Wow, braniaks at LLN rewriting physics now.It is expensive to produce clean hydrogen. The chemical path produces far more pollution then burning oil based fuel and the most widely used method today is electrolysis. For that you need electricity, which you can get by burning coal (not clean) or nuclear electric power (not welcomed by environmentalists, and frankly who would want one in the backyard). Furthermore, Honda and Toyota will produce fuel cell vehicles, but they are not any more in the infrastructure business then GM. Per Car & Driver reviews Honda fuel cell car is quite drivable, just waiting for hydrogen to become available.

You just need a power source. Solar, wind, or hydroelectric can do just as well.
Honda is also testing their fuelcell vehicle in SoCal, and they’re developing a home refueling station that runs of of solar and natural gas.

@xjunya

Wow, your ignorance never seems to have boundaries. There are thousands of nuke plants across the globe and there has been ONE accident that resulted in a radiation leak, and that occurred because of pure idiocy. The production of the hydrogen itself could actually be done at a nuclear reactor and be far more efficient than creating the electricity, putting it on a grid, metoring it, building a separate facility to produce hydrogen, and then perform the electrolysis.

Next, the environmentalists cannot have everything. We need transportation, which in turn needs energy, and as the law of conservation of energy teaches us, that energy has to be harnessed from some latent energy source. Harnessing latent energy means disturbing some sort of naturally occurring resource.

Next, please explain the chemical path between uranium and hydrogen that produces more pollution than burning hydrocarbons. Also, it’s been proven in studies that coal-based electricity is still 400% cleaner and more efficient than burning gasoline. Are you aware that the average modern gasoline engine only harnesses about 18% of the energy in the gasoline, and diesel engines are not much better? There are so many parasitic losses in an ICE that if we are serious about moving away from a dependency on oil that the first realization must be that the ICE needs to be replaced with systems that have higher efficiency.

One observation that seems to have escaped logic analysis of distributing hydrogen is that we don’t need to create a whole new infrastructure for hydrogen that requires all new fueling stations. We already have thousands and thousands of perfect candidates that are currently under such a financial pinch selling petroleum products that would love to have a product that would offer them the opportunity to give the middle finger to the oil distributors. They already operate by accepting tank-fulls of fuel at a time and so the real issue is building a pipeline infrastructure to match the gasoline pipelines and a tanker truck that’s as safe as a gasoline tanker truck. That’s a far simpler task than creating a new infrastructure from scratch and it should be a lot easier to fund as well.

Well these are the kind of steps that need to be taken, just like with Ethanol, the fuel is out there and the compatible vehicles are too but the infrastructure isn’t. And that’s very important. I think this is something the other car companies, and not just GM need to team up and do.

@global_lightening

Honda’s in-home natural gas refueling station is the perfect model of how to create energy independence. Over 98% of the NG used in America is produced here in America. When you buy a Natural Gas Civic you have to buy the home fueling station which takes the low pressure trickle (typically 5 PSI) of municipal NG supply and stores it in a tank. When you get home you plug your NG Civic into the tank and it fills it up.

Also, the NG Civic is BY FAR the most fuel efficient car sold in America, and none of the hybrids even come close. The NG Civic has won several awards from environmentally minded organizations and it’s a damn shame more attention is not paid to this fuel.

The partership is a good one for GM as the company can leverage Clean Energy’s CNG infrastructure as a short term means to develop the hydrogen infrastructure, and lead to hopefully an inexpensive way to use CNG to produce hydrogen onsite. Hydrogen is already being used in the transportation sector to clean petroleum of sulfer–so how about instead we take that hydrogen and use it to actually power the automobile, resulting in a net energy gain. And if we increase natural gas production here in the U.S., it can power 10 million fuel cell vehicles, resulting in a 50% reduction in CO2 in a wells-to-wheels analysis. Also-here in CA, our electric grid is fairly clean, compared to eastern states, and will only get cleaner as more an more old coal-fired powerplants get taken off line in favor of solar and wind technologies–both of which will hopefully be used one day to produce clean-burning hydrogen.

Payton Byrd, there were 3 nuclear accidents in Europe within last month. None resulted in radiation or radioactive water leek according to preliminary results, but investigation continues. There were several accidents at nuclear stations last year within US, none resulting in radioactive discharge. However, statistically, the more nuclear stations you have the higher probability of accident and discharge.There was not a single nuclear reactor build in US during last 30 years, which imply that all our reactors are over 30 years old. Imagine the cost of maintenance alone, since they can not easily updated and modified without federal regulations and there will be no new regulations since there is no way to test new technology because no new reactor being build. Those spare parts have to be manufactured with with 30-50 year old machinery. France is the only country which was working on new designs that are less prone to accident , but so far none has been build in US. There are no plans or permits issued in US to build a new nuclear power plant.
Even if new nuclear power plant will be build in US, I doubt that it will be allowed to manufacture hydrogen. The combination of hydrogen and nuclear fuel will not fly in any form or shape through any legislation. It may be cheaper to produce hydrogen at the reactor, but no one will assume liability building such a plant, and which insurance company will insure it?
Lastly, 18% coefficient of useful energy in gasoline engine was achieved about 50-60 years ago. Modern gasoline engine is more efficient then that. Diesel achieved 22-25% efficiency rating 40 years ago. As a matter of fact small diesel build by Olds was 24% efficient and it was in late 70’s. European clean diesels are extremely efficient.

GM shouldnt have to spend a dime to build these stations, this is the responsibility of the federal govmnt. GM won’t be the only company to sell these vehicles. This is one reason this country is sinking fast-the Govmnt is impotent and ignorant.
Instead of talking about a windfall profits tax for oil companies the Feds should mandate a fuel cell pump at every single station that operates under their name.

Mandating is easy building and paying for it not so. Who do you think will have to pay for those pumps on every corner? Federal government gladly would mandate every mundane aspect of our lives, but Boston tea party was not about intervention of government into business and private affairs.

In a free market economy, you can’t mandate that; station owners would sue the Federal government, and would have every right to do so. They would be able to argue, in a very clear fashion, that hydrogen vehicles make up .001% of their current and future customer base and they shouldn’t have to carry the burden for that group. Ever wonder why very, very few gas stations outside of Iowa and Kansas have e85 at the pump? The government hasn’t been able to mandate that either. I think Payton’s arguments above are extremely convincing and sound, but they don’t take some parts of economic reality into account — such as customer resistance, something that is NOT scientific nor logical. If someone goes to the dealership, all hot for a fuel cell vehicle, and then is reminded that they can fill it at only one or two stations in town, that’s a dead end. Catch-22 situations like that might be broken in Venezuela, where the totalitarian government seizes the energy industry and forces everyone to burn ethanol, but in a country of choice such as ours, consumers mandate what will and will not sell.

Until we find the right solution for energy for our cars, whatver it ends up being (hydrogen, hybrid, electric, etc.), can we please fix our current mess? Congress and the President (Bush and/or the next one) need to have enough balls to stand up to Greenpeace and PETA and ELF and all these other F U C K I N G liberal activists and drill our own damn oil. China, yes CHINA, is drilling for oil 50 miles off the coast of Florida! And where are the protesting ****bags? They are too busy (today) protesting the use of the ‘Brown Note’. (It is an ultra low frequesncy device the military developed to disperse crowds of protesters that makes them **** their pants!) There is an estimated 40 BILLION barrels of oil in North Dakota. There is new technology available to extract oil from the oil shale in Minnesota, and it is now financially feasible. That would get us another 4+ BILLION barrels. We have over 1 TRILLION tons of clean coal in Wyoming that would meet the pollution standards of California today; but we can’t touch it because Bill ****ing Clinton declared the land protected (over 1 million acres). The enviro-Nazis won’t let us go nuclear. I am not of the rape and pillage the planet to get what we need. We do need energy and it is literally a national crisis that we are buying oil from people that want us (but not all of us) dead. How stupid is government? Too stupid to supply it’s own people with energy? Fix our current situation, while working on a solution for the future.

@autonut

For as many characters you managed to string together you were still unable to counter the point that there’s only been accident at a nuke plant that resulted in a radiation event, and again, this had nothing to do with the design of the plant, but it was a bunch of dumbass technicians who decided to run an unapproved experiment on the reactor. Statistics show that nuclear energy is BY FAR the safest on the planet.

Well, except for all those leftover fuel rods we have to babysit for the next 10,000 years…

Google search Fernald, I used to drive by that place going to and from college…

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Fankhauser/Society/nuclear/fernald/fernald.html

friend of mine has a last gen civic NGV. drives great…. he’s working on making his accord run on gas… he’s a brainiac like that.

Mandates seldom work in the way intended. Instead governments can offer incentives to give businesses the option of adapting new technologies. In this case the Fed may offer stations a proportional break on gas taxes for putting in H2/CNG, grants or low interest loans to cover the infrastructure upgrades, or preferential contracts for government fleets.
It’s all about Carrots and Sticks, and in this case we need lots of carrots.

Byrd Payton, your world saving ideas as useful as Microsoft cars. What Microsoft cars? What hydrogen produced at nuclear facility? Before you demonstrate patent arrogance you should learn some factoids. Yes nuclear energy is safe and I never stated otherwise, but in US about 25% of electricity or less comes from nukes. The rest comes from either coal or gas burning and a little amount of hydro.

You blissfully arrogant which coincide well with overweight pictures of you on your self promoting site and of course 100% correct albeit in your own mind. Reality is that the most common method of producing hydrogen is still electrolysis and unless you can provide evidence in form of links to statistics that show otherwise you are full of fat (maybe **** also, but with all heft it is easily conceivable). Your arguments are full of hot air since there is no factual evidence of anything you said.

As far nuclear accidents: three mile island in PA released radioactive water and gas into atmosphere. Yes it was long time ago, but that one killed any prospects of nuclear power in US for good. You probably never heard of Chernobyl, but it was bad one. As a matter of fact it kicked up more radioactive matter then both nuclear bombs during WWII and affects of it will be felt for centuries to come in form of cancer and birth defects and only in immediate area, but everywhere were radioactive cloud traveled. Those casualties are impossible to measure with any degree of accuracy.
Before you unleash another round of right wing conspiracy theories, do you children a favor and do few push ups or sit ups. It clears fat from your head.

u guys are ****ing cool. great blog
DA

xyunya, people are killed in coal mines, accidents and explosions on oil platforms and oil tankers have been known to crash and dump millions of gallons of crude into the ocean. All energy sources have risks associated with them. Fatal nuclear accidents are RARE, and a newer plant being built would have 50 years+ experience’s worth of safety features and protocols built right into it to prevent another 3-mile island and chernobyl.

Nukes are the way to go. If france can do it so can the US.

iglesias294, I agree with you, but the hippies throw a fit if you try to build more nuclear plants, that is why California had all those brown outs awhile ago, not enough enerhy because the hippies blocked construction of a new power plant (nuclear).

No offence to all you monkeys but I somehow think I can trust the head of Electrovaya, for now, as to the horrible potential of hydrogen compared to other forms of energy.

Do some homework.

Now instead of wasting time with plug in hybrid bull**** the government SHOULD be helping build these damn stations so GM, Ford and Chrysler can get the hydrogen cars on the road.