|
Friday, May 05, 2006 Hydrogen Reality CheckFuel cells won't significantly dent fuel consumption for 50 years -- we need to look elsewhere. By Kevin Bullis
High oil prices and concerns about the long-term availability of oil have U.S. government officials singing the praises of hydrogen fuel cells as a solution to our nation's transportation energy problem. But fuel cells, while a promising technology, could take more than 50 years to have a significant impact on gasoline consumption, according to estimates by MIT researchers. On the other hand, improved internal combustion engines and lighter vehicles could offset energy consumption much sooner, especially if consumers have incentives to buy them and manufacturers to make them. "The potential for hydrogen fuel cells having an impact that you'd notice is a long way away," says John Heywood, professor of mechanical engineering at MIT. The estimates assume that competitive fuel cell vehicles will be available within 15 years, an achievement that will require improvements, for example, in hydrogen storage and production and fuel-cell costs. But even if and when fuel-cell vehicles come with the price and performance that consumers want, it will still take decades more before such new vehicles work their way into widespread use. One factor slowing the impact of any new vehicle technology -- whether advanced internal combustion engine, hybrid, or fuel cell -- is the average lifespan of a car, which is about 15 years, according to Heywood. Even as people buy cars with new technologies, old ones stay on the roads, continuing to burn fuel and emit carbon dioxide. Also, as the example of hybrids shows, the market share of vehicles with radical new technologies increases only slowly, and it can take years before the new technology starts to appear in more than one vehicle in a manufacturer's fleet. Hybrids were first introduced, in the United States, in 1999, and still only account for about one percent of vehicle sales. The MIT researchers estimate that, even after a competitive hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle is available, it will take roughly 25 years for these vehicles to make up 35 percent of new car and light-truck sales. And it will be an additional 20 years or so before these cars replace 35 percent of traditional vehicles on the road. On the other hand, advanced internal combustion engines, which will likely be ready for the marketplace much sooner, and will require less retooling and so can spread through the fleet faster, could have a significant impact in about 20 years. Meanwhile, advanced, clean diesel engines and hybrids could both reach significant levels in about 30 years. In spite of the greater near-term promise of these technologies, however, there is no effort to develop them that's as far along as the federal hydrogen research programs. "We're not investing enough in developing a broad technology base we can draw on to deal with these problems," Heywood says.
|

Comments
Guest (Dennis Hart) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
The Prof needs to let the tax concerns to the politicians and work on a system that helps the overall situation. He has the education and know how to change the fuel consumption problem mechanically, through devising a better machine. This is what we need..
Dennis
Guest on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Dan) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
I believe Hybrid technology will begin to take a serious foothold in the market. Up until now, the additional cost just wasn't worth it but with gas prices climbing and people sayiong the days of gasoline under $2 are gone for ever, people will be searching for 40-50 MPG
Plus, the manufacturers are making normal looking cars with the tech, not just that funky looking Prius!
Guest (Gary D. Lewis) on 05/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
would translate to more goods transported. This obviouly did not work
Guest (Mark Wonsil) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (dan) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (peter mastellone) on 05/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (George Santamaria) on 05/06/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Whereas most energy resources, oil in the ground as a prime example, could be thought of as money in the bank, Hydrogen is but a check to get that money out of the bank.
My real point is that Hydrogen R&D priorities are way out of whack. There is way too much emphasis on end-use technologies at the expense of developing a low-cost source. One example is thermochemical splitting of water using nuclear heat as an energy source.
Guest (Steve Howe) on 05/08/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (David Matthews) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Concerning the use of Hydrogen as a gasoline replacement, that is pure fantasy. Hydrogen can only be produced by electrolysis or from hydrocarbons. Electrolysis needs energy, and using hydrocarbons leaves us where we are now.
Guest (Mark Sethre) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
favorable sources. Windpower is ideally suited for producing hydrogen, as it's less suited to adding power to the electricity grids due
to it's unreliable timeliness.
The technology is within reach. The leadership needed to make the
commitment is virtually non-existant. Our self-important
press, who think they're so educated, are ignorant on energy matters. The politicians today are
of the lowest quality, and are capable of nothing better than legislative stagnation, at best.
Guest (Gary D. Lewis) on 05/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
www.hydrogenpowerinc.com
Guest on 05/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
www.hydrogenpowerinc.com
does not need a compressed gas cylinder. I think this is sooo cool. All you need to do is go to a 711 hand in your old canisiter of
aluminumoxide and buy a canister of aluminum power add that to your car add water and drive away
Guest (Mark Sethre) on 06/04/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
If this technology is practical,
that obsoletes my statement.
That is encouraging indeed.
How far away is this technology?
When will the first vehicles and
stationary generators based on
this technology go to market?
If I sound impatient, I am.
I want to know if this "Hydrogen
Now" product is compelling enough
for a major manufacturer to begin
using it.
Guest (Frank Baylin) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Randy Dutton) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Horton) on 05/12/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Legitimate need=towing a boat or RV, building a house. To take 10 kids to soccer practice, use a minivan.
Similarly, why not bike or bus to work, own no car, and rent a sedan for road trips?
Guest (Randy) on 07/18/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Randy Dutton) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (George Fleming) on 05/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Keith) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Mike) on 05/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Schwee) on 05/12/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (CKE) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (David Claypool) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Kev) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
What's so magic about having ALL our hydrocarbons replaced? You seriously believe hydrogen is useless until then? I have read that hydrogen in cars increase power and mileage up to 15% at a ratio of 15:1. Just lookup hydroboosting. In fact I think all cars should have that built in because it's a well known technique, can run on cars unmodified and I wouldn't be surprised if we could supply that much fuel to all cars with current alternative power sources.
Guest (Mike) on 05/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Schwee) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Roy Davis) on 05/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Schwee) on 05/12/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
However, gasoline is neither as volatile nor as explosive as hydrogen, and it isn't a gas.
That's one of a thousand reasons why gasoline is the ideal fuel that it is.
The point is, how do you dispense hydrogen? Do you want your grandma fitting a 5000 psi hydrogen hose to her fill pipe?
Given the choice of hydrogen or a recharge of a Li-ion battery pack, I'd take the battery pack every time. And I hate batteries.
Heywood's point--and it's an excellent one--is that hydrogen is not a FUEL, sillies. It's the equivalent of a battery, and at present it's a terrible choice for a battery.
Guest (Steve Koelzer) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Steve Koelzer) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Manan) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Bob) on 05/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html
Guest (Bob) on 05/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (LeeMc) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
see > sorganol.com < or search > sorganol < this is truely a 'green fuel',, LFM
Guest (Steve Koelzer) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (bill) on 05/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Bob Hargraves) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Steve Koelzer) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Hunter) on 05/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
rivsys on 11/29/2006 at 8:50 AM
1
1 - Methanol is only made on very small non-commercial scale using electroreduction of carbon dioxide. Methanol is made on a mass commercial scale via steam/methane reforming to produce synthesis gas which is then converted to CH3OH using proprietary catalyst from Lurgi, Davy, or Sud (among other). The feedstock is ALWAYS hydrocarbon.
2 - Brazil