In addition to requiring nothing less than a whole new transportation fuel infrastructure, the hydrogen approach is very inefficient. After converting electric energy back and forth from H2, you wind up with only ~40% of the energy you started with (due to electrolysis and fuel cell efficiencies). This calculation does not even include additional losses associated with compression, handling, and moving the hydrogen around, etc.... In addition, there are the enormous expenses involved with developing a completely new infrastructure to distribute gasous fuel (a system that is fraught with serious technical challenges, due to the difficulty in containing H2, as well as the much larger energy required for compression). And finally, there is the costs of the additional equipment such as electrolysis equipment and fuel cells, both of which remain extremely expensive. The cost of electrolysis equipment if sufficient to effectively add multiple cents to the cost of the electric power. And vehicle fuel cells still cost ~1 million dollars, I've heard.

By contrast, using alternative liquid fuels such as methanol (or biodiesel) involves little change to our existing infrastructure OR our car technology. These fuels can be used with very minor, if any, changes in standard car technology (or retrofits to existing vehicles). There are few technical challenges. Combining this with the efficiencies associated with CURRENT hybrid technology will reduce fuel usage and emissions to very low levels, all the while using purely domestic fuels.

And, as the article states, we will be able to make a very large leap forward from there, using evolutionary technologies that are just around the corner (as opposed to using revolutionary hydrogen/fuel cell technologies that are much further out). I refer specifically to the plug-in hybrid car concept. This is the approach I came out of the Kerry site discussion favoring, as opposed to the H2 economy. We should instead rely on alternative, domestic, liquid fuels (e.g., methanol or biodiesel), or plug-in hybrid cars, or (better yet) some combination of the two. Me and the author of this article seem to agree on this.

With the advent of hybrid cars, automakers are now mass producing batteries that are much more powerful (and must meet much greater demands) than the old standard 12-volt lead acid battery. They are also investing large amounts in new battery technologies. Due to these developments, I'm hearing that batteries that can power a reasonably sized car, with reasonable performance (unlike the old pure electric cars) with a range of ~20-50 miles are just around the corner. This is still not enough to make pure electrics attractive, as people still demand the convenience of driving longer distances occasionally, without having to "make arrangements". However, with the plug-in hybrid car, this is not an issue. A tiny IC engine (or diesel) engine is there, and will just fire up whenever the battery range is exceeded.

As the author states, based on most people's driving habits (with daily commutes generally under 20-50 miles), this will allow most of our mileage to be powered by domestically produced electrcity. These cars will also be zero emissions most of the time, especially in the cities, where emissions are most important. Even out in the country, when the small engine might be used, emissions will still be a small fraction of those of a typical new car today. This emissions performance will be "good enough", with few premature deaths arising from auto emissions. Also, due to both the high efficiency of this hybrid vehicle in the first place, and the fact that electric power is primarily used, overall fuel consumption will be a very small fraction of what it is today (~25% or less). This will also be "good enough", in terms of fuel use, especially given that most or all of the (liquid) fuel can be produced with domestic sources, as the article explains.

Not only will domestically produced electric power be used for most of the vehicle miles, but this energy source will be much cleaner, on balance, than burning oil in cars. This will clearly be true if the new baseload plants that are built to fill this new off-peak demand are based on nuclear, clean coal (IGCC), or renewable technology. Another benefit, as compared to the H2 economy approach, is that this electric power will be use

is that this electric power will be used MUCH more efficiently. For most of the vehicle miles, these plug-in hybrids act like true electrics, with respect to efficiency. Electric power is shipped directly to the car battery, and then to the electric motors, with an overall efficiency of ~80-90% (i.e., ~80-90% of the generated power makes it to the electric motors). This is more than double the efficiency of the H2 approach (~40%). Thus, the amount of new power plants that would need to be built is only about half the number necessary using the H2 approach.

And finally, this approach requires no new expensive infrastructure or technology. The power is simply shipped over our existing power grid (which can handle the extra load during off-peak hours). We also don't need exotic (and expensive) fuel cells, but instead just some minor changes/advances over the hybrid cars alreay in use today. There will also be less adjustments for the consumer to make, who simply needs to plug in the car at night, and occasionally go to the "gas" station and fill up with liquid fuel just like always. Gasous fuel fueling seems like it may be a difficult, complicated process that will require adjustments on the part of the driver.

I also aprreciated the fact that the article did not discuss ethanol from corn, but instead discussed more plausible large scale sources of methanol (although I'm generally not a fan of coal). The corn/ethanol concept strikes me as an inefficient process that is more of a sop to (politically powerful) large-scale farmers than anything else. I even hear this approach may take more petroleum than it dispaces (i.e., a negative EROEI - energy returned on energy invested). Other options, such as other crops, or (better yet) biodiesel have much better EROEI values, may use much less fertilizer and pesticide, etc..., and require less alterations to the engine.

One disappointment with the article is that it did not discuss biodiesel. I hear that this is available right now (for ~$3/gallon), and that it can be used in existing diesel cars (which get better mileage in the first place) without any modifications! This fuel, biodiesel, was the one that seemed to win the day in the Kerry site discussion. It has a very good EROEI, it requires the least adjustments to current technology, and it has the best hope of being economically competative. Also, unlike the coal/methanol idea, it is renewable and (supposedly) CO2 neutral. In the future, we may even be able to use algaes to produce this stuff, with no pesticides, etc..., and a relatively low land area required to produce a given amount of energy. My personal favorite technology is a plug-in hybrid car with a TINY (~1L?) diesel engine that uses biodiesel for the occassional long trip where the battery range is exceeded.

In summary, the domestic liquid fuel and/or plug-in hybrid car approach can deliver almost all of the benefits of the H2 economy at a tiny fraction of the cost, and can be deployed over a much shorter time frame. It is also much more incremental, requireing few changes to our existing technology and infrastructure, sparing the nation from having to undergo radical transformation. The point here is the old wisdom of not letting dogged persuit of the perfect getting in the way of the VERY good (or more to the point, the good enough). The above technology is defintely the next wave, with the H2 economy PERHAPS being the wave after that (in the much more distant future, say after ~2030 or even 2050). The above approach is so good, however, we may have little incentive to go through the huge cost of making the transition to the H2 economy. My gut tells me that after we use plug-in hybrids for a few decades, pure electric cars will be ready. Keep in mind that, if you have a sufficient battery, pure electric cars are clearly superior to hydrogen powered cars, due to the much greater energy (well-to-wheel) efficiency of the approach (i.e., ~80-90% vs. ~40%).

Richard Barker

The plug-in concept makes the most sense of any other technology described yet! And, his reasons, which included important International Relationships are all well-founded.

I can only say...that... further,... we need to review all transportation concepts...as to what is needed vs. what is popular!...A car can be made of extremely lightweight components, when combined with airbags & latest fiberglas technology, provides all the necessary elements of safe & comfortable transport to the local grocery store or the villages...for which many of our 2nd vehicles are used by the suburbanite. Now, if we think about it, this concept can also be used on the freeways of crowded cities, if, in fact...we were to use the "special driving lanes", now reserved for 2+ person transport in rush hours...for small 1000# cars of lightweight construction, and keep the TRUCKS & HEAVY VEHICLES in those lanes...then, the small cars would be even more safe on the freeways than the current small sedans!

This, along with the above author's proposal...would make the oil crisis a thing of the past...for at least another 25 years...at which time, we will need to have developed all those other alternatives for the use of oil, so that it can be reserved exclusively for lubricant usage....and this CAN BE DONE!...IT IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF WILL...AND POLITICAL COURAGE!

Regards, Robert E. Cates...Inventor

The infrastructure is here also. There is NO modifications needed in today's diesel vehicles. No matter what type of vehicle that is running biodiesel, from cars, buses to large trucks.

I've been reading more and more about the availability of biodiesel and found that the auto manufactures need to produce and make available to the U.S. more diesel vehicles so that the U.S. can take advantage of this Renewable Fuel and keep us from depending on the rest of the world.

Just before reading this article I was surfing for info on biodiesel and came across a company that appears to have the United States clearly in mind to help make the U.S. truly independent once more. If any one is interested take a look at their website and get behind them. Give them the support that is needed to bring back the proud phrase of "Made in America" once more to America.

Damian Matthews, proud to be an American

Thanks and Sorry once more.

First, his proposal accomplishes little if the electricity used in his plug-in vehicles is generated from imported LNG. At present it appears that most incremental electric generation demand for natural gas will almost necessarily require increased importation of LNG. Thus, until we find a means of getting natural gas out of most electric generation, the author's plug-in vehicle proposal simply shifts the form of the problem (i.e., from oil to natural gas).

Second, this article lacks adequate assessment of the economics of the electricity costs for such plug-in vehicles. Although it can be argued that much of the electricity use by such vehicles may be during off-peak periods, the marginal pricing of electricity in deregulated electric markets has dramatically increased the costs of off-peak (as well as on-peak) electrical power.

If the author wants to encourage the pursuit of this plug-in vehicle alternative, he had better first take steps to ensure that the costs of required electricity inputs will not undo the economics of that proposal, and that cannot be achieved in the context of (1) our growing dependence of natural gas to fuel this country's electric generation demands and (2) increasing long-term costs for natural gas supply and highly volatile short-term pricing of both natural gas and electricity.

Bruce R. Oliver Revilo Hill Associates, Inc.

Note to Damian Mathews. Nothing technical to get interested in at alfaindustries.com, just {another} marketing outfit. If you want to see some real scientists working on the problems visit http://www.iogen.ca . These guys have been developing enzymes for years, can now convert waste celulose into either ethanol or bio-diesel. Thats where the effort needs to go.

Note to all re- "Hydrogen economy", lets not be too hasty. Several possibilities. a) H2 from IGCC's or reactors can make excellent substitute for natural gas in long term w/out electrical conversion step. b) ainvetion of one new catalyst (replace platinum) would make fuel cells very viable. should continue research. c) bio-generation of H2 via the "blue algea" sulfur management process from Berkly would be extremely rational. Should continue to support this.

Don;t let others beat US to technologies again.

I looked up the energy content in a gallon of gas and found that it was 36.65 kW-hr. Now, lets imagine we start having plug-in hybrids for sale right now, and lets look at it purely from the consumers perspective. We'll look at the trade off between power cost vs. the cost of gasoline.

First of all, it must be noted that whereas one gallon of gas equals 36.65 kW-hrs strictly in terms of energy, a car of the same size, weight, and performance (power) will go at least twice as far on 36.65 kW-hrs of electricity as it would on a gallon of gas. This is because even the most efficient gasoline combustion drivetrains (such as hybrid drives) have overall thermal efficiencies of ~40% or less, whereas ~80% or more of the incoming electric power would be converted directly into mechanical work (i.e., the overall drivetrain efficiency is over 80%). Thus, it is more accurate to say that one gallon of gas is equivalent to ~18 kW-hrs.

Let's assume that gas still costs ~$2/gallon several years from now when these plug-ins come out. Based on the conversion above, this equates to an electric power price of ~11 cents/kW-hr. This is an awfully high price for off-peak power. Baseload power plants can generally produce power at a cost of ~4 cents/kW-hr. Indeed, off-peak power prices don't usually exceed $40/MW-hr, so the "free" market seems to confirm this.

Admittedly, for a residential consumer you have to throw in transmission, distribution, and other costs. However, of note is the fact that average retail (residential) electric rates in this country are only ~7 cents/kW-hr, and this reflects an average of peak and off-peak costs, as well as all other costs like administrative and maintanence costs, many of which are not related to generation, and do not scale with increased consumption (off-peak, at least). What I'm driving at is that there is no way that the average cost will be any higher than ~7 cents/kW-hr, and there is a good chance that deals with the utilities can be arranged (with plug-in owners) to get significant blocks of off-peak power at a rate that is at least somewhat lower (perhaps ~5 cents).

The bottom line here is that the electric power for plug-ins will cost about half as much as the gasoline required to drive the same distance. It will definitely make sense (i.e., it will save a lot of money) to plug in at night. Note, however, that such cars would not even demand that you make this choice. You could never plug in and just run on the IC engine all the time (i.e., on gasoline) if you ever wanted to, for any reason.

And yes, I know that the cost of gasoline is a lot lower w/o taxes, etc..., and if people start plugging in and using a lot less gas, we will have a loss of tax revenue, etc... However, to offset this, we must also weight the benefit of reducing air pollution and dependence on foreign oil. There are also some utility taxes, I believe, which compensate. At a minimum, for a long while we will let the first users of plug-ins to "get away with" not paying "fuel taxes", due to the benefits involved. Perhaps after they truly take over some adjustments will be needed. But once again, it's still a more desireable approach after all the benefits are considered.

Concerning the natural gas issue, where gas is the incremental source even at off-peak times, all I can say is, "just don't do that". The solution to this issue is to simply decide to not do that. Instituting a fuel use act (prohibiting gas from being used for baseload plants) would do the trick. The plan here is not to build combined-cycle plants to meet the new plug-in car demand, the plan is to use clean coal (IGCC), nuclear, or renewables to meet this demand. We just gotta make up our minds to do that. It's not as though these other options are significantly more expensive. Hell, at today's gas prices, they are cheaper (or at least about the same price). So, not only does it not cost more, but we get the benefits of cleaner air as well as reduced foreign energy dependence.

With respect to foreign energy dependence, there is a big difference between the current electricity situation and the current transportation situation. Right now, cars can basically only run on oil, and we are utterly dependent on foreign sources. The power situation is a lot more flexible. We have more choices. Yes, gas can be used to generate baseload power, but so can all sorts of other sources like coal, nuclear, hydro, and renewables. And these sources are not even measurably more expensive than gas (right now). Thus, on the power side, it is "easy" to choose (or shift over to) other, domestic options. Not so, currently, on the transport side. The beauty of the plug-in hybrid concept is that it makes the transport situation resemble the power situation (indeed, as most of the energy would be coming from the power grid). This makes the transport problem more manageable and solvable, since on the electrici

This makes the transport problem more manageable and solvable, since on the electricity side, we have ample domestic, and economically competative options.

Concerning your earlier post on H2 technology, I'm not proposing that we should stop development of these technologies, and am not even saying that most of them will not turn out to be useful.

With respect to H2 generation technologies, such as the high-temperature thermo-chemical reactor, have no fear!! They will have a major role to play in the future energy picture even if the H2 economy, in the pure sense of the word, never comes to pass. Even if we stick with liquid fuels, there will be a large demand for hydrogen. It has been said that oil refineries will require exponentially increasing amounts of H2 as the crude gets "heavier and heavier" (i.e., lower H-to-C ratio) while larger and larger quantities of "lighter and lighter" fuels will be demanded. It is estimated that future demand for H2 by oil refineries alone will soon reach a level that would require 40 GW of nuclear capacity to produce.

Thus, even if we start to think that some liquid fuel approach will win out, this shouldn't affect at all the need (and plans) to go forward with the electricity+hydrogen producing reactor project (at INEL). There will be a great need for this technology regardless. Even in non-petroleum scenarios, there is likely to be a great need for H2 that can be added to various carbon-bearing feedstocks. We could add extra H2 (as much as will fit while remaining liquid - methanol, right?), to various biomass streams like biodiesel, etc...

Also, if we went with the author's concept of using coal as a feedstock to make methanol, the reactor could help out a lot, as the process may require both heat and hydrogen, both of which could be supplied by the reactor. All the coal would be for is the carbon feedstock that is necessary to keep the fuel liquid. The standard process, I believe, would instead use more coal as the source of the heat that is used both to generate the H2 feedstock for the hydrocarbon product, and as thermal input to drive the process. Nuclear heat can be used in place of coal heat for all of these aspects of the process, which would greatly reduce the overall net air pollution and CO2 emissions of the process. Economically, nuclear would clearly beat any process that envisions sequestering all the CO2 from coal burned in the process.

The same is true for all the various renewable methods of H2 generation. Don't worry, we will need a lot of H2 regardless, and we should therefore be developing H2 generation technologies regardless. It's just looking more likely that H2 will be generated in mass quantities in a small number of centralized locations for large scale H2-consuming processes like oil refineries or synfuel production plants. The beauty of this is that it doesn't involve any of the really ugly aspects of the H2 economy, i.e., shipping and distributing the H2 all over the place.

We (automakers) should also continue to develop fuel cells, just in case they do indeed turn out to be a better approach. Note that fuel cells will have many other applications, even if they are not used in autos. Also, this research is worth the risk since the overall costs are not very large. All I'm saying is, yes we should continue strong efforts to develop all these technologies. However, in a couple decades, when we've developed the fuel cells and developed the H2 generation technologies, we should take a look at where the alternatives to the H2 approach are (such as the plug-ins) and make an honest evaluation of whether or not we should take the massive leap (i.e., make the massive investment) to the H2 economy. My gut's now telling me that if we did do such an evaluation ~15-20 years from now, we'd decide that the whole H2-powered-autos thing is not worth it, since the plug-ins (occasionally powered by domestic liquid fuels) are good enough, and involve vasly lower costs/transitions.

I checked out the site. They didn't discuss what thermal efficiency they were obtaining (i.e., H2 chemical energy vs. thermal input energy). I believe that even with currently considered thermo-chemical generation technology (based on sulfur and iodine catalysts), you can generate SOME hydrogen even at ~800 C. The questions are all about overall thermal efficiency versus temperature. All presentations I see have plots of thermal efficiency vs. temperature, and they gererally say that temperatures of 950-1000 C are needed before "acceptable" (or economically viable) efficiencies are obtained. The goal is for efficiencies of at least 50%, and preferably closer to 60%.

The site also implied that other industry efforts were focused on trying to split water directly (w/o catalysts, at ~3000 degrees) and that they were the only ones thinking about catalysts. Far from the truth. It's been all about catalysts for some time now, and nobody has even been thinking about direct (uncatalyzed) splitting for some time. I'd like to know what their catalysts are, and if they are better than the current favorite (sulfur and iodine).

Despite their focus on solar, the thermo-chemical splitting technology is basically independent of the source of heat, and all the traditional issues concerning what makes the best heat source (economics, etc...). Thus this technology will benefit all H2 generation power sources (e.g., coal, nuclear, solar, geothermal, etc...) equally, and the choice of heat source will be governed by those other issues, as always.

If they have indeed come up with a way to achieve similar thermal efficiencies (~50-60%) at significantly lower temperatures (~800 C), it will be extremely helpful. I've heard from many of the people involved in the design and technology development for the prototype high-temperature hydrogen generation reactor, and the single biggest issue is the engineering and materials challenges associated with the extremely high outlet temperatures that are required. At 800 C, they could use much more conventional materials, and these materials would retain their strength to a much greater degree. This woudl speed up development, and greatly reduce the cost of the reactor, and the hydrogen that is produced (perhaps to significantly less than the ~$1.50 per gallon-of-gas-equivalent that is now estimated).

I got the impression they were using a platimum-based catalyst, though insufficient data available to say for sure. Not sure of that, but they might be into the same platinum cost barriers as the fuel cell / electrolysis guys.

Given their plan to completely re-circulate all the water un-split, I wonder if they're going to eventually wind up circulating mostly "heavy water". I know that's how AECL gets heavy water, by electrolysing lake water until all the light water is gone. That's why they developed electrolyser corp., now Stuart energy. Likely thermal splitting wont be preferential for light water like the membrane cells are.

A relatively cheap glass coating that automatically passively switches from passing light and infra-red to reflecting it at a design temperature. In the long term for commercial buildings, this could be the conservationists magic bullet.

First, the base power source proposed is coal, which is a nonrenewable resource that contributes to atmospheric pollution (sulfur emissions) and the greenhouse effect (addition of noncyclic carbon to atmosphere). Carbon emissions will likely soar, given the terrible efficiency of coal-to-electricity conversion and energy lost to transmission through power lines; i.e., one energetic equivalent gallon of gas is going to generate much more CO2.

Second, Bruce Oliver is correct - energy economics are not considered. The cost of residential electricity will skyrocket with the increased consumer demand, and will always be increasing faster than inflation because of coal's limited supply. This is simply a set-up for a second energy crisis in the future.

Third, the author suggests that American car manufacturers will play a positive role in transformation of transportation. Thus far they have vigorously fought any concept of progress (www.pbs.org/now/science/caautoemissions2.html).

Fourth, the author does not consider the 50% of American cars which will drive further than battery support and require gasoline to run. Our problems with oil economics and global security will stay. Don't look to methanol, as it is currently generated with poor efficiency from nonrenewables or unsustainably from biomass.

What the author needs to consider is a long-term energy outlook. Any energy plan which is not centered on a clean, renewable energy (solar, wind, etc.) is not a good plan. That said, author deserves praise for developing a great way to ease the transition to better, long-lasting hydrogen economy.