Alternative Energy Linde fuel cell bicycle prototype has 65 miles of range

Published on October 17th, 2015 | by Steve Hanley

72

World’s first: Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bicycle by Linde

October 17th, 2015 by  
 

Linde fuel cell bicycle prototype has 65 miles of range

German’s Linde Group is one of the world’s largest suppliers of industrial gasses and that includes hydrogen. In Europe, the company is working to take the lead in building hydrogen refueling stations for fuel cell powered cars. It already has 100 operating in Germany, where BMW and Mercedes say they are working on hydrogen cars.

Linde likes the environmental advantages of using hydrogen power and has decided to promote its commitment to clean energy by building a fuel cell bicycle that has a range of 65 miles using just 34 grams of hydrogen. The battery usually found on electric bikes is replaced by a compact fuel cell which generates electric power from hydrogen and oxygen taken from the surrounding atmosphere. The H2 Bike uses a specially developed fueling system that can refill the cylinder in less than six minutes.

According to Electric Cars Report, it took Linde engineers less than three months to develop the project from the initial idea to a functioning prototype. Under the motto “I run on hydrogen”, the Linde H2 bike proves that there is a viable alternative to conventional batteries in electric bikes, thus further increasing the appeal of what is already viewed as an environmentally friendly mode of transport. Like hydrogen powered cars, fuel cell bikes have the dual advantage of a long range and a short refueling window of just a few minutes.

“Linde is …pushing new and unconventional ideas to contribute to the widespread commercialisation of hydrogen as a clean technology,” commented Dr Wolfgang Büchele, CEO of Linde AG. “With the Linde H2 bike, we have shown that the benefits of hydrogen drives are not restricted to cars – bikes are another interesting application.”

The H2 bike, which Linde will produce as a limited prototype series, runs on sustainable hydrogen fuel obtained through the electrolysis of water using wind energy or by reforming biogas. The carbon emissions of the Linde H2 bike are lower than for a typical e=bike, whose battery is charged using power drawn from the electrical grid. If hydrogen powered cars are part of the future, Linde will be supplying the fuel that makes them go.

 

Photo credit: the Linde Group (Linde AG).


Tags: , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

I have been a car nut since the days when Rob Walker and Henry N. Manney, III graced the pages of Road & Track. Today, I use my trusty Miata for TSD rallies and occasional track days at Lime Rock and Watkins Glen. If it moves on wheels, I'm interested in it. Please follow me on Google + and Twitter.



  • Marc P

    Oh, and it costs only 3 million dollars…

    • Steve Hanley

      Cheap at half the price, Marc! ; – )

    • Ben The Mechanic

      why would it be 3 million?

  • Mike333

    What’s the explosive power of the hydrogen pack?
    Can someone put an igniter circuit on it and see how big the explosion gets?

    • Dig Deeper

      The standard for fuel cell automotive tank testing is to detonate TNT on the tank. Nothing happens. There are YouTube videos on this, test protocol similar to natural gas tank vehicles. H2 cars regarded by many in the industry to be safer than conventional petrol vehicles.

  • Mike333

    How many will ISIS order?

  • Ben The Mechanic

    Thank you Steve for covering this. The real appeal in this type of application is a rider can easy put a couple of back-up canisters in a backpack because they would be lightweight. From town to town. a rider could just swap for pre-filled ones. This could revolutionize electric bikes if all manufacturers used the same standard. To get rid of the weight of the battery keeps the bike within weight to still be easily carried when need be.

    • Steve Hanley

      I see you are taking this more seriously than some who have written here, Ben. There is a lot of mis-information about hydrogen floating around, but Linde has just entered into an agreement with Mercedes, Audi and BMW to build 400 hydrogen refueling stations in Germany.

      Who can predict what sorts of devices we will use for transportation in 20 years? Someday, batteries may be looked upon as old fashioned and crude. People may snicker at how silly humans were to think they were the answer.

      There is so much going on here. EV fans pooh pooh plug-ins and belittle the Chevy Volt. Elon disses fuel cells. Tesla owners look down on anyone else. Real bicycle riders dismiss any bike that has electric assist as an abomination.

      But the future has a way of not following anyone’s script. In principle, I would have no problem riding a bike that got assistance from a fuel cell. Let’s revisit this thread in 5 years. ; – )

      • Dig Deeper

        Steve, most EV fans don’t realize the amount of energy that is required to make a long range vehicle like the tesla model S, nor do they understand the issues regarding resource constraints or the environmental impacts of chemical slurries involved. EV fans pooh pooh fuel cells based on lower operational efficiency, but neglect to investigate the lower upstream energy inputs that are required to make the fuel cell in comparison to a large battery bank capable of taking a vehicle a couple hundred miles. Toyota likely favors fuel cells because they offer a better profit margin potential and less volatile supply stream.

        • Marcel

          If you have facts about how polluting, then state them. I thought the rare materials made manfucturing of fuel cells complicated and expensive. On the other hand, I heard the gigafactory is a net zero energy building and Tesla is working on contracts to source raw materials as close as possible to production.
          The pollution you state is compensated for in less than 9 months of driving an EV yet this myth refuses to die.

          • Dig Deeper

            Marcel, refer to the graph below which depicts the emissions of the manufacturing process as a total of vehicle lifecycle emissions for various vehicle types. It is important to not that the EV this graph is based on is the 24 kWh Nissan Leaf, NOT the 85 kWh Tesla Model S, which would have much higher manufacturing related emissions due to the much larger battery bank size.

            Since a fuel cell utilizes an external fuel source it can achieve a 300+ mile range while being a fraction of the physical volume of the model S battery bank, which btw weighs around 1500 lbs. the primary constituent of a fuel cell stack is a non-exotic fluoropolymer that serves as the ion transfer electrolyte. Platinum usage in fuel cells has fallen sharply, and fuel cell vehicles now use only 2-3x the platinum of the catalytic converter mounted on hundreds of millions of conventional petrol cars. That amount of platinum is expected to drop further yet.

            Both fuel cells and batteries require graphite, though the fuel cells use lower quantities and potentially a lower grade than the specific and energy intensive flake graphite that lithium based batteries typically rely on.

            I think there will be large growth and an expanded market for purely electric vehicles as well as fuel cells. My purpose in commenting isn’t to favor one over the other, but rather to push back against some incomplete and flawed analysis about the comparative environmental merits of each.

            In regards to Tesla’s gigafactory being being a net-zero energy facility – you can’t economically mine and transport these materials without hydrocarbons, and you can’t power a large industrial factory economically in 2015 without extensive use of hydrocarbons either – unless the primary grid power source is hydroelectric or nuclear. I don’t believe for 1 second that Tesla is capable of producing an affordable 200 mile range EV without relying extensively on cheap oil, coal, and gas in the mining and manufacturing processes.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fd08b6806c7e289d44b995cecf5633cd386fe84ed04e74164066d1995c6965ff.jpg

          • Marcel

            Except you posted a graph of g/km, not total vehicle
            emissions. Plus another graph shows the contrary so I’m not buying into your claims. Just do the math, if you drive 15’000 km per year, how many tons of CO2
            do you produce?

            “you can’t economically mine and transport these materials without
            hydrocarbons, and you can’t power a large industrial factory economically in
            2015 without extensive use of hydrocarbons either – unless the primary grid
            power source is hydroelectric or nuclear.”

            That sounds so familiar… like when a bunch of so called scientists and experts claimed you can’t economically replace ICE. You’ve gotta change habits, I bet any mining trucks or machinery can be electric. With a mentality like yours, the world will suffocate by its own pollution. They will power 100% of the manufacturing (once the facility is complete) by renewables, including solar and wind.

            The problem with H2 is that they’re turning it into something controlled by big business and that’s not what you want. If at least one manufacturer produced a good-looking FCEV which you could fill up at home with a home electrolysis device powered by solar and available where I live, then I’d have changed my mind. Until then I’m not buying into any more H2 claims/concepts. I’ve seen enough for almost a decade.

            “but rather to push back against some incomplete and flawed analysis about
            the comparative environmental merits of each.”

            You’re very arrogant to think you’re right and everyone else is wrong. I have also very complete analysis that shows BEVs surpass by far other technologies in terms of total lifecycle emissions. Are you also going to say the PV panels and wind turbines pollute more than gas plants if you consider the manufacturing? It seems you’re on your own tangent, I’m more interested in the practical side of things. I don’t care about which technology wins but I do care about my wallet and what is here and now. At the end of the day, people who say ICE pollutes less overall are badly mistaken as peer reviewed journals suggest. Unclear running costs of H2 cars kind of remind me of the opacity of the nuclear industry. I don’t see why I would choose H2 over batteries if it costs far more and is not even available in the vast majority of the world.

            Look at the bigger picture, this is not a science debate, it’s business and it’s the environment. It’s a race against ourselves and what’s left of the environment. The faster you can bring a practical zero emissions technology to market and to the largest number of customers, the better. I don’t think messing with fossil fuels in another way to produce H2 is the answer. I think powering the economy by the sun is the superior and more cost effective solution.

          • Dig Deeper

            so hydrogen is controlled by big business but batteries are not? Think you’ve got it backwards there – there are strict resource constraints on things like lithium. The idea that solar is not big business is also flawed, no neighborhood shop is turning out wind turbines and solar panels – it is large corporations doing this and resource constraints also apply as each is material intensive.

            Battery electric vehicles with appreciably range simply require significantly more energy and material resources to manufacture, you aren’t going to find any reputable research which indicates otherwise. This manufacturing energy is in fact a significant portion of the lifecycle energy used by the Vehicle, there are a number of studies that all conclude these facts whether it is convenient for you or not.

            Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use EVs, but shorter range EVs certainly have higher environmental merit than longer range ones.

          • Marcel

            You’ve got it backwards. PV is commoditized nowadays so they’ve got no bargaining power. You buy the cheapest PV panels. Same with batteries, it’s all about cost and the race began long long time ago. H2 production on the other hand, the owners of the station can decide to charge whatever and since there are a handful in places like California, they charge whatever they want. So you’re wrong.

            “you aren’t going to find any reputable research which indicates otherwise.”

            You’re not as good at research as you think you are.

          • Dig Deeper

            So solar panels are a commodity but natural gas is not? Doesn’t sound quite right.

            Since most people work while the sun shines brightest, and since a residential PV system is going to charge a vehicle at a pretty slow rate, I would say solar’s relevance to mass adoption of EVs remains pretty low at this point. Natural gas,coal, hydro, and nuclear do the bulk of EV charging.

          • Marcel

            My office has more than enough PV to chage EVs. Natural gas, oil etc. don’t allow the same level of cost control PV does. Here, nuclear, CCGT and even hydro can no longer compete with wind and PV. Do you get it now?

          • Marcel

            Also, you’re wrong about PV charging EVs at a slow rate. You can choose the appropriate PV system and you can tell your car how fast to charge.

          • Dig Deeper

            no I’m not wrong marcel, a typical home PV system produces 3-5kw at peak, though this is under ideal sunlight and thermal conditions, depending on what part of the day actual output will be somewhere between 20-85% of this typically, given there are no clouds. A tesla model S has a 60-86 kWh battery. The math is clear.

            And like I said before, most people are not home during the sunniest parts of the day. Most EV owners rely primarily on night charging, no sun then.

          • Marcel

            You are wrong. People don’t wait till it’s empty to charge. You forget that more and more workplaces have PV and EV charging and they are not 3-5 kW. Where I live, people install more like 10 kWp. You can adjust how fast your EV charges as well. So you can charge your car on 5 kWp especially if you’ve driven 40 km and used 10 kWh in the process.. So your off topic attacks are dumb. Your anti EV anti RE is kind of ironic BTW since you used Elon’s picture… The definition of an internet troll…

          • Dig Deeper

            I’m not anti anything Marcel, just talking about practicalities and reality here.

            10 kW is the limit in most places for residential PV systems and few people go that large. Depending on panel type 10 kW is 30-40 panels, hard to find roof space for, and a pretty hefty investment, not the typical residential pv system size whatsoever, though done in some rare cases.

            Some work places have a couple dedicated chargers, but few are powered by PV, and to charge the entire workforce fleet with PV is going to require a pretty sizable array and good weather.

            My point is that it is the grid that steps in to charge EVs, rarely can a person make a valid claim that their PV system actually charges their vehicle. Perhaps they can claim some offset, but the grid is always a necessary part of it.

          • Marcel

            Where I live we got more than enough PV to charge the EV at work or at home. If where you are that’s not the case doesn’t mean it’s not possible. I’m not talking about mainstream, I’m talking about what’s feasible. We’re offsetting more than $ 1300 per year in fuel costs and 1000 in electric costs, so it’s working quite well actually. Just gotta do the math.

          • Dig Deeper

            Arithmetic and honesty – neither would seem to be your strong suit. Good day

          • Marcel

            Time will tell how mistaken and outdated your opinion is. I don’t care what you think. Made a point from industry and research experience following the leading energy research, financial, academic and government agencies like energy departments of germany, us and france. Like I said, progress is made by innovators who make things happen, not conservative-minded people who just talk garbage and are afraid of change.

          • Dig Deeper

            Well government agencies in the U.S. Germany and Japan are also touting fuel cell vehicles as well as battery electrics, and so are Toyota Honda Hyundai and Chrysler Fiat.

            My point was never to say Battery Electrics don’t have applications and won’t see use, I know for certain their usage will grow considerably. I just have referred to real data on some misconceptions about LONG RANGE BEVs in particular. Perhaps your feeble mind, like that of many Americans, is unable to understand a complex message such as this, and so instead you turn this issue into one of polarized ideas and render me your enemy. A real path to idiocracy.

            Anyways there literally is an insufficient supply of Li to support a global market of only EVs in their current form in the first place, so I’m pretty sure I have a point. Adios.

          • falstaff77

            Your mistake is to assume dogma and rah-rah chants are required for innovation. Actual innovation needs neither, and survives scrutiny without need of fan-boys.

          • Sam Gilman

            No, that’s all wrong. You can support EVs without having to believe they will be powered by solar-produced electricity. All you require to make sense is that the electricity is low carbon.

          • Marcel

            Obviously, I’m not saying you should only use solar. But the troll decided that it’s the only low carbon tech available to charge EVs which is completely off topic, but ok since he likes to argue, we’ll go on… Our energy mix is carbon free here so day or night your charging at 0g CO2/kWh. How? Hydro + biomass + wind + PV and nuclear is mainly off line and being gradually removed because it’s no longer economically viable.

          • Sam Gilman

            Hold on, in terms of trolling, he’s not saying solar should be phased out. On the other hand, you appear to be saying that nuclear should be phased out. (And in any case, nuclear’s current economic issues in the US are to do with the price of natural gas. I hope you’re not a gas advocate 😉 ).

            It does seem a fair point that domestic solar is not going to be the main source of EV charging. You actually seem to agree with this by referring to charging at the workplace, which would be grid powered, not local solar, given the density of workspace occupation.

          • Marcel

            Way off topic now but you’re mistaken. Nuclear is already dead here, question is how to minimise losses, but that’s the nuclear industry’s problem. That’s the realities of the business in this part of the world, not sure how it is in america but here wind and solar have passed nuclear in terms of cost. So other than the fact that they still don’t know what to do with the waste, it’s got no future around here. As for workplace charging, our office building has more than enough extra PV capacity to charge a few EVs. I’m guessing other places exist where EVs are charged with solar. In fact, there is a law the requires you to maximise self consumption so we’re supposed to consume the solar within the building. So with a decent array, on most days we charge EVs using nothing but the sun.

          • Sam Gilman

            I think the disagreement here is partly a matter of different perspectives. You’re looking at marginal deployment and the economic potential of low carbon technologies to increase from where they are now. Dig Deeper (and I too) tend to look at it from a holistic decarbonisation perspective – how do we collectively reduce GHG emissions to zero. I see from your Disqus feed you’re in Switzerland. Your electricity grid is decarbonised through large amounts of hydro and nuclear. In your situation, if we were to take the country in isolation, the distinction is irrelevant. In particular, because of the large amount of hydro, expansion of intermittent renewables is loads easier, and they can replace nuclear without too much difficulty.

            However, for countries/grids where there isn’t a large supply of dispatchable low carbon electricity like hydro or geothermal, nuclear becomes necessary if your overriding goal genuinely is combatting climate change. The marginal costs of electricity from intermittent sources at low penetration levels don’t communicate this (why would they?). This is why the IPCC is now increasingly emphasising nuclear power as part of the solution to the climate change threat, and why James Hansen has gone off on one at the big environmental organisations for not actually having climate change mitigation as their overriding goal.

            Returning to cars in particular, it’s certainly possible for someone in a not unusual situation to be able to have access to solar generated electricity to recharge their car while they work. I think Dig Deeper is getting at two different issues: how generalisable is this as a solution (you yourself say your work solar could take “a few extra” EVs) , and is it what actually happens now and in the near future. If a grid is carbon intense, it could easily be the case that for the time being, a hybrid car has lower lifetime emissions if the infrastructure is not there to support direct solar charging for commuter EVs. And I think his specific point is that this is especially true for Tesla longer range vehicles.

            I don’t think this is trolling to say that.

          • RexxSee

            Batteries were indeed controlled by big business to have stayed so low profile and efficiency over the past century. Tesla is changing this and we now see genuine research and cost reduction being done.

          • Dig Deeper

            Tesla doesn’t make batteries, they procure from Panasonic.

          • Sparafucile

            You seem to be pretending that “zero net” is a factor of the cleanliness of the factory, rather than a separate purchasing of other so-called “clean” activities.

          • RexxSee

            It’s a net cleaner factory, not a BS compensation of an arbitrary norm.

        • RexxSee

          If you take a look at the graph I posted above, it is quite obvious that you exaggerate a lot about the dirtyness of batteries.
          And even if so, the FCV is a complete electric car, with serial hybridization from the added hydrogen system.
          Added costs, added complexity, added upstream pollution.

          • Dig Deeper

            Not so. The serial hybridization of the vehicle relies on a very small battery capacity, and a much smaller FC stack by weight or volume than what a long range battery electric vehicle requires.

          • RexxSee

            On a cleaner and cleaner grid, the amount of fracked natural gas leaks, and the CO² released by the reforming, will hugely exceed the small battery making pollution, if you care to consider a 10 year lifespan of any vehicle. This is active disinformation you are propagating, like many others who have interests in FF.

            And also consider that an electric motor is always 5 times more efficient at using energy than an ICE, so the EV will always be cleaner than an ICE, even on a coal heavy grid.

          • Dig Deeper

            “So the electric will always be cleaner than an ICE, even on a coal heavy grid”

            Not so. See graphic below. The electric power grid remains dominated by gas and coal. We could entertain the power grid becoming significantly cleaner, but we can also entertain a myriad of clean pathways for making hydrogen as well.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fd08b6806c7e289d44b995cecf5633cd386fe84ed04e74164066d1995c6965ff.jpg

          • RexxSee

            Well, the U.S. dept of energy says otherwise.

            West Virginia is the heaviest coal dependant grid in the country. just enter 26201 as ZipCode on this site and see for yourself.

            http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

          • Dig Deeper

            That’s a good link you provided, but it’s in fact NOT in conflict with the graph below:

            FIRST the assumptions for what constitutes a conventional ICE must be known, and according to the source you have provided a conventional ICE is a 24 mpg vehicle – which is a far cry from the efficiencies that many of today’s vehicles, like hybrids and diesels offer. The graph below shows that 40 and 50 mpg petrol vehicles have considerably lower emissions per mile than an electric vehicle powered purely by coal.

            SECONDLY the link you have offered does not give a comprehensive view of lifecycle emissions as it does NOT include analysis of the energy use and emissions related to the manufacture of the vehicle itself. These manufacturing related emissions are non-trivial for any vehicle, especially electric vehicles in which they comprise a significant portion of the lifecycle emissions as depicted in the graph below based on the 24 kWh Nissan Leaf. *Long range battery electric vehicles have much larger battery banks, up to 90 kWh, and also have manufacturing related emissions significantly higher than shown below*.

            In areas of the world like France or Ontario or Washington state, where electricity generation is especially low on emissions, then electric vehicles have a lot of environmental merit – but lower range EVs more so than longer range ones. But based on the U.S. average electrical power mix, it is unlikely that a long range Battery electric vehicle such as the tesla model S holds any significant lifecycle emissions edge over a vehicle like a Toyota Prius. In fact the Prius is actually likely to be significantly cleaner as this Model S owner and greencar reports contributor has also concluded – give this a careful read: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1084440_does-the-tesla-model-s-electric-car-pollute-more-than-an-suv

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fd08b6806c7e289d44b995cecf5633cd386fe84ed04e74164066d1995c6965ff.jpg

          • RexxSee

            You did not looked at the graph I posted above. And you dodge the question of what lifespan is covered in your odd scaled graph.

            I take it that you use any answer to repeat like a robot that the fabrication of electric car is very polluting, which must be placed in context. But this you never acknowledge.

          • Dig Deeper

            Not only did I look at the graph but I analyzed the underlying assumptions according to the source information. The comparison for the link you provided is based on a 24 mpg ICE Vehicle.

            To answer your question the graph I have provided (see below again) is based on this study, a 150,000 km vehicle lifetime, and the 24kWh Nissan Leaf as its basis for manufacture-related emission: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fd08b6806c7e289d44b995cecf5633cd386fe84ed04e74164066d1995c6965ff.jpg

          • RexxSee

            I would rather prefer a link to your first graph, the one you insist on.
            Please provide the direct link related to explain your graph and the 93 miles vehicle lifetime (not very long) at the amateur shrinktahtfootprint.com site.
            In what is it related to this new link wiley.com?
            The wiley.com link is general and long. please be more specific and don’t expect people to go through half an hour of reading just to find what you talk about..

            BTW the average fuel consumption for all light duty vehicles is 25.6 MPG in the U.S.

          • Dig Deeper

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full

            Reading is required to understand this issue. That’s the source info above. Here’s another spot where the graph appears: http://www.theenergycollective.com/lindsay-wilson/372286/what-s-greenest-car-extremely-short-guide-vehicle-emissions

            Shrinkthatfootprint.com is anything but amateur on this topic.

            The Prius models from Toyota and TDI models from Volkswagen are capable of nearly double 25.6 mpg.

            It’s not sufficient to broadly say that EVs are cleaner than ICEs, factors such as electrical generation source, manufacture-related emissions, and what ICE model is the basis of comparison all need to be accounted for.

          • RexxSee

            you still do not answer the question. Show us the link from your graph to the lengthy article nobody will read.

            Your second link has an error 502.

            “It’s not sufficient to broadly say that EVs are cleaner than ICEs, factors such as electrical generation source, manufacture-related emissions, and what ICE model is the basis of comparison all need to be accounted for.”

            So you admit that EVs are cleaner than ICE but insist on the worst nit-picked factors to claim that they aren’t

            Anyway your nick name says it all, and you even dare wearing the picture of Elon Musk!

          • Dig Deeper

            I admit that it depends on factors such as electrical generation source, manufacture related emissions, and the particular ICE vehicle being used as basis of comparison.

            As with many things with life, it’s complicated and reading related research allows one to sort through the various details. If you are unwilling to read I am also unwilling to continue this conversation.

      • Marcel

        No, we don’t know what happens in 5 years but we know what’s up now. No one seems to have a clear answer to how much H2 costs per km. Kind of important to have an idea of the difference between BEV costs per km and FCEV costs per km (for a similar vehicle price). Then, what happened to those home H2 refueling devices Honda demoed in 2007 or 2008?

        If the German and Japanese governments like to throw taxpayer money into fuelling stations, good for them, but most countries aren’t doing that (here they even have a policy of not subsidizing these sorts of things). Also, I’m kinda looking forward to not depending on gas stations (diesel or H2) and their price decisions. I don’t like others dictating on daily basis what the price of this fuel or that one should be and then pay a huge portion of it in taxes. What I see right now is that FCEV cars are not available here but BEVs are and there is no indication H2 infrastructure will be built here any time soon.

        Ebikes are cool, but again some people had to interfere and make you insure them, plate them, and put a limiter on so they can’t go faster than 45 km/h. That’s a joke since I can go faster than that with both my human-powered bikes. The bottom line is, the technology that reduces costs, improves convenience and reduces big business dictatorship on prices will get my money. Right now it looks like H2 does not tick any of those boxes and I don’t do waiting when there are very compelling solutions in the market.
        I used to think H2 was the way to go (back in 08 or 09) but lost hope since no one decided to invest in infrastructure and the home H2 production device ended up being just a concept…

    • Blake

      This won’t be lightweight. A DOT rated hydrogen cylinder capable of carrying 34g of hydrogen weighs 1kg. In addition, a 500W fuel cell will likely weigh 2kg. On top of this you would still have the weight of the electric motor and controller. 34g of H2 with a 50% efficient fuel cell will provide ~550W-hr of energy. For reference, an equivalent Li-Ion battery would weigh around 3.5kg vs ~3kg for the fuel cell system.

      • Doug Meserve

        Also, you will pretty much have to carry several extra canisters in a backpack, as the locations to purchase or refill them are currently very sparse. So that’s an extra couple of kg…

  • RexxSee
    • Sam Gilman

      With the greatest of respect, I don’t think you’ve followed his argument at all if you think it is about electric vehicles versus fossil-powered ones. That’s very confused.

      • RexxSee

        This graph contradict Big beeper below and show FF being much harmful. Since most hydrogen comes from fracked natural gas, it is also a heavy pollutant. There is no way, from whatever side you look at it, that FF is environmentally friendly.

        • Sam Gilman

          Could you show me a list where he says fossil fuels are environmentally friendly. He seems to be saying the exact opposite.

          • RexxSee

            Advocating for hydrogen cars is advocating for fossil fuels.
            The fact is that ~ 95% of the hydrogen is obtained by reformation of methane. And this methane is issued mostly from fracking. As you know, natural gas is a fossil fuel only 25% less dirtier than gasoline when burned. If used for the production of hydrogen, it emits CO².
            “Clean natural” gas does not exist.

            All the hype around FCVs is because Big Oil will make money out of it and keep us prisoners of the same closed distribution system, and FCV are a desperate attempt to kill once again electric cars, the logical clean and economical way to go.

            Pure electric cars will once and for all get us rid of the most part of this catastrophic global pollution mess we stimulate since 1850.

            It IS a matter of survival.

          • Sam Gilman

            The article itself says “The H2 bike, which Linde will produce as a limited prototype series, runs on sustainable hydrogen fuel obtained through the electrolysis of water using wind energy or by reforming biogas.”

            That doesn’t look like supporting fossil fuels to me. I’m not a fan of biomass on large scales, but there is a difference between them and fossil fuels.

          • RexxSee

            The article isn’t, but Dig Deeper is.

      • RexxSee

        One of it’s argument is that from his graph, the Tesla would be way more polluting because of the size of the battery pack, compared to the Leaf. Here, in perspective, the little purple area is the CO² emitted for the making of the Leaf’s BP. And the GigaFactory will eliminate completely the CO² footprint of all batteries built there. They won’t even have a NG line to begin with, all power needed will be from the wind, the sun and the ground.

        • Sam Gilman

          But aren’t you talking about how you believe the future will pan out, while he’s talking about the present? I’m struggling to see where the objective disagreement lies.

          That said, I would doubt the gigafactory could eliminate all CO2 from battery construction. The raw materials haven’t produced and get there from elsewhere.

          • RexxSee

            NO, I’m talking about how exaggerated is the claim that batteries are extremely dirty. It don’t even compare to the huge amounts of pollution generated from FF.
            Add to this that present fracking fluids poison the soils and the water for centuries. add again that the billions leaks all over the distribution chain emits crude methade which is 60 times more potent to the atmosphere.
            The global urgency is to stop using all FF NOW!

          • Sam Gilman

            I absolutely agree that eliminating fossil fuels is urgent, and I wish more people in the environmental movement felt the same rather than engaging in petty squabbles about not doing this or that technology on grounds other than carbon mitigation. As far as I can see, I think Dig Deeper also clearly believes this.

            He’s raising issues of resource intensity in a specific kind of battery production (for long range batteries) that might undermine the drive to decarbonisation. You disagree with him, but calling him a troll doesn’t make sense. Instead, I think a comparison of evidence might be a more fruitful conversation.

          • RexxSee

            If you would have cared to look at both our graphs and compare, you would say that your own comment makes no sense.

            There is only one obvious and easy way to get rid of FF, it’s the massive electrification of transports, while transiting to a renewable grid.

            All the dead end techs put forth by the FF interests are desperate attempts to delay the inevitable obvious solution that would never have been abandoned a century ago, if for the pressures and schemes of the Rockefeller monopoly.

            Marketing and P.R. power of the FF industries (with their pocket dogs the car makers) spend BILLIONS a year to convince us that electrics are expensive, ill ranged and even more polluting than ICE !?!

            Again, FCVs are pushed only to divert us from independent clean efficient electrics, and keep us captive of the refuelling stations.

          • Sam Gilman

            You say

            There is only one obvious and easy way to get rid of FF, it’s the massive electrification of transports, while transiting to a renewable grid.

            I would say you need to change “renewable” to “low carbon”, and you have to make a case against hydrogen fuel cells that doesn’t confuse them with hydrocarbons.

          • RexxSee

            Maybe I wasn’t clear enough:
            Almost ALL of the hydrogen is produced from the reforming of FRACKED METHANE!

            So Fuel cell use is tightly tied with the fossil fuel industry.

          • Sparafucile

            You seem to view the future as an unchanged extension of the present. How incredibly myopic.

          • RexxSee

            Well, tell me your view of the future, not forgetting the tremendous economic pressures from the FF companies.

          • Sparafucile

            Here’s a hint — it’ll have aspect that make it different from today.

          • RexxSee

            Thanks for your non-answer.

          • RexxSee

            The electric car is already different.
            How incredibly lofty.

          • Sparafucile

            I see, now. I’ve been wasting my time with a moron.

          • Sam Gilman

            But as I pointed out before, the article envisages it not being made with fossil fuels. Dig Deeper’s point is that with the grid as it currently stands, which is also powered largely by fossil fuels, the low carbon status of vehicles that charge up on fossil- produced electricity, particularly those with larger batteries that typically involve fossil fuel use in their production, might be more polluting over the life cycle than vehicles such as hybrids.

            This is therefore an argument about numbers, not about philosophies. I have no doubt both of you are keen to tackle climate change.

            For me, while it is entirely possible that hydrogen fuel cell cars will be a complete non-starter, I am reserving judgement. Toyota, Hyundai and Honda are putting a lot of money into FCV technology as a low carbon choice; I wouldn’t presume to know so very much better than them (and Toyota pioneered modern vehicle batteries), certainly not to the extent that any support for hydrogen fuel must make someone out to be corrupt or hiding an ulterior motive. I am also wary of Tesla fanboidom in the English language clean energy media.

  • Leroy Essek

    The best way for hydrogen use would be a on demand system. No storage, compression or safety issues. One of the worlds top 25 computer networking (with Bill Gates and Dell) has such a technology. Trevor Kennedy, CEO of Joi Scientific has just announced a new invention for a on demand hydrogen and oxygen gas system. Have you ever had the idea of filling your empty gasoline tank with water and running your car on fuel provided by your garden hose at home?

  • RexxSee

    Just build better batteries and forget all of FCVs and Fossil fuels and Infernal combustion engines.

Back to Top ↑

Shares