@Davemart, I thought you're a supporter of Hydrogen! When Hydrogen will become a major zero-carbon transportation fuel in the coming years, then Solar PV will make a lot of sense in Northern Europe. The bulk of solar PV output in the summer will be used to produce H2 and stored for use year round. Storage of RE is not economically competitive with fossil fuel for grid electricity, but storage of RE in the form of H2 is already competitive with petroleum as transportation fuel. With ramping up of the Hydrogen infrastructure for transportation initially, and the resultant technology improvement and hence price reduction, eventually storage of solar PV energy for grid electricity will be come economical in the form of FC-CHP (combined heat and power for local use). In this fashion, the round-trip efficiency of H2 energy storage will be very high. The abscence of significant NG reserve in Western Europe and East Asia will make H2 from solar and wind ideal for home heating in the form of FC-CHP where NG is not available, and imported NG or LNG costs a lot. It would not make sense in neither the USA nor Russia, etc. where NG is so abundant and cheap.

@Sean Champ, "Bare" hydrogen gas is too valuable for resential heating. Instead, a Fuel cell is used to generate electricity, then the waste heat is used for residential heating. For cooking, electric stove is used. For safety reason, no H2 is allowed to enter inside the house or any other living space. The FC can be located outside the house, and only allow heat transfer fluid and electricity to enter the house. Fuel cell can ramp up far faster than gas turbine, thus is a far better way to back up the rapid fluctuation of Renewable Energy. The efficiency loss is simply too high when H2 is converted to methane, since methane cannot be used in a PEM or alkaline Fuel Cell.

@Kit P, I looked into the reference that you provided, and found this table on page 5. "Expected Generating Capacity to Come Online (2013 – 2020)4 Phase 1 - 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Coal 0 1,148 1,250 1,500 1,675 0 0 0 5,573 Geothermal 568 501 199 15 231 635 0 0 2,149 Hydro 944 731 3,869 531 1,378 105 210 1,792 9,561 NG 1,108 1,654 8,263 5,535 4,991 1,500 620 1,000 24,671 Nuclear 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Renewables 1,430 1,139 596 282 3 0 180 53 3,683 Petroleum 3 53 70 5 0 0 0 0 131 Solar 6,755 7,343 8,481 3,613 2,950 2,086 0 8,100 39,327 Wind 22,736 17,621 10,898 7,687 1,614 1,242 821 6,023 68,641 Total 33,543 30,190 33,626 19,167 12,842 5,568 1,831 16,968 153,736" Look at the cumulative projected new capacity from 2013 to 2020 for wind at 68,641 and solar at 39,327 (in bold font) vs. the total of 153,736. Together, solar and wind make up 107,968, divide this to the total 153,736 = 70%. So, solar and wind is projected to make up 70% of new generation capacity from 2013-2020. With rapidly developing technology for grid battery storage and H2 electrolyzer storage and FC, coupled with rapidly declining cost of solar and wind, we can expect even higher new generation capacity of solar and wind, perhaps to 100% in the next several years when the new technologies will reach the market.

Ha, ha, very funny, Kit P. Solar only produces 0.5%? % of what? If only a small capacity of solar PV is installed, then only a small % of power produced by solar PV. If you install zero solar PV, then zero PV % of total power output. Wind produces only 3%? It depends on what capacity of wind turbine installed. In Denmark, wind produces as much as 30% or more. The more you install, the higher % of power RE will produce. China maintain growth of 7-9% steadily. Brazil use RE mostly for electricity generation, and they maintain healthy economic growth. Portugal uses as much as 70% RE for power generation.

Renewable Energy (RE-Solar and Wind) as being utilized up to now is not the optimal way to do it. There is no organized way to soak up the excess RE to be used later, thus causing grid disruption and energy wastage with increasing penetration of RE past 25%, as Germany is experiencing. There is no current seasonal scale storage of excess of RE to address the severe seasonal mismatch of supply and demand of energy. Nuclear Energy (NE) as is practiced now is also not the most desirable way to do it, since too much nuclear waste remains that can constitute up to 99% of the potential energy of fissionable material. NE is best used as baseload in areas with poor solar, wind, and hydro potentials, due to the high investment cost of NE as is regulated today. Therefore, both RE and NE are works in progress. Optimal use of RE and NE requires HVDC power lines in order to allow location of wind and solar energy in locations of highest potential, and the transmission of NE to far away regions in periods of low electricity demand, while NG CCGT and hydro can take a break. Furthermore, a large-scale electrolyzer system and H2 storage system coupled with a system of FC-CHP is important to cope wih the intermittency of RE. FCV in the near future will allow direct conversion of RE and NE into transportation fuel to replace expensive and polluting petroleum. Until the above is accomplished, RE and NE will continued to be suboptimal sources of zero-carbon energy! Because of the above development hurdle, it not reasonable to expect countries rich in oil and gas like the USA and Russia to increase adoptation of RE and NE anytime soon! However, countries with no fossil fuel resources will be benefit economically from RE and NE development, as they are doing now, although not in a well-coordinated effort to my liking as outlined above. It is not fair to blame Spain's economic problem from RE development, because Germany, China, Denmark, Austria, etc are also developing RE as much if not more, and are experiencing economic prosperity relatively, to Spain. All the technologies necessary for optimal development of RE and NE are available today. All it will take is adequate understanding of this fact, political will, and the understanding of the dire consequences if the world is not rapidly moving away from fossil fuels as fast as possible.

@Kit P, Why I am supporting solar farming? Very good question. 1. Economic growth and stability: A vast engine for job creation leading to social stability. A steady energy supply thanks to RE at very predictable cost will lead to confidence in business investment and further enhancing business development...in positive feedback loops. Can you predict with certainty the prices of oil and NG in the next 5-10 years? Yet, the price of RE is very predictable, and can only get cheaper and cheaper and more plentiful! 2. Job creation and social stability as above 3. Halting the rise in CO2 level to ensure climate stability. Even though many people are not certain regarding GW and the ensuing consequences, the risk still exists, and it is good to buy insurance against GW and climate change & disruption. Just like when you buy health insurance and home insurance and life insurance, you can't predit that these personal catastrophies will happen to you within a year or two, but it is good to buy insurance! 4. Local enery security: Remember when the NG pipeline from Eastern Europe to Western Europe was shut off temporarily and the West was shivering? With local H2 storage, these can be prevented. 5. Preventing pollution fron oil spills and from NG fracking. 6. Conserving nuclear fuel for future deep space travel. 7. Solar farming to support 10x-100x the level of world population as now: Photosynthesis as a means of solar farming can support only ~10 billion worldwide, due to the inherent inefficiency. However, with energy gathering efficieny 100x higher, the world can support 100 1000 billion population instead of the 10 billion people that will strain the limit of photosynthesis. We will no longer need to grow food, but merely need to synthesize food from solar energy making H2 and incorporating carbon and nitrogen and sulfur into H2 and turning these into basic foodstocks. The basic powder food ingredients can be printed out using 3-D printers, as NASA is experimenting with now, for human deep space travel. The advantage is that your future synthetic food will be pure and free from the pollutions that natural foods is affected today, eg. insecticides, herbicides, arsenic, carcinogens, hormones... 8. Water can be purified from solar energy via multi-effect distiller at very high efficiency and absolute purity for human consumption only...No longer any needs to waste rain water for irrigation of food crops...No need to waste vast tracts of lands for farming...More lands for vast urban sprawls, natural parks and wildlife preservation etc...Cars will run on H2 and battery to traverse the vast urban sprawls without any pollution...batteries will be recycled. No more oil spills. Thus, with solar farming, the earth can support 100-1000 billion population before the real need for a massive exodust to Mars and Titan, etc from over population...giving us a few centuries to perfect our space travel technologies!

@Kit P, The petroleum refining industry has a lot of experience storing large quantity of H2 in underground caverns, as well as H2 pipeline system for transporting the H2 around. It takes 3x the volume to store energy as H2 as compared with methane at equal pressure, however, NG wells can store enough energy for years, while with H2, only one season's worth of energy will be needed. However, long-distance transportation of H2 is more expensive than transmission of electricity, so HVDC power lines should be used for regional energy transfer. Thus, local H2 pipeline will be mostly needed, and the cost will be quite manageable. Nuclear reactor's output can be varied, but for economic reason, should run at maximum power to recoup investment cost. The unused electricity energy can be used to make transportation fuels to reduce carbon footprint and to conserve fossil fuel reserve.

Good point, Kit P. The round trip efficiency of VGV will be poor if methane is used as the energy storage medium. Very good point, Silverthorn, but round-trip efficiency of nearly 100% is still possible using H2 as the storage medium! If, for example, H2 is used as energy storage medium, for distributed FC-CHP whereby waste heat will be used for winter heating, the efficiency will be very good. Furthermore, the waste heat of electrolysis can also be captured and used for hot water heating and other process heat. Hotels, Cafeteria, hospitals, spa, etc use a lot of hot water daily in any season. Electrolyzers can also be distributed where waste heat will be needed. The H2 produced on warmer seasons will be collected via a local H2 piping system to underground storage for use in colder seasons via FC-CHP for distributed generation with very high round trip efficiency. The round-trip efficiency in this way will be nearing 100%! This type of energy farming will be very important for human to colonize Mars and beyond. Solar PV's will be used to generate H2 and O2 to be stored for electricity and heat generation at night. Mars is a very cold place! There is no oil nor NG in Mars, and even if such exist, there is no O2 to combust them. The H2 is also needed to make synthetic foods, medicines, and other chemicals to support an entire human and animal population in Mars, in underground communities (to avoid cosmic rays and to maintain adequate air pressure). Re-usable H2-powered hypersonic space planes will be used to transport Mars-bound colonists to space stations in Earth's orbit, then nuclear powered spaceships using electric rockets will transport them to Mars. So, this type of energy farming is the prerequisite technology to support human colonies outside of Earth. Nulear fuel is very precious energy resource to enable human to travel in deep space and to settle outside of the Earth, and should not be used too much here and now, when solar and wind energy can supply the energy. "To infinity...and beyond."

@Davemart, You've made many good points, but I don't understand why you're against solar energy farming, or why you're against converting nuclear energy to transportation fuel, as this VGV scheme is accomplishing. Look at the whole issue of RE as energy farming. With farming, you sow the seeds, cultivate the soil, and collect solar energy to grow the crop. Solar PV energy storage is the same thing, with the advantage of 10-100x higher collection efficiency than photosynthesis, meaning much less land utilization. You can't farm on a small house's roof or on a parking lot, but you can put PV panels on houses and parking lots and lands already developed, or waste desert lands, to collect solar energy, so sparing any new arable land required for solar energy collection. Human started with hunter-gatherer behavior for food foraging in small tribal scale, moving up to large-scale agriculture to support vast civilizations. Yet, we are still in the primitive stage of hunter-gatherer with respect to energy collection, using preformed fossil fuels made hundreds of millions of years ago. It is about time that we move toward large-scale energy farming to solve many problems associated with energy hunting-gathering behavior.

@Davemart, It's not so simple. There is a tremendous seasonal variation in energy utilization, yet nuclear energy output is very constant. Some means of seasonal-scale of energy storage is needed, and this is one possibility. This is the first step for now, making synthetic methane. When the H2 pipeline system and cavernous storage system is fully implemented, H2 alone can be used for local H2-FC-CHP to further imcrease the round-trip efficiency, since the waste heat of the FC can be used for heating in colder seasons, and for FCV as well. Lower cost and higher efficiency will result when H2 can be directly used, without requiring conversion to methane.

Well, Nick, you and ToppaTom and others are vindicated in this. The whole idea did not seem right even on paper, from the beginning. With 80 millions USD raised, they should be able to have a few cars running with their engines on it already, and are available for journalists to test drive and give public reports, not just a single prototype that does not give performance data, such that they have to depend on computer simulation for estimated performance data on their website. Now, "we have the rest of the story," in Paul Harvey's paraphrase.

Sorry, KP, the trend now is for major businesses and industries to generate their own renewable energy, like Honda, VW, Ford, Walmart, etc...A hydrogen electrolyzer-FC system can be used to store excess renewable energy, and the waste heat from the electrolyzer and the FC can be used as process heat for local use. Or, the excess RE can be sold to the grid. With the low cost of RE now, it just makes economic sense to do so, not just Green Washing anymore, although Green Washing can be good for business. The gain in reliability is another factor. Even when power lines are down, the factory, hotel and department store are still running from power from FC using reformation of NG, stored H2, or directly from solar PV's and wind turbines!

@DaveD, Let's take a Model S with 60 kWh battery size. Let's say that the battery can be charged 2,000 times, the car can travel 3 miles/kWh, and that a typical owner drives 12,000 miles/year. So, 60kWh x 3 mi/kWh x 2,000 = 360,000 miles per pack. This divides by 12,000 mi/yr = 30 yrs! However, the battery pack will probably die way before this, and the investment will be lost. However, if you have a 20 kWh pack, then you will reach the end of the pack life in 10 yrs, assuming no calendar life degradation. With calendar life degradation, you'll have to replace the pack sooner, perhaps in 7-8 yrs or so, but you'll still get most of your money's worth out of the pack. If the pack is not capable of the equivalence of 2000 full cycles, then you will pay more in energy cost out of the pack than someone who is using LiFePO4 chemistry capable of the equivalence of 2000 full cycles. Also, why pay more to have such a large battery pack that will be outmoded in some years when newer, cheaper, lighter, etc... batteries will arrive? Think about resale value of the $80,000 investment. If you invest that much in a Porche or a MB ICEV or HEV, you will like recoup a lot of that even after 10 years if you don't drive much and the car is kept in the garage in like-new condition. My brother's Porche 911 turbo still looks and feels like new after 11 years of gently-used and kept in the garage and covered parking at work. It will probably last 30 years or longer. Can you say the same about the 80 kWh battery pack?

Good point, E-P. Electrolyzers for making H2 and FCV using H2 can help PHEV's take up the slack in managing RE generation peaks. FCV with waste heat available for cabin/windshield heating is great for Germany's cold climate, enabling high efficiency of H2 utilization. PHEV's with H2-FC as range extender is even better, since the battery pack is used in warmer weather when waste heat is not needed, while the FC will be used in colder weather to take advantage of waste heat, while capable of 100% zero-emission at the tail pipe (if any).

I still think that Tesla should collaborate with a major auto OEM to develop a PHEV version of the S model with 20-30 kWh battery pack and a small 60-hp-500cc ICE. The advantage of the PHEV version is that the battery pack can be used up in 5-7 years and replaced with a new pack, before significant calendar life deterioration. A large-battery-pack BEV is only practical when battery will have indefinite shelf life, or at least very long shelf life of 30 years or more. To make PHEV with small battery pack even more practical, more charging jacks of 110-220 V should be made available in work places and commercial places. A 20-mile AER PHEV thus can be driven 40-60 miles/day when charged twice or three times daily, and would hardly every need gasoline, yet, would have no problem for long trips without requiring any en-route fast charging stations. Regular charging jacks can also be made available at social gathering places for PHEV owners for hardly any extra cost, perhaps the cost of the extension cords, in comparison to the high cost of a 120 kW fast charging station, and PHEV owners can juice up their cars while enriching their social lives. From all angles, PHEV's with local in-city charging jacks make more practical sense. Battery swapping is about the worse, while fast charging stations is better than battery swapping.

I've reviewed the main patent application, and it is very evasive, does not specify sufficient info for another scientist to replicate the result. Patentability requires that the application discloses enough info so that a person skilled in the art is able to build and operate the invention. His patent application does not have enough info to be patentable according to US patent office's standard.

R.I.P, Better Place. May your soul go to a "better place!" after this life. Fast charging is a better option. Some Lithium chemistry allows 3-6 C charging rate. At 3C, charging from 0-100% DOC will take only 20 minutes. If the battery is half full, it will take only 10 minutes. H2 FCV is another zero-carbon option.

@Reel$$, An ethical scientist would strive to show the world his/her discovery for the benefit of humanity, AFTER filing patents to protect his/her IP. Dr. Rossi would then have 20 years of monopoly on his invention to make money off of it. With patent protection, Dr. Rossi would then feel safe to have industrial collaborators to work hard and fast to perfect the device just in time to avert the looming GW catastrophy. As it is now, who would want to invest in E-CAT when nothing is known about it? And how much longer does the world need to wait to have cheap, clean and zero-carbon energy? A scientist's primary duty is to teach humanity about his/her discovery, not to hide it away like CocaCola, or any other secret sauce! Is Dr. Rossi waiting for the prices of wind and solar to energy to get lower and lower, and H2 infrastructure built everywhere to store excess solar and wind energy, so that E-Cat will never have a chance to catch on? Dr. Rossi will need to act now to promote E-Cat, to show the world everything about it...to get industries on board as soon as possible. Why isn't he doing that?

@KP, Fossil fuel's reserve is limited. Zero-carbon energy sources for EV's and FCV's are unlimited. ICEV are inherently polluting that requires a lot of effort to make them clean. However, when an ICEV aged, the emission control system loses efficiency and the clunker will become a "stinker", spewing out noxious fumes, as well as polluting oil leaks. Some poor people change their own oil and polluting the ground and water by illegal dumping of the oil. With a PHEV or a BEV using zero-carbon energy sources, the car will remain pollution-free for the entire life of the car. The car will last many lifetimes of a comparable ICEV without any effort. To make an ICEV lasting several hundred thousand miles will require a lot of effort. You, Sir, are a good engineer and have good hands and good engine-sense, so your ICEV's will last for a long time, plus you are a gentle driver. The same cannot be said of a typical ICEV owner, who abuses their car while neglecting maintenance schedule.

There are many reasons for doubting the validity of the recent E-Cat experiment mentioned here. See: http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/

Daytime BEV or PHEV charging at work is a great way to absorb excess solar PV electricity, making PEV that much cleaner and reduces the carbon footprint. In colder seasons, solar energy is much less available, then the PHEV will use the ICE to provide both heat and power. PHEV is the perfect solution for solar energy utilization in transportation.

@HarveyD, US-participated wars will not end simply because too many jobs from too many congressional districts and profits are dependent on them. Ideology is a good pretext for military involvement and military & defense contracts and local jobs. A former US 4-star general and subsequently US president Eisenhower had warned us about this on his TV farewell address to the nation. Oil will continued to be used and promoted because too much profits are being earned from the sales of oil. Now, more domestic oil and gas are being discovered with more domestic jobs and money earned, to ensure continued use of oil and gas. However, by declaring war on global warming and climate change, perhaps we will be able to find a pretext to usher into a new era of green energy. Get the military-industrial complex's full involvement into this new war effort, and we will have full congressional support, with the moneys and profits going to the military defense contractors and oil & gas industry. Two wars in the Middle East were started with the loss of American lives and properties in 911. Well, severe property damages to the tune of hundreds of billions were done by hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Irene, Droughts in TX and MidWest, etc and many lives were lost due to climate change & GW...The environment has declared war on us with terror, lost of lives and extensive property damages. What more pretext do we need to start a war on climate change and GW?

I believe that the battery pack is primarily sized to provide the power to the E-motor for adequate braking energy recuperation. A bus has far more energy to recuperate during braking than a car. The plugged-in capacity is a secondary advantage only, but since the CO2 reduction is 75-80% c/w a diesel bus, who can complain? This is incredible performance for a small-size battery pack that will allow more buses to be thus equipped without straining the battery supply. The Volve Flywheel KERS technology is also great for this application. Even better is a bi-hybrid design using a flywheel with imbedded permanent magnets and the casing with stator coils to replace the E-motor. Thus, energy for acceleration and from braking will go directly from and to the flywheel. The flywheel can be upsized to deliver 200-300 kW instead of the 120 kW size of the E-motor, hence significantly improve acceleration and regenerative braking performance. The battery pack can be smaller and will last a lot longer due to less frequent use. The cost saving of not having a 120-kW E-motor and a smaller battery pack with less frequent replacement will apply toward the cost of the flywheel unit, and thus the bi-hybrid can be cost-neutral c/w current PHEV design, while having higher performance.

Relax, HD, the rates of overall violence, including gun violence, have decreased to half since the last few decades. There is no need to impose any new anti-gun legislation that will serve no good purpose. Far more lives can be saved by simply banning the SUV's!

It is quite incredible that this 887-hp, 200-mph(?) super sport car can get >100 MPGe fuel economy, unlike the 600-hp Ferrari's of yesteryears capable of 12-15 mpg and frequent expensive repair and maintenance. Charged twice daily, it can cover 36 miles on electricity alone! In the HEV mode (charge sustaining), it should get 40-45 mpg using the power and glide method (ICE to charge the battery, then shut off and glide using the e-motor. With a 220-kW battery, braking energy recuperation will be very high and the disc brakes will hardly ever see action, unless on the race track. Thus, despite the high initial purchasing cost (status symbol), the operating cost of this vehicle will be very low, and the ICE and the transmission and the brakes will last forever! Way to go!