By on July 1, 2014

DSC_0018

In today’s hydrogen digest: Toyota asks the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for a two-year exemption on its FCV; the automaker banks on subsidies to help the FCV leave the showrooms at home and abroad; and ammonia may be the secret to hydrogen’s success as a fuel.

Bloomberg reports Toyota is asking the NHTSA for a two-year exemption from FMVSS No. 305, which requires automakers to isolate high-voltage parts in electric cars in the event of a crash. The FCV doesn’t meet this rule in full because said isolation would render the vehicle inoperable, opting instead to use insulation on high-voltage cables and related components to protect first responders and occupants from potential electrical shocks in the event of a low-speed accident. Toyota claims the protections will be at least equal to those in compliance with the agency’s rule.

Meanwhile, Automotive News says the automaker is banking on subsidies at home and in markets such as the United States and Europe to help the FCV leave the showroom toward the path of success. The ¥7 million ($69,000 USD) will need a sizable credit to match its Lexus-esque pricing when it goes on sale in Japan next April; the highest subsidy is ¥850,000 (approximately $8,400). As for the U.S., where fueling infrastructure is woefully inadequate, Toyota may instead opt to lease the FCV, details of the plan still in discussion.

Finally, Autoblog Green reports ammonia may be the way toward the hydrogen future. The Science and Technologies Facilities Council in Swindon, England have discovered a process which cracks ammonia into nitrogen and hydrogen using sodium amide as the catalyst. The lower-cost process could be conducted on-board an FCV via an ammonia decomposition reactor no bigger than a 2-liter bottle of Coke, providing enough power for “a mid-range family car” while easily handling NOx-free tailpipe emissions. The STFC is now in the process of building a low-energy demonstration system to prove ammonia’s viability as a source of hydrogen fuel.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

59 Comments on “Hydrogen Digest: July 1, 2014...”


  • avatar

    NOW THAT N.O.A.A has been CAUGHT manipulating climate data (replacing TRUE numbers with computer models to support their “warming trend”) can someone please explain to me why any of these companies are bothering to support Hydrogen when it takes MORE ENERGY to build, maintain and operate one of these silly, soul-less econoboxes than it would a similar sized car with an I.C.E. 4-cylinder???

    So hard to argue “global Warming” now that the TRUTH has come out. Our hottest years on “human record” were prior to 1938.

    Feels so good to be right.

    • 0 avatar
      VoGo

      BTS/TSS,
      I wish what you wrote were true, we all do, but the time has come to face the facts. On May 6, the United States issued its third National Climate Assessment, which it does every 4 years. They consulted with 300 experts (none of whom was umadscientist), and shepherded the report through dozens of review with the public, federal agencies and the National Academy of Sciences.

      You can read the report yourself here, as it is very well communicated: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/overview/overview

      Alternately, you can read the summary, below.

      “What is new over the last decade is that we know with increasing certainty that climate change is happening now. While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest clearing and some agricultural practices.”

      This isn’t some socialist plot to control our lives and take away your V8s. It’s a nonpolitical assessment, which actually started during W’s presidency.

      You can choose to accept the facts, or not. But when you spout this BS to justify your lifestyle, the only person you are fooling is yourself.

      • 0 avatar

        #1 I’m not interested in what ANY government agency has to say. The only thing that matters is what pure, unbiased, data collected by machines and technology has to say.

        #2 YES – this is a conspiracy to CONTROL THE ENERGY USE OF THE WORLD. The U.N. with the power to tax energy use would make it omnipotent.

        I hate using the word “conspiracy” but by definition it is.

        #3 Many publications have completely REFUSED to publish contrary-scientific data and N.O.A.A getting caught LYING will never make headlined news.

        FORTUNATELY for the stupid people out there who never made it past High School Earth Science class, I exist to spread the truth and buck the trend.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          BTS/TSS,
          This isn’t an agency, it’s a summary developed by a team of 300 experts in the field.

          It has nothing to do with the UN.

          It has no agenda for controlling energy use globally.

          If you are as interested in truth as you claim, why not check out the site?

          • 0 avatar
            LuciferV8

            “This isn’t an agency, it’s a summary developed by a team of 300 experts in the field.

            It has nothing to do with the UN.

            It has no agenda for controlling energy use globally.”

            All three of these claims are pure sophistry.
            While technically correct in the strictest sense of the word, none of it holds up in light of the reality of the situation:

            1. “It isn’t an agency.”
            No, it is not an agency per se, but the work of several:

            “The Federal government is responsible for producing these reports through the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), a collaboration of 13 Federal agencies and departments”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Climate_Assessment#cite_note-13
            http://www.globalchange.gov/about/legal-mandate

            2.” It has nothing to do with the UN. ”

            It has everything to do with the UN in that the USGCRP actively maintains and circulates a host of UN reports as well as prepares other reporting specifically for the UN:

            “The 2014 U.S. Climate Action Report fulfills a commitment under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to publish every four years a National Communication that provides a comprehensive report on actions taken to combat climate change and thereby meet the objectives and provisions of the UNFCCC.”

            http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports

            To assert that the NCA is somehow completely disconnected from the influence of these other responsibilities is to strain most reasonable peoples’ credulity to its breaking point.

            3. “It has no agenda for controlling energy use globally.”

            Really?

            While the NCA may not have any specific guidelines for global energy policy, the assertions it makes will most certainly be used to (mis)inform the governing bodies that are responsible for setting energy policy. To think that any pro AGW material will not be used to control energy use is to completely miss the point. These reports are specifically deployed to provide credibility to the Agenda 21 mandates.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            “Expert”, as always in progressive hellholes, referring to self promoting careerists with plenty of personal upside from having whatever they are “experts” in be considered more important/critical, of course…..

            I doubt you/the “experts” are wrong about dumping piles of co2 into the atmosphere causing some heating, but so what? Plenty of cheap land in both Siberia and Soviet Canuckistan. And desserts and jungles are cool too, you know. Why hate on them?

          • 0 avatar
            LuciferV8

            @VoGo

            “Lucifer,
            You say “logical argument”, I say tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.”

            Your kind always does when you’ve run out of arguments. A word of advice: remember that a conspiracy theory is no longer a theory when it is backed up by direct evidence.

            “Look, I’m not trying to win any arguments here, just thought some of the community would benefit from reading what our government developed with sincere effort on the topic.”

            Really?
            7 comments on this thread and counting, each one of them packed with assertions and you’re not trying to win any arguments?
            Are you under the impression that I was born yesterday?

            “You are certainly welcome to your opinions on the topic.”

            When the facts tilt against you, the whole issue becomes one of “opinion”. Right, got it.

            “Maybe someday you can teach me what the words “sophistry” and “warmists” mean.”

            Got a mirror?

            “To me, the question is whether we want to embrace new technologies that enable energy independence and continued economic growth, or do we want to remain the Saudi royal family’s bitches.”

            That issue is rather a distinctly different one than the question of anthropocentric global warming (AGW), which has been the predominant issue on this thread. That said, I can appreciate electric and alt fuel vehicles, not for reasons related to the dubious AGW theory, but for reasons related to capability and energy independence. Electric vehicles coupled with home solar/wind/geothermal power could be an excellent way of decentralizing energy infrastructure and providing redundant power/transportation to the people.

        • 0 avatar
          mkirk

          Oh can it. You aren’t interested in what anyone has to say unless they start the conversation off with the word “Hemi”

        • 0 avatar
          ect

          What you’re really saying is that you’re not interested in data that doesn’t neatly fit your ideological prejudices.

      • 0 avatar

        “These emissions come mainly from burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest clearing and some agricultural practices.””

        PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE explain something to me…

        Coal, Oil and Natural Gas are trapped underground until Humans dig them up.

        WHAT HAPPENS when those FOSSIL FUELS are SUBDUCTED into the Mojo by Plate Tectonics???

        THEY BURN – THAT’S WHAT!!!

        Earth, all by itself, releases more CO2, SO, CO and other gases into the atmosphere SIMPLY BY MELTING ROCK than mankind could ever release is IT’S ENTIRE EXISTENCE.

        That’s the reason Earth’s ice ages never last. It’s a cycle.

        when Earth cools, the icy surface reflects light back to space and the Earth gets even colder. But when ice COVERS plate tectonics and volcanoes underwater and under ice, the heat causes the ice to ultimately melt.

        It is the RADIATION in Earth keeping plate tectonics moving, but even that radiation DOES NOT LAST FOREVER. Eventually Earth will freeze over – but the same applies to the Sun which will run out of Hydrogen, start burning Helium and end up expanding into a RED GIANT until the Earth is toasted.

        …but in the mean time… you people think that driving a Prius or a Tesla Model S is going to save you… LOL

        Reminds me of people who buy BIGGER BIBLES thinking they’ll make it into Heaven if they are holier than thou.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          Well, TSS/BTS,
          People will have to decide for themselves whether to believe “a team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences” or the rantings of a mortgage broker from Queens with a balky caps lock.

          But you have pretty much summed up that choice yourself: “FORTUNATELY for the stupid people out there who never made it past High School Earth Science class, I exist to spread the truth and buck the trend.”

          • 0 avatar

            VoGo

            TECHNICALLY I’m a mortgage Broker from Manhattan who owns a house in Queens.

            – and when those “300 experts” next meal depends on a government handout – while my next meal doesn’t…I’d say I’m more trustworthy.

            N.O.A.A just GOT CAUGHT LYING.

            I’m not going to let that go.

            You’d trust N.O.A.A over me and they just got caught LYING TO YOU?

            You should trust me… LOL.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            BTS/TSS,
            As far as the NOAA thing goes, I looked into it, and you appear to be right – the NOAA fudged some data points on US temperature. Apparently, the 1930’s were VERY hot. Since then, US temperatures have been getting increasingly hotter, and no one disputes that.

            More importantly, global temperatures are also on the rise. The 1980’s was the hottest decade on record. But the 1990’s were hotter, with every year hotter than the 1990’s average. And the 2000’s even hotter, again with every year hotter than the 1990’s average.

            None of these facts are disputed by reputable scientists not in Exxon’s employ.

            Scary stuff.

          • 0 avatar
            LuciferV8

            “People will have to decide for themselves whether to believe “a team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences” or the rantings of a mortgage broker from Queens with a balky caps lock.”

            I figured you would break out the appeal to authority at this point, and I was right on the money.

            In my estimate, it is time for you and your ilk to “face the facts”. The global warming scam is based on heavy distortions, a stream of non-stop heavily subsidized propaganda, and a series of outright fabrications.

            I frankly don’t care how many “experts” they wish to dig up to support their assertions. In real science, the only pertinent voice is empirical evidence, and that voice is currently speaking against the AGW theory.

            What’s more, the argument from authority you submitted in lieu of hard evidence is lacking in credibility anyway. The current administration has been embroiled in no less than four major scandals, each of which has seen a number of obfuscations and outright lies. I’m not about to shut my brain off and give them the benefit of the doubt.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Lucifer,
            As I originally stated, these assessments were initiated during W’s presidency and are performed every 4 years. The assessment was not in any way initiated by or controlled by the Obama administration.

            If you care to read the assessment, you will find tons of empirical evidence, the body of which is remarkably consistent.

          • 0 avatar
            LuciferV8

            VoGo,
            “As I originally stated, these assessments were initiated during W’s presidency and are performed every 4 years. The assessment was not in any way initiated by or controlled by the Obama administration.”

            As I originally stated, these assessments are conducted under the auspices of 13 different federal agencies. Lois Lerner was appointed to her position at the IRS during the Bush administration as well, but that didn’t stop her or the folks at the EPA (Gibson Guitar incident) from going after Obama’s political enemies. The fact of the matter is that not only are there Obama appointees within these 13 agencies behind the NCA, there are a number of ways the executive branch can influence the actions of federal agencies, as evidenced by the numerous Obama administration scandals involving them.

            “If you care to read the assessment, you will find tons of empirical evidence, the body of which is remarkably consistent.”

            Well, if you care to read this:

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/13/checking-the-nca-report-against-real-data-reveals-major-discrepancies/

            you can see that there are a number of discrepancies in that same report.

        • 0 avatar
          LuciferV8

          BTSR,

          Notice how they never confront the logical arguments, but try to circumvent them by a combination emotional sophistry and (especially with warmists) appeals to authority.

          I have yet to see them present the evidence needed to win the argument, but I most certainly have seen them try every trick in the book to get around that.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Lucifer,
            You say “logical argument”, I say tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

            Look, I’m not trying to win any arguments here, just thought some of the community would benefit from reading what our government developed with sincere effort on the topic. You are certainly welcome to your opinions on the topic.

            Maybe someday you can teach me what the words “sophistry” and “warmists” mean.

          • 0 avatar

            LuciferV8

            To deal with these people you simply have to shout facts in their face and never let them change subjects.

        • 0 avatar
          Stovebolt

          What??

        • 0 avatar
          martinwinlow

          @bigtruck…
          Well, for me driving an EV is foremost a way of sticking up 2 fingers to Big Oil, the oil producers – most of whom wan’t to Rule The World! with their despotic nonsense masquerading as ‘religion’ and the moronic, power-hungry politicians they are all in bed with. As an engineer, I also much prefer the simplicity and efficiency of the EV drive train over the ICE.

          As for GW, it’s interesting that you raise this point about manmade Vs natural GW factors. For me, it is exactly this issue that leans me in the direction that GW is happening. The subduction of rock and all it contains may well be what causes the cyclic warming and cooling of the planet tho I’m not sure it’s entirely that simple. But, in any event, what you appear to have overlooked is that humanity has managed to achieve a good proportion of what would naturally occur over several hundred millennia – but in just 100 years! No surprise then that things are warming up, somewhat ahead of schedule. So you are sort of supporting the argument you say you are against. Confusing in’it?

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            Everybody wants to rule the world. But currently and unfortunately, only a gaggle of undifferentiated scum known as progressive governments actually do so. I suspect oil companies would make for scummy rulers as well, but so far, that is only a suspicion. While wrt progressive governments, the case is already proven.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            +1 stuki. Big oil didn’t murder 100 million of its own citizens during the 20th century. Big oil is not destroying Venezuela.

          • 0 avatar
            VoGo

            Thelain,
            Maybe a brief history lesson would be helpful:

            WW2 had many causes, but oil was critical. – Germany fought in Northern Africa to gain access to oil reserves.
            – Germany attacked Russia to gain access to the Baku oilfields
            – Japan launched Pearl Harbor right after the US cut off oil exports to Japan

            Look at recent times: Do you think Bush Sr. launches the first gulf war because Kuwait was a critical democratic ally, or because of all the oil in the gulf?

            Did Big Oil cause 100M deaths? Not directly, but so long as a country’s energy and economy are held hostage by unreliable foreign powers, the possibility of war is heightened.

            To me, the question is whether we want to embrace new technologies that enable energy independence and continued economic growth, or do we want to remain the Saudi royal family’s bitches.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            If that is your understanding of history, I can understand why you are confused.

      • 0 avatar
        Da Coyote

        Please, please, go and do something you know.

        And what you know is NOT science.

        • 0 avatar

          (VOGO)

          “BTS/TSS,
          As far as the NOAA thing goes, I looked into it, and you appear to be right ”

          THAT’S ALL I NEEDED TO HEAR…

          THANK YOU.

          (DA COYOTE)

          I promise, I will NEVER lie to you about climate data in order to TAX YOU or to attempt to control the energy usage of the world.

          I also promise NEVER to be SO STUPID that I don’t understand photosynthesis, the FACT that CO2 isn’t a pollutant, plate tectonics or Earth History.

          Many people said Alfred Wegner didn’t know what he was talking about either.

          • 0 avatar
            mkirk

            Wait, your a mortgage broker? Isn’t your industry pretty much by and large why we as a nation are in our current economic situation and didn’t your industry survive based on numerous government handouts?

          • 0 avatar

            Mkirk

            The current financial crisis was caused by numerous factors.

            I don’t think you can pin the blame on me.

        • 0 avatar
          LuciferV8

          Science is evidence, and that can be known by anyone willing to look at the facts.

      • 0 avatar
        carve

        Measuring global average yearly temperature to an accuracy necessary to detect a fraction of a degree rise in temperature is really difficult, especially before we were doing it with spacecraft. It’s tough to tell what trends are over relatively short spans.

        That said, climate has ALWAYS been changing without our influence. If we were headed into another ice age (and we’re due), I’d take globabl warming any day. Even if you do establish we’re warming, since climate has been changing without us, we need to positively prove that we’re responsible. I have no doubt we’re responsible for doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. The thing is, it’s gone from almost nothing to 2x almost nothing, which is still almost nothing. Where is the evidence that that amount of CO2 is sufficient to cause a significant warming effect? One thing is certain though: plants live off of that little trace amount of CO2, and have been shown to grow MUCH faster when more CO2 is available, as well as in warmer temperatures. I don’t believe this negative feedback CO2 sink effect is usually accounted for.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      @BTR: You’re the man; keep up the good fight.

  • avatar
    cargogh

    If all air particles become scared and move out of the way to avoid contact with that front, highway mileage should be fantastic. Sort of like driving in a vacuum.

  • avatar
    ClutchCarGo

    If the ammonia reformation is actually viable (sufficient output at an acceptable price), this would make fuel cells competitive by addressing the storage issues inherent in hydrogen. Add a substantial battery pack to recover braking energy and store an overnight charge, and you’ve got an all electric vehicle that overcomes range anxiety and refueling time. Of course, this still begs the question of where all the ammonia is going to come from.

    • 0 avatar
      schmitt trigger

      “Of course, this still begs the question of where all the ammonia is going to come from.”

      I think this is the biggest scientific and economic issue with fuel cells. Where to find a suitable hydrogen source.
      Hydrogen is actually very abundant on earth, but it has formed a pretty tight chemical bond with other elements.

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      Yes, it would be interesting to see someone run the numbers, both for energy inputs vs. output and costs in actual $$$ regarding ammonia’s viability as a transport fuel. We’ve been producing it in quantity for a long time so it shouldn’t be very hard to get some solid data. As I understand it, most ammonia is produced from natural gas. It’s hard to imagine that using that gas to produce ammonia to power a fuel cell would be more efficient than just running your car on gas.

      This assumes, of course, that ammonia fuel cells actually work outside the lab.

      • 0 avatar
        ClutchCarGo

        The value of converting the NatGas to ammonia would be that you could have an all electric car: a battery pack good for 50 miles on a charge with hydrogen from reformed ammonia for longer trips. No ICE needed, just the electric motor and fuel cell. There certainly would be real competition for the ammonia between transportation and agriculture, tho.

        • 0 avatar
          jhefner

          Which could drive up food prices further, just like ethanol has.

          Large quantities of ammonia are not the safest thing to be around either. While it is not oderless by any means, it is colorless and tends to settle to the ground rather than rise.

          I worked for a petrochemical plant that used large quantities of ammonia to cool the reactor towers. One of my former coworkers was trapped in a corner by an ammonia leak; I think he basically held his breath and ran for his life.

          The ammonia plant itself was across a road from the rest of the process equipment, and was transported via a large pipe in an overhead pipe bridge. He made the comment that if a delivery truck made a wrong turn and struck the pipe bridge and ruptured the pipe, it would be a major disaster for the surrounding neighborhoods as there was no way to shut the flow of ammonia off.

          That part of the plant was shut down in 2000 and demolished in 2005. I went to take pictures of the old steam powered pumps that pumped the ammonia; after standing there for a few minutes, I could feel myself getting wozzy and had to move on.

          I guess it is not much different from gasoline, however.

          EDIT: Reading other people’s comments; I was not aware of how corrosive ammonia is, but I can believe it; there was major rust all over the process equipment I was looking at.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      Personally, I’d prefer adding a supercapacitor to a battery pack to permit a degree of rapid-charging, permit more regenerative braking, and less cycling wear-and-tear.

  • avatar
    LuciferV8

    I remember some research being done on the use of palladium as a hydrogen storage device. I wonder if that is the direction Toyota is moving.

  • avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

    Ammonia is interesting, if rather more toxic to inhale in the event of an accident.. Synthetic hydrocarbons used with a SOFC would also not produce smog-forming NOx or particulates. Redox appears to have leapfrogged Bloom with a SOFC that doesn’t require much in the way of expensive materials:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/redox-umd-microsoft-trans-tech-to-develop-transformational-natural-gas-fuel-cells-through-5-million-in-arpa-e-funding-2014-06-23

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/at-redox-power-systems-the-future-of-electricity-lies-in-fuel-cells/2013/08/23/677c7a64-09d1-11e3-b87c-476db8ac34cd_story.html

    They need to get that to 100kW and reduce both volume and cost by an order of magnitude before it’s practical for automotive applications.

  • avatar
    nickoo

    This ammonia “discovery” is a joke and part of the stagnation that establishment science has wrout upon us for the last 50 years. Bob Lazer has a corvette he runs from solid amonia compound/hydrogen fuel source in a combustion engine with a catalyst he developed, that you can see on YouTube. This type of tech has been known for decades.

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    Ammonia is both toxic and highly corrosive. In a properly converted engine, it returns ~40% of the heat energy of diesel. After factoring in the power required to first produce the hydrogen needed to create it, then the high temps and pressure to produce it, you’ll be lucky to break even on the effort.

  • avatar
    wmba

    There’s a reason they don’t use ammonia as a refrigerant to freeze things like ice hockey rink surfaces any more. A leak causes evacuation of the surrounding area. The gas kills you.

    So let’s have ammonia rfueling stations everywhere. Preferably near the climate change denier busybodies shouting at the walls trying to argue that black is white.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Nothing could be greener than a gas that kills people. Just look at the EU’s favorite refrigerant.

    • 0 avatar
      HerrKaLeun

      The reason is all ice rinks use glycol to freeze the ice. That glycol is cooled in a chiller. So no direct connection between ice rink and refrigerant. That chiller could use ammonia, R410A or whatever… irrelevant to the people in the rink.

  • avatar
    carve

    This is an awful story. First, hydrogen fuel cell cars have just a fraction of the wheel-to-well efficiency of battery electric, and are expensive to produce. The ONLY advantage is you can fill your tank quicker, and that advantage is quickly eroding.

    Hydrogen is an energy storage medium- not an energy source…and it’s a pretty crappy storage medium due to it’s low density (you need a big tank to store just a little of it). Ammonia is much more dense and easier to liquify, but it would have to be produced from fossil fuels and air by the Haber process- the same way we make ammonia from fertilizer. This will incur an additional energy loss. Here’s the BIG PROBLEM THOUGH: AMMONIA IS EXTREMELY TOXIC!!!!! It actually makes an extradorinaly efficient refrigerant…far better than R-134a, Freon, CO2, or anything else we currently use. It’s much cheaper, too. The reason we don’t use it: PEOPLE DIE IF IT LEAKS OUT OF THIS PERFECTLY SEALED SYSTEM! Of course, the smell is so bad people usually GTFO before any harm is done, but even in the small chance they can’t, we choose not to use ammonia these days. This is a FUEL TANK that you’ll constantly be opening and closing…putting in cars that crash. This idea fails on so many levels. Absurd.

  • avatar
    SteelyMoose

    Wow, just think about it!

    Between ammonia as a potential hydrogen source, and clean diesel emissions thanks to urea…who knew that pee was the answer all along?

    Speaking of urine, we now return you to our regularly scheduled pissing match.

  • avatar
    HerrKaLeun

    So all energy problems are solved once we tap the abundant hydrogen and ammonia wells?

    Hydrogen has been illusionists’ pipedream for some years. You know what all those hydrogen people have in common? None of them ever took a Thermodynamics or other enginerring course. It’s corn ethanol with some space age fame. If primary elections were in hydrogen-producing States the government would already have mandated its use at any cost.

  • avatar

    The climate change deniers and Big Oil Trolls, are all over this post about Toyota’s advancing hydrogen transportation technology, and a new low-cost way to extract hydrogen from ammonia. At least we get an idea who’s on the dirty energy payroll.

    • 0 avatar
      HerrKaLeun

      I wish I was on their payroll…..

      An inefficient energy storage like hydrogen would accelerate climate change even more. Natural gas to hydrogen to electricity to wheel = uses 3 times of natural gas as Natural gas to ICE to wheel.

    • 0 avatar
      carve

      (Facepalm) Why does it matter if they found a low cost way to extract hydrogen from ammonia when ammonia takes a huge amount of energy to produce and is a dangerous energy storage medium? Ammonia is made by reforming natural gas into hydrogen and CO2, and then reacting that hydrogen with Nitrogen from the air. Just storing the natural gas onboard the car is much more efficient.

      This isn’t a new cheap way to get hydrogen- it’s an additional, energy losing step (although probably less energy intensive than compressing the hydrogen. That step is about a 30% loss in energy!). Hydrogen will NEVER be a chemical energy source any more than batteries; they’re both ways to store energy you got somewhere else. It’s thermodynamically impossible for hydrogen to be an energy source- it must always, by the laws of thermodynamics, take more energy to produce than you get back.

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    According to Wikipedia most ammonia is formed today by reacting hydrogen with nitrogen. So we’re supposed to expend energy by generating hydrogen to make into ammonia in order to break down ammonia to get at the hydrogen?

    Compared to this the ethanol program is a model of efficiency.

    • 0 avatar
      HerrKaLeun

      +10000

      there are alteady so many natural gas cars. Natural gas to ICE to wheel. How do they think natural gas to hydrogen to ammonia to hydrogen to electricity to E-motor to wheel would be more efficient?

  • avatar
    redav

    I’m not really concerned about a crash leading to a hydrogen leak. I am more concerned about a crash leading to a leak of anhydrous ammonia. There’s a reason it’s not used as a refrigerant in normal consumer applications.

  • avatar
    kosmo

    Well, to be fair to the 300 scientists that bought into this report, they did so at least partially based on the false data NOAA utilized.

    I have run into this kind of thing in my career a few times. Most notably when the state of CA initially demanded that I use accepted dust modeling parameters for a large expansion permitting project at an existing facility.

    When the modeling showed that every dirt road at the facility would lose over 8 feet of thickness in 10 years, they had to reluctantly back down from this, and use real data (of which we possessed 7 years).


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States