News How Can Waste Heat from Power Plants be Used to Produce Hydrogen?

[Skyhunter]

I had the pleasure of watching "Who Killed the Electric Car" in a speak easy theatre yesterday. I highly recommend it. The lengths that GM went to to make sure none of the EV-1's survived are incredible.

If you haven't seen the movie go do so. If you have seen it let's talk about the politics of our corporatist government. And the movie.

[edit] I guess I should link a trailer..

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/whokilledtheelectriccar/trailer/

 

[Manchot]

The Stonecutters did.

 

[loseyourname]

What the heck is a 'speak easy' theater? You make it sound like the movie is banned and you saw it illegally.

For those of us that haven't seen it and are not likely to soon, could you give a recap of exactly what GM did and perhaps some overview of what chances an electric car ever had in the first place? Are you referring to the Saturn EV-1? There is a dealer in Whittier where I grew up that I recall bringing several on lot. I actually checked out one (though I had no intention of buying it - I wasn't shopping for a car at the time), and remember they had no success at all selling any of them. The only use I remember them getting around here was the SoCal Edison fleets, which employed electric vans for a while (I'm not sure that they do any more).

 

[Evo]

If I rememeber correctly, the elecrtric cars were very slow and had a severe distance limit. They weren't meant for anyhting more than housewive's going to pick up groceries at the nearby store. They couldn't travel on highways or even commutes to and from work.

 

[edward]

The early electrics were limited to about 80 miles per charge. On the other hand they would be great in stop and go city traffic because they don't use any energy while stopped.

I think the big thing is that people are spoiled by the convience of gasoline. Non eof the electrics had A/C. Even the hybrids automatically start the gas engine if the A/C or other accessories are turned on.

So we go on burning a gallon of gasoline to run down to the store and buy a quart of milk.

 

[Skyhunter]

What the heck is a 'speak easy' theater? You make it sound like the movie is banned and you saw it illegally.

It is a theatre that serves food and spirits. The seating is spread out like in a night club where you would go to watch a stage act, except you have a movie screen. there are tables and chairs, as well as couches to sit on. It is a great experience, they have family days, and even a babies welcome day.

Oh BTW it is legal.

For those of us that haven't seen it and are not likely to soon, could you give a recap of exactly what GM did and perhaps some overview of what chances an electric car ever had in the first place? Are you referring to the Saturn EV-1? There is a dealer in Whittier where I grew up that I recall bringing several on lot. I actually checked out one (though I had no intention of buying it - I wasn't shopping for a car at the time), and remember they had no success at all selling any of them. The only use I remember them getting around here was the SoCal Edison fleets, which employed electric vans for a while (I'm not sure that they do any more).

California passed a zero emission law. The car companies complied by building electric cars, but they also sued. Finally the state compromised then caved into pressure from the car companies and the FED. (The Bush administration sued as well.) The story is about the development and destruction of the cars. The people who leased them were not allowed to extend their lease or buy them outright. GM took back every single one. They then crushed and shredded them. It is a good movie, and well worth the $5.00 matinee

 

[Skyhunter]

If I rememeber correctly, the elecrtric cars were very slow and had a severe distance limit. They weren't meant for anyhting more than housewive's going to pick up groceries at the nearby store. They couldn't travel on highways or even commutes to and from work.

You should see the movie.

The EV-1 was very fast, electric motors have a lot of torque so they were real quick off the line. GM had the NiMH battery, but didn't put it in the car for 2 years. The compromise with California was that they only had to produce them if the consumers would buy them. Your memory is correct about the perception of electric cars, however the reality was different, that is why they were all destroyed, so that the perception would be maintained. The EV-1 with the NiMH battery had a 120 mile range small start-up companies today have electric cars that will do 80+ with a 300 mile range.

The EV-1 was a threat to the internal combustion engine, and that was a threat to the auto industries parts division as well as the quarterly oil, air and fuel filters, oil changes PCV valves etc etc. I recommend seeing it and hearing the testimonials of the people who leased these cars and even held a mass funeral for their cars when they were not allowed to keep them.

 

[Skyhunter]

The early electrics were limited to about 80 miles per charge. On the other hand they would be great in stop and go city traffic because they don't use any energy while stopped.

That was intentional, if consumer demand was high they would be compelled by the agreement with the state of California to produce them. The batteries today (which were available then) give electrics a much greater range.

I think the big thing is that people are spoiled by the convience of gasoline. Non eof the electrics had A/C. Even the hybrids automatically start the gas engine if the A/C or other accessories are turned on.

I will look into that. good point though.

So we go on burning a gallon of gasoline to run down to the store and buy a quart of milk.

Being vegan I prefer rice milk (no carrageenan) and I bike to the store. It is so much nicer to breath fresh air as opposed to the stale air inside an automobile.

 

[Hawknc]

I'm really looking forward to this, but unfortunately it doesn't come out for a few months here. It raises some very valid questions, by the looks of it.

 

[Rach3]

Why on Earth would anyone want to drive on of those? You're just burning oil (coal) somewhere else, and wasting power by sending it over miles of transmission lines to your car. I see no advantage at all - they accelerate extremely poorly, and take an hour to charge. I'm amazed anyone would blame such an awful product's failure on a conspiracy theory.

Next up - how the CIA killed the Ford Nucleon and doomed us to fossil fuels.

 

[Anttech]

You're just burning oil (coal) somewhere else, and wasting power by sending it over miles of transmission lines to your car.

Not all power stations are coal, and clean coal is more efficent in terms of polution to power output than the internal combustion engine, isn't it?

- they accelerate extremely poorly, and take an hour to charge.

Not all electric cares are have poor performance
http://www.teslamotors.com/

 

[daveb]

I remember when the cars came out when I was in Los Angeles. IIRC, they cost about $35K back then.

 

[chroot]

The biggest problem with electric cars is not their upstream power-plant pollution, or the transmission loss across power lines, or even their performance (they can be quite fast!).

The biggest problem with electric cars are:

1) To get decent range, they must weigh tons. They weigh so much that governments were concerned about having to radically increase spending on road maintenance. In addition, the large mass makes them much more dangerous in collisions than other, lighter vehicles.

2) Current battery technologies are only good for perhaps 300-400 charge cycles. This means after a year or two of use, you have to replace the battery pack -- one of the most expensive parts of the vehicle -- and dispose of the carcass. If major recycling centers were to go into operation, perhaps the environmental impact could be mitigated. Without major battery-recycling infrastructure, the yearly disposal of thousands of pounds of heavy metals by every family in the country would be an environmental nightmare far worse than the current problems caused by conventional automobiles.

I spent several years as a group leader in the Hybrid Electric Vehicle Team at Virginia Tech, and did way more than my fair share of research. My conclusion is that the only currently-available technology that meets all the criteria for usability, ownership cost, and environmental friendliness is: the hydrogen fuel-cell.

Don't worry, it's coming.

- Warren

 

[Skyhunter]

I'm amazed anyone would blame such an awful product's failure on a conspiracy theory.

What you believe you know about electric cars is a product of the efforts of GM, big oil, and even the California Air Resources Board. The chairman at the time was also part of the push for hydrogen as an energy carrier.

They killed the electric car, promised us hydrogen in 20 or so years, and started selling the Hummer H2.

I think you will enjoy the movie, not only is it informative, but also quite entertaining.

 

[Rach3]

What you believe you know about electric cars is a product of the efforts of GM, big oil, and even the California Air Resources Board. The chairman at the time was also part of the push for hydrogen as an energy carrier.

I merely stated the obvious - electric cars rely heavily on fossil fuels just like ICE cars. I don't appreciate "you believe you know" arguments, they're rather pretentious in my point of view. Stick to facts and arguments.

 

[Skyhunter]

The biggest problem with electric cars is not their upstream power-plant pollution, or the transmission loss across power lines, or even their performance (they can be quite fast!).

The biggest problem with electric cars are:

1) To get decent range, they must weigh tons. They weigh so much that governments were concerned about having to radically increase spending on road maintenance. In addition, the large mass makes them much more dangerous in collisions than other, lighter vehicles.

The Tesla roadster does not weigh tons.

Curb weight Around 2500 pounds (subject to complete safety and durability testing)

2) Current battery technologies are only good for perhaps 300-400 charge cycles. This means after a year or two of use, you have to replace the battery pack -- one of the most expensive parts of the vehicle -- and dispose of the carcass.

Li-Ion batteries are good for 500 charge/discharge cycles. With 250 miles of range this works out to 125,000 miles, but our estimate is a conservative 100,000 miles. However we believe that we will get better life from our batteries due to temperature control of the batteries and intelligent charge/discharge cycling.

If major recycling centers were to go into operation, perhaps the environmental impact could be mitigated. Without major battery-recycling infrastructure, the yearly disposal of thousands of pounds of heavy metals by every family in the country would be an environmental nightmare far worse than the current problems caused by conventional automobiles.

As long as companies like Tesla are willing to handle the recycling I don't see this as a problem.

What happens when my car battery reaches the end of its life?
Tesla Motors car batteries are both recyclable and replaceable. We care about the environment and know you do, too. We are working to have our car batteries safely recycled, and have even built the cost of recycling into the purchase price of the car. Simply visit a Tesla Motors Customer Care Center to recycle your old battery, and purchase and install a new one on the same day.

I spent several years as a group leader in the Hybrid Electric Vehicle Team at Virginia Tech, and did way more than my fair share of research. My conclusion is that the only currently-available technology that meets all the criteria for usability, ownership cost, and environmental friendliness is: the hydrogen fuel-cell.

Don't worry, it's coming.

- Warren

And how is the hydrogen going to be produced?

Hydrogen fuel cells (IMHO) are feel good idea to keep us dependant on oil until the last dollar of profit can be wrung out of last 300 or so billion barrels left.

Why not share some of the results of that research instead of your reassurance that someday, in the future, we will solve the current problems with pollution and dependence on fossil fuels.

 

[chroot]

Skyhunter,

While I do not dispute the enormous sociopolitical influence of the major multinational oil companies, I cannot permit you to continue to make sweeping statements about conspiracies without some kind of meaningful references.

And no, a movie documentary with an agenda is not such a reference.

An obvious counterargument would be that GM made the EV1, at least in limited quantities. If there was some active conspiracy, why did the EV1 ever get produced at all?

Another obvious counterargument is that there are many other companies in the world besides GM who currently make street-legal electric vehicles. Some links to those companies have even been posted in this thread. If some enormous oil-monger conspiracy exists to prevent us from moving away from fossil fuels, then why are these companies still in business?

Another obvious counterargument would be the ubiquity of hybrid vehicles these days. If the oil-mongers had such an elaborate conspiracy going on, why would they permit the sale of millions of vehicles with roughly twice the efficiency of conventional cars?

Another obvious counterargument is the presence of bicycle lanes in almost every city, and the fact that anyone can go to a bike shop and purchase a bicycle, and choose to ride that instead. Why hasn't Big Oil been able to totally squash the bicycle industry, a mere gnat in comparison to their might.

Another obvious counterargument is that GM continues to sells the Hummer... because people to continue to buy the Hummer. Certainly Big Oil hasn't managed to brainwash people to the point that they don't realize how expensive and wasteful and environmentally unfriendly the Hummer is. Every Hummer driver realizes their car is enormous, and is a gas guzzler, and costs a lot to fill up. The only reason such people buy Hummers is because they think the Hummer, as a status symbol (or, in some cases, a genuine off-road tool) is worth the additional cost and damage to the environment. GM did not reach into those peoples' pockets and take their money -- they simply offered a product which those people found attractive. Sure, you could say that the "status symbol" nature of the automobile was designed into the product from day one -- but the same could be said of laptop computers, Italian leather shoes, and Dom Perignon, and virtually every other kind of consumer product -- and Big Oil certainly doesn't have much to do with bubbly.

- Warren

 

[Skyhunter]

I merely stated the obvious - electric cars rely heavily on fossil fuels just like ICE cars. I don't appreciate "you believe you know" arguments, they're rather pretentious in my point of view. Stick to facts and arguments.

I wasn't referring to your statement about fossil fuels being used to produce electricity. However it is easier to regulate the emissions of 25,000 power plants than 300 million automobiles.

When I made the statement "What you think you know", I was responding to this comment.

they accelerate extremely poorly,

Performance specs for the Tesla roadster

Numbers your thing? Our Technical Spec gives you dimensions, weights, and everything we've got. learn more
Performance Specs
The Tesla Roadster’s specs illustrate what it does (0 to 60 in about 4 seconds) — as well as what it doesn’t (zero emissions, zero motor oil). With one moving part in the motor, no clutch, and two gears, it’s not only a joy to drive, but to own as well. There is no motor oil to change; no filters, belts, or spark plugs to replace; no oxygen sensors to mistrust before an emissions test — in fact, no emissions test required ever. Other than inspection, the only service we recommend for the first 100,000 miles is brake and tire service.

Tesla Roadster Specifications*
Style 2-seat, open-top, rear-drive roadster
Drivetrain Electric motor with 2-speed electric-shift manual transmission with integral differential
Motor 3-phase, 4-pole electric motor, 248hp peak (185kW), redline 13,500 rpm, regenerative "engine braking"
Chassis Bonded extruded aluminum with 4-wheel wishbone suspension
Brakes 4-wheel disc brakes with ABS
Acceleration 0 to 60 in about 4 seconds
Top Speed Over 130 mph
Range 250 miles EPA highway
Battery Life Useful battery life in excess of 100,000 miles
Energy Storage System Custom microprocessor-controlled lithium-ion battery pack
Full Charge As short as 3.5 hours

0-60 in 4 seconds, 130mph, That is all the performance I need.

 

[Rach3]

And how is the hydrogen going to be produced?

Hydrogen fuel cells (IMHO) are feel good idea to keep us dependant on oil until the last dollar of profit can be wrung out of last 300 or so billion barrels left.

Why not share some of the results of that research instead of your reassurance that someday, in the future, we will solve the current problems with pollution and dependence on fossil fuels.

As opposed to batteries? The same fossil fuels can be burned to produce electricity for hydrolysis of water (or catalytic oxidation of hydrocarbons), or to charge an electrolytic battery. Or they can be burned directly, in an ICE, it's all the same thing!

 

[chroot]

The Tesla roadster does not weigh tons.

As long as companies like Tesla are willing to handle the recycling I don't see this as a problem.

So... why hasn't the Big Oil conspiracy managed to kill Tesla Motors like you claim it "killed" the EV1? Explain this glaring disconnect in your logic to me, please.

And how is the hydrogen going to be produced?

You can produce hydrogen from any energy source, via the electrolysis of water. Hydrogen fuel cells are really just a different kind of battery chemistry, which makes me wonder how on Earth you can be simultaneously pro-EV and anti-hydrogen. If we ever achieve fusion, we can use that energy to produce hydrogen. Hydrogen is "source agnostic" in exactly the same way that electricity is.

Hydrogen fuel cells (IMHO) are feel good idea to keep us dependant on oil until the last dollar of profit can be wrung out of last 300 or so billion barrels left.

Here's another disconnect in your logic: If you're so excited about electric cars -- which use electricity from plants which burn fossil fuels -- then how can you claim that they're not a "feel good idea" also? Electric vehicles are essentially just fossil fuel vehicles with big batteries.

Why not share some of the results of that research instead of your reassurance that someday, in the future, we will solve the current problems with pollution and dependence on fossil fuels.

Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are already being produced, and used throughout the country. They will eventually meet the criteria for usability, price, and performance for private citizens as the infrastructure is constructed for hydrogen distribution.

The biggest problem facing automakers right now is a paradoxical one: fuel cell technology has been advancing so quickly over the last couple of decades that they're not willing to invest money in building and tooling a factory, knowing that a couple of years later, it'll be obsoleted. Once fuel-cell technology reaches some kind of plateau, you'll begin seeing them as the next generation hybrid.

- Warren

 

[Skyhunter]

Skyhunter,

While I do not dispute the enormous sociopolitical influence of the major multinational oil companies, I cannot permit you to continue to make sweeping statements about conspiracies without some kind of meaningful references.

And no, a movie documentary with an agenda is not such a reference.

I agree, however the movie speaks for itself. I was actually hoping that others had or would see the movie so that we could discuss, confirm, or debunk claims made in the movie.

An obvious counterargument would be that GM made the EV1, at least in limited quantities. If there was some active conspiracy, why did the EV1 ever get produced at all?

Because California passed a law requiring auto companies to make 2% of the cars sold in California be zero emission.

Another obvious counterargument is that there are many other companies in the world besides GM who currently make street-legal electric vehicles. Some links to those companies have even been posted in this thread. If some enormous oil-monger conspiracy exists to prevent us from moving away from fossil fuels, then why are these companies still in business?

GM was not the only company to destroy their electric vehicles after California backed down.

Another obvious counterargument would be the ubiquity of hybrid vehicles these days. If the oil-mongers had such an elaborate conspiracy going on, why would they permit the sale of millions of vehicles with roughly twice the efficiency of conventional cars?

I never claimed there was an elaborate conspiracy. The Oil Industry did however fund anti-electric media propaganda.

Another obvious counterargument is the presence of bicycle lanes in almost every city, and the fact that anyone can go to a bike shop and purchase a bicycle, and choose to ride that instead. Why hasn't Big Oil been able to totally squash the bicycle industry, a mere gnat in comparison to their might.

I guess you missed the long and continuing fights to get a small sliver of a huge transportation budget diverted from more highway infrastructure to alternative transportation.

And again I re-iterate, I am not alleging a massive conspiracy, but you don't need a massive conspiracy when you have so many vested interests feeling threatened. The powers that be can act in concert without conspiring to do so when they see their own self interests are threatened.

Another obvious counterargument is that GM continues to sells the Hummer... because people to continue to buy the Hummer. Certainly Big Oil hasn't managed to brainwash people to the point that they don't realize how expensive and wasteful and environmentally unfriendly the Hummer is. Every Hummer driver realizes their car is enormous, and is a gas guzzler, and costs a lot to fill up. The only reason such people buy Hummers is because they think the Hummer, as a status symbol (or, in some cases, a genuine off-road tool) is worth the additional cost and damage to the environment. GM did not reach into those peoples' pockets and take their money -- they simply offered a product which those people found attractive. Sure, you could say that the "status symbol" nature of the automobile was designed into the product from day one -- but the same could be said of laptop computers, Italian leather shoes, and Dom Perignon, and virtually every other kind of consumer product -- and Big Oil certainly doesn't have much to do with bubbly.

- Warren

GM is fast becoming the #2 automaker in the world. Toyota is a couple 100,000 cars away from taking over as the worlds biggest automaker. I didn't say it was a smart thing to do, just that they did it and are paying the price now.

One of the people interviewed in the movie was a member of GM's board during the EV-1s life. He offered some interesting insight, and once made a statement about how GM was conducting itself with Congress, when he abruptly stopped. After a pause he said, "End of comment."

I suppose I will have to take the time to research the citations, but that takes all the fun out of it.

I was hoping others like Antech would provide some links to either support or debunk the movies assertions.

 

[chroot]

Arguments without research are of no use to anyone, even if they are "fun."

I don't think I'm interested in seeing the movie if, as you have claimed, its main point is that electric cars were somehow killed in a conspiracy by Big Oil. I'm subjected to enough horse**** from journalists and advertising firms already -- I'm not going to pay to go see more.

Your claims that Big Oil killed GM's electric car are specious and unsupported here in this thread -- and likely are complete nonsense -- and you've actually already seen this thriller of a movie, yes? Why don't you have anything more intelligent, better researched, or better supported to say after having seen such a fine film? Maybe the movie itself is a conspiracy to get you to think Big Oil is (more) evil?

GM's cancellation of the EV1 project was probably a bad decision, but it's no worse a decision than any of the hundreds of other bad decisions they've made over the last few decades.

And, in general, I agree that Big Oil execs are not the kind of people I'd invite to my Thanksgiving dinners. I'm fully aware of the efforts the auto and oil industries have put into killing mass transit initiatives all over the country: I'm a bicycle activist myself. And, point of fact, I think even you electric vehicle proponents are a disgraceful, wasteful lot, too, and you should all be on bicycles instead. Who needs 2,000 lbs of batteries just to go a puny 80 miles?

- Warren

 

[Skyhunter]

Your claims that Big Oil killed GM's electric car are specious and unsupported here in this thread -- and likely are complete nonsense -- and you've actually already seen this thriller of a movie, yes? Why don't you have anything more intelligent, better researched, or better supported to say after having seen such a fine film? Maybe the movie itself is a conspiracy to get you to think Big Oil is (more) evil?

Big Oil did not kill the EV-1. Sorry if I led you to believe that. The movie does not claim some big conspiracy, however it does document a distinct resistance to electric cars and a concerted, not necessarily conspiratorial effort to kill the idea.

If there was a conspiracy it was completely within GM IMO. GM went to great lengths to make sure none of the EV-1s were left on the road. The only one left is disabled and in a museum.

I'm a bicycle activist myself. And, point of fact, I think even you electric vehicle proponents are a disgraceful, wasteful lot, too, and you should all be on bicycles instead.

I am also a bicycle enthusiast. So you probably aware of some of the local regional and national fights to get the bicycle infrastructure we enjoy today. I live in Berkeley, which you would think such progressive ideas would be welcome, but even now I am writing letters to the editors and petitioning council members to support a transportation services fee to mitigate 20% of the cost of more peak trips brought about by new development. The money would go to fund more pedestrian/bicycle friendly development.

Who needs 2,000 lbs of batteries just to go a puny 80 miles?

- Warren

See the Tesla, 2500lb curb weight, 250 mile range, the technology has changed.

BTW- thanks for the fuel cell info.

 

[chroot]

Okay, perhaps we're converging onto the same arguments, now. That's good.

I don't have any hard facts (and I doubt anyone else outside of GM does, either), but I'd venture that GM killed the EV-1 mostly because they felt it would be a dismal failure on the open market. It doesn't mean much that they leased every unit they made (1,100) -- after all, if I had the advertising clout to reach a billion people every day during prime-time hours, I'm sure I could sell 1,100 of anything, too.

I'm sure the EV1 was canceled for economic reasons. You also have to consider that quite a lot of GM's R&D dollars are spent in facilities making expensive components (engines, transmissions, etc.) which the electric vehicles don't have. The cost of converting a significant fraction of their labor force and tooling and factory equipment to making electric vehicles alone would have made the EV1 a financial disaster. It's almost as if Intel had decided one day to grow tomatoes instead.

I'm also sure that the cancellation of the EV1 had some "emotional" components, too. After all, the company that has made gasoline-powered cars for many generations. Many people fear change -- including people who depend on their jobs to feed their children. I'm sure the employee sentiment was prejudiced against the EV1 simply because most people instinctively fear change.

The stock market also probably feared such a sea change, and you cannot underestimate the impact of stockholder sentiment on a company's actions. After all, a public company's number one commitment is, in fact, to make its shareholders money. All other objectives come afterwards.

I suspect that GM played the EV1 very strategically. They were forced into producing it by CARB, so they produced it. They used it to garner a lot of positive press for the few years it existed. After the legal imperative expired, they quietly took them all back and destroyed them, hoping the negative press of destroying them wouldn't completely negate the positive press of having created it to start with.

And, for the record, if you're pro-EV, you should absolutely be pro-hydrogen. They have all the advantages of EVs, plus they're low-mass, have no toxic heavy metals to recycle, can be "recharged" in seconds flat, and will eventually be cheaper in volume than chemical batteries could hope to be.

- Warren

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't know a lot about hydrogen. I have heard good and bad. The good like you have mentioned, the bad being technological feasibility being 1 to 2 decades away, no efficient means of production, no fueling infrastructure etc. Just what I have heard not anything I know. I do believe that it is coming because Bush said so. If the US is making a commitment, and the oil industry is onboard, I would suspect that it is probably almost a done deal.

I think the reason hydrogen is the preferred energy carrier is that it will use the same fuel station infrastructure, conveniently converted when gasoline becomes less profitable. I also believe we will see a nice smooth transition at some point in the future with the oil companies providing the bulk of the hydrogen.

I was not particularly pro EV. I feel that smart growth, ie infill not outgrowth, transit oriented development, and shifting the transportation budget from the automobile and more highways to more convenient mass transit will do more to curb pollution than electric cars.

The movie just offers some great insight into the entrenched interests and the inertia that must be overcome to make even small changes to the status quo. The movie hits on most of the points you made in your last post. It really is worth seeing, not a wild conspiracy, it tells the story of the EV-1, the people involved with the program, and the fight by those who leased the cars to try and keep them.

 

[russ_watters]

One thing people haven't mentioned is the logic (or lack thereof) of California's energy initiatives. Was it reasonable to require automakers to manufacture electric cars in the first place? IMO, no - it simply isn't possible to make them practical or popular. You can't just snap your fingers and make the world conform to your vision of reality - reality always gets its way. Callifornia's government has done horrible horrible things for the US energy situation - the electric car initiative, fortunately, was "merely" a failure.

 

[russ_watters]

The Tesla roadster does not weigh tons.

The Tesla roadster uses Lion batteries, which gives it great performance, but also makes it cost $80-$100k (it isn't out yet). To be a viable mainstream mass-produced car, they'll need to find a way to make one for one fifth that. Battery technology (performance vs cost) simply isn't there yet (if it ever will be).

 

[chroot]

Hey Skyhunter,

Hydrogen fuel cells are already viable technology. There are already numerous fuel-cell buses and industrial vehicles already in use in places like London and Perth. Government and large industrial applications are ideal for debuts of this kind of technology, as they have their own (private, non-consumer) fuel infrastructures already in place.

The only downside to using them in automobiles at the moment is, as I said, their rapid improvement. Their size has shrunk tenfold over the last decade, as has their energy density. Once the physicists and academics have made them as good as they can, industry will begin selling them en masse. Then the forces of economy of scale will accelerate their development and integration throughout consumer goods.

I personally don't regard a 10 year ETA on the family fuel-cell minivan as being unreasonable at all. It's not like the infrastructure to support electric cars is actually ready for the market en masse, either.

A gallon of gasoline contains approximately 130 megajoules of chemical potential energy. Americans drove 2,923 billion miles in 2004 [1]. If the average car gets about 30 miles per gallon (which is heavily on the optomistic side), American motorists expended a total of about 3.5 x 10¹² kWh of energy in 2004.

By contrast, American consumption of electricity was only 1.4 x 10¹² kWh in 2001 [2].

In other words, Americans consumed roughly three times as much energy in their automobiles in the form of gasoline and diesel as they did energy from electricity.

Now, we're all quite aware that our electrical grid is already pushed to the limits of its capacity. We already have rolling blackouts, Flex Your Power alerts, and other signs of impending overconsumption.

What do you think would happen to the electricity infrastructure if Americans bought electric cars en masse and started to demand four times as much electric power every day? There's no way at all that our infrastructure could support the electric vehicle right now. We'd have to spend trillions of dollars building new plants and upgrading transmissions systems.

Even if electric cars were fabulously efficient -- 100 miles per gallon equivalent -- it would still necessitate a doubling of the electricity infrastructure capacity, which won't come cheap.

By contrast, the infrastructure changes required to fuel hydrogen-powered vehicles are rather modest -- we can currently manufacture hydrogen from natural gas, which is currently in abundance. We can distribute it via trucks, the same way we currently distribute gasoline. When we finally achieve fusion (or safe fission) energy production, we can gradually phase out hydrogen production from fossil fuels without ever disturbing the hydrogen supply chain as seen by the consumer.

Of course -- I hope everyone realizes this by now -- the solution is not to make better cars. The only solution, as I see it, is fewer cars. We need much, much more capable public transportation. We need much, much better designed cities and suburbs that don't require people to drive dozens of miles to work. We need people to accept alternative transportation like bicycles (which are rougly 1,000 times more efficient than cars).

Will it happen? I don't know. It might eventually have to happen.

- Warren

References:

[1] http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2004/809911.pdf
[2] http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us.html

 

[chroot]

The Tesla roadster uses Lion batteries, which gives it great performance, but also makes it cost $80-$100k (it isn't out yet). To be a viable mainstream mass-produced car, they'll need to find a way to make one for one fifth that. Battery technology (performance vs cost) simply isn't there yet (if it ever will be).

And, hell, it took industry more than 10 years just to make Li-Ion batteries and charging apparatus safe enough for mass production, and a few still blow up every year in people's pockets.

By contrast, I don't see a safe, reliable hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicle, delivered to the market by 2010 or 2015, to be anything short of incredible -- and this is what automakers believe they can do.

- Warren

 

[Skyhunter]

Speaking of entrenched interests, have you seen the 5 stages of oil loss?

http://www.laramiecrocker.com/cartoons/5stages-horiz.jpg

 

[chroot]

Speaking of entrenched interests, have you seen the 5 stages of oil loss?

BEST... CARTOON... EVER!

- Warren

 

[Hawknc]

Chroot - interesting discussion. I'm torn between EVs and hydrogen myself. What impact do you think hydrogen production would have on electricity consumption compared to EVs? My main reservation is that fuel cell vehicles, in a "well to wheels" analysis so to speak, might not be economically feasible in terms of how much energy you get out compared to how much energy is used to generate it.

Oh, and that cartoon is teh win. :D

 

[Rach3]

What impact do you think hydrogen production would have on electricity consumption compared to EVs?

That's exactly what I've been complaining about for some time! It all comes from the power grid, whether into hydrolysis of water, or the (endothermic) oxidation of natural gas. People seem to ignore this very basic fact about these 'alternative' energies - they're fossil fuels in disguise.

 

[Hawknc]

People seem to ignore this very basic fact about these 'alternative' energies - they're fossil fuels in disguise.

Well, there's fossil fuels and there's fossil fuels, really. Oil's the big one - whether you agree with peak oil or not, the price of a tank of petrol isn't coming down anytime soon. Hydrogen and electric vehicles are "source agnostic" (that is a great term) in that they require the end result of electricity, regardless of the means. That means we can use coal, like most of the world currently does; we can use nuclear fission, which needs to overcome several social obstacles before it can supply the world's energy needs (and I don't know how much suitable uranium there is to power the whole world on nuclear power); and looking forward to the future, there's the potential for nuclear fusion. That doesn't include the supplementary power that wind, solar and hydroelectric generators can provide (though I doubt any could power a whole country by themselves). So they're not necessarily fossil fuels in disguise, provided we update the electric infrastructure with it.

 

[Rach3]

That means we can use coal, like most of the world currently does

Especially the US.

(and I don't know how much suitable uranium there is to power the whole world on nuclear power)

You're kidding right?
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/u/uranium-reserves.htm

You can multiply this by a a factor of 10 if you throw in U238-burning breeder reactors (which is happening in India):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium_economy

So they're not necessarily fossil fuels in disguise, provided we update the electric infrastructure with it.

In other words, they're fossil fuels in disguise. I don't see a big push for a massive nuclear economy anytime soon.

 

[Hawknc]

You're kidding right?

Would you prefer I pretended to know things I didn't know instead?

Right now, they'd indirectly use fossil fuels. That's a given I think everyone understands. But coal is most certainly a lesser of the two evils and eventually we will have to move from that as well. Of course, if you have any alternative fuels that don't require similar amounts of electricity and are viable on the same sort of scale, this would be the time to present them...

 

[Rach3]

Would you prefer I pretended to know things I didn't know instead?

I'm sorry, my mistake. I misunderstood your phrasing.

But coal is most certainly a lesser of the two evils...

I'd thought coal was the much greater evil, what with the sulfur and mercury content...

 

[Anttech]

Clean coal is way less polluting, and uses the same resource (ie coal).

New "clean coal" technologies are addressing this problem so that the world's enormous resources of coal can be utilised for future generations without contributing to global warming. Much of the challenge is in commercialising the technology so that coal use remains economically competitive despite the cost of achieving "zero emissions".

As many coal-fired power stations approach retirement, their replacement gives much scope for 'cleaner' electricity. Alongside nuclear power and harnessing renewable energy sources, one hope for this is via "clean coal" technologies, such as are now starting to receive substantial R&D funding.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip83.htm

 

[Rach3]

Clean coal is way less polluting, and uses the same resource (ie coal).

CO2 sequestration is completely untested and untried. The only thing even on the drawing board is a GWB plan to build a http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/. Imagine the fight they'll put up against carbon sequestration if it ever comes up!

Seriously: the prototype alone has a timetable on the scale of a decade. Even nuclear plants could be constructed faster (and that's saying something). I say this is just an effort to distract us from their current, egregious violations, the ones that can be fixed now and cheaply (see http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/). For the time being, coal is definitely the worst power source around.

 

[russ_watters]

A gallon of gasoline contains approximately 130 megajoules of chemical potential energy. Americans drove 2,923 billion miles in 2004 [1]. If the average car gets about 30 miles per gallon (which is heavily on the optomistic side), American motorists expended a total of about 3.5 x 10¹² kWh of energy in 2004.

By contrast, American consumption of electricity was only 1.4 x 10¹² kWh in 2001 [2].

In other words, Americans consumed roughly three times as much energy in their automobiles in the form of gasoline and diesel as they did energy from electricity.

I think you forgot to factor in the efficiency of the engine cycle? Americans didn't get 3.5x10¹² kWh of useable energy out of their cars, they only got perhaps a third of that, whereas the power you get from your electrical outlet is already usable.

That would fit what I've heard in the past - that our energy use is roughly evenly split between power and cars.

Still, your general point is valid: we would need a enormous increase in our electrical infrastructure to support the transition to battery powered cars.

 

[chroot]

Sure, and electric generators aren't 100% efficient either, and I left that out (I was just going for a rough proportion). The 1.41 trillion kWh of electric power used by the US was probably more like 3 trillion kWh at the generators, the balance lost in transmission and end-user appliance inefficiencies.

Give or take, however, the point I was trying to make is simply that we're no more ready for a nation-wide fleet of electric cars than we are for a nation-wide fleet of hydrogen fuel-cell powered cars.

- Warren

 

[Skyhunter]

we would need a enormous increase in our electrical infrastructure to support the transition to either battery powered cars.

Eventually, yes we would. However for the most part the cars would be recharged during off peak hours, when rates are low and there is plenty of capacity on the grid.

I don't think EV's are the future, but it I do believe that they could have substantially effected the air quality in California cities had the zero emission standard been enforced. As it is we had money earmarked in the Bay Area to fund free transit during "spare the air" days, days when the air quality index was forecast to exceed 100. These days occur in the summer. In the summer 2004 there were 2 such days, in 2005 there was one. There were monies allocated for 3 days in 2006 and the first 3 days of summer were spare the air days. The state allocated funds for 3 more. We have already had 7 this year.

Part of the quandary GM had with marketing an electric vehicle was that they would need to point out the advantages of an EV over an internal combustion engine. They were not willing to dis their main product line in order to meet the California law. The fact that the EV-1 was a technological success is why I believe they made sure that every single one was taken off the road. They really did not want the idea to catch on.

There will be electric cars, because the technology is already here. Smashing all the EV-1s did not kill the electric car, It just left GM without the means to compete effectively with Toyota. It would have also done wonders for their average MPG as well.

 

[Skyhunter]

Give or take, however, the point I was trying to make is simply that we're no more ready for a nation-wide fleet of electric cars than we are for a nation-wide fleet of hydrogen fuel-cell powered cars.

- Warren

Just like in Field of Dreams, if you build it they will come.

I agree, that we are not ready, however whatever we do will require more development. The majority of opposition to smart growth is not so much the traditional developers, but the anti development people who just can't grasp how more development done the right way actually addresses all their concerns that they raise when opposing traditional development.

We are in the community input phase of a TOD (Transit Oriented Development) for a light rail station. The opposition, aside from some of the more ludicrous claims of a conspiracy, is that more density means more traffic. It is a challenge, but slowly we are changing minds and bringing the community up to speed on the concept of mixed use TOD, where the people and retail stores are within walking/cycling distance, all located close to public mass transit.

 

[PRodQuanta]

http://www.evworld.com/library/abrooks_carb_nov2_05.pdf" seems to think that electric is the way to go (over hydrogen) for automobiles. It is more geared toward CO2 emissions.

I am interested in what you all think of this!

Paden Roder

WARNING: The site I have hyperlinked is a .pdf file. Just letting you know beforehand.

Edit: I found http://www.evworld.com/library/Tesla_21centuryEV.pdf" in the EV World library that argues EV over hydrogen and gasoline.

Also, WARNING: Both sites I have hyperlinked are .pdf files. Just letting you know beforehand.

 

[Hawknc]

Not that I argue against the articles, but as unbiased sites go, "EV World" probably ain't one of them. ;)

Actually, now that I read the first article, it makes a lot of bad assumptions (like assuming 33% renewable energy). It's got some reasonable points, but it's most definitely not an unbiased presentation.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.evworld.com/library/abrooks_carb_nov2_05.pdf" seems to think that electric is the way to go (over hydrogen) for automobiles. It is more geared toward CO2 emissions.

I am interested in what you all think of this!

That's a pretty flawed report. I must admit that some of their fuzzy math escapes me, but they miss a couple of key points:

-It looks like they are attributing negative emissions to renewable energy based on the emissions that would have been produced by other sources. No. Zero is zero.
-Hydrogen can be generated for free with waste heat from existing power plants.
-They note that you need to increase generation capacity to handle either, but if you are adding energy capacity for that specific purpose, you can attribute all the usage to it. Ie, in either case, you end up with zero emissions. So the relevant factor is simply which can do more with a kW of energy. The answer is probably batteries, depending on how well steam reforming of methane works, but...
-They don't discuss the performance or economics of the vehicles. If batteries were good enough and cheap enough, we wouldn't need to have this conversation.

http://www.evworld.com/library/Tesla_21centuryEV.pdf" in the EV World library that argues EV over hydrogen and gasoline.

-They mention steam reforming but don't consider the retrofit of existing plants to capture free (currently wasted) energy for it.
-They don't mention economics - and why would they? That's literature for the Tesla Roadster.
-They mention that if future power plants are used for a study equal consideration should be given to electric and hydrogen (ie, either attribute all of it or whatever the fraction of power in the grid it comprises - either way, be consistent). However, again, you can get extra energy by capturing waste heat to make hydrogen.
-They don't mention range. I'm skeptical of their range claims.

 

[russ_watters]

Just like in Field of Dreams, if you build it they will come.

Big difference: Here, the players (consumers) aren't lined-up waiting for the field to be built. You have to convince them that they should want to play before they will come.

Eventually, yes we would. However for the most part the cars would be recharged during off peak hours, when rates are low and there is plenty of capacity on the grid.

True. That could reduce the generation overhead by 50%.

Part of the quandary GM had with marketing an electric vehicle was that they would need to point out the advantages of an EV over an internal combustion engine. They were not willing to dis their main product line in order to meet the California law. The fact that the EV-1 was a technological success is why I believe they made sure that every single one was taken off the road. They really did not want the idea to catch on.

That is a very reasonable, non-conspiracy-theory-ish point. Something that gets overlooked so much in these debates is that companies exist to make money and for them to act in that interest is not only the reasonable but correct thing to do. This is capitalism: market changes must be driven by the market (or, [gasp] perhaps even the government - just don't tell my boss I said that).

 

[PRodQuanta]

Thanks Russ! Great analysis!

The reason I was on EV World is because I'm going to a Youth Global Leader Summit in Omaha, Nebraska entitled http://www.aidemocracy.org/omaha.cfm" and one of the keynote speakers is going to be Bill Moore (Publisher and Editor of EV World).

Paden Roder

P.S.- I'll make sure to represent PF and mention some of the claims made in this thread (maybe)

 

[PRDan4th]

I don't know how they make H2 from waste heat from power plants! Waste heat is not "free" and it is of very low quality (only 10 to 15 deg. F above ambient). About 50 % of the heat input to coal/oil/gas power plants is condenser loss as waste heat. It would be nice to find a use for this energy source, but it is not easy or it would have been done.

H2 is made primarlly by the reforming of natural gas. This process takes heat and liberates CO2 in a form that could be sequestered or used in other processes because it is concentrated and not mixed with air or N2. The dissociation of water to produce H2 & O2 takes electricity that must be generated from other fuels and will discharge CO2 with large amounts of N2 making it very difficult to separate and sequester.

Methane is the best short term answer to low-CO2 fuel for power generation or transportation. The world is awash in it in sub-sea hydrate formations that are just waiting for technology solutions for safe production. CNG or LNG now with H2 from CH4 later.

 

[Hawknc]

Yeah, I've never heard of H2 generation from waste reactor heat either. Would you be able to elaborate on it a little? Is it viable on a large enough scale to take serious market share from petrol-driven cars?