Hydrogen Car?

[-archimedes-]

Listen, if people want to go with hydrogen cars, or whatever, to lessen the localized pollution such as it is, that's fine by me, I personally will not be kept from buying the most powerful car I can afford. I’d buy a Buggati Veyron if I had the gold, because there is no problem with oil supplies, and certainly no problem with energy supplies. Our problem is statists, such as environmentalists, getting in the way of production.

A Tesla, a fully electric automobile, can do 0 - 60 in 4 secs. with a top speed of 130mph (so far), and an Eliica (another fully electric automobile) can do 0-60 in 4.2 secs. with a top speed of 230mph (again, so far), both with zero emissions...that spanks a Porshe, and then some, plus, the "environmentalists" staunchly approved the mass-production of either of these automobiles.

I mentioned the BMW-H7 because that was the topic of discussion ("hydrogen"-fueled automobiles) in this thread and provided it as a real-world reference for the OP (and any others interested) should they care to research it further though I, too, would not hesitate to buy a Veyron, or even a Koenigsegg (the most powerful and fastest production car on the road today), had I the funds on hand...a internal combustion to electric conversion is not that hard at all I would imagine.

It is? How? People are living longer than ever. Is it increasing our life expectancies?

I believe that you, as well as everyone else in the world by now, are well versed in the personal & global implications of CO2/particulate matter emissions so I'll side-step the obvious, misplaced barb in favor of clarifying that our present-day increased life expectancy is due in large part to the preservatives that we put in our food products/improvements in medicine/the medical field/diagnostic procedures, and the like but no, particulate matter emissions have nothing to do with our increased life expectancy...how you could have even considered such a concept, let alone proposing it on this site, escapes all manner of reason/rationale for me. Suffice it to say that you know better.

Edited December 29, 2007 by -archimedes-

[-archimedes-]

Engineering and EROI are influential, but of themselves not enough. If the electricity were cheap enough (ie nuclear of some kind after being freed of bogus restrictions), I suspect the economics for land transport fuel in event of real depletion of liquid hydrocarbons would favour the hydrogen produced being combined with coal in gassification or liquification to make synthetic hydrocarbons. I think the economics would indicate this path rather than the hydrogen used straight or via esoteric metal hydride formulations even if the EROI for these is better than for synthetics. By using synthetics there are no hydrogen leak issues to deal with, no new hydrogen supply or fuel-cell technologies that have to be developed, and the existing infrastructures for neither retail supply nor vehicle manufacture & servicing have to change all that much. The latter is a major issue by itself: that's a lot of capital which would have to be written off and replaced if the fuels used changed dramatically, and one thing I do know about energy costs is that the long term retail price is more strongly influenced by capital charges against the infrastructure than by costs of inputs. So, I think this militates heavily against the widespread introduction of totally new hydrogen-powered vehicle technologies, at least within the foreseeable future. Maybe in the future it will become prevalent, but I don't see the personal-consumer-level use of neat hydrogen happening in my lifetime.

That doesn't mean input costs wont have an influence at all, or that infrastructure will remain totally untouched. Since crude oil is also the source of lubricants and the like, the infrastructure developed in event of oil depletion would be for liquification of coal up to some fairly substantial carbon-chain lengths. The first step, the gassification, is a new addition, but the technology for this has been around for long time and the rest of the refining process is now old hat, including synthetic lubricants. Thus, LNG, LPG, petrol and diesel (and also avgas) would all be produced as steps on the way to synthetic heavy engine oils, with the main question being in what proportions. With that in place: cheapening electricity wrt coal prices = higher hydrogen content per total weight of fuel = increasing favour towards C1-C4 over C8-C10 as that fuel.

IMHO, unless I see some numbers showing otherwise I would assume straight hydrogen is a bust under laissez-faire (for now, anyway). As a geek I would certainly be fascinated by new technologies but as a motorist or investor I wouldn't get enthusiastic about them without a critical examination by someone well versed in such sober appraisals. Overall, my guess is that there will be a major shift to LNG and LPG because they take fewer steps to make, and the LNG makes for greater economies of scale when combined with the already massive infrastructure geared toward industrial and household demand.

JJM

With partial reference to my previous reply to Thales to address the first part of your post and a nod to your referencing the market-ready infrastructure for the use of LNG and LPG as fuel sources (just need to overcome that whole exploding fuel cell during an accident issue), may I ask for your perspective on full electric powered automobiles?

[Thales]

A Tesla, a fully electric automobile, can do 0 - 60 in 4 secs. with a top speed of 130mph (so far), and an Eliica (another fully electric automobile) can do 0-60 in 4.2 secs. with a top speed of 230mph (again, so far), both with zero emissions...that spanks a Porshe, and then some, plus, the "environmentalists" staunchly approved the mass-production of either of these automobiles.

If electric cars prove themselves as performance cars, and I'm sure they are on their way to doing that, it’ll be great. What I'm wary of is the underlying premise that we must revert to this technology, because of some great environmental concern. The technology itself is interesting and I love it, but without the environmental baggage is a non-starter for me.

I mentioned the BMW-H7 because that was the topic of discussion ("hydrogen"-fueled automobiles) in this thread and provided it as a real-world reference for the OP (and any others interested) should they care to research it further though I, too, would not hesitate to buy a Veyron, or even a Koenigsegg (the most powerful and fastest production car on the road today), had I the funds on hand...a internal combustion to electric conversion is not that hard at all I would imagine.

I believe the Bugatti passed it, and just recently an American car, the SSC Ultimate Aero, passed the Buggatti for sheer speed. But, thanks for the reference. It's a beautiful and very impressive machine.

I believe that you, as well as everyone else in the world by now, are well versed in the personal & global implications of CO2/particulate matter emissions

If you're referring to global warming, then there is a GW thread in this forum where I make my position quite clear.

so I'll side-step the obvious, misplaced barb in favor of clarifying that our present-day increased life expectancy is due in large part to the preservatives that we put in our food products/improvements in medicine/the medical field/diagnostic procedures, and the like but no, particulate matter emissions have nothing to do with our increased life expectancy...how you could have even considered such a concept, let alone proposing it on this site, escapes all manner of reason/rationale for me. Suffice it to say that you know better.

The only reason I used the barb, is because everyone seems to want to get us overly worried about "pollution". That mind set is very much out of the environmental movement. The problem I have with these things is that I don't know how many times I've looked into a claim and found nothing at the end of the research.

One website I used to frequent is debunkers.org. That website is frequented by scientists, including several toxicologists. Many of the regulars know their stuff, and they will tell you that we are being bombarded with endless pseudo-science on just about everything. Read the forum there and you will see them tearing to shreds all manner of fear mongering publications. There is a great deal of bad “science” out there these days, and you simply can’t trust these publications at face value. That's not to say there aren't concerns, there are always going to be, the problem is you have to be very careful in assessing what is and what is not a reasonable risk, because of the bad intellectual environment created by postmodernists today. There are innumerable books by scientists who make note of this fact.

For instance, in the article you cite above http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=36089

they say:

“Over 40 chemicals in diesel exhaust are considered toxic air contaminants by the State of California.”

The problem with this statement is that the EPA, for instance, even considers table salt to be a dangerous chemical that must be labeled as such in chemistry labs. And just to pick up spilled mercury, as is found in thermometers, you require a hazmat suite. Iows, the “40” is suspect, because it is coming from the government. So, right away a red flag is raised for me. How toxic is toxic? These people are measuring parts per million and even parts per billion. Lots of things are beneficial in low doses, and only harmful in larger doses. Toxicologists have a saying “The dose is the poison”.

The article also says:

Dozens of studies link airborne fine particle, such as those in diesel exhaust, to increased hospital admissions for respiratory diseases, chronic obstructive lung disease, pneumonia, heart disease and up to 60,000 premature deaths annually in the US.

“link”ed in what way? Is it causal or is there a mere correlation, and what is the correlation? They also say “up to 60,0000 premature deaths”, what is the basis for that number, and what is the low end estimate? Why aren’t they mentioning a low end estimate? Doesn’t that make the article appear hyped to get you all worked up? I think it does.

And, btw, from all I’ve read, emissions levels in cities have gone down significantly over the decades, not up. Back in the 1800s, factories really put out the soot. And, there was also the fact that horses were the major means of hauling things around, including people, and they put out their own messes on the streets.

What is missing from these modern day articles and “studies” telling you how dangerous things are is PERSPECTIVE. They rarely provide perspective, and I think if they did, most of the concerns would be seen for what they are, trivia.

[John McVey]

With partial reference to my previous reply to Thales to address the first part of your post and a nod to your referencing the market-ready infrastructure for the use of LNG and LPG as fuel sources (just need to overcome that whole exploding fuel cell during an accident issue), may I ask for your perspective on full electric powered automobiles?

Despite originally training as an electrical engineer (industrial electrics and drive electronics for heavy industry), that's now outside my area since I moved to finance. I also know next to nothing of the relative priorities of various factors in vehicle design.

Off the top of my head, main issues (which are quite interconnected) to cover are :

- safety

- grunt

- various tech ratios

- costs to produce and maintain

- styling limitations, as well as new possibilities

There are others that I think will be trivial. The sourcing and logistics of parts is a non-issue as they are already widespread for industrial needs and can expand as needed without difficulty. As to the carmakers themselves, that just means they change suppliers from combustion motor makers to electrical motor makers, and the battery makers improve their product ranges: really, no skin off the carmakers' noses. Likewise the prevalence of servicing expertise and training, which would only be a minor shift in proportions of students in tech schools and what they're taught. Factory-approved service workshops already include sophisticated electronic diagnostic equipment, so the replacement of one of the grease monkeys with another sparky is no biggie. Ditto the designers in the carmakers themselves. That means the main issues are safety plus vehicular specifications (I am assuming that cleanliness is markedly improved) on the demand side, and costs to manufacture on the supply side.

Would an all-electric vehicle be as safe or safer than an ordinary vehicle? Probably safer overall (much less flammable material around), but there would be some new safety hazards to contend with, eg your combustion-powered car is far less likely to electrocute you in event of a fault. That would be particularly significant for those owners inclined to stick their hands deep into the engine bay. My guess is that most people would recognise the increased safety, and that would count for a lot with many people, especially parents, allowing for some increases in price tags over competing combustion-powered vehicles. Teenage and early-twenties revhead males, however, may not be so enthused. Another issue related to safety is changes in the nature of chemicals used in both manufacture of the vehicle and within the vehicle itself, but I don't know enough here to comment.

A less appreciated issue in safety is acceleration and maintenance of speed under variable loads. Lack of grunt is not just a bugbear for revheads, but a real issue for responsible people trying to maintain constant speed while climbing a hill or trying to overtake a slowpoke (less grunt = more time on the wrong side of the road) while driving a substantially laden vehicle. Okay, so there are specially designed expensive sports cars that can get the gongs - but can a respectably-priced electric family vehicle achieve the same or better specs than present family vehicles? I had a look at the touted Tesla Roadster... from the NY Times article it refers to: "But this plug-in two-seater, based on the Lotus Elise, is cramped and has near-zero cargo space. Its $100,000 price is well beyond the budget of even most sports car buyers." Slash at least 70% off the price and jack up the volume substantially and maybe you'll have something - if you can still provide grunt comparable to present offerings.

What gets the grunt, both at the pedal (road specs) and the bowser (vehicle range, refill times), is the various ratios. Capacities per unit weight and volume of the storage, power input rates, power output rates of the supply under continuous and variable loads, power per unit weight and volume of the electric motors, and so on. Here is where I am most woefully behind the times - I leave the technical details mostly alone, though I have heard of immense improvements on both the supply side (new battery or fuel-cell technologies) and the consumption side (new magnetic core materials and wiring alloys). However, there's a set of little-appreciated bottlenecks that may cause problems. As well as some metals used being expensive, a fair amount of the world supplies of elements of interest to high-capacity electrical and electronic purposes are in pesthole countries (eg tantalum from D.R . Congo). As it is the supply industries for them are sometimes already junior versions of the blood diamonds controversy, but if demand goes up to oil-industry proportions then that's a whole new set of major geopolitical headaches with lots of expenses to match. Moreover, all that's before the purely technical considerations of whether sufficient supplies exist or can be provided quickly enough so as not to make prices soar. BUT, these issues are already being dealt with by the whole of the mining, electrical and electronics industries for other uses, and so the research and procurement infrastructure will be put into place even without carmakers' input. Therefore carmakers (and drivers in turn) will reap benefits along with other users of motors and electronics without having to bear additional capital costs, meaning that carmakers will largely just ride the tide of these costs borne by others whether for good or for ill. I am in no place to forecast that tide, and making that forecast is going to take a lot of input from different and experienced professionals. My own crude guess is that, precisely because of that uncertainty, synthetic fuels have the initial advantage here if natural hydrocarbons start running out.

If the exotic-element-supply problems are resolved (in whatever manner) then I suspect that most of the vehicle manufacture cost issues have thereby been dealt with. As mentioned at the start, the carmaker will just change from getting supplies to one existing supplier to another existing supplier. No new industries need be developed. After that, replace the fuel tank, engine and exhaust with batteries and electric motor, and most of the rest of the car is likely to remain the same, if the performance specs are good enough. If not, then that's just another redesign, which the carmakers do all the time anyway, taking the issue back to being one of the relative value of grunt. I doubt there will be any significant increase in costs involved in regular retooling of plants - indeed, since the electric car then taps in to the expertise of the entire electrical generator and motor industry, costs may even come down through further increases in economies of scale.

Likewise, if the chassis and existing electrics systems remain the same then the maintenance costs to the owner of that chassis and systems remain the same. That means the maintenance costs and lifespan issues relate to the new electrics in the engine bay and storage compartments. If they have longer lifespans than existing motors then that means the can have higher prices, but a downside to that is increased insurance costs (note: safety improvement will lower insurance costs, so there's a trade-off there). Again, because there are other industries that have been around for ages, I doubt that reliability is going to be seriously unpredictable. I suspect that reliability will actually go up as there are fewer moving parts in total (and specifically fewer delicate mechanical parts) plus less use of chemicals that cause corrosion or substance build-up, so the ongoing costs as a percentage of vehicle to the owner may come down. As mentioned at the outset, I don't see the automotive servicing industry changing in a substantial manner from the direction it is already heading, so any increased costs there can't be pinned specifically on, and hence affect demand for, all-electric vehicles. Again then, lower on-going costs permits some increase in initial costs.

The vehicle style strongly affects demand for the vehicle. Quite frankly, most of the electric vehicles I keep seeing (except that Telstra Roadster) are gobsmackingly ugly. Really, they tend to look like VW Beetles made airtight, heated to soften the metal, exposed to external vacuum, and then hit with a big pair of old-fashioned wooden butter-block shapers. BLEAGH! The styling of the TR says to me that this is entirely the product of the aesthetics of designers influenced by misanthropic ideas or the peculiarities of local needs and cultures (eg the lack of space in Japan) rather than anything inherent in the use of electric motors in cars. That means the real style issues are whether electric vehicles can do the jobs that existing vehicles can do and do so in an appropriate style, mostly taking us back to the grunt issue. On the flip side, if electric systems are good enough then this might even open up new and improved styling possibilities that are presently impractical.

Overall I cannot say whether the all-electric vehicle would out-compete a synthetics fueled car. I suspect not, if only for the exotic materials issue, but I am nowhere near as quick to dismiss the idea as I am of the neat-hydrogen vehicle. The numbers presented must include reasonable estimates of what costs and revenues would be under real mass production, and my main suspicion is that the market for the exotics required may not be anywhere capable of becoming deep enough to stop key prices heading skyward. Yes, synthetics will be more expensive than naturally sourced hydrocarbons, but that market can be taken as deep as we need, stabilising prices even if at a higher level.

JJM