Filed under: EV/Plug-in, Green Daily
Energy Secretary Chu: electric vehicles "inevitable"
The Secretary of the Department of Energy, Steven Chu, gave the commencement address at CalTech on Friday, and electric vehicle advocates could find something to cheer about from his words of advice to the Class of 2009. Plug-in supporter Paul Scott went to the ceremony, and was happy ot hear Chu say that we needed to prepare for the "inevitable transition to electricity as the energy for our personal transportation." Scott writes:While most may have missed the importance of this comment, it meant everything to me. Those at the top of the Obama administration understand the need to move from dirty fossil fuels to renewable electricity, and their efforts so far show they are serious.At a graduation speech at Harvard earlier this month, Chu also briefly mentioned about the future of alternative energy in vehicles. During that speech, he said, "Advanced bio-fuels and the electrification of personal vehicles make us less dependent on foreign oil." Hydrogen? Not a mention.
Chu's defunding, at the federal level, of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle means he knows we need to put our efforts toward solutions that are ready now, not some expensive, inefficient technology that requires us to continue buying our energy from oil companies.
During the CalTech ceremony, the school announced the creation of the Resnick Sustainability Institute at Caltech, which will "provide a path to sustainability by focusing on innovative science and engineering developments required for groundbreaking energy technologies." You can watch Chu's speech by going here.
[Source: Paul Scott, DOE]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Nick P. 11:28AM (6/14/2009)
I never dreamed I would be alive to see a real scientist deciding on US national energy affairs. Decisions that make sense, finally.
Reply
occ 1:57PM (6/14/2009)
Hear, hear!
TomW 5:06PM (6/14/2009)
Paul Scott writes: "Chu's defunding, at the federal level, of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle means he knows we need to put our efforts toward solutions that are ready now, not some expensive, inefficient technology that requires us to continue buying our energy from oil companies."
Where do utilities buy their energy from? As long as as you don't buy energy from oil companies then it's okay, right? Energy from coal is okay? I'm sorry, but it is tiring to hear the same old hackneyed arguments against hydrogen. The assumption here is that fuel cell technology will never be ready, always be expensive, and only be sold by oil companies. You know what happens when people assume. The inefficient technology comment is just plain wrong. I love driving electric vehicles (EVs). I drove one powered by a hydrogen fuel cell for three months. Recharging the fuel cell took about 5 minutes. Pure EVs have their place and so do fuel cells. Can't we just get along?
Reply
kert 5:24PM (6/14/2009)
Where do utilities buy their energy from? As long as as you don't buy energy from oil companies then it's okay, right? Energy from coal is okay? I'm sorry, but it is tiring to hear the same old hackneyed arguments against hydrogen.
Umm.. where do you think most of the hydrogen comes from ?
3PeaceSweet 5:27PM (6/14/2009)
I'm assuming the hydrogen you used to 'recharge your fuel cell' came out of thin air?
A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is an electric vehicle with a fuel cell range extender. Battery electric has superior (3x) efficiency compared to hydrogen fuel cell, and the infrastructure is already in place.
Dave 5:45PM (6/14/2009)
"Battery electric has superior (3x) efficiency compared to hydrogen fuel cell, and the infrastructure is already in place."
Efficiency is almost completely meaningless when compareing BEVs and FCEVs.
Wind, nuclear, hydro, and tidal energy produced during off peak hours is essentially free, because there is no fuel required, only the plant construction cost, which must be invested anyway to meet peak demand. And both BEVs and FCEVs can be fueled with off peak energy.
The real question is life cycle cost and well to wheel energy expense. If (BIG IF) a fuel cell and hydrogen storage system can someday be produced with less energy/cost than a battery pack, FCEVs will eventually dominate.
Personally, I believe that neither will have any value in the snow belt, so other technologies will persist. Perhaps we'll run our cars on ammonia which is produced from hydrogen but which is more energy dense and can be used in an ICE.
Chris M 7:54PM (6/14/2009)
Um, efficiency DOES matter, because it requires expensive equipment to convert that energy into useful electricity, and requires more equipment to store that energy. The combination of electrolysis, compression for storage, and fuel cell is only 24% efficient. The combination of charger and battery is 85% efficient. Going the H2 route takes 3x MORE of our limited supply of renewable derived electricity.
Even if we had stationary batteries to store the electrical energy and used that to charge the EVs, that two step process is still 72% efficient, still 3x more efficient at storing electrical energy.
The likelyhood of H2 fuel cell and H2 storage ever being "less expensive" than batteries is slim, considering that carbon fiber H2 storage tanks alone cost more than the equivalent LiIon battery pack, and H2 fuel cells cost several times more.
As for the notion of EVs having no value in the snow belt, these videos prove otherwise:
Tango EV playing snowplow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhGCLnAPG88
Tesla Roadster EV tested on frozen Swedish lake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4mIHtmcB-Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5kkU23bfEc&feature;=related
AnotherDave 7:53PM (6/14/2009)
TomW, the future is going to be about energy efficiency. Face it BEV’s are more efficient than Fuel cells by a factor of 2 to 3. If you look at the current state of the technologies, batteries are more cost effective and energy efficient than fuel cells. I’d put my money on the horse that is closer to the finish line and that does not still need a handful of miracles.
Do you know how big of battery your fuel cell car had? It’s a dirty secret, most of the batteries in a fuel cell car are bigger than what is in a hybrid car today, and they need it just to handle the startup and the load leveling.
Chu made the right choice for now. Who knows maybe after a few miracles and when renewable energy becomes cheap, Hydrogen will be a worthy alternative.
Reply
Pam L 10:53PM (6/14/2009)
I continue to be amazed at the ignorance of the tin foil hat EV zealots. The claim that EVs are 2 to 3 more times more efficient than EVs is pure bullshit. Get a grip you idiots Average electrical efficiency is about 33% and you lose about 10% in line loses. The efficiency of the battery and the electrical motor can never recover from this. Meanwhile you can get Hydrogen out of natural gas at about 70% efficiency and fuel cells are about 50% efficient. In fact, EVs are less efficient than standard hybrids.
Chu is listening to idiots like Paul Scott and our nation will suffer the consequences. Battery EVs are only a side line in the march of history.
Reply
occ 11:46PM (6/14/2009)
And I continue to be amazed by the the sheeps who follow big oil business interest and continue to blab about the wonders of hydrogen fuel cells.
If hydrogen from NG is 70% and fuel cells are 50% then your overall total is only 35%...but I gather you may mean 50% overall - which is bogus in any case.
BEV can run on any source of electricity. If your goal is to reduce carbon output, hydrogen from natural gas is a dead end. If you use natural gas to generate electricity to run BEV, you're about even with standard hybrids. Hydrogen fuel cells from natural gas, miles for miles, is WORST than even CNG vehicles (the only good thing I can say about hydrogen FCV, is that it does reduce foreign oil). So concerns about carbon footprint will screw hydrogen FCV.
As for our renewable sustainable way to generate electricity (wind, geothermal, nuclear, solar, hydro), if you use that electricity directly to generate hydrogen, compress it, store it, transport it, transfer it, and converted in a fuel cell stack, you're have no understanding of efficiency whatsoever. So stop blabbing for the oil industry and let the scientists do their work.
Pam L 11:58PM (6/14/2009)
It's interesting to read the blogs from idiots who have no idea what they're talking about. On one hand the EV zealots complain about the relatively low emissions from generating hydrogen from natural gas, how that is somehow going to ruin the environment. On the other hand the worship solar and wind which combined are less than 2% of all electricity generated. 52% is from coal which includes mountain top removal. So the battery zealots continue to point to anyone with a brain a equate them as apologists for the oil industry. So I can assume that the EV zealots are on the payrole for Peabody Coal?
Batteries don't work for real transportation and only about 2000 really stupid people will ever buy EVs.
By the way I am a scientist, I gather you're not.
Ignatius 1:21AM (6/15/2009)
But hey, if we build say, oh... another 400 nuclear power plants, our entire grid would be nuclear, no more coal at all.
104 aging plants now make up 20% of our grid. Can you imagine what brand new plants could do?
Chris M 2:52AM (6/16/2009)
Pam L, you come in here, slinging insults and expect to change minds?
it doesn't work that way.
It doesn't help to compare the "best case" scenario for H2 against the "worst case" scenario for EVs. Of course, that is a common tactic of H2 supporters, they assume all increase in EV use would come only from coal, but somehow H2 would only come from clean renewable and natural gas. Sorry, but electricity and H2 are made using the exact same energy sources, including coal (that is what the "clean coal" initiative was all about), but to make H2 from renewable sources requires making electricity first. The combination of electrolysis, compression for storage, and fuel cell is only 24% efficient at storing electrical energy, but the combination of charger and batteries is 85% efficient - going the H2 route takes 3x more of our limited supply of electricity from renewables, leaving less available to displace fossil fuel use elsewhere.
In California, 40% of electricity comes from renewable sources - sun, wind geothermal, hydro, but only 20.1% comes from coal, and that percentage keeps dropping as more renewables come online. So there is no "less than 2%" limit on the use of wind and sun for electricity.
Finally, in case you didn't realize it, Steven Chu, Energy Secretary and adviser to the President, is a real scientist who has done real science. Professor Chu won a Nobel Prize in physics in 1997. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Chu
Dr. Chu understands the climate crisis, and he didn't need to take advice from Paul Scott, he was quite capable of figuring out the problems with H2 on his own.
Phil L. 7:10AM (6/16/2009)
A scientific approach includes quoting your sources - as well as not overstating your case.
Since the topic of electrical transmission line losses periodically shows up on ABG, here's a real number:
As of 1995, total electrical transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2%, quoted from the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program. I didn't (quickly) find a more recent estimate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses
http://climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-2.pdf
occ 12:21AM (6/15/2009)
oh, great, what kind of science are you engaged in, science of insults?
"I'm a big scientist, so I'm can get off by calling others idiots and stupid..." yeah, get a life!
Reply
Mark 8:38AM (6/15/2009)
Pam L you claim to be a scientist wow! Was it one of those - collect 100 corn flakes tokens - you get your own certificate?
Why is the idea of the H2 not being efficient so over your head? Also you complain about EV but you haven't given an alternative. So we just keep using ICE and now with oil heading towards $100 a barrel your friends in the oil industry will screw people again.
Reply
Greg Blencoe 10:38AM (6/15/2009)
For those people who want to know the truth, I highly recommend reading the following article which is titled the "Top 25 things I wish President Barack Obama knew about hydrogen fuel cell cars and plug-in battery cars":
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/top-25-things-i-wish-president-barack-obama-knew-about-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-and-plug-in-battery-cars/
Furthermore, I highly recommend reading the following article which is titled the "Fallacy of energy efficiency argument against hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by plug-in battery advocates":
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/fallacy-of-energy-efficiency-argument-against-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-by-plug-in-battery-advocates/
Plug-in battery advocates constantly focus on the energy efficiency argument, because hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are FAR superior when it comes to driving range, fueling time, and passenger and trunk space (i.e. things real customers care about).
While the hydrogen to power the initial hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will come from natural gas, this is only a bridge to hydrogen from wind power and then solar power.
As was mentioned, half of the electricity in the U.S. comes from coal and 20% comes from natural gas. Therefore, plug-in battery vehicles will be charging up with electricity that comes from fossil fuels. But for some reason plug-in battery advocates act like all plug-in battery vehicles will be charged up with electricity from solar and wind.
It is a big myth that the oil companies are for hydrogen. Where is the evidence of this? If this were true, why are there only 60 hydrogen fueling stations (and only a few of these were financed by oil companies) in the U.S. and approximately 170,000 gasoline stations. Moreover, ExxonMobil is working on lithium ion batteries, but this is never brought up. The truth is that the oil companies are for the status quo.
For those people who are for plug-in batteries, how many people do you think are going to drive a very small vehicle with a 50 to 100-mile range that has little or no trunk?
If you say plug-in hydrid vehicles are the way to go, are you aware that plug-in battery Priuses are getting less than 50 miles per gallon in extensive fleet study done by Idaho National Laboratory. Here is a link that discusses this:
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/plug-in-battery-priuses-get-less-than-50-miles-per-gallon-in-extensive-fleet-study-done-by-idaho-national-laboratory/
Since plug-in battery vehicles are not a mainstream solution, your support of this technology is only helping the oil companies maintain their dominance for even longer. Instead, you should be an advocate of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles that are powered by hydrogen from wind and solar.
Very smart companies like Toyota, Honda, Daimler, and Hyundai are aggressively pursuing hydrogen fuel cell technology. The vehicles are set to arrive at dealerships by 2015.
Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.
"Hydrogen Car Revolution" blog
Reply
Chris M 8:10PM (6/17/2009)
That "Top 25" list is simply quotes from H2 enthusiasts, lots of opinion, but very little in the way of "facts".
The supposed "fallacy of energy efficiency arugment" doesn't refute the energy efficiency argument at all. It simply claims a nearly unlimited potential for renewable energy, pretending that efficiency doesn't matter. Problem is, it takes expensive equipment to convert that renewable energy into usable electricity, so requiring 3x more energy to make H2 means 3x more equipment and 3x more cost. That also means less renewable energy available to replace fossil fuels for other purposes.
Sorry, but H2 FC vehicle are NOT "far superior" in terms of driving range, fueling time, passenger and trunk space. Apparently Blencoe has been living in a cave, he hasn't heard all the news reports of the Tesla Model S Electric sedan, with room for 7, luggage space front and back, up to 300 mile range per charge, 45 minute quick charging (from 480 volt outlet), and if 45 minutes is too slow, the batteries can be swapped in less than 2 minutes. The Model S matches or exceeds H2FC vehicles on all those terms.What Customers are REALLY concerned about the purchase cost and fuel cost, there the Model S beats any H2FC car by a very wide margin.
Sorry, but both electricity and H2 fuel is made using the same energy sources, including coal - yes, that's what the "clean coal" initiative was all about, providing cheap H2 from coal. Here in California, 40% of electricity comes from renewable sources (hydro, wind, solar, geothermal) but only 20.1% from coal, and the percentage is dropping as more renewables come online.
If future H2 can come from "clean renewable" sources, so can electricity, but EVs are 3x more efficient at using our limited supply of renewable energy, leaving more for other uses. It is rather disingenous and dishonest for H2 advocates to assert all future BEV electricity will only come from coal, but H2 fuels will only come from clean renewables.
As for "getting less than 50 mpg" in a plug-in modified Prius, I can only assume they must be making long runs and keep forgetting to plug it in. The biggest fuel economy boost for the plug-in Prius would be for drivers making relatively short daily commutes and plugging in every night, but not a 30+ mile daily commute from Idaho Falls to the INEL site and forgetting to plug in.
But the most baldfaced lie that Blencoe makes, by far, is pretending the oil companies don't really want Hydrogen.
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=hydrogen-en
Last time I looked, Shell was still an oil company.
http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/about/members.asp?sort=2
National Hydrogen Association includes Chevron, Indian Oil Company, Shell Hydrogen, and StatoilHydro ASA.
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/partners/partners.htm
Hmm, partners include BP, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil, Shell - the 4 biggest oil companies, partnering with the California government to promote H2 fuels.
Since plug-ins really are a "mainstream solution" (see Model S), and the oil companies really are actively promoting H2 fuels, why does Blencoe keep lying about it? Is he embarrassed by H2 getting support from the oil companies? Shouldn't he be worried that the oil companies won't buy H2 equipment from him if he keeps disparaging their H2 promotional efforts?
Greg Blencoe 10:38AM (6/15/2009)
(Continued from last comment)
The focus should be on building the hydrogen fueling infrastructure. Here is my plan for U.S. Congress to launch the hydrogen car revolution which includes proposed tax incentives for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen fueling stations:
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/plan-for-u-s-congress-to-launch-hydrogen-car-revolution-proposed-tax-incentives-for-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-and-hydrogen-fueling-stations/
If you want to solve the oil crisis, you should contact your members of Congress now and tell them to build the initial hydrogen fueling infrastructure and offer incentives to help the car companies take the hydrogen fuel cell cars from the prototype stage to mass production.
Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.
"Hydrogen Car Revolution" blog
Reply
Dude 12:23PM (6/15/2009)
Laughable...so a $7500 tax rebate on HFC vehicles will somehow bring the price down? Yah, I really can't afford $500000 but now at $492500 SIGN ME UP! What a piece of douchebaggery!