis as usual, though I would add two itmes to it: there is no likely way for your two "winners"--gasoline or electricity--to replace diesel in the goods movement industry, which is the backbone of the economy. Maybe with renewable diesel there can be a significant displacement of petroleum, but diesel will probably remain a predominant for the next half century. For some of the economic facts, check out my client, Diesel Technology Forum at www.dieselforum.org. And to edge hydrogen out, electricity (specifically batteries), have got to come a long way in durability, cost and range, which gives H2 an opening to wedge its way during the next couple decades. Virtually every major auto company in the world is betting that way.
John Posted: 1/24/2011 3:38pm PST
Do I understand you correctly? Every major car company is betting that hydrogen will edge out battery powered cars? If so, what evidence is there that that hydrogen is their bet rather than electricity.
Later
John C. Briggs
Thanks for the clarification about carbon footprint. It really shows the staggering amount of fuel that cars (even the Prius) use over their lifetimes.
The car may weigh 3,000 or 4,000 pounds, but many times that weight in gasoline will be used over the lifetime of the vehicle. It is deceiving because you never really see the gasoline go in or appreciate how much is used.
Later
John C. Briggs
Reece Posted: 1/24/2011 6:59pm PST
There are some very happy RAV-4EV owners that would be happy to tell you that the time for EVs was ten years ago, not ten years from now. There is a lot of evidence that they are right.
Later
John C. Briggs
Michael Coates Posted: 1/24/2011 7:46pm PST
@John Toyota, Mercedes, Honda, GM, Nissan(!) and Hyundai are all putting fuel cell vehicles on the market (a la the current Leaf/Volt launches) starting 2015. The auto companies see EVs are urban, limited use vehicles and FCVs (which are also EVs, of course) as true replacements for our current ICEs. Infrastructure is the main remaining challenge, though more in the US than Japan or Germany (which are both stepping up to build the initial refueling stations).
Michael Coates Posted: 1/24/2011 7:50pm PST
LC Posted: 1/24/2011 8:27pm PST
http://www.itm-power.com/
OK, so there is still some on-going effort in fuel cells, but hardly comparable with the EV movement which started shipping in November 2010. To say that you are going to ship a FCV in 2015 is the rough equivalent of saying, maybe, someday. If any company was to say, today, we are going to start shipping EVs in 2015, they would be laughed at, and rightly so.
Automotive fuel cells are so impractical that Ulf Bossel and his colleagues banned their discussion from the European Fuel Cell Forum. This is from a guy that is in the business of making fuel cells.
The only good that has come out of the investment in hydrogen is that we now know that it is deeply impractical and inefficient. Time to leave that on the back burner and that is where the auto companies have it.
Later
John C. Briggs
So as we gaze into our crystal balls, it should be with some humility.
Later
John C. Briggs
John Gotthold Posted: 1/25/2011 6:13am PST
John Gotthold
Paul Hill Posted: 1/25/2011 6:38am PST
Dean Warde Posted: 1/25/2011 7:00am PST
Once industrial and commercial vehicles adopt H2 as a fuel and install their own infrastructure, personal vehicle adoption will follow, due to its convenience and superior performance in rapid refilling, greater range / cost and greater utility and performance / cost.
Consumers care only that costs drop below a certain threshold. Once below that threshold, they consider other aspects like rapid-refill, range and utility / performance. If the cost is higher, but the cheaper alternative lacks those thresholds of rapid-refill, range and utility / performance, then consumers will raise their cost threshold in order to meet their thresholds for convenience and performance.
Conventional analyses just don't apply to disruptive technologies. It requires vision.
Energy from wind and solar is not "Free" as is often claimed. Personally, I have solar panels on my house and the cost of the electricity is at least $0.30/KWH making it one of the most expensive forms of energy available today. That said, it is still pretty cool.
However, if I needed to fuel EVs with solar panels, I would need to double or triple the amount of solar panels on my roof. Pretty bad as it is A) expensive, and B) will not fit on my roof.
To do the same with using solar panels to make electricity for hydrogen production would take 3-4X as many solar panels as for an EV. This means 6 to 12 times as many solar panels as I have today. In other words, impossible.
Hydrogen's inefficiency makes it a non-starter. You cannot even think of using an expensive resource like wind or solar to make hydrogen, it would price itself out of the market.
I am not sure why people are so married to the hydrogen concept. Is is because the government spent years marketing it to the US public? But they didn't know then what we know now. After a lot of government investment, it is now clear that hydrogen will not work economically. Of course, the FCX Clarity beautifully shows that it works technically.
Later
John C. Briggs
Sounds like a religion discussion rather than a technical one. Science does not apply to the things that I am discussing. Go away science and rational thought. You must believe. Amen.
Later
John C. Briggs
JP Posted: 1/25/2011 8:02am PST
http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1039689_why-cant-we-buy-small-european-diesels-in-the-u-s
and
http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1051249_five-reasons-small-diesels-wont-dominate-the-u-s-car-market
Without fuel cells, the US and the world will never maximize any clean energy portfolio. Simply put, fuel cells enhance every other clean energy option. And hydrogen energy offers significant benefits in terms of storing renewable energies that batteries can't match.
(Pete Barkey, Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association)
Without fuel cells, the US and the world will never maximize any clean energy portfolio. Simply put, fuel cells enhance every other clean energy option. And hydrogen energy offers significant benefits in terms of storing renewable energies that batteries can't match.
(Pete Barkey, Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association)
Chris at CcaFCP
http://www.cafcp.org/sites/files/20091026wells2wheels.pdf
This references but does not cite a CEC (California Energy Commission study). Be interesting to get that link.
Right off the bat it shows BEV using 2000 BTU/mile WTW. This is 0.585 KWH/mile or twice the amount used by real BEV like the LEAF. Wonder how they justify that.
LarsOlsson Posted: 1/25/2011 12:01pm PST
Couldn't the author have found a more recent study to base his article on? Don't get me wrong, I like electrons, but anything, including H2, is better than
imported petroleum from the volatile Middle East.
What about the constant clamor about 'Peak Oil'? Is
that just more crisis mongering?
John Bailo Posted: 1/25/2011 12:57pm PST
Japan building 100 hydrogen fueling stations
Hawaii, becoming GM center for hydrogen infrastructure
Germany, England, Norway.
Hydrogen wins.
Rob O'Keefe Posted: 1/25/2011 2:51pm PST
As a consumer, we all win when technologies improve and, while my long-term preference might be FCV, I wouldn't bet much on it, either. Simply pointing our extremely small gains (which are much smaller than expected 5-10 years ago BTW) on FCV doesn't mean much. The coming years will matter, not one's current biases. Every fuel has significant disadvantages. Great article, John.
That said, get the A4 here in a diesel ASAP and our second car will be electric this year or next. If FCV make it to market in volume, I'll be right in line.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
"Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense."
Note that the author is in the fuel cell business and so I think it should be given some credit.
Anyway, if you start from 100 KWH of renewable electricity and try to power an EV, you have 69 KWH by the time you get down to work. In the case of a FCV if you start with 100 KWH of renewable electricity, you have only 23 KWH of electricity by the time you are ready to apply traction to the tires.
Clearly, FCV are going to use 3X more electricity to do the same job. Not very efficient. Also note this is not a well-to-wheels analysis but a sun-to-wheels analysis.
Later
John C. Briggs
James Yarger Posted: 1/26/2011 1:41am PST
I'm sorry if I'm coming off strong, but come on! All the piece are there to make hydrogen work today, not in some future that never gets here. This article could have been clipped out of a road and track mag from 1982!
We can build a hydrogen based economy or keep giving money to people who what to destroy America. You said a single hydrogen station cost what 2 million? Only because of red tape. What a load of doodoo.
John Voelcker put out an open call for data showing that the carbon footprint hydrogen is reasonable and the costs as well. So far the data shows the carbon foot print is too high and the costs as well.
The article does not claim that hydrogen power doesn't work. Clearly hydrogen power works, but not very well.
It is also worth noting that FCVs are basically EVs. So when you get your EV FCV home for the evening, you can either recharge the battery directly from the socket, or indirectly by using electricity to make hydrogen and then using the hydrogen to make electricity again. Clearly you will want to charge the battery directly since it takes 3X the electricity use the hydrogen method.
If the battery in your EV FCV is large enough (say 16 KWH) you might never need to use a drop of hydrogen in your daily commuting. But at least it is there for longer trips. But then you have to ask yourself, is it really worth having in a fuel cell in your car? How about just going back to gasoline for the longer trips, like, say, the Chevy Volt. Or switching battery packs, like ,say (gulp) project Better Place.
Later
John C. Briggs
Philip Posted: 1/26/2011 7:49am PST
http://www.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/01/26/toyota.recalls/index.html?iref=NS1
James Yarger Posted: 1/26/2011 2:13pm PST
The only way producing hydrogen by any means is more expensive and has a "larger foot print" is to allow for whole lot of externalities ok. The carbon emissions from the well to the pump have to left out. The human factors have to over looked as well, the increase in asthma in children, and cancer. The carbon emissions of the entire production and the effects that happen from leaks all a lot the way have to be over looked.
What we need is consumer demand to make the market change. Not another narcissistic hydrogen articles. We are living on a world browned from tomorrow’s child. Their world is entrusted to us to make a livable place. To over look all though effects is the only way you can say that hydrogen is more expensive
Please educate away. But first, I think we should agree that hydrogen does not come from the ground. So the whole Well-to-Wheel argument is a little off track. Secondly, the data from Ulf Bossel (a fuel cell expert) shows the opposite of your argument.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
No impassioned argument changes the data. We are all very familiar here with accounting for externalities and Ulf does that very well as his starting point is renewable energy.
The fact that Japan is doing demonstration projects does not show that this is necessarily a good idea.
Later
John C. Briggs
James Yarger Posted: 1/27/2011 10:35am PST
The link you've posted is four year old and shows transportation and liquefaction as barriers. Hydrogen can be produced at the point of purchase. The well to wheels does make sense, you have to include externalities and your not.
Hydrogen filling stations are being built that get their electricity for electrolysis from renewable resources on the spot, using technology that is off the shelf at this point.
No amount Ludditism changes the current data. Bossels argument is out of day, and so are you, I’m starting think “Green Car Report” shouldn’t consider changing its name to the “Green Washing Report”
Ulf Bossel chart uses renewable energy as the starting point. Please let me know what "externalites" and "wells" you are talking about. Starting from Renewables like Ulf does, there is no well (for hydrogen or electricity). Exactly what externalities are you talking about when referring to EVs running on renewable energy.
Later
John C. Briggs
Jon Posted: 1/28/2011 2:47am PST
You should take a look at it - it will perhaps help to modify some misconceptions about the use of hydrogen contained in the article and subsequent comments.
It is called "A portfolio of power-trains for Europe:
a fact-based analysis" sub-titled
"The role of Battery Electric Vehicles, Plug-in
Hybrids and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles'
It is an unprecedented, fact based study and is available here;
http://ec.europa.eu/research/fch/pdf/a_portfolio_of_power_trains_for_europe_a_fact_based__analysis.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none
Thanks for the report. Great stuff. I started reading it and was struck by this statement.
"The value of the FCEV over alternative
power-trains in terms of TCO and emissions (including the cost of the hydrogen infrastructure) is positive beyond 2030." Actually consistent with John Voelckers discussion above regarding the next 20 years.
Later
John C. Briggs
Truls Posted: 1/31/2011 1:53am PST
Ah the fondness of not yet existing technology. The hydrogen car of the future remains perfect in our minds because it is not tainted by the realities of actually existing. Do you want to bet that the first hydrogen cars will have some disappointments of their own when, and if, they arrive?
John C. Briggs
USAFANG67 Posted: 2/1/2011 10:46am PST
Ann Posted: 2/11/2011 10:51am PST
Ann Posted: 2/11/2011 10:53am PST
Heywood Jeblomie Posted: 2/18/2011 5:31am PST
Heywood Jeblomie Posted: 2/18/2011 5:03pm PST
Heywood Jeblomie Posted: 2/18/2011 5:09pm PST
"In our view, the two most viable types of fuels for the medium term are petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, natural gas) and electricity, which already has a distribution system in place."
Electricity is an energy transfer medium. It's not a fuel in any way matter or form. That's like saying that fuel for our cars today is internal combustion.
BTW-- what happens in the electric car when it's hot out and you have the A/C cranking and the radio playing while you're stuck in traffic? How do those batteries hold up at 0 degrees F?
Look, you guys are free to play with your toys, just don't ask the taxpayer to subsidize this nonsense (including ethanol).
John Voelcker Posted: 2/19/2011 4:28am PST
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!