ITM Power shows off in-home hydrogen fueling station

Hydrogen cars may not be quite as in favor as hybrids or all-electrics these days, but ITM Power looks to be doing its best to at least make 'em a bit more convenient, with it now showing off a re-fueling station that it says could be installed in the home. Like similar systems, this one makes use of an electrolyzer to produce hydrogen gas from water and electricity, which can also be converted back into electricity with the aid of an internal combustion generator to provide power to the house. You'll only be able to produce enough gas overnight to travel about 25 miles, however, but the company (like so many others) foresees higher-pressure refueling units being installed in public places, which'd be able to provide enough gas to travel 100 miles. While there's no firm word on a release for the home unit, ITM says it "could" be commercially available as soon as this year, and it says the price could eventually get down to around £2,000 (or about $4,000) if they're mass produced.

[LuvMuffin @ Jul 9th 2008 4:43PM]

yay i said hydrogen will be the way to go glad its making steady progress

[John @ Jul 9th 2008 4:51PM]

Call us when this tech is mature enough for public consumption..

[Rick @ Jul 9th 2008 4:52PM]

Hydrogen is the only way to go. They could convert gas stations over and install these autonomous systems that could produce hydrogen from nothing more than electricity and water. Batteries are a stupid moronic technology for cars....only 300 miles and then what you going to be able to charge it up in like 5 minutes and be on your way again? Not only that but imagine the toxic dangers of having landfills full of car batteries from millions of spent vehicles??

[Bryan @ Jul 9th 2008 5:15PM]

Batteries are a stupid moronic technology for cars....only 300 miles and then what you going to be able to charge it up in like 5 minutes and be on your way again?

You're right. Better to use a hydrogen car that costs several hundred thousand dollars and goes 25 miles.

And remember -- to get that 25 miles, you have to be making hydrogen all night. If you're thinking about simply refilling your tank with hydrogen every 100 miles or so, you'll be interested to know that there are currently a grand total of 61 operational hydrogen filling stations. In the country.

[Bryan @ Jul 9th 2008 5:19PM]

Damn non-HTML supporting comments...

The link relating to the cost of fuel cell cars [WSJ.com]:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121364017994578203.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The link relating to the number of hydrogen fueling stations [hydrogenassociation.org]:
http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/fuelingResults.asp

[MBS @ Jul 9th 2008 5:56PM]

Hydrogen is a stupid, moronic technology in a car (or pretty much anywhere for that matter).
The ratio of energy available from it versus the energy it costs to produce it is even worse than that of producing ethanol as a fuel.

[ribbeye @ Jul 9th 2008 7:23PM]

Hydrogen is only a viable solution when they start producing the generation 5 nuclear power plants. When those come online, the excess energy they produce can be easily used to create hydrogen. On top of that we need a mass transit system for the hydrogen. There was a "Modern Marvels" episode on the gas pipelines. Very interesting but it really shows why it would be so difficult to convert to something other than gasoline.

[Alan @ Jul 9th 2008 8:01PM]

A standardize battery would be the way to go. Battery stations would swap out an uncharged battery with a charged one. Moreover, the battery stations could have a solar cells roofs and a windmill to augment the power generation by the local nuclear power plant.

[Paul @ Jul 9th 2008 10:01PM]

Yup, hydrogen (and ethanol and other biofuels) is an attempt by the gas companies to find some way of maintaining control. There is simply no current argument that can be made that makes a fuel cell hydrogen vehicle more viable than a battery powered electric one. There are some benefits to hydrogen, yes, but when you add up all of the negatives--or even just a few like the efficiency lost to hydrogen generation and the immense cost of pipeline infrastructure (PLEASE don't tell me you expect millions of these little electrolysis stations to be used in lieu of pipelines given their cost and extreme conversion inefficiencies) or the insane cost of even the most inexpensive fuel cells--then you can't possibly come to the conclusion that hydrogen has any real future in consumer transport.

Electricity already has the infrastructure, the moderate to low power loss, and even (almost) the technology to be 100% viable. Five to ten minute charges ARE a reality. It is expensive now, but about 10-20 time less so than a fuel cell and will come down dramatically with technology and manufacturing advancements. Fuel cells themselves might also come down should rare earth metals not be required for the catalyst, but even so it is HIGHLY unlikely that adding all of this on top of the electric drive components will ever come down to the price or efficiency level of a pure battery-electric vehicle.

[solarbuddy @ Jul 9th 2008 4:57PM]

Yow! Hydrogen gas--in quantity--still gives me the willies, and not because I'm a Hindinburg survivor. As a kid i remember the hydrogen-fueled furnace at my father's R&D shop that he used for heat-treating advanced jet-engine parts. Many times he lost his eyebrows lighting it, and the GE engineers who came around on "quality-control" junkets would wait outside in the street until I brought the word that the furnace was safely lit. We were always terrified that hydrogen would creep out of the cylinder connections and blow up when we turned something on in the morning.

Having a hydrogen production station in your garage--or at the 7-11 being manipulated by the likes of Cletus--is a scarier prospect than most people can imagine.

[ddub @ Jul 9th 2008 5:26PM]

So your a Hindenberg survivor???

[solarbuddy @ Jul 9th 2008 7:09PM]

Ddub--yes, I'm a second-generation survivor, as my Dad wasn't killed when the Hindenberg went up. The fact that he was in San Francisco at the time is credited with his survival.

P.S. My in-house grammar maven says that to indicate that I was a H-berg survivor I should have worded the second clause thusly: "and not *just* because I'm a Hindenburg survivor."

[macserv @ Jul 9th 2008 7:20PM]

Yeah, you wouldn't want anything in your garage that could potentially explode.

Oh wait... anything with sufficient potential energy to drive a vehicle could potentially explode.

[Lowest Ranked @ Jul 9th 2008 7:42PM]

But you're completely comfortable with the fact that you drive around in a 20-gallon gasoline bomb?

[ddub @ Jul 9th 2008 9:21PM]

Wow its nice to finally meet another second generation Hindenburg survivor like myself.

P.S. My in-house grammar maven thinks that your original sentence indicated you are a Hindenburg survivor. Although my grammar maven usually received C's in English class. Maybe we need a third opinion?

[giyad @ Jul 9th 2008 10:26PM]

So gasoline isn't flammable? natural gas?? umm....

[Paul @ Jul 10th 2008 12:06AM]

Ddub, I'm siding with solarbuddy's grammar maven, especially since your grammar maven let you get away with using "your" for "you are" in your original post.

Incidentally, aren't we all survivors of the Hindenburg since not a one of us actually died it that disaster...

[moredbthanhp @ Jul 9th 2008 4:58PM]

Only one problem is that the current Bush administration with their "National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap" plan requires that up to 90 percent of all hydrogen be refined from non-renewable resources, oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Counterproductive if you ask me!

[solarbuddy @ Jul 9th 2008 5:08PM]

Are you and Kenny some kind of anti-Bush drones reading off the same talking point memo? Perhaps member of the DB media?

[Joel @ Jul 9th 2008 7:01PM]

Given that hydrogen is only a way to store energy and not an energy source per se then what are our current sources of energy for the masses? Solar, geothermal, wind, nuclear, and oil. I think that's pretty much it.

[Kenny @ Jul 9th 2008 4:58PM]

Only one problem is that the current Bush administration with their "National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap" plan requires that up to 90 percent of all hydrogen be refined from non-renewable resources, oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Counterproductive if you ask me!

[slowjam98 @ Jul 9th 2008 5:06PM]

Hydrogen is not not an engery source. The energy for this car is coming from electricity (which is coming from coal, nuclear, solar, wind, water, etc.). Hydrogen is not energy efficient. It takes more engery to convert the water into hydrogen than you get back when you convert the hydrogen into water.

Just pump the electricity into a car battery instead. It's cheaper and more energy efficient.

[solarbuddy @ Jul 9th 2008 5:10PM]

Aha! You forget that it takes energy to *make* the car battery, and hydrogen fuel cells . . . oops, I didn't see that one coming.

[thinkthis @ Jul 9th 2008 5:15PM]

Nothing is "energy efficient". You always lose energy when you transfer it from one medium to another. You lose energy when you transfer it into the battery as well. Hydrogen is just a fancy battery, a source of portable potential energy that is available when you press your foot on the accelerator pedal. Instead of pouring electricity into a battery to be used later you pour it into water. The major difference is that hydrogen can store more energy in a given space than other batteries on the market. As full cell technology advances prepare for extremely long range fuel cell vehicles.

[Bryan @ Jul 9th 2008 5:26PM]

@ thinkthis:

slowjam98 didn't say it was PERFECTLY energy efficient, just MORE energy efficient. And he's (she's?) right.

[CraigJ @ Jul 9th 2008 6:24PM]

Yeas, but in general you lose about 15% of the electricity to heat during the charge process and another 15% from motor friction, so starting with 100 units at the plug you end up with 85 in the battery, less 15% means 72 of the original 100 end up being converted to motion (ignoring accessories like lights, a/c, etc)

Electrolysis of hydrogen is between 50% and 60% efficient (http://www.hyweb.de/Knowledge/w-i-energiew-eng3.html, see 3.4.1) so starting with 100 units lets say you end up with 60 in your tank. internal combustion is not efficient at converting the energy to motion, at best 25%, so you start with 100 units at the plug and end up with just 15% of that converted to motion.

SO:
electricity -> H -> ICE is about 15% efficient
electricity -> battery -> motor is about 70% efficient

[ddub @ Jul 9th 2008 5:02PM]

Why would u make hydrogen in your house and then use it in your house? Is that just for rich people who cant think of any other way to waste electricity?

[ddub @ Jul 9th 2008 5:04PM]

EDIT: I meant use it to provide power in your house.

[Jesse S @ Jul 9th 2008 9:26PM]

Solar panels, idiot.

[ddub @ Jul 9th 2008 11:05PM]

@Idiot (Yes I mean you Jesse)

Why would you generate electricity from solar panels to create hydrogen and then use a generator to convert that into electricity? Seems like your just throwing in an extra step to make the process even less efficient. Its not like people with solar panels have an abundance of free energy. Any surplus they make during the day goes back into the grid to make up for times when they're not generating electricity with solar panels.

[Hirudin @ Jun 16th 2009 9:04AM]

I have a couple ideas...

For people who are off grid they could produce hydrogen when they have a surplus of electricity (say from their solar panels during a sunny day when they're not home or from their wind generator during a windy night while they're asleep). When they have a heavy load on their system the hydrogen could be converted back into electricity and used in the home.

Not all electric companies will allow you to "turn the meter backward" meaning isn't not necessarially a "fact" that surplus electricity can be sold back to the power company.

Also, having a backup generator is like having a giant UPS (uninteruptable power supply - AKA a "battery backup" used with computers) for your whole house. If there was a blackout you could keep your lights on.

[retro77 @ Jul 9th 2008 5:11PM]

The more people that buy this now the cheaper it will be later on. I agree that hydrogen is the way of the future. Just need to be able to get the fuel cheaply and effectively.

[Ryan @ Jul 9th 2008 5:12PM]

one question... what is HYDORGEN?

"...this one makes use of an electrolyzer to produce hydorgen gas from water and electricity..."

[Jesse S @ Jul 9th 2008 5:16PM]

Meh. http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/ is doing it first. And they think it will only cost $10k for the Hydrogen generator, solar panels, and car conversion kit!

[Cole @ Jul 9th 2008 5:16PM]

Whuever wroet tihs hsa teh wurst spellcheck evar.
(sic)

[Aaronage @ Jul 9th 2008 5:20PM]

LOL saw this on look north :)

I think hydrogen is the best way, it works and the technology is bound to blossom into greatness :)

[Justin @ Jul 9th 2008 5:21PM]

This is one of those situation where I struggle to understand why it is so expensive. The concept is very simple, You take an incoming water line, electrolyze it (surprisingly simple to do) then take what comes out from the negative side (I think, I could be wrong on this) and put it in a compressor. You shouldn't need any special water. In fact, you do not want distilled water because it is higher resistance.

I must be missing something because it seems too simple

[Bryan @ Jul 9th 2008 5:30PM]

I think you're forgetting that the end product (hydrogen gas) is slightly flammable. Containing it at very high pressure in it's unexploded form might cost a bit.

[solarbuddy @ Jul 9th 2008 5:29PM]

Yes, you're forgetting the "bang!" part. Taking room-temperature hydrogen and compressing it to a meaningful extent requires mechanical precision of a kind seldom encountered in daily life. If the pump doesn't have perfect the seals, all the hydrogen just goes away--or at least, you better hope so, since if it doesn't a godalmighty boom is the result. Eventually.

P.S. And no, this is *not* just fud. I, too, would love to be a true believer.

[farfisa @ Jul 9th 2008 5:48PM]

Yeah, just put a powerline in a bucket of water.
Oh wait, you want hydrogen? Never mind.

[MBS @ Jul 9th 2008 6:15PM]

You're missing the piece called economics.

[Death_to_Dude @ Jun 17th 2009 12:51AM]

Im not going to flame you, I just want to be helpful here:

Some people dont know this, but, compressing air/solid/liquids causes friction.
Friction = Heat
Compression = Density / Increased Weight

This is might cause the hydrogen to became unstable.

[AlexNC @ Jul 9th 2008 5:36PM]

Hydrogen is just another form of a battery. Instead of storing electric energy in a battery, you are storing hydrogen in a tank. The benefits of hydrogen storage in a tank is that it cheaper and long lasting. Batteries wear out, corrode, fail, and have to be recycled. Hydrogen does not. The trick is to set up a solar/hydrogen system, where the solar panels supply the electricity to run the electrolysis required to break hydrogen away from oxygen. There are already study homes doing this, totally living off-the-grid. It works, but is very expensive. It is nice to see companies like this bringing the costs down. Solar/hydrogen systems are very practical as long as prices can come down. Uncompressed hydrogen can take up a large foot print too, but hopefully this can also be dealt with eventually.

[MBS @ Jul 9th 2008 6:10PM]

Problem is that a solar/hydrogen setup is so much more complex and expensive to set up and maintain that it will have worn out to the cost of replacing it long before the system has paid itself off.

[james @ Jul 9th 2008 7:02PM]

problem is, solar panels dont work too well where there aint much sun. "but where on earth is that possible?" says the californian. northwest thats where lol. Ive investigated solar panels to run a house up here, it would take 20 years to get a return on the investment of the equipment.

[Robotochan @ Jul 9th 2008 5:38PM]

I wonder how much it will cost in electricity to make the equivalent of a galleon of petrol?

[AlexNC @ Jul 9th 2008 5:43PM]

see my post above. The sun is free =)

[Robotochan @ Jul 9th 2008 5:53PM]

OK, That's fair enough for brighter countries, but what about people like myself who live in an area that's almost always overcast? (Scotland yey) We would have to build our solar plants in Africa to get a decent supply or use tidal power which is still in its infancy

[MBS @ Jul 9th 2008 6:07PM]

Alex, oh yeah, and solar panels are free and efficient and last forever too.

[JD @ Jul 9th 2008 5:42PM]

BIO Fuel made from Algae grown n the NEvada Desert, fertilized by the sewage water from las vegas will be the next great energy source (Hopefully)