Hydrogen Power

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 23, 2008 at 7:20pm

The answer is simple. We must do it ourselves. Check out our plan at http://newghas.com. Check out the Honda FCX review video on MySpace under newghas. Also google search the GM Equinox SUV FCV. Both are production ready and only need more fueling locations to be mass produced. Help us spread the word a solution does exist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank on July 23, 2008 at 7:04pm

David, I agree with you; I guess I just disagree as to how far off good battery technology is. I think humanity is to the point where we no longer need to rely upon accidental discoveries. With our advanced knowledge and the aid of computers, we can pretty much do anything within the realm of possible physics with enough funding. I could sum this up by saying, "it's time for us to take the future into our hands." Anyway, my point is I believe we could have good batteries more cheaply than we could have a hydrogen infrastructure. Either are far better than what we have now. Aren't batteries (barring price) already capable of storing more energy per volume than hydrogen anyway?

Hey John, I know charging is a problem. I just don't believe it will be a problem for much longer. The reason I'm so pro battery is because batteries are indispensable inventions. Improving them doesn't just improve electric cars, but anything that uses electricity. With solar and wind we still need something to store the excess in for down times. It's just one of those inventions that has far reaching benefits, where I believe hydrogen as an energy storage medium is only useful for powering engines in vehicles, portable generators, etc. You aren't going to power a laptop or a cellphone from hydrogen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 23, 2008 at 7:39pm

I think El vehicles are a great option for short commutes. I agree that advanced battery tech is good all the way around. The other issue with el vehicles is the price of the batteries and life of them. Once again issues that can be solved. Right now I think we must look at what is on the backside of issues also like disposal of the batteries. When working on improving the technology we have to figure out how to build a better product that can be disposed of also. I agree that we will not use hydrogen to power laptops but when you have hydrogen production at home powererd by solar energy and wind energy you could produce your fuel for your vehicle and use excess power for your home. Honda is already working on it now. You could then charge your new improved battery for you laptop from hydrogen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JohnG on July 24, 2008 at 7:22pm

From a Wikkipedia search:

President Bush's hydrogen car goals, in the opinion of some writers, are slipping away because "there are quicker, cleaner, safer and cheaper ways to reduce the tail-pipe emissions from cars and trucks that pollute the air and contribute to global warming." According to physicist and former U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Romm, "A hydrogen car is one of the least efficient, most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases." Asked when hydrogen cars will be broadly available, Romm replied: "Not in our lifetime, and very possibly never." As an article published in the March/April 2007 issue of Technology Review argued,

In the context of the overall energy economy, a car like the BMW Hydrogen 7 would proba­bly produce far more carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline-powered cars available today. And changing this calculation would take multiple breakthroughs--which study after study has predicted will take decades, if they arrive at all. In fact, the Hydrogen 7 and its hydrogen-fuel-cell cousins are, in many ways, simply flashy distractions produced by automakers who should be taking stronger immediate action to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions of their cars.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 24, 2008 at 7:38pm

Do some research. The Romm book is 4 years old and many changes have happened in the hydrogen arena. I don't know why he is so against hydrogen but I can point you to several websites that counter all of his information. The BMW 7 is a liquid hydrogen and has storage issues. Not many people can afford the 7 series BMW anyway. The true solution is fuel cell not combustion engine hydrogen. Check out the Honda FCX vid on MySpace under newghas. Production ready vehicle 68 mpg eqv when mass produced will be equal priced to gas engine vehicles. Also google search GM Equinox SUV FCV and Larry Burns GM VP. We need to be looking at all options that are viable and not spread propaganda. Have you seen the Honda FCX commercial on 0 emission car?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cobraphx (Matt) on July 25, 2008 at 12:17am

John,

Maybe you should do some more research as well. Here are some numbers for producing hydrogen (H2) at home. To make a kg of hydrogen (which contains 33kWh of energy) in a 60% efficient electrolyzer (try to find one that efficient for sale though) requires 50kWh of electricity (solar or otherwise). Liquefying that hydrogen ( cooling to -253C) at home consumes at least 40%-50% of the energy contained in the H2 (another 15kWh or so), if you have to store it it will evaporate at the rate 1%-3% per day without consuming extra energy to cryogenically cool the H2.

So, we have consumed at least 65kWh to produce a KG of H2. That kg will propel the Honda FCX (280mile range) for 72 miles according to Honda...for an efficiency of 1.1 miles/kWh. If you were to put that same power 65kWh into a Tesla Roadster (220 mile range), it would go for 208 miles for an efficiency of 3.2 miles/kWh.

This means that the battery electric vehicle will drive 3 times as far on the same investment in solar cells. Or can be powered the same distance for less than 1/3 the investment.

Let's talk about those solar cells... Right now, 200watt solar panels run about $1000 each installed, in a good sun location each panel will produce around 1.2kWh per day.

To drive 40 miles a day (40mi/72mi/kg or .55kg H2 or 36kWh) , the Honda FCX will require the electrolyzer/compressor/storage tank system(maybe $5000?) + $30,000 worth of solar panels (36kwh/1.2kWh or 30 panels). $35,000 investment.

To drive 40 miles a day (40mi / 3.2 mi/kWh or 12.5kwh) , the Tesla Roadster will require $11,000 worth of solar panels (12.5kwh/1.2kWh or 11 panels). $11,000 investment.

Or if you spend the $30000 (30 panel instalation), you can drive the Tesla Roadster 40 miles a day and reduce your power bill by 25kWh a day, or 83% of the average US household consumption of 30Kwh a day. At $0.11 per Kwh this would save about $1000 a year in electricity. Or you can buy that electricity from the power company and drive your Honda FCX 40 miles a day after buying the H2 fueling station for a tidy sum.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 28, 2008 at 2:14pm

I am not saying we should not look at El Vehicles as alternative to short trip drivers. The problem is driving any distance. You are comparing apples to oranges when you compare these vehicles. First off you would need 2 Tesla's to take you family of 4 since the Tesla is a 2 seat open top roadster. The Tesla is a cool car alright but at $150,000+ total price, $55,000 deposit to order, remainder due 3 months before production, and a waiting list of about a year to order who know when you could get one. Those numbers are with only a few people interested. What if they did receive a large influx of orders? How long would it take to get one? The Honda FCX and GM Equinox will be assembly line produced and according to Larry Burns VP of GM and the VP of Honda America when they start producing them in mass you will be able to purchase them for an = price to current gasoline powered models. Also both the GM and Honda are family vehicles not an exotic sports car. Just so we are clear I would love to have a Tesla but I wouldn't spend $150,000 for one.

The other issue with EL Vehicles is range about 200 miles on a charge. It then takes 3.5 hours to recharge. I don't know many people who take a road trip that could stop off for a 3.5 hour recharge. And if you were on the road where would you stop to charge up? The battery life is estimated at 100,000 miles. If you calculate that in to your miles driven per cost what does that do to your figures. At $150,000+ for the car how much of the cost are the batteries. So basically you must replace what will probably be replacement cost of a typical "engine" in your Tesla every 100,000 miles. Now what are you going to do with the batteries that come out of these things?

With the Honda FCX you don't have to produce your own fuel at home when we have locations where you can purchase for $1.95 per gallon =. So your $30k number is not necessary at all. If you buy a Tesla to make sure you have done you part to reduce oil dependence you would need to purchase the solar panels.

I am not talking about liquid hydrogen. The Honda FCX and the GM Equinox run off of hydrogen gas. To make a kilo (= to about 3 gals of gas) takes 55 kwh. The Honda holds about 4 kilo of hydrogen gas. In our plan it would cost you about $24 pretax for a full tank that get you 280 miles. We can sell our hydrogen gas for $1.95 per gallon eqv because we are producing without grid power. The solar panels we are going to use produce 10KWh per day per sq foot and the wind generators will produce 560 kwh per day @ 12 mph wind.

So we can produce fuel and sell at $1.95 per gallon eqv for a vehcile that right now at peak price is $600 per month on a lease that includes all maintenance and collision insurance or you can order your Tesla if you have $60,000 laying around 9 months then pay the rest and can wait a year. All of the components for the hydrogen fueling stations we are going to build is off the shelf and needs no support from power grid or fossil fuels. We can provide a low cost alternative to gas prices, provide jobs for the people at GM/Honda/Chrysler by building a production model vehicle, eliminate greenhouse gases, and provide a true alternative product showing the world we can solve a problem. What part of that is not good? We must look at all alternative to solving these issue and not say eveyone needs to go buy a Tesla or everyone needs to go buy a Honda. I know you think your numbers make it more practical to go for a Tesla but not when you compare fairly. We need to go for all alternatives to oil dependence. Are all of the current FCV's working at peak performance? No, but as with any other product as we expand and build more we will all refine the methods of hydrogen production, FCV performance, and all related items. As an example check out the story of the MIT group that has tested a prototype solar power gathering dish that concentrates the solar capability by a factor of 1000. It was on Fox news online on Jun 23, 2008.

We can solve this issue of oil dependence if everyone works together and stops bickering over who has the "best" idea. All plans have merrit and all can be picked apart if you want to use numbers that don't tell the whole story. One of the big misleading factors against hydrogen production is perpetuated by the oil companies saying NG is the best for producing hydrogen. It is simply not true. Don't use one fuel to make another. that is inefficient and sounds like a government program. We can use water, sun and wind to produce hydrogen for these vehicles. How much more clean and environmetally friendly can you get. Could we pump power back into the grid and use it to peak efficiency? I guess you could say we could make more money doing that, but our whole goal is to provide an alternative to oil dependence for our kids and grandkids (just became a new Grandpa this weekend so had to add) sake.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cobraphx (Matt) on July 28, 2008 at 5:42pm

Are you seriously saying that the Honda FCX is a production vehicle? You can't buy one, and the fuel cell alone costs more to produce than the 3 Tesla Roadsters sells for. The Honda FCX is purely a PR stunt for a bit of Green Cred.

Here are a couple quotes from USAToday:

Hydrogen — if you can find it, and you probably can't unless you live in California — can be twice as expensive as gasoline for the same energy content. However, the car will go almost three times as far on the same amount, making the cost per mile much lower. Honda doesn't pretend that a fuel cell-car is ready for prime time. Rather, it hopes to disseminate the 2008 FCX to users who have access to hydrogen. There's a station here in Washington. Two in Las Vegas, a few in the Detroit area, mainly for use by automakers' experimental fleets, a handful in other states. California has 24 and 14 more being planned, according to the California Fuel Cell Partnership. Most are in the Los Angeles-San Diego and San Francisco-Sacramento corridors.

Hydrogen is plentiful. But getting it loose to use as fuel isn't easy. Most of it — 95%, says Ben Knight, Honda's vice president for research and development in America — comes from natural gas, the same fuel that heats most U.S. homes. The U.S. has roughly 3% of the world's natural gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Big players: Russia (27%), Iran (16%), Qatar (15%).

How much? Honda leases two current-generation FCX cars to individuals for $500 a month. It won't say whether the '08s will be more than that. The '08s are expected to cost Honda about half as much to make as the current models, which nevertheless will be half a million bucks each, or so.

So, the Tesla Roadster is a real car in production that anyone with the money can own. The Tesla Roadster is powered by a fuel that is available in many more places than gasoline is, anywhere there's an electrical outlet. The Tesla Roadster is a high performance vehicle that will out accelerate a Lamborghini Diablo and still get 3 times the efficiency per energy input than the Honda FCX. Drive the Tesla roadster and a Honda FCX Clarity form San Bernadino to Las Vegas, where do you get fuel for the FCX? The Tesla you just plug it in (let it charge for 3-12 hours depending on the wattage of the outlet it's plugged into) , and you can drive it home. With the FCX, do you call Honda and have them bring a tanker truck of Hydrogen to you?

So practical Electric Vehicles (every bit as practical as the Honda FCX) are here now, and the infrastructure to fuel them is already in place. In the next 2 years there will be quite a few more EV and Extended Range Electric Vehicles (EREV),, and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV). Here's a list to name a few: GM Volt,2010 Plug-in Prius,Electric Smart Car,EV Mini Cooper,Aptera,Fiat e500,Venture Vehicles V1.

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics the average American drives 29 miles a day. Just about any of these vehicles will allow the average American to replace their daily commuting miles with electrically powered miles. They can be charged at home at night when the grid is at 50% capacity, this will allow the grid to be used more efficiently. And

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 28, 2008 at 6:24pm

I think you are confused on my comments. I AM FOR USING ALL FORMS OF REDUCING OIL DEPENDENCE. I think the el vehicle is great for the short commute driver. However I think the Tesla is a terrible example for the El vehicle. It is simply not practical at $150,000. The plug in hybrids and other vehicles are all great for certain environments but will not work for everyone. I am forced to drive a pickup for work purpose and nothing large and pratical available. However I have had contact with a california company with plans in the works for a 10 wheel delivery truck with a fuel cell. And your article say every bit as pratical as the Honda FCX. I agree for certain aplications. Did you read my remarks about a 250 mile trip? What do I do for that. The El Vehicle will not work for me and I am not alone. It is great for someone who does a short commute.

As stated earlier we will have to agree to disagree. I can find an article in other papers that is pro Fuel Cell Vs Electric. I trust government statistics about as far as I can thow the 500 page manual on how to gather them. But the average drive may be 29 miles but from what? Are they counting people that take public transportation and people that drive and combining the 2. Have you heard the statistic that 90 percent of the time you can make a statistic be whatever you want it to be. I personally drive each day about 40 miles roundtrip. But some days when I go to job site down dirt road 125 miles away I don't think a Tesla is practical. And once again the story you are using for an example is a writers opinion. And by the way thanks for the info in the article about charging time 3 to 12 hours that is the first time I have seen that comment. As stated earlier the 95% coming from CNG is what is not pratical. The article you posted makes several good point for me.Could you tell me the date and where to find? The fuel they are talking about in production is using CNG or grid power to produce and is being done by oil companies. The only public fueling location to date is owned by Shell. Do you think they want to price it cheaper than gasoline? What dates are on the quotes? The following is from the Honda FCX Clarity website under one of the headings. Yes I already agreed that the initial units are high but Honda is leasing them to make them affordable and both Honda and GM execs have stated publicy that both of their current products will be = priced to current models when in mass production. They will not be $150,000 each like the 2 SEATER Tesla. Please read the 2nd sentence in 3rd paragraph.

From FCX Clarity Website:

Honda has come out ahead by putting the first dedicated platform hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road and into customers’ hands. A true testament to Honda’s pioneering spirit, the evolution of the FCX Clarity is a story filled with determination and brave, creative solutions to seemingly insurmountable obstacles. And it’s all driven by Honda’s sense of responsibility to pursue clean domestic energy sources that promise bluer skies for our children.
To develop a fuel cell vehicle worthy of the Honda name, our engineers worked tirelessly to ensure that the FCX Clarity was:
Safe for the public
Operable in freezing weather
Able to drive a reasonable range before refueling
Easy to refuel
Sporty and fun to drive
Spacious and comfortable
Each generation of the FCX Clarity has brought Honda closer to achieving these goals, and we are proud to introduce the FCX Clarity to the world.

Since the first Honda fuel cell vehicle was unveiled in 1999, dramatic changes have taken place in rapid succession. The fuel cell stack in the 1999 vehicle was very large and bulky. By developing and working to perfect our own Honda Fuel Cell (FC) stacks, Honda has made them significantly smaller and lighter. As a result, the design of the vehicle itself has also gone from tall and boxy to sleek and elegant with a roomy and comfortable cabin.

Honda has brought the fuel cell vehicle from the lab to the fleet and finally to the public. The major barrier now is building up the hydrogen supply infrastructure. We have a strong interest in this area as well and we are hard at work perfecting a Home Energy Station that may supply power to the home in addition to the family car. With these developments, Honda is paving the way for a clean and efficient hydrogen-based society of the future.

Timeline
1999: Honda introduces first fuel cell vehicle prototypes FCX-V1 and FCX-V2.
2000: Prototype fuel cell vehicle FCX-V3 introduced.

FCX begins service as official pace car of L.A. Marathon and goes on to lead the race for eight consecutive years.
2001: Prototype fuel cell vehicle FCX-V3 equipped with a Honda FC Stack demonstrated at the California Fuel Cell Partnership in Sacramento, California.
2002: Prototype fuel cell vehicle FCX-V4 introduced.
Honda's FCX certified by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB). First and only fuel cell car in history to be approved for commercial use.

FCX fuel cell vehicles delivered on the same day in Japan and the U.S.

City of Los Angeles becomes first FCX customer, leasing first of five Honda FCX models for fleet use.
2003: Experiments begin in the U.S with a hydrogen Home Energy Station, providing hydrogen fuel supply and cogeneration functions.

Honda FC Stack, a next-generation fuel cell stack capable of power generation at temperatures as low as –20ºC, is announced.

Honda becomes world's first automaker to supply a fuel cell vehicle to a private corporation.
2004: New York State becomes a fleet customer and demonstrates freezing winter startup and operation.
2005: Honda introduces second-generation FCX. First to be powered by Honda FC stack.

FCX is put on road with real family, the Spallinos.

FCX Concept vehicle unveiled at Tokyo Motor Show. Huge leap forward in lightweight, compact fuel cell stack design. Result is sleeker vehicle design.
2007: FCX Clarity, world’s first dedicated platform hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, debuts at L.A. Auto Show. New stack is 20% smaller and 30% lighter than its predecessor. Startups now possible at -30°C.

2007 marks the eighth consecutive year the FCX serves as pace car for the L.A. Marathon.
2008: FCX Clarity available for consumer use in the summer.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Forrest on July 31, 2008 at 2:20pm

Your research is pretty good, Matt. You found a good reference! As a former business area manager I am pretty familiar with the costs and technologies of hydrogen production. The energy lost in producing hydrogen is generally around 40 to 50 percent of the energy in the product. Compressing the hydrogen to high pressures necessary to maximize range are about equal to the energy required to liquify the hydrogen and that ranges from about 50 percent to 100 percent of the energy in the product. So... it takes about 2 to 2 1/2 times the energy in the product hydrogen to put it in a form to use in a hydrogen car (that uses a hydrogen fueling station).

To be explicit, it takes about 2 to 2 1/2 gallons of gasoline equivalent hydrogen to make one gallon of gasoline equivalent hydrogen. So a hydrogen vehicle would have to go 2 to 2 1/2 times as far to be the equal the overall energy performance of a gasoline powered vehicle. So...to equal a Prius a hydrogen vehicle would need to get an effective 80 to 100 miles per gallon (of gasoline, not hydrogen). No one is predicting they will do that well so my interpretation is that current hybrid technology is one of our best alternatives for the near future.

In my opinion, one of the bigger problems hydrogen vehicles face is that of the low energy density of hydrogen. A "gallon" of high pressure or liquified hydrogen contains only about 1/4 the energy in a gallon of gasoline. As a result, a hydrogen fueled vehicle will need a larger tank (at least 50 percent bigger based on the energy efficiency expectations I have seen) to have similar range. That is a problem for larger tanks cost exponentially more as either high pressure or super-insulation (for liquid hydrogen) inflate the cost. (Personally I can't imagine liquid hydrogen having any chance for the loss rate in small tanks is often 4-6 percent per day and that is intolerable as an economic drain.)

Hydrogen makes most sense if we have energy that will be wasted or is otherwise unusable. It will make sense in some or many fixed-location applications where on-site generation and lower pressure storage will be feasible but the concept of hydrogen as a vehicular fuel simply doesn't work for me. The energy losses are simply too great!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 31, 2008 at 3:09pm

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 4:58pm

Hi John!

There is no question that the Honda FCX is overall more energy efficient than most cars but on a total energy basis, assuming only a factor of 2 for total energy in, it only gets an equivalent of 34 mpg based on the real energy involved. And lots of existing cars get that. That will certainly improve over time but I have a hard time getting excited about it. You do. The only real benefit I see is that the original energy need not be fossil fuel related. (And the $25 plus tax to go 280 miles that you quote would equate to about 11 cents a mile for the FCX, whereas my Prius cost me about 9 cents a mile. More later...).

IMO the key to viability of hydrogen for all purposes begins with the fundamental energy used to make it (or displaced). You need a cheap fundamental source of energy - something that provides substantial net positive energy to make hydrogen viable but you are always going to waste a good bit of the beginning energy making and compressing/liquifying the hydrogen. And that is a problem for hydrogen economics.

Your claim that your process is efficient seems to ignore the alternative value of the electricity from your solar cells. Your posts mention a pre-tax price of $1.95 a gallon equivalent for compressed hydrogen. Your economics and viable rate of return seem suspect. And I must ask, to what pressure do you compress your hydrogen? How do you store it? The compressors and tanks are highly capital intensive. Your price seems unrealistically low.

Your comments suggest you are currently making hydrogen at high pressure. Are you really? In volume? How much experience do you have with high pressure hydrogen? No doubt you are aware it autoignites (good property) and burns with an invisible flame (not so good). Have you ever watched the bristles of a broom rain to the ground as it passed over a leak? (The standard approach for entering dangerous areas of a hydrogen plant are to wave a broom in front of you.) Handling high pressure hydrogen is not trivial. The public is not likely to deal well with the results of hydrogen leaks.

From a chemical engineering perspective, energy is energy. One can take energy and convert it into anything one wants. Give me free electricity and unlimited capital and I can make gasoline (or diesel or heavy alcohols) from air. Pretty simple actually and uses totally existing technologies, but it would be dumber than dirt for it would take about four to six times the energy in the product so you would throw away 80+ percent of your energy. IMO there will almost certainly be better ways to use your solar electrons once alternative technologies get sorted out a bit. I would not personally invest in hydrogen fueling strategies. You clearly arrived at a different opinion. And at different economics than I have seen for a stand-alone hydrogen production/refueling stations.

If you can produce hydrogen at say 10k psi in the range of the price you propose then hydrogen may be viable as an automotive fuel but IMO there are other nontrivial obstacles and potential killers to overcome. I put my money on alternative liquid fuels like synthetic diesel or heavy alcohols.

• ▶ Reply

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