All those Prius owners on my Berkeley block got nothing on this baby: A hydrogen hybrid Prius whose fuel is produced by a wind turbine. Last week I visited EVermont, a Burlington non-profit R&D outfit that operates one of few renewable hydrogen filling stations in the country. Among the (many) stumbling blocks to the much-hyped hydrogen economy is the fact that today most hydrogen is produced by burning fossil fuels, which partly neutralizes its advantage as an abundant clean green power source. The holy grail is hydrogen produced from renewable energy. To that end, EVermont
buys power generated by a wind turbine located next door to its fuel
station (above photo) and owned by a local utility. Wind-generated electricity is used to produce hydrogen
onsite through electrolysis. The result: a truly carbon neutral car. Unlike the Mercedes (DCX) hydrogen fuel cell car
I drove earlier in the week, the Toyota (TM) Prius has a standard internal
combusion engine. The engine was converted to run on hydrogen by Quantum Technologies Worldwide of
Irvine, California.
The car has a range of about 80
miles and will be used by the city of Burlington. The fueling station
itself cost $2 million and was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy
with equipment donated by manufacturers. EVermont research director Harold Garabedian estimates that filling up the hydrogen Prius costs the equivalent of between $5 and $10 a gallon.
Outrageous? Not if you’re a European already paying $6 or $7 a gallon
for petrol. Of course, mass production and the use of solar panels and other renewable energy sources would bring those costs down.
For a good primer on the challenges and payoffs of the hydrogen economy
check out the current issue of Popular Mechanics.
As the Wombat reported yesterday, California is one of the world’s largest contributors to global warming, and 41 percent of the Golden State’s greenhouse gases come from cars and other fossil fuel-burning vehicles. In the long run, renewable hydrogen may turn out to be the bargain of the century.
Green Wombat 
One of my pet peeves is the common mis-use of the adjective “only”, which means sole or alone in its class. Your article on the Wind Powered Hydrogen Prius contained a line about an “R&D outfit that operates one of the only renewable hydrogen filling stations”.
I assume you meant either that this station is the only one,
or that it is one of a few, or even of a very few.
Which did you mean?
Please do not be so careless in the future.
So a hybrid car that uses an internal combustion engine to burn hydrogen produced by electrolosis of water. OK the wind generated electricity used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen is carbon free making the car entirely emmision free. Yes it’s wonderful that these engineers have met the challenge of pollution free transportation.
Not to be a kill joy but I have to ask if this is a viable technology likely to be applied at large scales? If so it suffers from the same range issues as an electric car. Moreover, electrolysis is extremely inefficient ( 0.1%) Therefore using the wind generated energy to charge a battery for the electric car provide 1000 X the energy as the hydrogen. This assumes that the internal combustion engine converts the hydrogen chemical energy at 100% efficiency, which it doesn’t.
This is a great R&D achievement but generating hygrogen from electoloysis for transportation is short-sighted at best.
Rather than spending 2 million dollars an a filling station for one very impractical car, maybe they should work on some sort of practical technology. Does ANYBODY know of a way to make hydrogen that doesn’t use fossil fuels, and can be done on a large-scale basis? If not, then let’s stop trying to build hydrogen-powered cars, and work on something that will be useful. -Carl Spearow
I would suggest that the poster of the “0.1% efficiency” of electroysis do a little more research on the subject.
I would suggest that the poster of the “0.1% efficiency” of electroysis do a little more research on the subject.
Response to Excapnal:
Erratta;
Yes it seems that I was in error with my previous estimate of hydrogen hydrolysis efficiency. Mea cupla. But what’s a few orders of magnitude among friends? 😉
My point however remains the same: hydrogen hydrolysis efficiency of 50% combined with internal combustion efficiency of 20 % = total wind energy => transportation = 10% so using the electricity to charge batteries and power an electric car would be 9X more efficient (assuming 90% effciency of electric traction motors).
Bill Garmire – While your critique of the author’s misuse of the word “only” was on point, please note that your misuse of punctuation marks is equally distracting. Punctuation marks should be included within quotation marks. For example, Prof. Grammar stated, “People who live in glass houses should never throw stones.”
Please exclude this post from grammar/punctuation critique. 🙂
I’m with Excapnal on this issue too. Converting energy from kinetic (wind) to electric, then back to chemical (electrolosis), then run through a combustion engine, (back to kinetic?) seems like a big waste since energy is lost every time it changes forms. Not only is the simpler solution just to convert it once (kinetic to electric), but we’ve already got a distribution system in place for electric cars. (We’ve all got electricity running to our homes already.) Granted, the “road trip” solution still needs to be worked out but perhaps that should be where most of our effort goes rather than this crazy system required to hold onto the combustion engine.
If only we could develop a practical mode of individual transportation capable of generating energy from errant punctuation, it would be entirely possible to completely eliminate these innane postings.
I think this is a great step in the right direction. You have to give kudos to Toyota for the ideas. A little innovation can go a long way if applied correctly. I still think we should do more with bio-diesel and turning coal to liquid.
I do like to see new ideas being put to use. This is a great start to better things. But it Really makes me upset when I see these reports compare our gas prices with the prices in europe when there gas price includes there medical coverage and other government ran programs. Our gas price is almost all for gas with very little benefits to the common people.
Perhaps the punctuation police could contribute an idea instead of simply offering only their own red pens to the flow of dialogue?
But alas, those who can, do. Those who can’t, critique.
Perhaps the punctuation police could contribute an idea instead of simply offering only their own red pens to the flow of dialogue?
But alas, those who can, do. Those who can’t, critique.
Carbon neutral car? I applaud efforts like this but I guess you forgot to count all of the fossil fuels used to manufacture it–from the energy to all the plastic.
Clarification on the usage of “only”.
I saw one of the comments criticizing usage of “only” in “R&D outfit that operates one of the only renewable hydrogen filling stations”. You have to read this a little differently. This is one of the “only renewable hydrogen filling stations”. “Only” here is for the type of gas station which doesn’t have any other source of filling avilable. And this gas station is one of those stations that provide only hydroger. Hope that helps.
Thanks,
Ninad
Mike makes a good point about just how carbon neutral the Prius is. He’s right that the car is not carbon neutral when you account for its manufacture. What I was referring to was its fuel and emissions. (Of course, building the wind turbine and hydrogen fuel station also were not carbon neutral activities, but few things are at this point.)
I think everyone missed the important point. There are millions of cars with combustion engines. This would be a method to convert these cars to hydrogen now while new engines are being developed. We are not going to scrap all these cars that were designed to run on gasoline.
Please keep the discussion on the topic and not discuss grammar and punctuation.
Harold,
Point taken, but I believe Mike’s critique still holds. Remember that ultimately, all energy except for nuclear, is solar in nature, whether you pump fossil fuels (solar energy -> photosynthesis -> fossil) or solar panels (solar energy -> electricity) or wind (solar energy -> kinetic/wind -> electricity) or hydro (solar energy -> evaporation -> condensation -> water flow -> electricity). All of these are mature technologies and there are gas pipelines and electric power lines everywhere. The only problem with electric solutions is battery technology which adds ( electric -> chemical -> electric) into the mix. Till such an improvement happens, burning gasoline in an ICE is probably the simplest and most efficient use of what we have and what we know. Solving the battery problem would be a lot easier than adding an esoteric hydrogen economy in the middle just for the sake of it.
You know, everyone seems to focus on only the H model of car.-, as if H is the only option. There are companies here in America that already produce fuel pellets from waste in local landfills that can be converted to fuel that can be used in an automobile. The problem is that Big Interest Groups(aka-Big Oil, COrn Grower Unions, and most importantly ARAB owned Oil Companies)are either having the projects shut down or as in the case of Arab owned oil companies, they are seeking to buy out the technology–most likely to suppress it. Hydrogen, although a viable option, is an alternative because the big companies can profit from them. Revenue generated from Waste-converted to fuel can be controlled by local municipalities–go figure why our Federal govt will not back such programs..
It’s great to see that the USA takes te initiative on the hydrogen energy issue. Indeed is windpower an answer to the complete cycle to energy saving in automobiles.
The USA shows again that it is the innovative & creative nation of the world. In Europe where gas prices are still around $ 7,00/gal all governments do is talking about it. Especially in the Netherlands where other energy prices – electricity & natural gas – are hooked to the price of the world’s oil prices/barrel! Since taxes are a percentage of the selling price this extra income is used to balance the budget.
I think the larger point here is that the know how and ability to lead us out of our dangerous fossil fuel reliance is here today. The only thing lacking is leadership on the part of business and government to guide the process until it becomes the norm, not the exception.
Instead of deconstructing the science behind renewable energy, we should be deconstructing the current generation of Americans who lack courage and will to face the current environmental and national security dangers of relying on fossil fuels.
Want to make an important contribution to finding a solution to overuse of fossil fuels? Vote Democratic on Tuesday.
Most of the comments were of interest until I read the last one about voting Democratic.
“Carbon neutral car? I applaud efforts like this but I guess you forgot to count all of the fossil fuels used to manufacture it–from the energy to all the plastic.”
So…we’re in a Chicken and Egg situation. Do we wait until we can produce a vehicle without using fossil fuels before we develop a H-powered car, or do we work towards developing fossil-fuel-free engines before we figure out how to actually produce it without using petrol-based plastics, etc?
Both can and should happen, and simultaneously at that.
Let’s not take our eyes off the prize and get caught up in which comes first…
All of the focus on efficiency of conversion overlooks the important part of the equation and that is whether or not the economics make sense. Irregardless of the efficiency, if it is cheaper to operate a car using these methods, then efficiency does not matter. (Of course usefulness in terms of range, ease of refueling, etc also play a part in whether such technologies will be adopted.)
These are interim solutions. Coming down the pike will be fusion energy transmitted on superconductive lines with automobiles receiving energy transfers as part of their license fees. at specific points along the roadway, or even from cables under the roadway.
It will replace all energy used in transportation except for aircraft, and heating for buildings and furnaces. Oil will retain its usage in the petrochemical industry.
We will get there a lot quicker if we cease doing these space circuses — there will always be time for them after we have solved the current energy crisis.
Research is still necessary to control and contain the fusion process. Oil company lobbies are discouraging this. On the other end, we must determine how to efficiently store electricity in massive amounts.
DMR is on the right track, all of us should see the new movie by Chris Paine: Who killed the electric car?
Go plug ins go! I am connected, are you?
I was having a discussion with a client of mine earlier this week about renewable energy fuels. His company is actually an oil and natural gas extraction company, and he was explaining to me why the fossil fuels industry is still highly profitable.
The greatest problem with renewable fuels is that they just aren’t practical enough. With the average cost of hybrid cars being $10k higher and the time between refuelings 100 – 200 miles less than that of gas, most Americans are not switching over anytime soon.
Not sure where you got the average hybrid cost $10K higher or that a hybrid refuels in 100-200 miles less. The general average is more like $3K depending on your basis of comparison (probably more like 5K for the Highlander Hybrids). As far as the refill, I am not aware of any hybrids that have that large of a difference in gas tank size. The largest difference I found was 2 gallons (after looking at Camry, Highlander, Accord, Civic, and Lexus SUV). The 1-2 gallon difference in some vehicles still result in filling up less often because of the increase in mileage.
As the models and options increase, we will see more and more Americans switch to a hybrid.
Okay. The thing is, it won’t matter how advanced we get because of the current bureaucratic system in place. The corporate system has been so well-entrenched in so many areas that it’s virtually impossible for proposals that are energy-efficient but don’t benefit large companies to gain any momentum. Back in ’94, the son of a brilliant inventor tried to get another patent for an electric generator the size of a large toaster that could sit on kitchen counter tops (it harnessed its power from a layer of our atmosphere that is inessential) but was led in circles for months in hopes that a large corporation could patent it first and bury the tech.
No matter how advanced our technology gets, we have to fix the politics crisis, not the energy one.
Response to Mr. Spearow,
Okay, if you think there is a better way, then do it! For now this is a great way to produce energy. The problems with batteries are:
1. Their life span is only approximately 5 yrs.
2. Disposing of these batteries is harmful to the environment.
3. It is difficult to position batteries in a vehicle, as well as, they add tremendous weight to a vehicle which takes away from efficiency. Etc.
Right now this way of generating hydrogen will have to do until we can think of a more efficient way. I don’t agree with the information in this article that it will cost $5 to $10 a gallon since it is totally produced using renewable energy. Bottom line it that we need to completely rid ourselves of emissions. The world is quickly dying. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that if you pollute the atmosphere more and more each year with greenhouse gases while taking away the very thing that cleans these gases (our trees and other vegetation), as well as kill the organisms in the oceans that convert carbon dioxide, the environment will only get worse. I’m for anything that is completely emissions free, environmental safe, and independent from foreign oil production, whether it is efficient or not. It really doesn’t matter at this point in the game.
Why is there so much hoopla about hydrogen (HHO) cars with reference to hybrids etc? Forget about caring around tanks filled with HHO….good grief a hydrogen bomb!
Let’s cut to the chase. The key to the ultimate HHO vehicle is its ability to produce HHO, “on-demand thus meeting the immediate demands of the engine. You ask, that’s impossible or it has not been invented yet or the oil companies would just buy the inventor out. Well, if these are your responses then you are wrong on ALL accounts. On demand HHO with no mortification to a vehicle has already been done. The inventor, Denny Klein in Clearwater Florida just got a contract with the Army for a hummer conversion and then only after extensive testing in Washington D.C. I am in the process of building a HHO at home. Oh, by the way, all the component parts needed can be purchased over the counter. If you want the free plans EM me at: robert@robertsmessage.com It works!!!
I thought there was a problem with wind energy being at peak in off peak hours (daytime), sometimes resulting in 1/3 or less the market price of peak hour electricity. So would hydrogen production during periods of low electricty demand be viable?