KLN (kay, Lietz, Naboulsi) SDI 2008 Hydrogen aff i gen af Solvency- Success will balance original costs Hydrogen’s a lydrogen’s greater end-use efficiency offsets production energy losses Februa 20081 ce. Rocky Mountain Institute, Twenty Hydrogen Myths 17 any conversion from one form of energy to another consumes more useful energy than it yields roche vain trav of phic, Conversion lose ar unavoda:heneswheter "re worth incurring. If they were it ‘ _ h #3 imple ten weet, pai eine rm 9 Te etfisent em wend fe st asec rhc meget tne aie Gintin cctolj= terest ea tat may abo bo resale. These efrency gues ll reduc! by 15% because of the way hydrogen’s energy content is normally measured") So why reer these losses to make Hydrogen? Because hydrogen’s greater end-use efficiency can more ‘han offset the conversion losses, much as an electric heat pump or air conditioner can offset fuel-to-electricity conversion losses by using one unit of electricity to concentrate and deliver revcral units of heat. That is, conversion losses and costs are tolerable if the resulting form of nergy is more efficiently or conveniently usable than the original form, hence justified by its greater economic value. Making hydrogen can readily achieve this goa. Crude oil can be more efficiently converted into delivered gasoline than can natural gas into de- fivered hydrogen.” But that’s ared herring: the difference is far more than offset by the hycro- gen’s 2-3-fold higher efficiency in running 2 fuel-cell car than gasoline’s in running a0 engine- Sten ear. Using Japanese round numbers from Toyota, 88% of oil atthe wellhead ends up as fasoline in your tank, and then 16% of that gasoline energy reaches the wheels of your typical ait car, so the wello-wheels efficiency is 14%, A gasoline-fueled hybrid-electrc car like the 2002 Toyota Prius nearly doubles the gasoline-to-wheels efficiency from 16% to 30% and the overall well-to-wheels efficiency from 14% to 26%. But locally reforming natural gas can deliver 70% of the gas’s wellhead energy into the cat's compressed-hydrogen tank. That "mea get” conversion efficiency is then more than offset by an advanced fuel-cell drivesystem’s supe- For 60% efficiency in converting that hydrogen energy into traction, for an overall well-to- er els efficiency of 42%, That’ thee times higher than the normal gasoline-engine cat's or 1-5. times higher than the gasoline-hybrid-electric curs.” This helps explain why most automakers see today’s pasoline-hybrid cars asa stepping-stone to their ultimate goal — direet-hydrogen fuel-cell cars. \o¥ (UeKLN (Kay, Lietz, Naboulsi) ‘SDI 2008 Hydrogen affSolvency- Hydrogen does not require expensive crash programs + “drogen does not require $100-300 billion federal crash program, as analysts suggest Amory B. Lovins, CEO, Rocky Mountain Institute, Twenty Hydrogen Myths 17 February 2005 p.36-37 Myth #18. The hydrogen transition requires a big (say, $100-300 billion) Federal crash Program, on the lines of the Apollo Program or the Manhattan Project. Many environmental and some political leaders are now proposing large, round numbers to sym- bolize the level of investment and commitment they consider appropriate. However, it’s not at all clear that a Federal crash program is the right model when there’s plenty of skill and motivation in the private sector to introduce hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles rapidly — if they can compete fairly. This is difficult when, for example, the latest tax law makes up to $100,000 for buying a Hummer (ostensibly for business purposes) deductible in new tax breaks, federal funds for auto- motive innovation virtually exclude innovation-rich small businesses, global and state initiatives to make carbon costs visible are opposed by the federal government, and feebates aren’t yet on the agenda (disadvantaging American businesses). Incoherence in automakers’ strategy is also undercutting their impressive innovations — trumpeted in full-page ads about their hydrogen cars — with contradictory marketing or litigating messages that hydrogen is far off and impracti- zal (as they must presumably claim in their suit to oppose California's proposed CO, regulations) or that efficient cars must be small and unsafe (as they did claim when lobbying against tighter ar-efficiency standards). The total cost of a hydrogen transition is probably a lot more than the $1.7" billion proposed by President Bush over the next five years, but it is probably far less than $100~300 billion. It may not be much bigger than the billions of dollars that the private sector has already committed to Pieces of the puzzle — if the money is intelligently spent on an integrated buildings-and-vehicle« ransition that boots! ach stage.” traps its investment from its own revenue anid earns an attractive rews \t.aKLN (kay, Lietz, Naboulsi) SDI 2008 Hydrogen aff Solvency- Hydrogen fuel cells in portable electronics Hydrogen fuel cells desirable for laptops and other portable electronics RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute) 2008, “Fuel Cell Applications”, co-founder Amory Lovins has received nine honorary doctorates, a MacArthur Fellowship, the Heinz, Lindbergh, Right Livelihood ("Alternative Nobel"), World Technology, and Time Hero for the Planet awards, the Benjamin Franklin and Happold Medals, the Nissan, Shingo, Mitchell, and Onassis Prizes, and honorary membership of the ‘American Institute of Architects (AIA), http:/www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid202.php Fuel cells will find their first widespread use in portable electronics. These "micro fuel cells" offer far higher energy densities than those of comparably sized batteries, allowing a typical laptop to operate unplugged for ten hours or more, Micro fuel cells also offer the added appeal of eliminating the need for battery chargers and AC adapters, as they require refueling instead of recharging. This process could be done via "hot-swapping" whereby the device does not need to be turned off to get a new full tank of energy. \uA 1.0