Recent Comment
Share
Dr. Mei Cai is the head of hydrogen fuel and chemistry systems. She comes across as quiet, informed, and reserved, but it's obvious that she's extremely proud of the work she's done at GM since she started in 1998. In that time GM has spent over a billion dollars developing hydrogen vehicles, and Mei has been there trying to figure out exactly how they hydrogen economy is going to work.
Mei is intrigued by VW's new high temperature fuel cell, and says that it's very promising, but she's probably right when she says that it's further off than GM's initiatives. Indeed, managing high temperature fuel cells in cold climates (like Montana) is currently very impractical. It would probably be fine for LA, though.
She believes that fuel cells are the future and sees hybrids as interesting only as a complementary technology. She doesn't see pre-electric as a viable option, and though that is the opinion of her company as well, I think she really believes it. When I talked about the Volt with her, she wasn't interested in the gasoline-powered version...her mind went straight to the fuel cells.
Now I know what you're all thinking...where's this hydrogen gonna come from?
Well, it's her job to know these things. I asked, and she said, of course, from natural gas. But she was also quick to point out the obvious advantages of hydrogen over gasoline.
- The carbon comes from centralized hydrogen production plants, which can be monitored and controlled...instead of from 200 million tailpipes across the world.
- Hydrogen can come from clean sources as they're developed...unlike gasoline. So while there's carbon tied to it now, we could potentially make it from renewable energy as those technologies develop, without having to switch fuels again.
- Powering a car with a hydrogen fuel cell is actually twice as efficient as powering a car with gasoline. So even if you get the hydrogen directly from fossil fuels, the cars produce half as much carbon. So a switch to a hydrogen economy would automatically double our carbon efficiency...even if the H2 was all coming from natural gas.
She believes in it, and says that it's likely that by 2020, gasoline supply won't be able to keep up with demand. She knows that GM is going to have to be a gas-free car company some day.
EcoGeek's coverage of the LA Auto Show was underwritten by the General Motors Company, which, we agree, is very strange since we say some fairly mean things about them with some regularity. The only condition of their assistance (travel and lodging) is that I disclose it, which, of course, I would have done anyway.
Hits: 7596
Comments (8)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by lenette, November 14, 2007
interestingly, i happened to watch a program on History channel last night and found your blog today. I'd like to make a few comments about the information discussed in both.
First, I hope you don't expect anyone to think that Dr. Cai would express any other opinion than the one that she does. Of COURSE she's going to say hydrogen is the fuel of the future - that's her paycheck, and she's hardly an unbiased source. And neither is her employer, who has had decades to work on this problem but has been too busy catering to the public's incessant demands for SUVs to bother worrying about the environment and what's going to happen when we run out of oil.
I don't remember everything the program said word for word, but I DO remember one thing was that hydrogen, while a nice idea, has some serious problems. For one, it takes tremendous amounts of electricity to MAKE hydrogen. And electricity, as anyone in southern california knows, is definitely in short supply already.
I also happened to notice the GM 'yellow' ad at the top of your page in which they tout the use of corn to make biofuel. Again, this comes with a high cost. For each 1 unit of energy used to make ethanol from corn, it returns only 1.3 units. Not much of a trade off. Plus, there's the consequences of using a food crop for fuel. However, that only applies to the grain. If they instead use all the other parts (chaff, stems, leaves, etc), the cost of production goes way down and the energy return is vastly improved.
However, as Brazil has known since the '70s, sugar cane is an even better source of ethanol. for each 1 unit of energy it takes to produce, it returns 8 units. A much better alternative.
Bottom line: we all have to be a little leery of pronouncements made by the people who stand to make money off of us. Let's not forget the lessons learned a few years ago, when the tobacco execs testified one after another cigarettes were not addictive.
Personally, I wish hydrogen WOULD solve all of our energy needs - the sad fact is that today it is too difficult and expensive to consider seriously. In the meantime we need to explore the pros AND cons of every alternative, and realize that there will be no easy fixes.
First, I hope you don't expect anyone to think that Dr. Cai would express any other opinion than the one that she does. Of COURSE she's going to say hydrogen is the fuel of the future - that's her paycheck, and she's hardly an unbiased source. And neither is her employer, who has had decades to work on this problem but has been too busy catering to the public's incessant demands for SUVs to bother worrying about the environment and what's going to happen when we run out of oil.
I don't remember everything the program said word for word, but I DO remember one thing was that hydrogen, while a nice idea, has some serious problems. For one, it takes tremendous amounts of electricity to MAKE hydrogen. And electricity, as anyone in southern california knows, is definitely in short supply already.
I also happened to notice the GM 'yellow' ad at the top of your page in which they tout the use of corn to make biofuel. Again, this comes with a high cost. For each 1 unit of energy used to make ethanol from corn, it returns only 1.3 units. Not much of a trade off. Plus, there's the consequences of using a food crop for fuel. However, that only applies to the grain. If they instead use all the other parts (chaff, stems, leaves, etc), the cost of production goes way down and the energy return is vastly improved.
However, as Brazil has known since the '70s, sugar cane is an even better source of ethanol. for each 1 unit of energy it takes to produce, it returns 8 units. A much better alternative.
Bottom line: we all have to be a little leery of pronouncements made by the people who stand to make money off of us. Let's not forget the lessons learned a few years ago, when the tobacco execs testified one after another cigarettes were not addictive.
Personally, I wish hydrogen WOULD solve all of our energy needs - the sad fact is that today it is too difficult and expensive to consider seriously. In the meantime we need to explore the pros AND cons of every alternative, and realize that there will be no easy fixes.
-
- +0
-
-
written by zupakomputer, November 15, 2007
Remember the cars that ran on water, from way back? A couple of problems with them were - the amount of radiator piping needed, and the power used to heat the water itself, and the time it took to heat up.
Surely all things that could be very quickly resolved today - considering we're talking about water-only emissions as the result of the fuel used (not counting the battery manufacture to heat the water).
Surely all things that could be very quickly resolved today - considering we're talking about water-only emissions as the result of the fuel used (not counting the battery manufacture to heat the water).
-
- +0
-
-
written by James Staunton, November 15, 2007
I couldn't agree more with Paolo above. You've made the case against Hydrogen cars very well at this site before, and the reiteration of it as a viable alternative does nothing but add to the confused going-along attitude of the public at large. Not that many will be fooled, but unfortunately things like this have a way of gaining their own self-generated momentum, and before you know it, you have idiotic "solutions" like corn-based fuel plants ACTUALLY in existence, wasting time and effort making fuel very inefficiently. I hope we never see Hydrogen plants making lots of this wasteful fuel for cars.
Go electric! It makes sense, the carbon footprint will be manageable over time, and the cars themselves are simpler, better, and if A Better Place pans out, will be reliable. Actually, I think just having a alternate fuel (NOT corn) side engine to generate electricity for the occasional longer trip makes great sense for me, and would for many others.
Go electric! It makes sense, the carbon footprint will be manageable over time, and the cars themselves are simpler, better, and if A Better Place pans out, will be reliable. Actually, I think just having a alternate fuel (NOT corn) side engine to generate electricity for the occasional longer trip makes great sense for me, and would for many others.
-
- +0
-
-
written by zupakomputer, November 15, 2007
(the water-fuelled cars I mentioned existed way back in the 1920s, and were well known of)
There's also wind-based generators that can be added to cars, to charge their batteries as they drive (because, obviously, there is airflow generated when driving, around the body of the car.
Biofuels are viable - there's a lot of lies circulating as to their use right now, and also it seems a lot of stupid practices that involve trashing the environment to plant the crops. That needn't happen, since crops can be grown in poor soils as well as in urban environments.
Ethanol is basically - alcohol. How easy it is to make moonshine, it can be made from spent crops and all plant parts, as is mentioned above.
Biodiesel - is cooking oil and seed oil. It's been proven also that even used cooking oil works as a fuel.
There's also wind-based generators that can be added to cars, to charge their batteries as they drive (because, obviously, there is airflow generated when driving, around the body of the car.
Biofuels are viable - there's a lot of lies circulating as to their use right now, and also it seems a lot of stupid practices that involve trashing the environment to plant the crops. That needn't happen, since crops can be grown in poor soils as well as in urban environments.
Ethanol is basically - alcohol. How easy it is to make moonshine, it can be made from spent crops and all plant parts, as is mentioned above.
Biodiesel - is cooking oil and seed oil. It's been proven also that even used cooking oil works as a fuel.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Frank, November 17, 2007
Hey Paolo,
I got even a better idea. Let's get all the squirrels caged up and then have them run in a rotating cage chasing a nut. Imagine all the electricity that can be produced from that instead of the current electricity power plants that are polluting the environment.
Or, we could start building plants that extract Hydrogen from water, and not have any pollutants.
Only problem with that is no more oil, and all the investors in Oil, Natural Gas, and Electricity go bye bye and go broke, bankrupt, and pennyless.
The detractors of Hydrogen fuel, and the same that would have you believe the Al Gore invented the Internet still
I got even a better idea. Let's get all the squirrels caged up and then have them run in a rotating cage chasing a nut. Imagine all the electricity that can be produced from that instead of the current electricity power plants that are polluting the environment.
Or, we could start building plants that extract Hydrogen from water, and not have any pollutants.
Only problem with that is no more oil, and all the investors in Oil, Natural Gas, and Electricity go bye bye and go broke, bankrupt, and pennyless.
The detractors of Hydrogen fuel, and the same that would have you believe the Al Gore invented the Internet still
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jason, November 18, 2007
My personal opinion of hydrogen is that in order to get it, energy has to be expended, and most of our energy comes from fossil fuels still, thus no problem is really solved. However, if hydrogen production was powered by a clean energy source, like nuclear (Wind and solar being relatively inefficient, and biofuels still having carbon output) then it would actually be a fairly good system. I'm looking forwards to seeing what they come up with in my lifetime.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ken Roberts, November 19, 2007
A lot of people here really need more of background in chemistry and engineering, no offense. Every time you change a molecule for energy, you get something else. You can't run a car on water and expect to get water as your result. You would get -OH or O2 if you 'burnt' water. And the net reaction wouldn't even give you much (if any) energy.
Wind power on a car creates drag, which in turn slows the car down. You lose kinetic energy and gain thermal energy. Not going to power a car there either, without some sort of fancy-pants aerodynamics that I'm not sure is possible.
Solar likewise isn't efficient enough to power a large car. It's possible that with ultra-efficient solar panels you could power something the size of a SMART car, but that's still not sufficient.
Electricity and hydrogen are good options, but they are essentially the same option. Both are produced from electricity. Hydrogen just dodges the battery problem and replaces it with a fuel distribution problem.
So, in conclusion, there are currently no good answers. This is why people are investing in virtually everything right now. My opinion is that a good stop-gap measure would be hybrids powered with a gas-biofuel (preferably not corn) mix. The next logical step would be plug-in versions of that car, perhaps followed by all-electric versions. The electricity would come from nuclear power plants (dominant source) and renewable sources (minority source). I'm unsure if hydrogen power would really help, but I'll take a wait and see approach.
It's not the greenest future, but it puts us along the right path. The most important thing at this point in time is simply to get the market moving in the right direction, rather than waiting for a perfect energy source to come along.
Wind power on a car creates drag, which in turn slows the car down. You lose kinetic energy and gain thermal energy. Not going to power a car there either, without some sort of fancy-pants aerodynamics that I'm not sure is possible.
Solar likewise isn't efficient enough to power a large car. It's possible that with ultra-efficient solar panels you could power something the size of a SMART car, but that's still not sufficient.
Electricity and hydrogen are good options, but they are essentially the same option. Both are produced from electricity. Hydrogen just dodges the battery problem and replaces it with a fuel distribution problem.
So, in conclusion, there are currently no good answers. This is why people are investing in virtually everything right now. My opinion is that a good stop-gap measure would be hybrids powered with a gas-biofuel (preferably not corn) mix. The next logical step would be plug-in versions of that car, perhaps followed by all-electric versions. The electricity would come from nuclear power plants (dominant source) and renewable sources (minority source). I'm unsure if hydrogen power would really help, but I'll take a wait and see approach.
It's not the greenest future, but it puts us along the right path. The most important thing at this point in time is simply to get the market moving in the right direction, rather than waiting for a perfect energy source to come along.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
i honestly don't know why you are bothering with this fuel-cell hydrogen economy cr-p. might as well be talking about the geodesic domes we're going to live in on the moon.
the dangling carrot of the 'hydrogen economy' is just there so opec can keep the flow of product going and we can all pretend that something is being done. the promotion of these ultra-expensive, unrealizable technologies is just to buy time.
the fact of the matter is you could have an electric car with solar panels / wind turbines on your roof at home right now and NEVER have to pay for fuel. this is unconscionable to opec, for obvious reasons.
energy comes from the sun. for free.