Its about time we stopped throwing our money at a solution that isn't economically feasible. Until we find an energy efficient means to split water molecules to get the hydrogen, we shouldn't even be talking about hydrogen fuel cell cars.

When used to supply energy, Hydrogen is normally burned or used in a fuel cell. Randell Mills, a medical doctor with training in physics and engineering - as well as a competing scientist, the late Arie de Geus, both discovered that hydrogen atoms can release an enormous amount of energy without burning, or any need for a fuel cell.

Hydrogen is the simplest atom: one electron revolving around one proton. Imagine an atom of Hydrogen enlarged so much that the proton is as big as a golf ball and you’d find the circling electron three hundred yards away!

Mills and de Geus both discovered that Hydrogen’s electron orbit can be made to collapse, becoming a much smaller sphere. A tremendous amount of energy is thus released. The new atoms, which Mills labeled hydrinos, do not need to burn with an oxidizer to liberate energy. Mills claims to have “made independently validated energy cells that produce 1,000 times the energy of burning Hydrogen.”

A huge amount of Hydrogen is stored in water.  The oceans contain 8 million trillion barrels of water. Think about the implications:  Even without deuterium or nuclear options, one barrel of water can yield as much energy as hundreds of barrels of oil - just by making clever use of hydrinos.

This can safely be accomplished without releasing radiation or pollution. The cost will be far lower than solar, wind or nuclear energy. Hydrino systems can help accelerate independence from fossil fuels.

Most scientists believe that fractional quantum states are not possible. However, in a paper he wrote during the 1960’s, the late Dr. Robert Carroll, a mathematical physicist, suggested that inverse quantum states would one day prove important. Mills and de Geus have each pioneered technology based on energy released as the electrons of Hydrogen atoms are induced by a catalyst to transition to lower-energy levels (i.e. drop to lower base orbits around each atom's nucleus) corresponding to fractional quantum numbers. Ronald Bourgoin, once a graduate student of Carroll’s, showed the general wave equation predicts exactly the 137 inverse principal quantum levels claimed by Mills. De Geus patented a very different energy production method based upon utilization of fractional Hydrogen.

Chava’s engineers have discovered what we believe will prove to be a much better approach. With all due respect to those pioneers, Chava has been developing enhanced theoretical and practical paths that lead towards commercialization of energy conversion systems that utilize hydrinos.
For example, hydrinos are expected to make possible Self Powered Internal Combustion Engines (SPICE™). A SPICE in a hybrid car will require no fuel. When parked, the vehicle will be able to wirelessly sell power to the grid, or supply electricity to a suitably equipped home or small business.

Imagine the positive impact on the economy and the environment of future cars, trucks, and buses, that need no fuel or recharge, and can pay for themselves over time. This is a near-term alternative to new nuclear plants, and it promises to be far less expensive than burning coal.

most researches on hydrogen fuel cells recently have focused on proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). polymer membranes for proton conductivity together with catalyst are the main parts of those researches. however, PEMFCs cannot be operate at high temperature because of the stability of polymer, so poor long term stability for fuel cells. this heads to the use of expensive Pt catalyst. even the membrane is stable at high temperature, i mean stability of all properties from chemistry to morphology, many issues need to be solved to have good and long lasting interface between catalyst (metal in nanosize on carbon black) and membrane (polymer). and one more thing is how we contain hydrogen. if we can, do you feel safe? perhaps, we need an another approach and to solve many more issues

As a graduate student in the late 1990s I did Department of Energy-funded research at Los Alamos National Laboratory. The scientists and engineers I worked with have since largely moved on to other endeavors in academia and private industry.

The catalyst materials we were examining showed great promise for proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). However, the commercialization of the technology was always just over the horizon. At the time it was thought it would take ten years to commercialize the technology for automobiles. Ten years later the revised date is still about ten years in the future.

Nafion, the base material for most PEMFCs at the time, would have been insanely expensive in the quantities necessary to power an automobile drive train. Never mind the costs of precious catalytic metals such as Pt and Ru needed.

Though I think it's great technology and would be giddy about buying a fuel cell-powered car, fuel cells have two strikes against them. First, the base cost of materials for PEMFC assemblies would have to come down by orders of magnitude before being feasible in vehicles. Secondly, the availability of hydrogen to the average consumer is admittedly limited.

In both cases, one could argue that we're in the classic "chicken or egg" dilemma. Unless there is an incentive to build a hydrogen infrastructure, nobody will purchase a car that relies on it. Furthermore, the economies of scale won't bring the price of PEMFCs down until more people adopt the technology.

A compromise could be starting with on-board reforming technology that strips hydrogen from hydrocarbons (gasoline or similar petroleum products), but that doesn't help the greenhouse gas issue since you are still emitting CO2 from the reformation process.

In the end, I may have to agree that unless a cheap source of hydrogen can be developed, fuel cells for vehicle use are a non-starter, though the LANL Web site would have you think otherwise:
http://www.lanl.gov/discover/fuel_cells_transform_cars

I realize that the broad commercial implementation of his research is still uncertain, but there is already a start up company http://www.sunilreddy.com/?p=803#more-803 pursuing the effort.

I am not ready to write off hydrogen's ability to play a significant role in meeting the energy needs of the future. I do agree that it is unlikely to be utilized as transportation fuel in the near future.

In making his hydrogen announcement Dr. Chu said “we asked ourselves . . . ” about the best auto technology. How true this is, apparently. Word is Dr. Chu has so far declined to meet with General Motors CEO or chief of research. Given that the Obama Administration has fired the CEO and driven the company to the brink of bankruptcy, one would think he would have consulted with the leading US auto technology company before embracing batteries so exclusively. I guess Dr. Chu feels he knows best.

Congress can reverse this decision and let's hope it does. Otherwise we'll be buying these vehicles from Europe and Asia, just like we're buying advancedd batteries, hybrid cars, solar and wind generators.

Honda’s new FCV is being offered in California today for lease, 60% efficient, EPA rated 72 MPG, comparable to the Accord, Malibu and Camry in creature comforts and interior room. Toyota’s vehicle gets well over 400 miles per tank. Daimler plans 100,000 units a year within a few years. Fuel cells are far ahead of advanced battery vehicles and the truth is out there, as they say. For starters, see startershttp://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-claritty/ or www.cafcp.org

I think the H2 fuel cell is likely to remain prohibitively expensive for the next 10 years...by which time battery tech should have come down sufficiently in price, and with improved performance to make a fuel cell a non starter anyway.

However, I do think that a H2 ICE coupled with a micro reformer might have some merit. H2 ICE does have somewhat improved efficiency over a regular ICE. 

So basically a micro reformer + H2 ICE = a much more fuel efficient, flex fuel ICE. Might be useful for extended range vehicles although it might add about $2000 to $3000 to the sticker price (I'd guess).

But is it worth $200M in funding? Doubtful imo.

I never see any mention in these hydrogen-fueled vehicle articles of the issue of metals becoming brittle when in contact with hydrogen.

Is that because there is no significant issue?

Is it only an issue for liquid hydrogen?

Have all relevant brittle metal issues (if any) already been solved for internal combustion engines and/or fuel cells?

Or, is this a potential maintenance/repair issue for future hydrogen vehicle fleets?

Thanks!

Colin

OK, let's not get religous. After 4 Years in Hydrogen R&D here some facts:

The BMW520h consumed about as much H2 per 100km as the Honda today for the full range.. So there was progress, but I agree, the Internal Combustion Engine is by far not dead - huge progress there. So I agree - ICE's are to be considered, especially in Range Extender Concepts, where efficiencies of over 40% can be achieved.

Electric is great. But the whole problem is Demand/Supply-Managment, especially coupled with Renewables which are unpredictable. H2 DECOUPLES the production from the consumption. Something, Batteries have a hard time to do. Finally, you don't want to drag a cable behind you:-)

Energy Flow: Refuelling a battery of some 60kWh (about 400km Range) in a short time gives massive Power Flows at the "Fuelling Station" (Megawatt Range)- very hard to do on a big scale

Hydrogen can be produced with 80% efficiency by purely technical means, large scale. Of course on the small scale numbers are less appealing. One argument I always hear is: Efficiency Well to Wheel compared to petrol. Don't forget: In Petrol, we only pay the energy to mine the stuff, not for the actual energy content (that was done over millions of years for us) - that's gonna be very different in the future. So let's compare apples to apples.

So I agree on a lot there was said - Hybrids are the near future. What we learn there will be very valuable for future Range Extender Concepts, whatever the fuel might be. But so far, only batteries i don't see in the long therm. There must be an artificial energy carrier, produced by technical means, which can decouple energy production from energy use on a massive scale. Of course if someone figures out to store GWh of Energy in a smart way so it can supply the necessary network for batteries - that is a different question. Then it's a "maybe".

Just remember 1kg of H2 is about 1 Gallon of Petrol and compares to about 200kg of Batteries (taking efficiency of conversion in account)... Current Batteries hold 100Wh/kg. Maybe we get an improvement of a factor of 2 or 3, but that's it.

My opinion:-)

The current Nafion membrane based fuel cells are not the way forward for both technical reasons (need very pure hydrogen, water management, extensive cooling, no hope of avoiding platinum for the catalyst) and (consequently) economical ones. Development of alternatives is underway.
High efficiency water electrolysis has been demonstrated.
Lithium ion batteries are not the way forward either - there is not enough lithium. Betting on better future batteries seems no wiser than betting on better future fuel cells.

This debate is going on in many blog sites and it is hard to see the rationale of the US Federal government in putting so much faith in the electric car.  The issues relating to the shortage and location of lithium salts is mentioned in this blog but the process to convert to battery material is apparently very dirty and there is surely a shortage of copper coming along if it were ever to be the mass vehicle scenario.  The only energy storage medium that we have that has the potential for a very low carbon output is hydrogen.  The automotive OEMs are unable to take a clear long term view due to the need to turn a profit in the short term and the fact that the heads of these companies generally do not understand that a good demonstration may not be the beginning of a viable mass vehicle technology.

Hydrogen is our only option at this point and we will need to understand that our expectations will have to change in order to introduce a viable long term solution.  The truth is that we have used 98% of the energy from the gasoline burned so far and this is due to the degree of thermal efficiency of the gasoline engine and that we have been transporting ten times the mass than what we really wanted to move (average gasoline thermal efficiency at low operation = 20% divided by the utility ratio of the vehicle - vehicle weight = 1,600kg / cargo = 160kg).  This will need to change.

The future is one of diversity of fuel and simple technology, low mass vehicle design.  The Pivotal engine meets these criteria better than any other proposal out there at this time as there is no need for pure hydrogen and any blending of gaseous fuels will work in the interim before hydrogen dominates the market in many locations.  What has held back the take up of the hydrogen ICE is the reluctance of the industry to take on major change.  The fuel cell was useful in this regard as it did not threaten them with any need to make any change any time soon.  Also the existing automotive engine is a very poor device for the efficient conversion of hydrogen combustion to torque and again they hope to keep on producing this very cheap (mature) power unit for as long as possible. www.pivotalengine.com

This might sound very simplistic compared to some of the very insightful comments that have been posted.  But I think the real hear of the issue is that the only place it's practical now and in the future to produce hydrogen is in Iceland.  Maybe a few other selected places.  But that's it.  Everywhere else it's going to cost an enormous amount.

Hydrogen is just a method of storing and transporting energy, as chemical energy, for efficient conversion into other forms of energy. Nature has needed to solve this same energy storage and transport problem, and over a billion years of evolution has "decided" largely in favor of carbohydrates (e.g. sugar and starch) and hydrocarbons/fats (e.g. vegetable oil, animal fat). Are our criteria for a good solution to the problem so different from nature's?

www.blacklightpower.com for the future of the use of hydrogen to generate power.

Free hydrogen in the upper atmosphere reacts with hydroxyls, which otherwise react with methane. A consequence of a hydrogen economy is more methane in the upper atmosphere.  If you worry about global warming, methane, which is 22 times more effective than CO2 as a GWG, will increase with the accidental release of more hydrogen.

The Obama Administration is bogged down by a deeply depressed economy and naturally has to focus on "ignition" in starting the economy...historically, technology and its spinoff applications was the  fuel in sparking economic recovery. If just a fraction of TARP money went into actual development
of hydrogen fuel R and D propogation so much excitement would have been generated---and its through an exciting new development wherin
transformations take place...unfortunately, this was a missed opportunity.

I am working on rural windmill project that uses a 5 kwh windmill to produce all the electric power needed to run a residential home and produce enough Hydrogen to power a H2 car.  Even at 80 percent, creation of H2 to power a vehicle can be the answer for a 'lot of people' in rural settings.  If wind power was so bad, why are energy companies putting up 29 wind farms in Kansas alone.  Because wind blows and no one can stop it.  The creation of over 1500 kw a month can run a house with a heat pump for heat and create enough power to create hydrogen for a car.  Right now I have been talking to people about buying windmills in high wind locations that will pay for the investment in 7 years.  Seems like a long time but the money saved with total energy comsumption will pay for the investment.  Hooking into grid will provide a safety net and creating H2 will provide the long term solution needed to wean a number of individuals off the grid and from carbon based fuels.  I am convinced that Hydrogen will provide a good if not great return on investment.  The technical problems are almost solved, Pem motors, better turbines and a committment to the future.

The US has the resources to gasify hundreds of millions of tons of non-food biomass right now. If we gasified just part of the pine beetle kill and dry, clean construction waste wood in landfills, we could produce 20 billion gallons of methanol per year.

In 1978 using a simple reformer that took heat from the exhaust manifold, Nissan Motors was able to get 88% of gasoline mileage from methanol in a stock, unaltered Sentra engine. The reformer broke the methanol into its two constituent gases: CO + 2H2. In a 1982 presentation at an alcohol fuels conference in Durango, Colorado, Nissan referred to its standard, unmodified, internal combustion engine as, "...the world's first hydrogen engine." Nissan patented this technology in the US in 1985.

In 2003 NREL wrote a feasibility study showing hydrogen and methanol as the most commercially feasible products from biomass. In 2005 the DOE de-listed methanol as a transportation biofuel. The new administration has not changed this status; we still chase ethanol, biodiesel and biodiesel from algae even though all three are uneconomic, not sustainable and provide little actual energy compared to their inputs. Recent DOE reports still show methanol mileage based on its heat capability as being only 54% that of gasoline.

So why don't we have methanol from non-fossil fuel sources? In a word: politics, not science.