I think the spirit of the AUSEV mailing list charter is specific to Austin area topics, but otherwise this is (IMO) a fairly valid topic - how to separate fact from fiction and enable us all to be better EV advocates. In order to do so, we must understand the implications of the hydrogen economy that the oil industry is selling in an attempt to derail EVs, but key is the last one:<br>
<br>5. Electric vehicles (EVs) are an answer to the problems of oil dependency, pollution, and energy efficiency.<br><br>4. Fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) are EVs, but have additional subsystems that could provide greater range than existing BEV technology, although charging (electrolysis) and discharging (fuel cell) is very inefficient.<br>
<br>3. The parts and knowledge are available to build or convert an existing conventional vehicle to a BEV. The parts and knowledge are not available to build a FCV.<br><br>2. The average citizen already has the infrastructure to refuel a BEV. The average citizen does not have the infrastructure to refuel a FCV (oil companies like this).<br>
<br>1. FCVs are about 1/3 as efficient as battery electric vehicles (BEVs). source: Argone National Labs "Well-to-Wheels" analysis using the GREET model<br><br>Besides longer range, fuel cell proponents used to say that they could offer faster refueling
than BEVs too, but that is no longer the case. I am confident that
battery energy density will be improved enough to meet consumer
expectations (300+ miles?) far before a fuel cell membrane can be
discovered that will be as durable at the same cost as the new generation of
chemical batteries.<br><br>The biggest myth about hydrogen is the pollution argument. It takes energy to crack water, and if you use the current US mix of electricity sources (to make it apples to apples with EVs), FCVs are way worse (+65%) than internal combustion engines (ICEs) in terms of green house gases (GHGs).<br>
<br>If you consider any source of energy, the efficiency math is between the added weight of the large battery and the efficiency of the H2 generation and fuel cell. Currently, the BEVs are winning (even good old lead acids). I don't see this changing. If you consider the incredible cost of the fuel cell components themselves vs the cost of even a high-end lithium-ion, water-cooled AC drive, there is no way to argue the feasibility of FCVs. Then, you have these guys that want to BURN hydrogen using ICE conversion kits, which trades the 50% efficiency of the fuel cell for the 15% efficiency of the ICE, and you're going the WRONG WAY!<br>
<br>The technology for EVs is here today and can be applied to help 80% of Americans' commuting needs. It is here at a price that most people can afford. The technology and prices are only getting better. You can't say any of that about H2.<br>
<br>If you don't trust me, please do some more research:<br><a href="http://www.evworld.com/library/abrooks_carb_nov2_05.pdf">http://www.evworld.com/library/abrooks_carb_nov2_05.pdf</a><br><a href="http://www.econogics.com/ev/fcevreal.htm">http://www.econogics.com/ev/fcevreal.htm</a><br>
<a href="http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=49">http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=49</a><br><span class="a"><a href="tr_1212292355524">http://www.switchingpowermagazine.com/</a><a href="http://www.switchingpowermagazine.com/downloads/Future%20of%20the%20Electric%20Car.pdf">downloads/Future%20of%20the%20Electric%20Car.pdf</a><br>
</span><a href="http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/anp_7_wang.pdf"><span class="a">http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/anp_7_wang.pdf</span></a><br><b><br></b>- ian<b><br></b>