Hydrogen Power

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 31, 2008 at 9:32pm

This post pretty much sums up my plan and motive.

Our program is based on compressed hydrogen gas. According to the review on my website by an independent auto review source the Honda FCX is getting 68 mpg eqv. to gasoline. My reply to you is the same as it is to every other person that says hydrogen is not "efficient". These are the first generation production vehicles (the Honda FCX Clarity and the GM Equinox SUV FCV) and we will see even better improvement as the tech progesses. Our goal is to rid our country of dependence on foreign oil and reduce domestic consumption. Are fuel cell vehicles at their peak of performance yet? No, but they will improve just as production and compression units will improve. Remember our goal. Use ALL alternatives we can to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. I am all for el vehicles, hybrid vehicles and any other type of transportation that will get us off foreign oil. My program is a grassroots effort to build a network of fueling stations. With a simple 10% participation of the driving age public of our $59.95 (less than a tank of gas for most) we can build the first 900 locations and cover most of the middle of the country and the southwest to tie to the existing locations in California. Our program is unlike any other you will see because we will actually provide the participants discounts back that will in most cases double the amount or more of their package in return. It allows us to not have investors to satisfy with immediate profits and let the production of the first wave of vehicles catch up to our locations. At that point we can build locations everywhere and other options like the Honda Home fueling station will be able to lessen the demand for the current setup of a station on every corner. Simple, basic SOLUTION. If people would spend their time looking for solutions to the problem instead of bashing other peoples plans that are legitimate and us having to spend time make the same points over and over we could all get more accomplished. Someone with your apparent background in the production area of hydrogen could be working on a solution to improving production capabilities and being a part of the solution.
If you took the time to read my plan or my website you would see we are using solar and wind power on site to produce the product. I know it is not the most profitable use of the power and I have already stated on other posts and yes I could make more money by putting the power in the grid. But I am looking for a solution to end our fopreign oil dependence. My common sense approach is use current existing technology (hydrogen production, compression, and storage units) combined with renewable (solar and wind power) to generate hydrogen for Fuel Cell Vehicles that are ready for mass production and only need fueling stations to be available to the general public according to execs from both Honda and GM. All of the propaganda that lack of efficiency in production of hydrogen, better use of power to the grid, better to use el vehicles that only go 200 miles on a charge, and other things I keep answering over and over just amaze me. How much better can it be for our country and the enivironment to produce hydrogen fuel from solar and wind power for cars that are ready to be made that the first generation is getting 280 miles on a fuel up that we can provide for about $25 pretax? Sorry for the length and info in the post but I know the next questions and comments coming and I am trying to be as "efficient " with my time as I can.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Forrest on July 31, 2008 at 10:19pm

That response shows no evidence you read my comments nor does it address questions or issues posed. I say nothing negative about the "inefficiency" of first phase hydrogen vehicles. They are pretty good in that cells approaching commercialization are getting reasonably close to the theoretical limits of fuel cell efficiency. It is not the efficiency of the cars that is the problem. The issue lies in wasting energy to make hydrogen when it is unnecessary or inappropriate. Use of surplus energy such as peaking electricity to make hydrogen can make lots of sense. Setting out to create facilities to deliberately make electricity so you can convert a megawatt of electricity into a half a megawatt worth of hydrogen doesn't strike me as "common sense". Clearly we operate under different value systems.

I have no grudge against hydrogen. It is a really neat element and gas with some really strange characteristics and properties and I really enjoyed managing that business.

Good luck. I see no point in continuing this dialogue (or lack thereof).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Jackson on August 1, 2008 at 9:00am

The whole point of my comment is we are looking for a reduction in oil dependence. As addressed in the last paragraph we could make more money putting the power back in the grid but that will not power transportation. So before saying someone didn't read your response you should try reading theirs. It takes 55 KWh to produce and compress 1 kilo of hydrogen. When using renewable energy not produced with any grid power from fossil fuels why worry about a very KWhs if it will get us off oil? I read your reply but you obiviously didn't read my first response that covered the issue in the last paragraph. I have had the same questions posed numerous time and tried to write a post that covered all of the same things that are posted over and over about how we can use the power better in other things. The Pickens Plan is working on grid power and we have alternatives for producing more grid power. We need transportation oil replacements. I would rather use (not waste) power created from renewable sources to make a fuel that we can power transportation. Your opinion says it is wasting power but my opinion is we are wasting billions of dollars sending them to people that hate us. My goal is to end transportation oil dependence and that is my contribution. I don't feel it a waste of resources when they are wind and sun which as far as my common sense tells me are free. Building the locations isn't free but once in place we can make fuel for years with just the cost of labor, maintenance, and water. We are using off the shelf production, compression, and storage units that are currently in use from other companies. You mention 10k psi and i never did. It is produced for the current vehicles at 5k psi. They use grid power to produce and we are using renewable energy. It is not a simple process as you stated but it is a proven process. Once again I say with all of your apparent knowledge why not come up with a more efficient production method? You are the first person I have ever heard say they could make gasoline with electricity and air, with the ratios you mentioned you are correct that it would be a bad use of resources. I repeat that right now production may not be perfect but it beats the heck out of buying middle east oil in my opinion.

If you still believe that to be inefficient we will just agree to disagree.

Permalink Reply by John on July 25, 2008 at 7:13am

Have you seen this? all energy woes could come to an end. Hydrogen from salt water.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf4gOS8aoFk

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Forrest on July 31, 2008 at 2:44pm

This youtube video erroneously calls salt water a "fuel". It is a feedstock. It is not the source of energy. And it provides no information on the energy efficiency of the process. It is further noteworthy that the process does not separate the hydrogen. Hydrogen with oxygen in a 2 to 1 ratio is a bit hazardous to store! A nice diversion and possibly significant but not significant in this presentation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stan on July 26, 2008 at 9:07pm

I have heard that hydrogen is really not a good alternative. It takes more energy to make it than you get out of it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 27, 2008 at 7:56pm

The common misconception displayed here over and over is oil company involvement in hydrogen production. When they produce hydrogen they have been focused on using natural gas and yes it makes no sense to using one fuel to produce another. When hydrogen is produce with solar and wind power it is very efficient. Would you be able to use that power in the grid? Yes but we are looking for a solution to oil dependence. When you can produce a fuel source with water using wind and solar power it doesn't have to meet some made up efficiency number. You see all of these people saying it 30% efficient but compared to what? Check out our website at http://newghas.com. We have a review by an independent auto review company of the new production ready Honda FCX that they quote 68 mpg eqv. Check it out and also check the GM Equinox SUV FCV.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cobraphx (Matt) on July 28, 2008 at 4:13pm

Again John making hydrogen from water using Win or Solar power is very inefficient. If you use the electricity to drive an electric vehicle, it is 80-90% efficient when delivered using the existing power grid. If you use the same solar of wind generated power to make hydrogen and thus drive a hydrogen powered vehicle, we are looking at an efficiency of 15-30% efficiency at best using technology that isn't in production yet. That means you have to build 4-5 times as many windmills or solar power sites to drive the same number of cars.

Huge waste of money, since there aren't practical Fuel cell vehicles on the road, and the hydrogen distribution system doesn't exist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 28, 2008 at 5:24pm

Again Matt I hope you have a long extension cord. We obviously must agree to disagree. How is it inefficient? It may be a differnet usage from just generating power and putting it in the grid but as I said it is inefficient in my opinion to buy 2 Tesla's at $150,000 each to take your family of 4 only 200 miles from home without having to stop and charge it up for 3.5 hours. You may not think the Honda FCX is a pratical car but in my opinion it is very pratical compared to the Tesla. It is in production and could be mass produced when fueling locations are in place. We are going to put the distribution system in place with our plan. Remeber we are looking for a solution to oil dependence. Many alternatives need to be used. The El Vehicle is not the answer in my opinion because of the limited range. And as far as production ready I don't consider taking a year to get a vehicle that has been on the market for some time to be production ready. I saw a stat on a website a while back, can't remember which one but will try and find it for you, that said if a conversion to 30% of our vehicles to El was done we would need to double the number of power generation facilities. Remember rolling blackouts a few years ago in the summer? How would you charge you car if you couldn't get to work and home on a charge? As a business owner who already has an electric bill over $1200 a month average I couldn't afford to let all of my employees charge their cars while at work and still afford to keep them all. When you say efficiency of 15-30% of what? I don't know how you are coming up with a number of 15-30% from producing a fuel source from water other than using the power straight in the grid. I repeat, how is it inefficient to produce a fuel source from water using wind and solar power to fuel a vehicle? Yes we could put the power in the grid but, we are looking for a way to reduce oil dependence not generate electricity. Plenty of others are looking to generate electricity. Since we are producing a 0 emission fuel source I don't see how you could be any more efficient than that. The efficiency of the FCVs has increased tremendously over the last few years with concentrated work we should see a 300 mile range vehicle in the near future. How many years have we had El vehicles? Still limited to 200 mile range and 3.5 hour recharge time even in a $150,000 plus vehicle.

In my opinion a huge waste of money is to purchase a $150,000 rechargeable 2 seater car that I can't drive to Dallas and back without recharging. My hometown is 250 miles from where I live in Texas and I couldn't drive my $150,000 car to show it off. That trip would take me 2 days round trip by the time I stopped and recharged my car and back. And if I wanted to take my daughter I would have to make 2 round trips. That would be 8 days to go home to visit family. That to me is the definition of impractical. When we install the fueling stations it would be just like a trip in my current vehicle.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cobraphx (Matt) on July 28, 2008 at 7:27pm

The estimates are that each FCX costs Honda over $500,000. So, how do you propose that Honda get the $300,000-$400,000 fuel cell down to a price that you can afford?

My hometown is 250 miles from where I live in Texas and I couldn't drive my $150,000 car to show it off.

Is this a daily drive? Weekly? Monthly? 1-2 times a year? So, I'm assumoing your hometown has a Hydrogen refueling station? If not, then you are even more stuck than with a Tesla Roadster. Or maybe you are planning on carrying a fuel can full of Hydrogen along?

The efficiency of the FCVs has increased tremendously over the last few years with concentrated work we should see a 300 mile range vehicle in the near future. How many years have we had El vehicles? Still limited to 200 mile range and 3.5 hour recharge time even in a $150,000 plus vehicle.

So, the half million dollar FCV vehicles can run for 200-300 miles and end up in a place with absolutely no ability to refuel? Sign me up!

As a business owner who already has an electric bill over $1200 a month average I couldn't afford to let all of my employees charge their cars while at work and still afford to keep them all.

Yeah, to recharge your employee's cars would cost you about $.03 cents a mile for the miles you let them recharge each day. If you had 20 employees driving 20 miles each way that would be $12 a day. If I were a Texas business owner, I'd look for incentives from the Utility company or Dallas to reduce the emissions of my employees.

I saw a stat on a website a while back, can't remember which one but will try and find it for you, that said if a conversion to 30% of our vehicles to El was done we would need to double the number of power generation facilities.

Remember, that the utility companies are running at reduced capacity at night when most EV's would be charged. By charging EV's at night, the Utility makes more money for it's investment because the equipment isn't sitting idle producing no income for them.

In my opinion a huge waste of money is to purchase a $150,000 rechargeable 2 seater car that I can't drive to Dallas and back without recharging.

So buy a $36,000-$40,000 four door five passenger GM Volt and drive up to 40 miles on an electric charge. The drive as far as you want using Gasoline after the battery is depleted and get 45-50mpg while doing so. If 30% of us reduced our gasoline use by 90%, we'd cut imports by 27%. You don't have to replace your gas usage completely to make a big impact.

It is in production and could be mass produced when fueling locations are in place. We are going to put the distribution system in place with our plan.

And who's going to pay for that distribution system? Is that system free to implement? If it's not, then the price of the fuel delivered will have to increase to pay for that infrastructure. The electric grid exists and is currently 90+% efficient at getting the power to where it will be used. That can't be said for any proposed method of distributing hydrogen.

The power grid will need to be upgraded to support growing numbers of EV cars. But the Hydrogen distribution system needs to be built from scratch. It does NOT exist. Nor does a practical automotive fuel cell that can be sold for less than $100,000.

Remember rolling blackouts a few years ago in the summer?

You mean the ones caused by California allowing Enron and others to control the power grid? Enron was able profit by shutting down power plants to make it look like power was in short supply and increase their profit by selling that power to the highest bidder. It wasn't an issue with the power grid, it was an issue allowed to happen by the California legislature, all in the name of greed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cobraphx (Matt) on July 28, 2008 at 7:51pm

The only reason I use the Tesla Roadster as an example is because they are for sale. Even though the Honda FCX isn't, it at least compares the efficiency per mile of the two vehicles. I won't buy a Tesla, and I don't expect that you should either.

But I do think that there are plenty of vehicles that will allow you and I to replace your daily driving with electric power becoming available in 2010 and 2011. The GM Volt will drive 40 miles on an electric charge of 8kWh, seat 5 and has 4 door and a trunk. When you exceed the 40 mile electric range it will power itself with gas and get 45-55mpg while doing so. It will cover the needs of something like 90% of drivers.

But you drive a pickup truck for contractor work, so you are one of the exceptions. But the Honda FCX isn't going to haul your tools and materials either. But a company is building F-150 Plugin Hybrid trucks, they get 41 mpg over a 30 mile distance and 21 mpg after that. Not cheap, but then again a fuel cell equivalent doesn't even exist.

The Hydrogen Economy just won't happen, EV, PHEV and EREV are improving at a tremendous rate. Hydrogen does have it's place, it will not go away in the space program any time soon, Maybe it will work for the airline industry if the low energy density can be solved. Maybe it could work for the railroad industry or long haul trucks. Efficiency loss is less of a problem because they stay on major byways and known railroad lines.
Might be great for city buses, they can refuel at the central yard two or three times a day.

But the infrastructure just won't happen for hydrogen everywhere. I can get electricity and gasoline in just about any city I happen to be in in America. In 30 years I still won't be able to get Hydrogen in half the cities in America.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 29, 2008 at 10:26am

All of this is your opinion. We plan to do something about the lack of fueling stations. Best of luck with the El Vehicle option.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page