The alcohol vs. other fuel source argument goes on, doesn't it?
Hydrogen sounds neat and is an "in thing" to espouse (read that "politically correct").
But there are couple of arguments that deflate it rapidly:
1) Converting hydrogen from ethanol is a second step/process: You can burn the ethanol where it stands. A second step to a process always adds expense and complexity; it will also reduce the overall efficiency.
2) The "containerization" issue: how do you hold it?
High pressure gas? Volume versus fuel value may mean a VW hauling a bus sized fuel tank. OK, you got the size/bulk down; now the fuel tank only weighs a ton. Maybe this should be a Stationary Power Plant...
Liquefy it? Oh, neat: CRYOGENICS!!! Ever lug a heavy-ass double-walled cryo cylinder around or get a "burn" from some < -200 degree stuff? Beat on a cryo cooled piece of metal and see if it cracks; that is, DON'T HAVE AN ACCIDENT WITH THIS STUFF ON BOARD!!! And this stuff gives the word "volatile" new meaning. Plug up the vents on that Dewar storage tank: there is more than one way to get an explosion out of this stuff!!!
Metal Hydrides? Exotic; how do you get the H2 in & how do you get the H2 out? A little bit of heat is involved: that heat has to come from somewhere. That heat might be a problem, especially in mobile installation. Also, generating that heat has to be plowed back into the energy budget...
Other storage mechanisms? Dunno; somebody always suggests misapplying plastics in engineering discussions...
Then there are Materials issues. Small molecules: this stuff is the world champion at leaks; it can go through unbelievably small orifices. Just say the word porous and you have a leak. For more fun, ever hear of hydrogen embrittlement?
3) The ethanol already exists with a higher "fuel value". Why do the extra steps? The extra steps in the process have to be paid for, with somebody's energy budget.
The "energy budget" economics physicist can make a case against the Fuel Cell approach. They even make a case against straight ethanol. When your back is against the wall, you ignore the criticism that someone else has a luxury. But that was what happened in Brazil.
This is where Brazil found themselves, years ago: hydrogen wasn't there, Brazil didn't have any significant oil reserves and the import costs were killing them. They did have a large sugar cane industry with a history of sugar, rum and even alcohol production.
So they let nature take its course: ETHANOL fueled cars. A few years of producing the converted systems and the infrastructure is established. Need "alky" fuel parts? They make millions of them.
Even in the US conversion parts for ethanol are available. The drag racers have been using them for years. "Off-the-shelf" would be an overnight matter for the auto parts supply industry.
I say do both: have the Midwest farmers turn out corn, mash and ethanol till they are blue in the face. Pay them for work and corn, not "Soil Bank" subsidies.
Start with ethanol burning cars. The parts are already in the catalogs and on shelves somewhere; just "ramp up" industry and that is a solved problem.
Too much alcohol floating around for the ATF's sensibilities? 5$/gallon fuel alcohol becomes 40$/gallon whisky? The heck with them; you need to denature it by their regulations, anyway. A fraction of a dollars worth of gasoline will fix it so I won't drink it and neither will you!!!!
The 5$ SWAG number I picked out of the air is a problem. But it will come down.
Subsidize it to get it off the ground. We are already subsidizing farmers to not plant or grow corn!! Shift the subsidy to kick start a new industry; that is one good use of a subsidy.
Then those fuel cells will kick in and we can see if the competition and research will "even out" the disadvantageous extra steps and other problems.
American jobs, oil reliance and renewable fuel sources are "weighed in" on the one hand. If properly managed, these pluses could fight against the negative arguments of "existing fuels are cheaper" and the "technical difficulties".
I'm against this you say? My biggest objection would be the unproven technology, extra process steps and the difference in "fuel value". Those things add up to an economic hurdle for this approach. But something similar to that can be said for any fledgling technology, for that matter.
I have mixed feelings, but forward motion means taking some chances. Hydrogen or ethanol, either way, we ought to get out there and do it!!!
Yep, I'm against this: BTW, did I mention that the company I work for handles Fuel Cells? :)
Mustang