Amory Lovins: Hydrogen cars may hit showrooms by 2005.

[NNadir]

Hydrogen Cars May Hit Showrooms by 2005
Janet Ginsburg
for National Geographic Today

January 29, 2003 (Originally published on October 16, 2001)
Viewers of National Geographic Today in the United States can watch an update on hydrogen-car technology in tonight's broadcast, which follows yesterday's announcement by President Bush that he proposes U.S. $1.2 billion in funding for this research over the next few years.

In the clean, "green" future envisioned by energy expert Amory Lovins, cars not only get 99 miles per gallon emissions-free, but they may also play a key role in providing electricity to a power-hungry world.

The solution, according to Lovins, is a "hypercar"—a lightweight vehicle powered by a hydrogen fuel cell, with enough style and space to compete with luxury sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Lovins is with the Rocky Mountain Institute, a think tank in Colorado, and chairman of its corporate spin-off venture Hypercar, Inc.,.

Email to a Friend


Some of the giant car companies are also designing hydrogen-powered cars. Hypercar Inc. hopes to have its first model ready to roll off the production line by 2005.

Today, an estimated 210 million vehicles are stuck in traffic on America's roadways. Collectively they spew nearly a billion and a half tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year. According to a recent EPA report, the latest conventional models average a little more than 20 miles per gallon—the worst showing since 1980.

While some blame America's love affair with the fuel-hungry SUVs, Lovins says the problem comes down to design.

A decade ago, Lovins was asked to address a National Academy of Sciences meeting about how to build cars with greater fuel efficiency. The general thinking was that fuel efficiency could be increased by only 10 percent because otherwise the car would become too expensive, says Lovins.

He was unconvinced of that assertion, however, and set up an informal team to rethink the automobile from the tires up. "I'm not a car guy, which actually was a bit of an advantage because I didn't know too much about how it ought to be done," said Lovins.

The result is a car that is as much as eight times as efficient as most standard models.

Lightweight Parts, Heavy Results

How did the Lovins team do it? They began by "light-weighting" the car...

Light-weighting indeed.

This article comes from the 2001 National Geographic:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1016_TVhypercar.html

Does anyone here know where you can buy one of these things?

[sam sarrha]

1. hydrogen car isnt worth sh*t without hydrogen.. will never happen..

[Gregorian]

2. They'll do anything to perpetuate the petroleum industry.

And just where does this wonderful hydrogen come from?

And the part about emmission-free? OK... If one divides the system up and only looks at the tailpipe of the hydrogen car, then yes, it's emmission-free. But the system must include the production of hydrogen. So, it's not emmission-free. That is a lie.

And there's only so much energy that hits the earth from the sun. Less than a kilowatt per square meter. It isn't a feasable concept to make hydrogen. Not that I'm aware of.

[lapfog_1]

4. Well, last time I did the math

On any given day, there is around 2.56 Million tera watts of available sunlight on the surface of
out planet.

diameter of the earth is 12,756 KM

surface is 4 pi R square or 511185932522525 sq meters

if there is around a kilowatt per lit meter (and for simplicity say 1/2 is dark and 1/2 is in daylight),
then you get the 2.56 million tera watt. Of course, it's not quite that good. but that's a lot of
kilowatt hours.

We could power everything, even at horrible efficiencies of splitting water to make hydrogen, with sunlight if we bent our minds to it. Probably we could have done a great deal to get us to that
point with the money we spent on the war in Iraq. Nothing would piss off the terrorists more than
if we quit putting money into the ME and put it into energy independence instead.

Course, it would have also pissed off the oil companies as they don't see the future for them in this.

And we can't have that! :sarcasm:

[Gregorian]

9. Every step we take in the right direction helps.

But reality gets in the way. Honestly, there is no better solution than altering our lifestyle. That means decreasing the population. And it means community living. But that is boring. No travel? No goofing around on quadrunners? All of the toys we have, including my brand new Nikon D200, are causing the death of the planet. Most people adamantly fight this argument. Most people, no matter how liberal, are going to live their present life, no matter what. I just had this argument with someone yesterday. They aren't willing to alter their life, knowing that their child's child may not have a planet worth living on.

Edit- It's a bit wrong of me to say that I know their children won't have a planet to live on. Things may change dramatically in the next few years. I may be overreacting. But when I see glaciers in serious stages of melting, I think concern is warranted. I am not sure how else to feel about all of this. But I'm just saying I would love to be wrong.

As for solar conversion, it's something that is absolutely going to have to happen immediately. But photovoltaics aren't even 50% efficient yet. Also, they require energy in order to manufacture. And I seriously doubt they can be implemented on the ocean surfaces. So that's two thirds of the surface that we won't be using. We're already down in numbers by a factor of at least four. And then how much of the rest of the surface can be used? The numbers start dwindling. And then there is the issue of population again. It's still not at zero growth. So no matter how effective we are at converting sunlight to electrical energy, we are still at a disadvantage.

As for oil companies, we are so utterly dependent on petroeum for things other than combustion, it's almost pathetic. Take a look at everything within your arm's reach. Most of it includes petroleum.

But, at this point, everything we do is important. I'm not pessimistic, I'm pointing out the problems. Our biggest problem is the media. When people know the truth, they will happily act out to correct the problems. But we are being denied the truth.

My biggest fear is that we will go down our present path until things get to the Road Warrior point.

[Kolesar]

10. Photovoltaics have a pretty quick "energy return on investment", IIRC

Less than a year, IIRC.

I would counter that there are people who *do* alter their lifestyles for the sake of global warming. Recycling is an important climate change program. There is energy to be recovered in those cans and bottles. Most people don't think of recycling that way, though.

[Gregorian]

11. Investment is one way to look at it.

I like to look at total energy cost. Most people look at financial cost. But that's not reality. It's finances.

However, the energy cost for Nanotech's photovoltaics is really minimal. We're headed in the right direction.

I'm so saddened today. If the person I was talking about wasn't my own mother, I'd be a lot happier. I get ridiculed for what I concider a responsible stance. I've changed my lifestyle. I'd love to travel. But how can I justify burning petroleum when it has serious consequences on tomorrow's generation. Wouldn't you be happier if there were still only two billion people on the planet? No traffic jams. More rural places to call home. Better food. And on and on.

I don't have a place to discuss this. It's partly emotional distress and partly ecological discussion.

I totally agree with recycling as being a big solution. But I have, and continue to, laugh at how silly the entire picture looks. When we solve a problem, only to have double the population a few decades later, and find ourselves right back in the same position. It's futile. I know, this discussion doesn't go very far. Ultimately, it's a slow process. And personally, I just have to live with the decisions other people have made in their lives. It isn't fair. I guess we can't all get along. And especially when we all don't even know what's going on. We all don't even agree on global warming yet. Sheesh.

But thanks. Your post does give me a bit of a positive boost. There are people out there who get it. Not many. But that's changing.

[Kolesar]

12. My angle is that I learn a few global warming factoids that I drop ...

...drop into conversations. "You're saving money and you're saving energy" for efficient lighting, etc. My recycling comment, etc. (gotta wrap this up--meeting) good luck

[gristy]

3. There oughta be a law against these kind of bs articles

Really. There should.

[hunter]

5. They changed their "focus."

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1097.php

The RMI spin-off, formerly known as Hypercar, Inc., has changed its name to better reflect the company's new direction and its goal of lowering the cost of high-volume advanced-composite structures.

[NNadir]

6. They didn't even mention hydrogen in the press release.

It was a good business decision though. They have to make good business decisions, since they certainly need a good cash flow to support Lovin's opulent life style.

[hatrack]

7. Yeah, and back in 1997, Detroit was promising hybrids by 2000

Right after Toyota rolled out the first Prius (Japanese market only) in 1997 at the Tokyo Auto Show, the Big Three all harrumphed and said that they'd have theirs ready to go by the new millennium.

NINE YEARS LATER, we have the Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner hybrids on showroom floors and that's it. Everything else is still about a model year away, and it'll be all about the SUVs, at least for GM and DC.

Same shit, different decade.

[mccoyn]

8. chairman of its corporate spin-off venture Hypercar, Inc.

Venture capital is rarely captured with realistic reflections on what will be. The game is high-risk high pay off.

[Javaman]

13. and in the 1930's "they" said we would have flying cars by now...

I WANT MY FLYING CAR, DAMN IT!!!!

eh hmmm, just because they say it, don't make it true. Seems to be the motto of the Progressives anytime moron* opens his mouth.

[Dogmudgeon]

14. We won't invest in nukes. We won't invest in wind power.

We won't even invest in twistable rubber bands.

How can we expect that there will be investment in hydrogen fuel cells -- or anything else?

And just where did that $1.2 billion go, anyway?

Of course we don't have flying cars, modern energy production, or anything with a more than superficial resemblance to Democracy. But I can guarantee that when the lights go out and food rots in warehouses while cute little blond girls weep from hunger, we'll have somebody to blame -- anyone but ourselves.

--p!

[IrateCitizen]

16. That's the crux of the problem, for certain

But I can guarantee that when the lights go out and food rots in warehouses while cute little blond girls weep from hunger, we'll have somebody to blame -- anyone but ourselves.

That describes the problem we're facing to a "T". One of the attendant problems with our increasingly centralized and complex social, economic and living arrangements is that it has removed us from contact with the very resources upon which we have come to depend. Along with that, as we have been removed from direct stewardship, we have also effectively removed ourselves from responsibility.

The predictable result of this state of affairs has become the reliance upon large, impersonal entities (big government, big business, technology, etc.) to solve our problems for us, and a complete unwillingness to consider our role in creating the problem in the first place. For me, it has simply affirmed my desire to live a much more localized life and to try and solve problems on a more face-to-face and community-based level. I've become convinced that's the one place where you can really have an effect anymore.

[depakid]

15. I'm curious as to whther Lovins is still pimping

the "hypercar?"

"Natural Capitalism" had some great ideas (many borrowed from ecological economics) but he's always been off the deep end on the hydrogen issue.

Jeremy Rifkin, too- he really fell hard on that one. Lost a lot of credibility IMO with his book The Hydrogen Economy.