[OldSprocket]

Automakers still advertise the biggest SUVs even though they certainly know about PO. The heating oil industry here also advertises safe, comfortable oil heat.

The SUV ads make sense to me: sell half the people ridiculous cars and then they'll all have to buy smaller ones when gas is more expensive but not precious. Result: more units sold and a fleet of used cars that is useless.

I can't figure out the heating oil ads. There are few options in this area. (There are fringe oddballs like OldSprocket who want solar with wood backup.) Are these ads simply to remind the media to avoid "alarmist" news about the purported end of dinosaur fuel?

[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OldSprocket', 'd')inosaur fuel?

[small_steps]

Finally is going public with what they see coming down the path, only a couple of years after toyota doing the same. Still, don't let the PR side of this throw you, they are not putting a whole lot of stock in the fuel cell idea. Great for gov grants, but not going to do us a whole lot of good (commercial use) for at least 15 years though.

He said the nation is facing a "multi-dimensional energy crisis."

Hell, even W himself will be saying this is a couple of days.

It is too early to tell which technology holds the greatest promise to reduce reliance on oil, he said.

Keep the gov money coming...

http://www.nbc17.com/news/5003331/detail.html

More of us are talking about the price and availability of fuel in the short and medium term, and the capabilities of what we expect to be commerciallized in the next few years. It really boils down to we have had it good, and we are going to have some significant economic fights over keeping what we can, and pushing along what we can, at macro and personal levels. The transition isn't going to pretty or pleasant, and what we will be transitioning to is very much in doubt, as many as you know. It appears at this time we will ride the gifts of oil as long as we can possibly can.

Let the backside of HP be as gentle as possible, give us time...

[Such]

To W's credit... he did come into his first term saying that "What America needs to understand is that we have an energy crisis." followed by something like "conservation is good, but we darn sure could do a better job of getting more supply" followed by the now famous "we need an energy policy that encourages consumption".

So he talked about it... but, showed little leadership beyond that.

"Congress must act to pass an energy bill"... yet provided no direction on what that bill might look like.

[aahala]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Such', ' ')followed by the now famous "we need an energy policy that encourages consumption".

[deconstructionist]

that quote is from 2002. not that it makes much difference i guess.

here, you all can quote me: "We need a president that encourages demand destruction."

[FatherOfTwo]

Something has continually puzzled me: why automakers (at least the top ones) are so hooked on H2 to replace gasoline as opposed to an all electric vehicle.

Take GM. Introduced an electric car only to completely and totally scrap it. (Ok economics I'm sure played a part given gas was still so cheap.) But even so, GM's long term view is geared towards hydrogen. (Although a recent article showed GM isn't closing the door on other alternatives like electric, it still is betting on H2)

To me hydrogen makes no sense as a replacement fuel (and please lets not diverge off into a "there will be no cars in the future"... let's just assume for the sake of argument that there is.)

H2 requires a huge infrastructure be rolled out, and that it be rolled out simultaneously with the introduction of H2 fuel cars. As opposed to electric cars which can plug into the current infrastructure.

H2 production is extremely wasteful. Either you're getting the H2 from natural gas, or you're having to do electrolysis.. electricy to split H2O to get H2, then another conversion again of H2 into electricity. The energy loss is huge.

What gives with the auto industry??

[FoxV]

Its probably just a matter of PR.

Everyone knows what's involved with electrics and the public has clearly said they don't like it.

Because nobody knows the reality of H2 cars, the spin of 1000mi ranges while running on water looks great.

This allows them to look like they're doing something without doing anything at all.

Eventually reality will set in and the jig will be up, but there is also the chance that an unforeseen technology will be discovered and they will be in position to jump all over it and look like heroes (even though the breakthrough is not theirs)

[sch_peakoiler]

Fatheroftwo,

can you please brief me on this subject. Do car makers prefer internal combustion H2, or electric-fuel cell - H2 ? I am not accustomed with the newest pr tricks.

[keehah]

combustion of H2 with 'combustion' in the fine print is the latest PR trick.

Futhermore, US automakers are still stuck in the past with thier PR supporting for non-hybrid H2 fuel cells. Hybridization increases fuel economy, allows a better duty cycle for the H2 stack and reduces total cost of the car (from that of larger non-hybridized fuel cell that would otherwise be needed).

In short US automakers seem stuck on stupid with planned new technology as they are with outdated oversized new auto models.

http://corporate.honda.com/press/articl ... 6092536448

[OkraWhiskey]

It's because of their business model. This model requires that there be a distribution network under corporate control that dispenses the magic juice that makes the car go. Gas, ethanol, and H2 all fit this model.

Electricity, being available all over the place, and already a (mostly) heavily-regulated (pseudo-public) utility, will cancel out an after-market revenue stream that they don't want to give up.

Dang. I'm out of magic juice again...

[yesplease]

OkraWhiskey is da... being!
What's even worse, is the potential to migrate to distributed electricity generation once people have cars. Before you know it, they have some solar panels, a wind generator, and some biofuels to power a diesel genset for that extra punch. This means they may not be consuming anything in the way of energy products!

[waegari]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', '
')To me hydrogen makes no sense as a replacement fuel (and please lets not diverge off into a "there will be no cars in the future"... let's just assume for the sake of argument that there is.)

H2 requires a huge infrastructure be rolled out, and that it be rolled out simultaneously with the introduction of H2 fuel cars. As opposed to electric cars which can plug into the current infrastructure.

H2 production is extremely wasteful. Either you're getting the H2 from natural gas, or you're having to do electrolysis.. electricy to split H2O to get H2, then another conversion again of H2 into electricity. The energy loss is huge.

[ChicknLittle]

I think their choice is similar to the decision to focus on huge, profitable SUV's rather than smaller efficient cars. There is more money to be made in large complex machines than there is a small, light simple battery powered vehicle. Currently they get to sell a 1 ton shell with a complex combustion motor dependant on 100's of unique parts. An electric vehicle can and should be much lighter and simpler, with only a battery and 4 hub-drive motors no more complicated than those in a ceiling fan. The infrastructure for lead acid battery recycling already exists, and the technology for a light, high performance lead acid battery exists ( http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01 ... ergy_.html ).

They always trot out safety, need to haul huge cargo, range, and consumer preference as reason for the death of the electric car... With cheap oil there has been little reason to use anything but the available cars. With higher prices, scarcity and global warming, however, it is criminal to not try to offer alternatives. EV range is adequate for most trips, we dont need to haul golf clubs on most trips, and we cant choose what is not offered.

My only hope is that small 3 or 4 wheel electric vehicles are commonly available BEFORE the oil supply or environmental crisis that makes them necessary.

[Graeme]

This avoids the initial cost of infrastructure:

GE Global Research’s Hydrogen Electrolyzer Receives Popular Mechanics 2006 Breakthrough Award

[waegari]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', 'T')his avoids the initial cost of infrastructure:

GE Global Research’s Hydrogen Electrolyzer Receives Popular Mechanics 2006 Breakthrough Award

[yesplease]

Avoids? Are you sure you don't mean, lowers?
For that matter, if all these do is bring the cost of hydrogen down to the cost of gasoline, then they are both still inferior to BEVs or plug-in hybrids.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')E’s electrolyzer has the potential to bring the cost of producing hydrogen down to a level that is competitive with the current price of gasoline.

[yesplease]

You bring up a good point. For example, how much do higher fuel prices impact BEVs? Taking your 14 cent per kwh example, that would add another $1000 per 150k miles, which changes the gasoline break even price to $7000/5000=$1.40 a gallon. The last time gas was $1.40 a gallon was about a half decade ago, and at the same time, electricity was probably cheaper too, since we always have to deal with inlfation.

What seems like a big difference, electricity price, is where the advantage of using electricity as a fuel comes into play since the BEVs energy efficiency wrt to it's fuel is roughly three-four times that of the exact same gasoline powered vehicle. And also brings up why manufacturers build larger vehicles that are useful for carrying four people, even though most of the time they only carry one.

It increases consumption by that factor, more or less. And since fuel costs are a significant portion of vehicle ownership costs, if you have a vehicle that only exhibits ~20% energy efficiency, and then quadruple it's dimensions, you have something that's only ~5% energy efficient for what it's doing the majority of them time. Comparing the energy generation efficiency of electricity, usually 40% plus, and then make a vehicle that suits most of it's use, would cut consumption to ~1/8th of what it was.

But then, it would also cut profits by that amount, which brings up the difference in what's best for the consumer, and what's best for the company, i.e. the small group that owns the product. Something else to consider is the disparity in electricity prices through the nation and using off-peak, aka cheaper, electricity to power BEVs, which can, otoh, cut the cost of electricity even more.

Ultimately, it's a YMMV deal, that depends on the consumer's specific transportation needs/wants, but generally, these are at odds with what is the best for a company, profitability.

[The_Toecutter]

Why are automakers going for H2 over electricity?

a) Fuel cells are decades away from commercial viability in automotive applications. If mass produced today, a fuel cell stack would exceed $300 per peak horsepower. This doesn't include the electric motor, inverter, hydrogen storage medium, fuel cell membrane, batteries, the chassis, just the fuel cell stack by itself. Toyota hopes a mass produced fuel cell car could be ~$50,000 by 2020, but it cites this as being optimistic. Fuel cell cars are a means to greenwash the company while allowing continued sales of inefficient, very profitable vehicles in the meantime.

b) H2 allows continued use of the internal combustion engine. In fact, we could have had H2 ICE cars 30 years ago, but due to storage issues, range would have been worse than a lead acid powered electric car.

c) H2 would be expensive. If everything goes right, around $2.00/kg wholesale, with 1 kg having about the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline. $2.00/kg wholesale translates to about $3.00 at the pump or more. This allows the oil industry to keep raking in money if we ever do switch to hydrogen, as producing enough to run a car in your own home and purchasing the equipment to fill your car would not be feasible for most. Meanwhile, electricity is everwhere, and even if you produce your own via solar or wind, it would STILL be cheaper to run an electric car off of it than to purchase gas so long as gas is above $1.50/gallon or so.

d) Hydrogen is easier to regulate than electricity. This way, our overbloated government can keep making as much tax revenue as they desire.

e) The DOE intends to get H2 from oil

Lets look at the facts:

-The G8 nations make more tax revenue off of oil than OPEC makes in profit. Electric cars are a threat to this.
-Automobile fuel by itself accounts for more than 40% of America's oil consumption. Electric cars are a threat to this.
-The auto industry makes about 50% of their profits from aftermarket parts and repairs, and most of that comes from the maintenance whore known as the internal combustion engine. Electric cars are a threat to this.

There is a conflict of interest here. The consumer would like one thing(cheaper motoring, cleaner environment, less oil wars, increased autonomy), but the corporations and government want another(increased revenue, increased control).

The world's corporations and governments do not care how peak oil will affect everyone else. They merely want to make as much money as possible, even if it may result in a big dieoff. They don't care about peak oil's affects on the majority, they don't care about global warming, they don't care about oil wars, they don't care about how poverty results in more population; they want to maximize profit. They will stifle any alternatives to oil that threaten to reduce the money they make, as oil itself has been shown to be the most profitable of energy sources, even if it may not be the cheapest or best suited for a given application. They want growth, and use of those currently viable alternatives over oil will cause contraction from reduced consumer spending and reduced resource consumption for a given living standard.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')veryone knows what's involved with electrics and the public has clearly said they don't like it.

[Graeme]

See also this:

GM developing home hydrogen refueling device