Is Hydrogen the Best of the Green Fuels? 44 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
click to enlarge
Special thanks to Mr. Mike Johnston for contributing to this article
Currently, the U.S. and most of the world is in what would be called the fossil fuel economy. The majority of our power source is from oil, natural gas, coal, and petroleum products. We need energy to keep our world and society running; however, fossil fuel energy also creates problems such as pollution, climate change and imported oil dependence.
The large market and sharply rising prices in fossil fuels have stimulated great interest in alternate, cheaper means of hydrogen production. A recent ExxonMobil (XOM) ad introduces the concept of an on-board fuel reformer for vehicles. These devices combine water and oil (or another feedstock) to produce hydrogen fuel for the vehicle. The energy source needed may be in the form of wind, oil, nuclear as well concentrated solar thermal. Moreover, hydrogen has been identified as a key future fuel for low carbon energy systems such as power generation in fuel cells and as a transport fuel.
The estimated costs for producing and delivering hydrogen to the fueling station using today’s technologies vary from $2.10/gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge) to $9.10/gge, before taxes. According to a National Academy of Engineering 2004 estimate, projected costs using future technology if current R&D efforts are successful would reduce the cost of hydrogen to the range between $1.75/gge to $4.25/gge. Thus hydrogen is expected to be competitive with gasoline per mile driven.
In a pure hydrogen economy, the hydrogen must be derived from renewable sources rather than fossil fuels so that we stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere. While it’s likely to be many years before a pure hydrogen economy can be achieved due to infrastructure and storage issues, a mixed hydrogen economy scenario, where all energy sources coexist to produce a single form of fuel, could be a forerunner to this as sustainable, and more environmentally friendly.
This mixed hydrogen economy scenario has the benefit of reducing not only pollution, but also greenhouse gas and oil dependence. In addition, hydrogen is the only fuel which can be produced by essentially the same process from a variety of domestically available feedstocks such as oil (petroleum), vegetable oil, biomass, alcohol, natural gas, and biodiesel. Even sugar and coal become players in the transportation fuel sector in this scenario. Having this variety of choices when you make hydrogen is part of what makes hydrogen a universal fuel.
The transition to hydrogen fuel produced from multiple feedstocks would create a near perfect competition in the vehicle fuel sector. Producers would have to compete for market share as hydrogen becomes a generic commodity. This could also drive the R&D of new technologies as producers strive to stay cost and product competitive. In addition, we will have a more distributed production network since hydrogen can be produced anywhere that you have electricity and water.
Hydrogen production is already a large and growing industry. Although the world hydrogen production is not monitored, but based on various estimates, it is around 45 million metric tons a year, with about 20-25% produced in the U.S. The historical growth rate is estimated to be around 10% per year. As of 2005, the economic value of all hydrogen produced worldwide is about $135 billion per year.
Currently, global hydrogen production is 48% from natural gas, 30% from oil, and 18% from coal; water electrolysis accounts for only 4% (see Graph). Over 95% of the hydrogen in the U.S. is made from natural gas. Each year, the United States uses more than 9 million tons of hydrogen, 7.5 million tons of which are consumed at the place of manufacture. The remaining 1.5 million tons are considered to be "merchant" hydrogen, or hydrogen that is sold. Today, most of this hydrogen is used as a chemical, rather than a fuel. As hydrogen moves from these large industrial uses to something that you and I commonly use to fuel our businesses, homes, electronics and vehicles, other resources besides natural gas are expected to be used.
The recent proposal by the Pickens Plan to switch heavy trucks to natural gas is a step toward hydrogen as it puts gaseous fuels into common usage. A natural gas truck system can also run on hydrogen fuel with different storage tanks. In addition it is really the only readily available alternative fuel for the freight transportation sector since electric or fuel cell truck technology will take longer to come to market compared to passenger cars.
Most countries currently reliant on fossil fuels are investing heavily in hydrogen development programs. For example, several years ago, the Indian supreme court mandated that all public vehicles in Delhi, should be converted to run on compressed natural gas (CNG) as a means to fight the rising pollution problem. Currently, in India, five major auto makers, Tata Motors (TTM), Bajaj Auto, Mahindra & Mahindra, Ashok Leyland and Eicher Motors, are collaborating in a project to create an optimal mix of hydrogen and compressed natural gas (CNG). The hydrogen blend will reduce NOx and particulate emissions by about 50%. The hydrogen is four times the cost of CNG but has three times the specific energy, so the improved mileage is expected to mitigate most of the cost.
Hydrogen does have the same issue as the CNG sector, i.e., the lack of transporting, distributing and storing infrastructure, as described in my article - Investing in the Picken’s Plan, One Year Later. In addition, hydrogen has another major challenge - generating enough electricity without using more fossil fuels to produce the product. Nonetheless, hydrogen is one of the more developed sub-sectors within the green tech sector, and could potentially offer faster returns on investment as it is most likely to be widely adopted.
Although hydrogen seems well positioned to ride the green wave, in the current environment, it is more prudent to capture the potential upside of the sector with the more established and diversified players like Royal Dutch/Shell (RDS-B), General Electric (GE) and Siemens (SI) as opposed tothe small pure players like Hydrogenics (HYGS) and FuelCell Energy (FCEL).
Disclosure: No positions
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 44 comments:
For instance, home fuel cell technology would greatly increase the efficiency of natural gas usage, as you can generate the electric in your home and use the waste heat produced for hot water:
www.clearedgepower.com/
Much more compact units than the one illustrated are available.
I would also agree with your remarks about using hydrogen, especially when it is reformed on board as that avoids complicated infrastructure, for long-distance trucks.
However, it seems unlikely to me that it will be competitive either long or short term with electric or plug in vehicles for personal transport.
The short term reason for this is the high cost of rolling out hydrogen infrastructure compared to electric plugs:
'According to the California Energy Commission, it will cost $40 million to build 11 hydrogen fueling stations, compared to just $12 million cost to build 6,500 EV charging stations.'
www.grist.org/article/...
On board reformers for private vehicles would of course avoid this issue, but AFAIK in private cars as opposed to trucks this is some way away, so in the short term what is practical is building electric plug-in infrastructure.
Longer term the issue is the relative inefficiency of producing hydrogen, storing it and using it to power transport, even assuming that the high cost of fuel cells ( way more than batteries ) is overcome and precious metal use reduced.
It only takes around 250-300 watts per mile or so to run an electric car.
You are therefore talking of fuel costs of a few cents for the equivalent mileage that you get for several dollars by using hydrogen.
So I feel that hydrogen has a part to play, but don't fancy it's chances for personal transport.
Range limitations in batteries have as good a chance of being overcome by the use of zinc-air or lithium air, or perhaps lithium sulphur as hydrogen has of reducing costs to the extent that is suggested here.
One good way of producing hydrogen is through the use of a high temperature nuclear reactor.
These can be built to burn up nearly 100% of the thorium fuel, and use up the waste we have already created making it into very short-lived waste and utilising it as fuel.
energyfromthorium.com/.../
A demo reactor was built and run successfully in the US in the 60's - it was discontinued because it was lousy at producing weapon's grade materials!
Apologies for the long post - the author raised interesting and important issues.
On Jul 20 06:12 AM TheMaven wrote:
> Very interesting article but is everyone aware that the fuel cell
> technolgy used by FuelCell Energy, FCEL, can not operate on pure
> hyderogen but requires CO2?
This view however is essentially wrong in my opinion and in a future article I will explain why this is so and why I have recently come to see hydrogen as the next boom technology.
On Jul 20 06:36 AM Freya wrote:
> Hydrogen would have the same drawbacks as CNG but none of the inherent
> Pollution. I love the Hydrogen Solution but think it forms only a
> small part of the Majors listed.
>
> I believe HYGS sells Hydrogen Generators. I haven't visited them
> in years. The Chinese bought from them at the time. It might have
> a difficult time competing if the Big Boys get involved.
>
> Thank you.
Americans are used to vehicles which can take them to the grocery store one day and on a family trip to Florida the next. Fuel cell vehicles can match the kind of range and performance that consumers are used to from internal combustion powered vehicles with at least double the miles per gallon and less than half the pollution (or no pollution in the case of straight H2 fuel cells).
Assuming that we can reach a place where all three technologies are comparably priced fuel cell vehicles are the obvious champs.
On Jul 20 06:49 AM Davewmart wrote:
> I would agree that hydrogen has a lot of potential in some areas.
>
> For instance, home fuel cell technology would greatly increase the
> efficiency of natural gas usage, as you can generate the electric
> in your home and use the waste heat produced for hot water:
> www.clearedgepower.com/
> Much more compact units than the one illustrated are available.<br/>I
> would also agree with your remarks about using hydrogen, especially
> when it is reformed on board as that avoids complicated infrastructure,
> for long-distance trucks.
> However, it seems unlikely to me that it will be competitive either
> long or short term with electric or plug in vehicles for personal
> transport.
> The short term reason for this is the high cost of rolling out hydrogen
> infrastructure compared to electric plugs:
> 'According to the California Energy Commission, it will cost $40
> million to build 11 hydrogen fueling stations, compared to just $12
> million cost to build 6,500 EV charging stations.'
> www.grist.org/article/...
>
>
> On board reformers for private vehicles would of course avoid this
> issue, but AFAIK in private cars as opposed to trucks this is some
> way away, so in the short term what is practical is building electric
> plug-in infrastructure.
>
> Longer term the issue is the relative inefficiency of producing hydrogen,
> storing it and using it to power transport, even assuming that the
> high cost of fuel cells ( way more than batteries ) is overcome and
> precious metal use reduced.
> It only takes around 250-300 watts per mile or so to run an electric
> car.
> You are therefore talking of fuel costs of a few cents for the equivalent
> mileage that you get for several dollars by using hydrogen.
>
> So I feel that hydrogen has a part to play, but don't fancy it's
> chances for personal transport.
> Range limitations in batteries have as good a chance of being overcome
> by the use of zinc-air or lithium air, or perhaps lithium sulphur
> as hydrogen has of reducing costs to the extent that is suggested
> here.
>
> One good way of producing hydrogen is through the use of a high temperature
> nuclear reactor.
> These can be built to burn up nearly 100% of the thorium fuel, and
> use up the waste we have already created making it into very short-lived
> waste and utilising it as fuel.
> energyfromthorium.com/.../
>
> A demo reactor was built and run successfully in the US in the 60's
> - it was discontinued because it was lousy at producing weapon's
> grade materials!
>
> Apologies for the long post - the author raised interesting and important
> issues.
If we ever switch to H2 made from renewables or nuclear energy FCEL's fuel cells will not be part of that scenario
On Jul 20 07:13 AM enki09 wrote:
> Different types of fuel cells are being made to run on a variety
> of fuels. The company you refer to makes carbonate fuel cells that
> can run on fossil fuels and yes, these types do produce CO2. However
> the high operating efficiency of fuel cells (usually around 70%)
> makes then far superior to most other power sources (such as internal
> combustion engines at 30% efficiency) and so they produce proportionally
> less CO2 which makes them a good green choice.
The energy intensity of hydrogen is too low. By the time someone cracks the hydrogen puzzle, something much better will be available.
Consequently the "Green" aspect of the technology is not as great as advertised.
One of best transport mechanism for hydrogen is natural gas with 4 hydrogen molecules attached to one carbon -- pretty efficient.
Gasoline and other oil derivatives aren't bad, either. The hydrogen packed in one milliliter of gasoline is much more than than same amount of TNT.
So, there are efficient ways of transporting the hydrogen, but there are also problems, the biggest of which are the by products, primarily CO2.
That leads to pure hydrogen where the by product is water.
Enthusiasts anticipate the obvious issue that while hydrogen itself is pure, most of the ways of generating pure hydrogen have environmental cost. The counter is usually electrolysis driven by wind or solar --- how can anyone argue with that.
Sure the costs are high, now, they continue, but investing in "green technology" will drive down the costs, and hopefully soon, hydrogen will become feasible.
Transporting pure hydrogen will always be problematic. At ambient temperature and at normal pressure, a car tank worth of hydrogen will take you about 4 feet. Compression and liquefying are technical answers, but at what cost?
ALL of the transport alternatives for pure hydrogen transport are poor, right now. SIGNIFICANT new infrastructure investment is required, and the physics of pure hydrogen are daunting: the atoms are so small, they invade any container material making it brittle over time.
For my money, the two best hydrogen transport mechanisms I've found are methanol (essentially methanol with an oxygen atom stuck in that the Germans used as a fuel alternative in WWI and WWII) and, hopefully, the new algae technologies that Exxon is investing in.
The new fuel cell technologies may also be promising, although it is impossible to separate the hype from the truth, especially when it comes to how long they last and how much it really costs to own and run one.
Pure hydrogen is a long, long,long,long long ,long way off, in my opinion.
How many candidates are you aware of in the "something better" technology category that can reasonably replace on fossil fuels?
On Jul 20 08:24 AM A Barrel Full wrote:
> In answer to the title. No.
>
> The energy intensity of hydrogen is too low. By the time someone
> cracks the hydrogen puzzle, something much better will be available.
I don't see a direct transition from fossil fuels to H2 from water. Rather a gradual transition in which both systems are codependent players and competitors in the fuel sector.
On Jul 20 08:31 AM TCK wrote:
> Perhaps a minor point , but Hydrogen is not an energy source, but
> an energy carrier and it takes a great deal of energy to extract
> it from water on any large scale.
>
> Consequently the "Green" aspect of the technology is not as great
> as advertised.
there is considerably more energy in a bucket of gasoline than in a bucket of LH2, and i don't think anyone is proposing to run their automobile on LH2.
> jack
Both water and hydrocarbons are the "ash" of oxidation/reduction reactions.
On Jul 20 08:54 AM john s. gordon wrote:
> major problem with H2 is its low energy density.
>
> there is considerably more energy in a bucket of gasoline than in
> a bucket of LH2, and i don't think anyone is proposing to run their
> automobile on LH2.
On Jul 20 09:27 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
> Hydrogen definitely has a significant position in the energy picture,
> but not in the short run. Why is that? It's because the people who
> make the decisions have decided that it is an idea whose time has
> not arrived. Here in Sweden we hear hardly a whisper about hydrogen,
> but that is because of the energy input needed to obtain it in the
> desired form, and the fact that this input would optimally be supplied
> by nuclear .
Another way to overcome that obstacle to some extent is via an on board reformer. In that scenario H2 is stored as a hydrocarbon and as water on the vehicle and separated into reformed as it is used. This process as a 2 step reaction (partial oxidation and steam reforming) is exothermic to the point of being self sustaining without additional energy being needed except in the start up phase and flash starters have been produced which allow the process to start in as little as 12 seconds.
With an on board reformer roughly half the H2 produced comes from the hydrocarbon and half from the water so CO2 production is potentially cut in half vs just burning the hydrocarbon.
On Jul 20 09:08 AM epeon wrote:
> This article is one of those analysis done by people who do not live
> in the real world. The biggest problem with hydrogen has been and
> still is this: there is no efficient way of storing it. To get
> any energy density you have to liquify it. However, hydrogren is
> liquid at cyogenic temperatures. That is difficult, expensive, and
> dangerous. No one has solved that problem. Therefore, until that
> probelm is solved, the above is just nonsense. Ain't going to happen.
However, if you were to take one example, the Exxon / Synthetic Genomics deal of last week. The potential (if it ever works) of lipid spewing algae, is enormous.
For electricity, we are spoilt for choice, wind, solar, geothermal, wave, hydro & nuclear. None of them are perfect, but all are far closer to being competitive than hydrogen.
Above all, efficiency could replace a significant minority of our energy needs, with today's technology.
Hydrogen needs to have everything built again from scratch, rather than plugging into our existing system as most of its competitors potentially can.
On Jul 20 08:47 AM enki09 wrote:
> Interesting position. But consider this perspective; we are already
> using hydrogen as our primary fuel in the form of hydrogen attached
> to a carbon "storage medium" in hydrocarbons. When you burn gasoline
> 2/3 of the energy produced comes from the H2 + O2 portion of the
> reaction and only 1/3 from the C + O2 reaction. So to say hydrogen
> energy intensity is too low is really ignoring the reality of our
> modern energy system.
>
> How many candidates are you aware of in the "something better" technology
> category that can reasonably replace on fossil fuels?
On Jul 20 10:33 AM A Barrel Full wrote:
> I don't expect one thing to replace fossil fuels.
>
> However, if you were to take one example, the Exxon / Synthetic Genomics
> deal of last week. The potential (if it ever works) of lipid spewing
> algae, is enormous.
>
> For electricity, we are spoilt for choice, wind, solar, geothermal,
> wave, hydro & nuclear. None of them are perfect, but all are
> far closer to being competitive than hydrogen.
>
> Above all, efficiency could replace a significant minority of our
> energy needs, with today's technology.
>
> Hydrogen needs to have everything built again from scratch, rather
> than plugging into our existing system as most of its competitors
> potentially can.
>
> On Jul 20 08:47 AM enki09 wrote:
On Jul 20 11:25 AM La Marque wrote:
> The offshore platforms are ideal for hydrogen production. Shallow
> water, solar & wind generators and pipe to the mainland for processing.
> Yes, it is going to be expensive initially; but is anyone working
> on something like this?
NG storage is 100's times more efficiently stored, than H2, which must be supercooled to reach liquid phase.
The American transportation industry could be transformed to use much more NG than current use, what if HALF of our family cars ran on NG, we could practically eliminate importation of foreign oil.
We would be hiring our own energy workers to provide us with our transportation fuels, instead of sending our US$$ to ME, no thank you.
NG is by far a much better fuel than H2 for America, its economy and the American people.
Drill, Drill, Drill, and NOW, for American jobs and prosperity.
On Jul 20 11:57 AM jack kreg wrote:
> No, Natural Gas, NG, is the best fuel for America and its people.
> H2 does burn into water vapor, but it is very costly to manufacture,
> it is NOT found ready to use, it is manufactured from NG, by burning
> more NG.
>
> NG storage is 100's times more efficiently stored, than H2, which
> must be supercooled to reach liquid phase.
>
> The American transportation industry could be transformed to use
> much more NG than current use, what if HALF of our family cars ran
> on NG, we could practically eliminate importation of foreign oil.
>
> We would be hiring our own energy workers to provide us with our
> transportation fuels, instead of sending our US$$ to ME, no thank
> you.
> NG is by far a much better fuel than H2 for America, its economy
> and the American people.
>
> Drill, Drill, Drill, and NOW, for American jobs and prosperity.
Highly hyped and subsidized hydrogen cars rely on the most impractical fuel on the planet. Beyond the estimated $2 trillion we'd need to build production infrastructure and filling stations, hydrogen is the most co-dependent atom on Earth (it just hates to be alone).
The energy needed to pry it from water, compress it into tanks and then convert it into electricity in a fuel cell wipes out 80 percent of its energy at the axle.
That energy has to come from somewhere - like a coal-fired power plant. Not to mention the energy needed to truck hydrogen to filling stations. If they existed.
None of this is to suggest we can't do better. But hydrogen cars are 80 percent energy-inefficient and 100 percent unaffordable.
One more word on hydrogen .... Hindenburg.
Sorry all but H2 is not eff at all. If you follow the whole cycle H2 takes too much energy to make, store, use. Making, storing H2 takes 50%+ of the energy then a fool cells which is very expensive is at best 50% eff though in car sizes, pumps, conditioners, etc eat a good amount of that.
Vs batteries which are 4x's as eff getting 4 miles range to every 1 of H2 for the same energy. Even much better if wind, solar is used. And those thinking H2 has more range than EV's again does not live in the real world. It's quite easy to get 300 mile range EV's now with Lithium batteries on order but few if any H2 ones.
PEM fuel cells are roughly 70% efficient. Main loss is in the form of heat so higher temp fuel cell types are rated as being slightly less efficient.
Look at on board reformers and you see all of the detractors you mention such as storage and pumps and what not are eliminated from the cycle.
The range of a battery depends on how much energy can be stored on the plates of the battery. The more energy stored, the bigger the battery. Soon the weight of the batteries exceeds the range extension.
Range of fuel cells depends on the size of the fuel tank. Much easier to manipulate without adding excessive weight.
your comment is pretty much inaccurate throughout.
On Jul 20 01:56 PM jerrydd wrote:
>
> Sorry all but H2 is not eff at all. If you follow the whole cycle
> H2 takes too much energy to make, store, use. Making, storing H2
> takes 50%+ of the energy then a fool cells which is very expensive
> is at best 50% eff though in car sizes, pumps, conditioners, etc
> eat a good amount of that.
>
> Vs batteries which are 4x's as eff getting 4 miles range to every
> 1 of H2 for the same energy. Even much better if wind, solar is used.
> And those thinking H2 has more range than EV's again does not live
> in the real world. It's quite easy to get 300 mile range EV's now
> with Lithium batteries on order but few if any H2 ones.
The DOE had a video out a few years back in which they ruptured the fuel tanks of an H2 fueled car and a gasoline car and lit both on fire. The H2 vented and burned off without further damage to the car. The gasoline car was fully consumed in the resulting fire. Which would you rather be in an accident with?
On Jul 20 01:31 PM LoveShorting wrote:
> Jack: EXACTLY (disclosure: long UNG) but since when does common
> sense have anything to do with the way this country behaves.
> One more word on hydrogen .... Hindenburg.
On Jul 20 12:26 PM BoscoBanker wrote:
> At the risk of tipping over a sacred cow:
>
> Highly hyped and subsidized hydrogen cars rely on the most impractical
> fuel on the planet. Beyond the estimated $2 trillion we'd need to
> build production infrastructure and filling stations, hydrogen is
> the most co-dependent atom on Earth (it just hates to be alone).
>
>
> The energy needed to pry it from water, compress it into tanks and
> then convert it into electricity in a fuel cell wipes out 80 percent
> of its energy at the axle.
>
> That energy has to come from somewhere - like a coal-fired power
> plant. Not to mention the energy needed to truck hydrogen to filling
> stations. If they existed.
>
> None of this is to suggest we can't do better. But hydrogen cars
> are 80 percent energy-inefficient and 100 percent unaffordable.
evworld.com/article.cf...
'Assuming that we can reach a place where all three technologies are comparably priced fuel cell vehicles are the obvious champs.'
And:
'While electric vehicles are great in their won way there are limitations as to range (generally 140 miles or less) between charges and the time to charge (at least an hour) which make them useful as urban commuter vehicles but not much more.'
Equal costs is a pretty heroic assumption with nothing in the current state of play in the various technologies to justify it.
You have to assume huge reductions in the use of precious metals in the fuel cells, and either huge advances in the production of hydrogen (from what energy source?) or equally large advances in reformers technology, notably in the case of cars in compactness.
Conversely you are assuming no advance at all in battery technology, giving a range of around 140 miles as an absolute.
Whilst 140 miles is generous for present battery technology, with around 100 miles being about it at any reasonable cost, energy density is hardly going to stand still, and neither are areas such as taking the weight out of cars, with VW for instance now finalising it's plans to reduce body structure weight by around 30%.
Firms like Renault are also doing a lot of work, for example in the BeBop ZE, to reduce parasitic losses.
So it is not reasonable to think that a range of perhaps 200-300 miles is not eminently achievable in the medium term.
In your analysis you have also totally omitted battery swap technology.
I would agree that for the foreseeable future habitual long distance drivers such as reps will be better served by hybrids, but for the vast majority batteries will do the job well.
Certainly if you exclude on board reformers the energy cycle to use hydrogen is far, far more inefficient than the use of batteries and so fuel costs would be much higher.
A pure electric car is also very simple, so maintenance costs are also low.
You can make the case for anything by assuming that your favoured technology will enjoy massive leaps in performance, whilst the competition makes no progress at all.
Save for large vehicles such as trucks and buses with on board reformers I can see no present evidence that fuel cell technology is going to even challenge battery powered cars.
Well, you can in fact run a car off of "wood gas", which is gasified coal. Again, no real infrastructure for this. Hydrogen is *not* that dangerous as people make it out to be; its handled and combusted safely in high-school and college chem labs on a routine basis, and people ignore the substantial history of H2 powered Zepplins prior to the Hindenburg. So H2 is not that dangerous, especially when you are not directly combusting it but using it in a fuel cell.
Trivia: there is one engine that run H2 combustion as a "duel fuel" without any modifications and can switch back to petrol, again without modifications. That engine would be the rotary (Wankel). Mazda actually has a small fleet of these running around in Japan.
As a consumer I think that electric vehicles are just not yet ready to do everything I want or need a vehicle to do although I think they would make a great second car to use as a commuter vehicle to go back and forth to work or to run errands with.
All of the same objections that fans of electric vehicles make against fuel cells can also apply to battery powered vehicles because fuel cells are pretty much just a different type of battery. You need to produce electricity somewhere, somehow to charge the battery just like you need to use electricity to produce H2 from water. In both cases the electricity used is stored in the form of potential chemical energy.
Reformers bypass a lot of the storage and distribution problems associated with pure H2 and a small prototype of a reformer was made at the Pacific Northwest lab in 2004 which solved the size problem and showed that they can be made to be exothermic overall to the extent that the reaction becomes self sustaining. This eliminates the need for outside energy being applied to sustain the process.
I am not sure how consumers would react to battery swaps. My first thought is that, if I spend all this money for a vehicle and then have to swap out the engine (batteries) every time I need a fill up what is to guarantee that the batteries I get in the swap are as good as the ones I trade in. How is that going to affect the value of the vehicle when I trade it in? If I never own the batteries in my car then I certainly don't want to pay for them when I buy the car.
The focus of the story from my perspective was an evolution of our present vehicle fueling system. We are faced with a situation where we import a great deal of the oil we use and by becoming self sufficient in an energy sense we can keep 400 billion dollars a year here in the US. There are so many alternative fuels out there right now trying to gain a foothold it seems as though it would be much easier to go to a single fuel (hydrogen) which can be produced from all these various feedstocks than to try to rely on any one of them since none of them really have the potential to be produced in the kind of quantity necessary to supplant fossil fuel imports in the near term and maybe they never will. But, by using all of these sources to produce a single fuel we can achieve energy independence.
On Jul 21 05:42 AM Davewmart wrote:
> enki09 wrote:
> 'Assuming that we can reach a place where all three technologies
> are comparably priced fuel cell vehicles are the obvious champs.'
>
> And:
> 'While electric vehicles are great in their won way there are limitations
> as to range (generally 140 miles or less) between charges and the
> time to charge (at least an hour) which make them useful as urban
> commuter vehicles but not much more.'
>
> Equal costs is a pretty heroic assumption with nothing in the current
> state of play in the various technologies to justify it.
> You have to assume huge reductions in the use of precious metals
> in the fuel cells, and either huge advances in the production of
> hydrogen (from what energy source?) or equally large advances in
> reformers technology, notably in the case of cars in compactness.
>
> Conversely you are assuming no advance at all in battery technology,
> giving a range of around 140 miles as an absolute.
> Whilst 140 miles is generous for present battery technology, with
> around 100 miles being about it at any reasonable cost, energy density
> is hardly going to stand still, and neither are areas such as taking
> the weight out of cars, with VW for instance now finalising it's
> plans to reduce body structure weight by around 30%.
> Firms like Renault are also doing a lot of work, for example in the
> BeBop ZE, to reduce parasitic losses.
> So it is not reasonable to think that a range of perhaps 200-300
> miles is not eminently achievable in the medium term.
> In your analysis you have also totally omitted battery swap technology.
>
> I would agree that for the foreseeable future habitual long distance
> drivers such as reps will be better served by hybrids, but for the
> vast majority batteries will do the job well.
> Certainly if you exclude on board reformers the energy cycle to use
> hydrogen is far, far more inefficient than the use of batteries and
> so fuel costs would be much higher.
> A pure electric car is also very simple, so maintenance costs are
> also low.
>
> You can make the case for anything by assuming that your favoured
> technology will enjoy massive leaps in performance, whilst the competition
> makes no progress at all.
>
> Save for large vehicles such as trucks and buses with on board reformers
> I can see no present evidence that fuel cell technology is going
> to even challenge battery powered cars.
'You need to produce electricity somewhere, somehow to charge the battery just like you need to use electricity to produce H2 from water. In both cases the electricity used is stored in the form of potential chemical energy.'
That is true but the scales are very different, as are the energy losses. You need to use a lot of electricity to produce the hydrogen for vehicles.
You transform electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity, and that is just not very efficient.
It is OK on a relatively modest scale, to power trucks and aeroplanes where you really need to power density, but to power the car fleet from hydrogen other than by splitting natural gas would mean vast new arrays of power plants.
Even very widespread use of electricity for transport places very low demands on the grid due to their only needing about 0.3kwh per mile:
www.chiefengineer.org/...
Some even argue that due to savings on refining oil no net energy will be needed at all:
evworld.com/article.cf...
Make sure to read the comments where the figures are discussed further.
And:
blog.storybridge.org/2...
In any case, whether not refining the petrol would entirely cover the electricity for running an EV fleet or not, it is clear that the extra needed for EV's is really very modest.
For longer distance travellers, plug-in hybrids are pretty much a right-now technology, which fuel cell cars certainly are not.
For on-board reformers in trucks, Volvo is doing a lot of work:
blogs.edmunds.com/gree...
The FT process to convert coal to liquid is ready to go to provide the fuel needed for the heavy transport sector without needing a hydrogen infrastructure rolling out.
Personally I like DME
I also think on board reformers are a great option for heavy trucks as truck owners could see enough of a financial benefit from them in regard to fuel savings to make them viable in the marketplace.
I am researching another avenue that is being pursued in India at the moment which I think does seem to hold promise for more rapidly developing a wider H2 market in the US. I will publish that story in the near future so won't comment too heavily on it here as it will probably open another can of worms lol
On Jul 21 09:22 AM Davewmart wrote:
> enki09 said:
> 'You need to produce electricity somewhere, somehow to charge the
> battery just like you need to use electricity to produce H2 from
> water. In both cases the electricity used is stored in the form of
> potential chemical energy.'
>
> That is true but the scales are very different, as are the energy
> losses. You need to use a lot of electricity to produce the hydrogen
> for vehicles.
> You transform electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity, and
> that is just not very efficient.
> It is OK on a relatively modest scale, to power trucks and aeroplanes
> where you really need to power density, but to power the car fleet
> from hydrogen other than by splitting natural gas would mean vast
> new arrays of power plants.
> Even very widespread use of electricity for transport places very
> low demands on the grid due to their only needing about 0.3kwh per
> mile:
> www.chiefengineer.org/...
>
> Some even argue that due to savings on refining oil no net energy
> will be needed at all:
> evworld.com/article.cf...
> Make sure to read the comments where the figures are discussed further.
>
> And:
> blog.storybridge.org/2...
>
>
> In any case, whether not refining the petrol would entirely cover
> the electricity for running an EV fleet or not, it is clear that
> the extra needed for EV's is really very modest.
> For longer distance travellers, plug-in hybrids are pretty much a
> right-now technology, which fuel cell cars certainly are not.
>
> For on-board reformers in trucks, Volvo is doing a lot of work:<br/>blogs.edmunds.com/gree...
>
>
> The FT process to convert coal to liquid is ready to go to provide
> the fuel needed for the heavy transport sector without needing a
> hydrogen infrastructure rolling out.
> Personally I like DME
www.autobloggreen.com/.../
I have a lot of respect for Toyota's engineering.
Here is an analysis of how fc costs are reducing:
www.fuelcells.org/info...
According to this equality to ICE cars in cost kw is achievable fairly soon.
OTOH this guy thinks SOFC are the way to go:
www.efcf.com/reports/E...
A hybrid with SOFC would push the buttons for me!
On Jul 21 12:26 PM Davewmart wrote:
> Toyota seems to think they can get a reasonably priced fc car out
> by 2015:
> www.autobloggreen.com/.../
>
> I have a lot of respect for Toyota's engineering.
> Here is an analysis of how fc costs are reducing:
> www.fuelcells.org/info...
>
> According to this equality to ICE cars in cost kw is achievable fairly
> soon.
> OTOH this guy thinks SOFC are the way to go:
> www.efcf.com/reports/E...
>
> A hybrid with SOFC would push the buttons for me!
www.pickensplan.com/ne.../
In addition, I wouldn't be so quick to write hydrogen off in the same breath as extolling the virtues of the all-electric vehicle. If Jack Lifton is right about the challenge of sourcing lithium for batteries [ bit.ly/hpDPx ], we may need an option that doesn't require batteries, or at least not in the quantities required for an EV... so perhaps hydrogen does have a role to play.