Again, everything is relative.

Certainly Hydrogen Leakage, Embrittlement, and etc are big issues to deal with.

However, consider your car battery... with a spontaneous discharge rate of 1%-3% / month. I.E. Probably on the order of 1/10 the rate of H2 loss, but still significant.

Add to it the 60%-80% charging efficiency of the batteries.
Then add the limited number of charging cycles, especially if you "deep cycle" them.

That isn't including parasitic losses... The modern digital radios take power just to remember your favorite radio stations while you aren't driving. While, the old analog push button radios could do it without a watt of electricity.

Anyway, we certainly have to start somewhere... and, above I did say that:

H2 = HYPE x 2

Lead-acid battery recycling is one of the most successful recycling programs in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-acid_battery

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:
Lead-acid battery recycling is one of the most successful recycling programs in the world.

Certainly...
And you can get paid up to $5 / battery to take it in for recycling...

Lets see, for my Citicar/Comutacar...
8 batteries, at $60-$100 new
minus $5 for recycling...

So that is still over $500 to replace the batteries (after recycling).

Not something I hope to do on an annual basis. And, the Citicar/Comutacar probably has one of the cheapest battery sets of the electric cars.

How often do hybrid batteries need replacing? Is replacement expensive and disposal an environmental problem?
http://www.hybridcars.com/faq.html
The hybrid battery packs are designed to last for the lifetime of the vehicle, somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 miles, probably a whole lot longer. The warranty covers the batteries for between eight and ten years, depending on the carmaker.

Battery toxicity is a concern, although today's hybrids use NiMH batteries, not the environmentally problematic rechargeable nickel cadmium. "Nickel metal hydride batteries are benign. They can be fully recycled," says Ron Cogan, editor of the Green Car Journal. Toyota and Honda say that they will recycle dead batteries and that disposal will pose no toxic hazards. Toyota puts a phone number on each battery, and they pay a $200 "bounty" for each battery to help ensure that it will be properly recycled.

There's no definitive word on replacement costs because they are almost never replaced. According to Toyota, since the Prius first went on sale in 2000, they have not replaced a single battery for wear and tear.

WELL! i went to an Alternative car convention in Austin TX last weekend,18-19 Oct. some of the elec. cars were nice, for short trips around town,,even an elec. Porsche 911, but and a big BUT! when battery replacement came up some costs went as high as $8,000.dollars. sorry but im not ready for those kind of numbers. and recycle of some types of batts. could be $50-100 each. I can say that the new Chevy Volt shows promise over almost all the Hybrids,quite interesting technology.
for my purpose a diesel vehicle with CNG injection may be very economical way to go but infrastructure for CNG may require some for thought on a long trip. possibly reduce diesel, biodiesel,VO/WVO by %50, very clean. now cost of conversion and cost of CNG would have to be considered. Quote pricing was out of line for me, Im an old DIY and conversion would not cost to much. CNG runs around $.80 per gal.all the way up to $2.60 per gal. its about infrastructure and transportation.
Straight CNG not as good economy, but as an additional injection to say diesel I say yes!
like anything new you would have to experiment, the CNG jug(tank) may be the most cost!
and you could use Propane, or LNG, but it costs more.
the show overall was interesting to say the least,had a good time talking to all kinds over alternative motorheads.
Thx Ron

We are getting a bit off of the Hydrogen subject.
However,
Hybrids use mostly fuel, and a little battery supplement. They generally don't "Deep-Cycle" their batteries very frequently. And, thus the batteries might last 5-10 years... which may or may not be the lifetime of the car.

The efficiency of hybrid cars is actually similar to the subcompacts that have been available in other countries for decades.

As far as 100% electric vehicles.

Battery life would certainly depend on the type of battery. But, Lead Acid batteries are often rated for about 300 moderately deep cycles... Thus, the life would depend on how many batteries one's car is carrying, and how deep the cycles are. I.E. If you do a 3-5 mile commute, and recharge at the destination, you should do well. If you do a 50 mile commute, and don't recharge at the destination... and have a 50 mile range, then you'll have problems... even with just normal aging of the batteries which might ordinarily reduce your 50 mile range to 20 or so.

Electric vehicles are the best option for significantly reducing urban pollution, and their range and recharge options fit well in an urban environment. Hybrids might be the best option for those longer suburban commutes. For long distance open highway and off-road situations diesels are often the best option. Each has their optimal niche. Depending on where one does their most driving, owning one type and renting other types when the need arises might be the best of all options.
Choice is good.

quote:

Originally posted by keelec:
We are getting a bit off of the Hydrogen subject.

Unless the big oil companies take over completely, hydrogen cars will be nothing but a conversation piece. When the physics and fuel sources are considered, nothing about them makes sense.

quote:

Originally posted by UFO:
Unless the big oil companies take over completely, hydrogen cars will be nothing but a conversation piece. When the physics and fuel sources are considered, nothing about them makes sense.

Didn't you see the Wikipedia photo? At least combining hydrogen distribution with "big oil" distribution networks.


I agree that Hydrogen is a bit unwieldy of a fuel source. The advantage is that if one had an "unlimited" energy source (nuclear/fusion), then Hydrogen gas is easy to make.

Putting that aside, essentially all other liquid/gas fuel sources are carbon based. I.E either petroleum or organic/bio based. Harvesting Carbon from the air is currently not feasible unless it is done at the point of generation.

There is a future in fuel cell technology, but light carbon compounds (methane/ethane/propane/butane/methanol/ethanol, etc) are easier to deal with than Hydrogen.

Although, I suppose the pie-in-the-sky would be a rechargeable plug-in fuel cell with a liquid refueling option and unlimited charging cycles. In which case some kind of water/hydrogen/oxygen based fuel cell would likely be used.

There are 2 things that are often confused (although not as much within this forum):
1) Energy production.
2) Energy distribution and storage.

Within the past year I've become convinced our long term future production will be a mixed bag but probably more and more regionally appropriate (Solar in Calif, hydro here in WA, geothermal in Montana, manure from Crawford Texas etc..) As technology advances decentralization will become more of a reality - and that will significantly change the picture. The Rocky Mountain Institute has some cool ideas on this.

As for distribution/storage it will be via an enhanced electrical distribution infrastructure and stored in batteries.
We have no choice but to upgrade our power distribution system - as of right now. It is antiquated, overloaded and way overdue for upgrade.
The battery swap-out concept is very valid. There are simple ways to electronically check the viability of batteries and it would be simple to create a standard size and rating.

However, what people often get hung up on - even in this discussion - is that batteries must look and work like the big ugly lead acid starting batteries in your car. I think the reason we automatically envision this is because they've changed little in the last century so we have nothing else to envision. We are having the equivalent discussion as computer nerds in the 60s talking about giant rooms full of blinking lights able to add 1+1.

But batteries are changing, they are changing radically - and fast.
Batteries of the near future will be light, charge very fast and have excellent power densities. They will have nothing in common with your starting battery except that they store electricity. Recent research into new generation ultracapacitors and nanotechnology are a good example of what is on the way.

I would bet that one of the objections car companies have concerning electric cars - whether consciously or subconsciously - is that ultimately the entire parts and labor infrastructure would only need to be a fraction of what it currently is. They are simple to build, there just ain't much to go wrong in an electric motor and there are no moving parts in a battery.

BTW: "Batteries" will also make cyclical energy production such as solar and wind more viable.

I tend to be very skeptical of a heck of a lot of things but I don't think the problem here is technology, it is WILL and LEADERSHIP and MOTIVATION.

- Chris

quote:

BTW: "Batteries" will also make cyclical energy production such as solar and wind more viable.

I tend to be very skeptical of a heck of a lot of things but I don't think the problem here is technology, it is WILL and LEADERSHIP and MOTIVATION.

Gotta agrere with that.the technology is all ready here and proven

I think hydrogen production can also come from small home systems like solar and wind. Instead of a large infrastructure to make and ditribute hydrogen what's wrong with supplimenting your own with extra solar or wind that's freely available?

quote:

Originally posted by 12voltdan:

quote:

BTW: "Batteries" will also make cyclical energy production such as solar and wind more viable.

I tend to be very skeptical of a heck of a lot of things but I don't think the problem here is technology, it is WILL and LEADERSHIP and MOTIVATION.

Gotta agrere with that.the technology is all ready here and proven

I think hydrogen production can also come from small home systems like solar and wind. Instead of a large infrastructure to make and ditribute hydrogen what's wrong with supplimenting your own with extra solar or wind that's freely available?

This is the key: Production of power as close to the point of use as possible and use of the APPROPRIATE production and storage source. The more decentralized the better. Our economy is completely tied to 3 auto companies (even though there are dozens in this country with viable products) and a handful of huge oil companies that extract energy at great global, economic, social and environmental cost.

A hydrogen tank + 'fuel cell' is nothing but a very expensive and somewhat inefficient 'battery'.

There are many other more viable battery technologies than hydrogen.

One of the most efficient means of electric energy storage is pumped storage. Excess electricity is used to pump water into a reservoir where it can be used later for peak loads. Generators are most efficient at full load and some like coal fired plants can't be modulated effectively or brought up to speed quickly. That's what makes pumped storage so effective for the storage of off peak surplus.

quote:

Originally posted by Chrismyth:
This is the key: Production of power as close to the point of use as possible and use of the APPROPRIATE production and storage source. The more decentralized the better. Our economy is completely tied to 3 auto companies (even though there are dozens in this country with viable products) and a handful of huge oil companies that extract energy at great global, economic, social and environmental cost.

The closest energy source you can get to your car is ethanol. You can make it in your back yard, fill up the car and go. With some use of other methods you can make ethanol with no commercial power input. So instead of charging a battery with electricity from a coal fired plant, you use wind, methane, and power production from alcohol to make more.

Hydrogen is more than cumbersome to store and work with, range is very limited, production is highly energy inefficient, and transporting it over much distance through pipelines is even more cumbersome, dangerous, and inefficient. Unless someone can conjure a way to efficiently and cheaply split hydrogen from oxygen, it will never be a viable transportation energy source.

Centralized energy isnt going to be helping any of us, it will never be cheap nor efficient on its own. The people who can produce their own power, their own fuel, and their own food will be those who get ahead. Everyone else will simply work until they die just to consume more.

You could always kill more dinosaurs...

quote:

The closest energy source you can get to your car is ethanol.

ONLY if you make it from waste. If you grow the feedstock for ethanol, than ethanol is more harmful to the environment than petro.
Many studies have proven that beyond a doubt.

quote:

Originally posted by john galt:

quote:

The closest energy source you can get to your car is ethanol.

ONLY if you make it from waste. If you grow the feedstock for ethanol, than ethanol is more harmful to the environment than petro.
Many studies have proven that beyond a doubt.

Many studies? ORLY?

I am seriously concerned where this information would be available.. How about some reference please? It better be something other than the widely disproven and discredited Pimental study. Good luck, you're gonna need it.

Don't get snide, it doesn't further your argument.
Science isn't on your side in this case.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2976
That's one study, you can use Google to find others.

Not snarky.. not at all.

To save time just the links.

Department of Energy: Specifically the bottom one, just scroll down.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/ethanol_myths_facts.html

Sorry but its a PDF:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/objects/documents/69/nec_whitten.pdf

Something about how much oil really costs:
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2006/hrg060330a.html

Greenhouse gas effects of using ethanol: Sorry another PDF.
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/349.pdf

Since food was mentioned on that page:
http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/10/congresswomen...andlin-responds.html

A reason why Pimentel is still being used as a basis for studies. The one you posted obviously was.
http://www.foodandfuelamerica.com/2007/07/big-oils-war-on-ethanol.html

Energy balance, since it was mentioned there and obviously effects the environment:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/265.pdf

Interesting info here.. particularly the part at the bottom that cites a USDA study from 04 that says ETOH has a 34% energy gain and gasoline has a 19.5% energy loss. Cant be good for the environment if you need to put more in than you get out.

http://www.drivingethanol.org/motorsports/racing_fuel_characteristics.aspx

Almost forgot to mention the fact that all of ETOH is biodegradable, is created in Brazil with no fossil fuel input and produces 70% more electricity than it takes to make it, the byproducts are either great cattle feed or fertilizer. Oil on the other hand is not biodegradable, produces vastly more pollutants when burned, is a bio hazard when spilled in any form, and took 198,000 lbs of plant material to produce 1 gallon of gasoline.

The page you linked to assumes that farmers wouldnt rotate crops, would use the land extremely poorly, would deforest the Amazon to plant feedstock, and that the vast majority would come from corn.

So how is something that is completely biodegradable and nontoxic if spilled or burned, worse for the environment than something that is toxic in every form and non biodegradable?

Sorry but logic and real science is on my side in this one.

Yeah, sure, whatever...

quote:

Originally posted by UFO:
Of course everything has losses, no one argues that point. But H2 is less than half as efficient as pure electric. And as you mentioned above, 1% daily loss is HUGE, making gaseous hydrogen simply stupid.

Everything is relative.

There is some evaporative loss of gasoline, although apparently better in the 1975 and newer vehicles than the older cars.

A standard lead acid battery can have as much as 1% "leakage". And the charging loss is probably closer to 10%. Add another chunk for transmission loss (assuming you aren't using locally generated solar/wind). You don't even want to know the parasitic power losses caused by things like your TV Remote Control.

Some reports indicate that the new DPF filters reduce fuel mileage by 10%-25%

A VW Caddy Diesel Pickup may get 2-3 times the fuel mileage of a Dodge Diesel Pickup.

A VW Lupo Diesel or a Smart Diesel (both of which are illegal to import into the USA) may get as much as 5 times the fuel mileage of the Hummer (which happens to be legal in the USA).

Just the difference between racing between red stoplights and slamming on the brakes vs paying attention and coasting up to red stoplights, and maintaining an "average" speed would be far more than the 1% loss.

I noticed with my mother's Prius, the AC would knock down the fuel mileage by about 10%. I prefer rolling down the windows anyway.

----------------------

If it takes 1/2 hour to refuel a CNG (methane) vehicle.
How long does it take to refuel a hydrogen vehicle?