I heard a talkshow caller last week...about hydrogen

Here in San Diego (Progressive Talk 1360 KLSD).
She said she was one of two that are driving hydrogen cars in this State.

What intrigued me is she said that officials from Toyota (I think it was Toyota), came over to the USA to talk to her company.
They said they are developing an in-home hydrogen production unit that would not only provide power for the vehicle but would also power the house.

Wow...that would be something.
De-centralized energy.

The technology is feasable now. You could have fuel cell electrical generators for a neighborhood that could cut costs and emissions. Now.

The trouble is that this technology does not fit existing economic models and plans. Which means, they won't do nearly the same job of making the obscenely rich richer.

unit into the wall socket. On a happier note, battery technology is being given a kick in the butt by this company. I hope they continue to break down the barriers to efficient energy storage.

http://www.millenniumcell.com/fw/main/Millennium_Cell_to_Demonstrate_New_Hydrogen_Fuel_Option_for_Jadoo_Power_Fuel_Cells-1.html?ModKey=mk$cmsc&LayoutID=24&CntID=46
Millennium Cell to Demonstrate New Hydrogen Fuel Option for Jadoo Power Fuel Cells

EATONTOWN, N.J., Sep 25, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Millennium Cell Inc. (NASDAQ: MCEL), a leading developer of hydrogen battery technology, announced today that they will be demonstrating a new chemical hydride fueling option for the Jadoo Power line of portable fuel cell products at the upcoming Battery and Fuel Cell Technology for Portable Devices Conference. The conference will be held at the AMA Conference Center in Chicago, IL from September 26-28, 2006. The new fuel solution will utilize Jadoo's N-Stor interface and be fully compatible with all Jadoo products including the recently announced XRT fuel cell system.

The XRT is a 100 W, 110VAC / 12VDC power support system. With over 2200 W-hr runtime, the XRT is ideal for off-grid mission critical applications such as first responders and surveillance. The XRT currently uses six metal hydride canisters for fuel storage which weigh approximately 30 total pounds. With the new jointly developed chemical hydride based fuel canister, the XRT will deliver the same runtime with half the fuel canister weight.

were originally targeting vehicular applications, and were tested in Ford Crown Victorias (and another model I don't remember). The concept was that the transport of hydrogen would be much easier by using sodium borohydride instead of liquified or gaseous hydrogen. For whatever reason, they abandoned the vehicular applications in favor of smaller batteries for the consumer electronics market.

which will then provide energy for the house...

n/t

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=38237#38240

and he has been driving a car that runs on hydrogen for over 5 years now!

WAKE THE FUCK UP AMERICA! There is a viable alternative out there!

:kick:

The following assumes production of H2 from electrolysis using electricity generated from a renewable source, which to date is the only proven scalable process to produce ReH2 (renewable hydrogen).

Toyota has already developed the near term solution, the PHEV. Now, they simply need to implement it (smaller cars, less powerful engines). They are obviously a well-managed company, and as such are keeping their R&D toe in the ReH2 energy carrier market in the event some major 'breakthrough' occurs. I could see fuels cells providing the juice for future PHEV's beyond battery range, assuming some breakthrough in fuel cell technology.

Why A Hydrogen Economy Doesn't Make Sense
http://www.energybulletin.net/24093.html

In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.

. . .

Economically, the wasteful hydrogen process translates to electricity from hydrogen and fuel cells costing at least four times as much as electricity from the grid. In fact, electricity would be much more efficiently used if it were sent directly to the appliances instead. If the original electricity could be directly supplied by wires, as much as 90% could be used in applications.



Carrying the Energy Future
Comparing Hydrogen and Electricity for Transmission, Storage and Transportation
Patrick Mazza and Roel Hammerschlag
June 2004

http://www.ilea.org/articles/CEF.html

http://www.ilea.org/downloads/MazzaHammerschlag.pdf (.pdf)

Advanced EVs gain substantially more useful work than FCVs with the same amount of electrical energy. Using calculations from remote and localized electrolysis scenarios reported above, 38-54% of original source energy emerges from a vehicle fuel cell to propel the vehicle. By comparison, advanced batteries operate at cycle efficiencies of 87% or better. The remainder of the electric energy brought to the battery is lost as heat during charging or through self-discharge when the vehicle is allowed to stand unused for long periods of time. Assuming losses of 8% of the original electricity between generation and delivery to the vehicle, 80% of original source energy emerges from the battery. Fuel cells and batteries feed functionally identical electric drive trains, so the 80% battery cycle efficiency and 38-54% fuel cell efficiency are directly comparable.

. . .

Though the drive trains of FCVs and EVs can be nearly identical, EVs will suffer an efficiency penalty during acceleration because the batteries are heavier than the hydrogen fuel tanks. Direct modeling of EV drive train efficiency shows that this penalty is probably much less than detractors of EVs like to postulate. For instance Delucchi & Lipman calculate that a 480-kilometer EV weighing 1,700 kg (of which 510 kg are due to the battery) specified to accelerate from 0 to 60 in 9.3 seconds, still handily achieves more than seven times the fuel-to-kilometers efficiency of a gasoline car with equivalent performance. Delucchi, Mark, and Timothy Lipman. "An Analysis of the Retail and Lifecycle Cost of Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles." Transportation Research Part D 6 (2001): 371-404.

. . .

The EV’s clear, current advantage over the FCV is that the EV can be brought to market immediately. Even today's limited-production EVs are already capable of meeting most daily driving needs. Solectria’s Force, having a curb weight of only 1,100 kilograms with nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries is specified with a range of 140-160 kilometers. The RAV4 EV with NiMH batteries is specified at 200 kilometers. Nissan’s Altra EV, using lithium ion batteries, claims 190 kilometers. Brooks compares a Ford Focus FCV with a concept EV based on an altered Toyota Prius, powered purely by Li-ion batteries. The Focus has 320-kilometers range and a curb weight of 1,600 kg, the Prius 220-320 kilometers with a curb weight of 1,300 kg. Refueling the Focus requires the equivalent of 860 MJ, the Prius 140 MJ. Adding batteries to the Prius to bring its weight to that of the Focus would raise the driving range to 640 kilometers.

. . .

EVs can offer twice the useful work from the same electrical energy as ReH2-powered FCVs. A fleet of 10,000 FCVs might consume between 250 and 360 TJ of electricity each year. The same fleet of battery electric cars would consume 180 TJ. Advanced battery technologies hold solid potential to substantially overcome range limitations that have held back EV acceptance. PHEVs offer an option that merges the best of EVs, including very high efficiency, with the unlimited ranges and rapid fueling time of HEVs.