More hybrid skeptics
#1
02-07-2008, 11:33 PM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 5,613
More hybrid skeptics
Inderscience Publishers. "Hybrid Electric Vehicles Not As Green As They Are Painted, Analysts Contend." ScienceDaily 8 February 2008. 8 February 2008 <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0207094314.htm >.
A subscription to this "Journal" lists in Amazon for $766 per year, four issues, or $192 for one issue. So to read the original article, not this synopsis, is pretty expensive. However, this is the second time I've seen "profitability" listed as a criticism from a European source. It had also been a claim by CNW Marketing. Earlier claims of a profitability problem seem to have ignored the investment cost of mastering a technology followed by the eventual transition to profitable manufacturing as economies of scale and improved engineering show up on the assembly line.
What I find most amusing is the claim that hybrids might delay the introduction of hydrogen cars ". . . not be marketable in high volumes before at least 2025." So a hybrid car today causes hydrogen cars to be further delayed, what HUMBUG!
The referenced source is only a synopsis of an original article that is prohibitively expensive. So I can only imagine what must be going on in the minds of those who pay so much to read what sounds like, even in this synopsis, to be an advocacy piece with obvious contradictions.
Bob Wilson
. . .
The researchers have analyzed the spread of this technology including the non-financial driving factors for its adoption. They point out that most manufacturers are rapidly integrating hybrid electric vehicles into their technology portfolio, despite the absence of significant profitability.
They add that the misinformed craze for hybrid vehicles especially in the USA, and increasingly in Japan and Europe, and potentially in China, could represent a red light for more innovative technologies, such as viable fuel-cell cars that can use sustainably sourced fuels, such as hydrogen. They concur with earlier studies that suggest that hydrogen fuel cells will not be marketable in high volumes before at least 2025. This could, however, be too late for some models of climate change and emissions reduction. They also point out that even fuel cell technology has its drawbacks and much of the marketing surrounding its potential has emerged only from the hydrogen lobby itself.
"There is a general convergence of strategies towards promoting hybrid vehicles as the mid-term solution to very low-emission and high-mileage vehicles," the researchers assert, "this is largely due to Toyota's strategy of learning the technology, while building up its own 'quasi-standard', thanks to its high-quality and reliability reputation and its high market share on the North American market." They add that, "Such a convergence is based more on customer perception triggered by very clever marketing and communication campaigns than on pure rationale scientific arguments and may result in the need for any manufacturer operating in the USA to have a hybrid electric vehicle in its model range in order to survive." . . .
The researchers have analyzed the spread of this technology including the non-financial driving factors for its adoption. They point out that most manufacturers are rapidly integrating hybrid electric vehicles into their technology portfolio, despite the absence of significant profitability.
They add that the misinformed craze for hybrid vehicles especially in the USA, and increasingly in Japan and Europe, and potentially in China, could represent a red light for more innovative technologies, such as viable fuel-cell cars that can use sustainably sourced fuels, such as hydrogen. They concur with earlier studies that suggest that hydrogen fuel cells will not be marketable in high volumes before at least 2025. This could, however, be too late for some models of climate change and emissions reduction. They also point out that even fuel cell technology has its drawbacks and much of the marketing surrounding its potential has emerged only from the hydrogen lobby itself.
"There is a general convergence of strategies towards promoting hybrid vehicles as the mid-term solution to very low-emission and high-mileage vehicles," the researchers assert, "this is largely due to Toyota's strategy of learning the technology, while building up its own 'quasi-standard', thanks to its high-quality and reliability reputation and its high market share on the North American market." They add that, "Such a convergence is based more on customer perception triggered by very clever marketing and communication campaigns than on pure rationale scientific arguments and may result in the need for any manufacturer operating in the USA to have a hybrid electric vehicle in its model range in order to survive." . . .
What I find most amusing is the claim that hybrids might delay the introduction of hydrogen cars ". . . not be marketable in high volumes before at least 2025." So a hybrid car today causes hydrogen cars to be further delayed, what HUMBUG!
The referenced source is only a synopsis of an original article that is prohibitively expensive. So I can only imagine what must be going on in the minds of those who pay so much to read what sounds like, even in this synopsis, to be an advocacy piece with obvious contradictions.
Bob Wilson
Last edited by bwilson4web; 02-13-2008 at 04:54 AM.
#2
02-08-2008, 03:00 AM
Re: More hybrid skeptics
Where's the hydrogen come from? Do I dig a well in my backyard and find hydrogen to refill my fuel cell?
At least hybrids have an already-available supply.
Fuel cell cars do not.
At least hybrids have an already-available supply.
Fuel cell cars do not.
#3
02-08-2008, 05:28 AM
Re: More hybrid skeptics
Hydrogen is fairly costly to produce. It comes mainly from the cracking of CH4, methane (nautural gas), coal, or electrolosis of water, which requires copious amounts of energy to produce. However, we don't need fuel cell vehicles to begin the switch over to H2 fuel. Currently, there are affordable ICE's that run on H2 with the only emission being water. Combine that with hybrid or plug-in technology. Now the problem is how do we create the refueling infrastructure to accommodate hydrogen?
One way would be to make the hydrogen right at the pump using water and some form of cheap renewable electric power, windmill, nuclear, solar, clean coal, etc... The cost per mile would probably be comparable to gasoline but dependency on foreign oil would be reduced.
Ralph
One way would be to make the hydrogen right at the pump using water and some form of cheap renewable electric power, windmill, nuclear, solar, clean coal, etc... The cost per mile would probably be comparable to gasoline but dependency on foreign oil would be reduced.
Ralph
#4
02-08-2008, 05:46 AM
Re: More hybrid skeptics
For this to make any sense, you have to believe that fuel cell cars will be viable and economic before electric or plug in hybrids. And that an economic way to generate and transport hydrogen will be developed. I'd rather put my money on battery technology.
"Sustainably produced hydrogen" is a real hoot. Not only is this unlikely, there isn't even a concept out there other than from sustainably produced electricity - which could be more efficiently transported and directly used in a battery powered car.
"Sustainably produced hydrogen" is a real hoot. Not only is this unlikely, there isn't even a concept out there other than from sustainably produced electricity - which could be more efficiently transported and directly used in a battery powered car.
#5
02-08-2008, 07:20 AM
Re: More hybrid skeptics
I'd put my money H2 comes first from the trucking industry or from longer range transport trucks.
I don't think we'll have a a plug in anytime soon capable of traveling great distances. It would more economical for truckers to be able to travel on a long range fuel system rather than have to break up a journey with additional trucks or plug in downtimes.
I don't think we'll have a a plug in anytime soon capable of traveling great distances. It would more economical for truckers to be able to travel on a long range fuel system rather than have to break up a journey with additional trucks or plug in downtimes.
#6
02-08-2008, 08:15 AM
Re: More hybrid skeptics
Full electric is far far better than any H2 solution, be it ICE or fuel cell.
Here's a fuel cell guy readily admitting as much and showing you the data:
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
The answer is full battery electric.
Here's a fuel cell guy readily admitting as much and showing you the data:
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
The answer is full battery electric.
#7
02-08-2008, 09:57 AM
Re: More hybrid skeptics
I would keep a rather open mind since neither plug-in nor H2 will work everywhere for everyone. Declaring one the winner over the other, certainly means a form of blindness of anything but our views and immediate realities.
Now, if you live in a moderate climate and predominantly urban setting then I too, see a plug-in as an obvious and instant winner. I would go as far as closing the matter shut on that condition as well.
I would however be a little cautious in suggesting a plug-in design for anything or anybody else.
Case in point:
The plug-in tests in our area of the country have not materialized the benefits (efficiency and reliability) that are observed elsewhere. This is obviously a disappointing shortcoming, predominantly for folks who would likely operate these vehicles in the northern climates.
On the other hand, H2 has much hype still propelling it and not much in terms of visible results... but the progress being made in the fuel cell department along with the compactness and the emerging ability to operate at very low temperatures is no less encouraging to some of us than the progress being made in the plug-in arena.
And while I welcome both techs, the only difference between myself and somebody favoring a plug-in, is that H2 would work better for me. Even converting natural gas into H2 would be a significant improvement for some folks (myself included).
xoham:
Yes, there are many companies and teams doing R&D into fuel cells. But like anything else, we always produce better prognosis by keeping an eye on the "best-of-breed". I hardly think the folks that put that and other reports together were in that group.
Besides, the report identifies specific contexts and applications where plug-in would be best and I agree with their conclusions.
But as I said, plug-ins are not YET for everybody and it is unlikely that it will be anytime soon.
So perhaps keeping our minds open is the wiser approach. Last time I checked, the world was a little bigger than our backyards.
Cheers;
MSantos
Now, if you live in a moderate climate and predominantly urban setting then I too, see a plug-in as an obvious and instant winner. I would go as far as closing the matter shut on that condition as well.
I would however be a little cautious in suggesting a plug-in design for anything or anybody else.
Case in point:
The plug-in tests in our area of the country have not materialized the benefits (efficiency and reliability) that are observed elsewhere. This is obviously a disappointing shortcoming, predominantly for folks who would likely operate these vehicles in the northern climates.
On the other hand, H2 has much hype still propelling it and not much in terms of visible results... but the progress being made in the fuel cell department along with the compactness and the emerging ability to operate at very low temperatures is no less encouraging to some of us than the progress being made in the plug-in arena.
And while I welcome both techs, the only difference between myself and somebody favoring a plug-in, is that H2 would work better for me. Even converting natural gas into H2 would be a significant improvement for some folks (myself included).
xoham:
Yes, there are many companies and teams doing R&D into fuel cells. But like anything else, we always produce better prognosis by keeping an eye on the "best-of-breed". I hardly think the folks that put that and other reports together were in that group.
Besides, the report identifies specific contexts and applications where plug-in would be best and I agree with their conclusions.
But as I said, plug-ins are not YET for everybody and it is unlikely that it will be anytime soon.
So perhaps keeping our minds open is the wiser approach. Last time I checked, the world was a little bigger than our backyards.
Cheers;
MSantos
Last edited by msantos; 02-08-2008 at 09:59 AM.
#8
02-08-2008, 10:50 AM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 5,613
Re: More hybrid skeptics
My take is that any proposed vehicle power source must first prove itself in base-load or dedicated point applications. So far, we haven't seen H_{2} power show up in laptops and Japan has a small experiment with home co-generation systems but nothing recent to indicate it has been a rousing success.
We do know ordinary batteries and in spite of their energy density limitations, they remain a proven, 'in your hand' technology. We also know how to make efficient heat engines (or fairly close to the maximum efficiency materials allow today.) So I tend to prefer what can be applied versus "a miracle occurs here" technologies.
Fuel cell powered vehicles still depend upon several different sources of "unobtanium:"
As for running the ICE on hydrogen, the storage and efficiency problems remain and they are daunting. Now if the exhaust then runs a topping turbine, it may make a little more sense. But there would be lubrication issues to solve as oil and water are a very bad mix.
Bob Wilson
We do know ordinary batteries and in spite of their energy density limitations, they remain a proven, 'in your hand' technology. We also know how to make efficient heat engines (or fairly close to the maximum efficiency materials allow today.) So I tend to prefer what can be applied versus "a miracle occurs here" technologies.
Fuel cell powered vehicles still depend upon several different sources of "unobtanium:"
- expensive yet vulnerable catalytic electrode materials
- pure hydrogen fuel - to avoid poisoning the electrode material
- hydrogen storage - both vehicle and to distribution stations
- air w/o electrode poisoning gasses
- conventional batteries or ultracapacitors - for peak power
- NHW10 (1997-2001): 43 KW gas, 30 KW electric (41%)
- NHW11 (2001-2003): 52 KW gas, 33 KW electric (39%)
- NHW20 (2004-now ): 57 KW gas, 50 KW electric (46%)
As for running the ICE on hydrogen, the storage and efficiency problems remain and they are daunting. Now if the exhaust then runs a topping turbine, it may make a little more sense. But there would be lubrication issues to solve as oil and water are a very bad mix.
Bob Wilson
#9
02-08-2008, 12:38 PM
Re: More hybrid skeptics
"Therefore by laws of physics:
Hydrogen energy will be at least twice as expensive
as electrical energy
Electricity derived from hydrogen with fuel cells will be
at least four times more expensive than power from the grid"
Thank you xoham! why is this not front page news..or at least in front of those decision makers that continue to fail us.
the math is there, the common sense is not.
Hydrogen energy will be at least twice as expensive
as electrical energy
Electricity derived from hydrogen with fuel cells will be
at least four times more expensive than power from the grid"
Thank you xoham! why is this not front page news..or at least in front of those decision makers that continue to fail us.
the math is there, the common sense is not.
#10
02-08-2008, 04:32 PM
Re: More hybrid skeptics
I would keep a rather open mind since neither plug-in nor H2 will work everywhere for everyone. Declaring one the winner over the other, certainly means a form of blindness of anything but our views and immediate realities.
Now, if you live in a moderate climate and predominantly urban setting then I too, see a plug-in as an obvious and instant winner. I would go as far as closing the matter shut on that condition as well.
I would however be a little cautious in suggesting a plug-in design for anything or anybody else.
Case in point:
The plug-in tests in our area of the country have not materialized the benefits (efficiency and reliability) that are observed elsewhere. This is obviously a disappointing shortcoming, predominantly for folks who would likely operate these vehicles in the northern climates.
On the other hand, H2 has much hype still propelling it and not much in terms of visible results... but the progress being made in the fuel cell department along with the compactness and the emerging ability to operate at very low temperatures is no less encouraging to some of us than the progress being made in the plug-in arena.
And while I welcome both techs, the only difference between myself and somebody favoring a plug-in, is that H2 would work better for me. Even converting natural gas into H2 would be a significant improvement for some folks (myself included).
xoham:
Yes, there are many companies and teams doing R&D into fuel cells. But like anything else, we always produce better prognosis by keeping an eye on the "best-of-breed". I hardly think the folks that put that and other reports together were in that group.
Besides, the report identifies specific contexts and applications where plug-in would be best and I agree with their conclusions.
But as I said, plug-ins are not YET for everybody and it is unlikely that it will be anytime soon.
So perhaps keeping our minds open is the wiser approach. Last time I checked, the world was a little bigger than our backyards.
Cheers;
MSantos
Now, if you live in a moderate climate and predominantly urban setting then I too, see a plug-in as an obvious and instant winner. I would go as far as closing the matter shut on that condition as well.
I would however be a little cautious in suggesting a plug-in design for anything or anybody else.
Case in point:
The plug-in tests in our area of the country have not materialized the benefits (efficiency and reliability) that are observed elsewhere. This is obviously a disappointing shortcoming, predominantly for folks who would likely operate these vehicles in the northern climates.
On the other hand, H2 has much hype still propelling it and not much in terms of visible results... but the progress being made in the fuel cell department along with the compactness and the emerging ability to operate at very low temperatures is no less encouraging to some of us than the progress being made in the plug-in arena.
And while I welcome both techs, the only difference between myself and somebody favoring a plug-in, is that H2 would work better for me. Even converting natural gas into H2 would be a significant improvement for some folks (myself included).
xoham:
Yes, there are many companies and teams doing R&D into fuel cells. But like anything else, we always produce better prognosis by keeping an eye on the "best-of-breed". I hardly think the folks that put that and other reports together were in that group.
Besides, the report identifies specific contexts and applications where plug-in would be best and I agree with their conclusions.
But as I said, plug-ins are not YET for everybody and it is unlikely that it will be anytime soon.
So perhaps keeping our minds open is the wiser approach. Last time I checked, the world was a little bigger than our backyards.
Cheers;
MSantos
Competition drives prices down. Those companies which have the muscle will drive out/buy their competition thus being able to control price and command resources. When that happens one technology will emerge triumphant.
