|
March 2007 Hell and HydrogenNo matter how well they're engineered, hydrogen cars offer no real answer to the imminent threats posed by global warming. By David Talbot
The following article appears in the March/April 2007 issue of Technology Review. By the time Klaus Draeger, BMW's manager of research and development, took the microphone at a Berlin hotel last fall, the assembled journalists' bellies were full of mint juleps--and it all started to make sense. Maybe the world's oil crisis and the threat of climate change could be sensibly addressed by using hydrogen as a transportation fuel. Draeger sketched the alluring vision of a future in which high-performance luxury cars burn hydrogen and emit mostly water vapor. The hydrogen could someday be provided by renewable sources of energy, he said, and nobody would have to make any sacrifices. And we journalists would get to drive the first such cars the following day. "You'll be pioneers! You will be sitting at the wheel of the Hydrogen 7, driving through Berlin and the countryside. And for the first time, you will drive this hydrogen-powered luxury saloon," Draeger exclaimed, using the Britishism for "sedan." BMW will lend 100 of these cars to yet-unnamed public figures as part of its global clean-energy promotional campaign. In some ways, the campaign resembles GM's effort to tout its own hydrogen-car program. GM's focus is on a futuristic fuel-cell car. The BMW version uses internal combustion: it burns hydrogen rather than skimming off its electrons. Same message, though: hydrogen is the answer. "Experts will tell you that hydrogen has the biggest possibility to replace fossil fuels," Draeger explained, as the wine flowed. "Please see the Hydrogen 7 as an offer. We can only make this car a reality with our partners in political science, the world of business, the energy industry." He concluded with an appeal to "politicians the world over" to make the production, delivery, and storage of clean hydrogen affordable. The next day, I got a look at the Hydrogen 7. From the outside it looked like a normal BMW four-door luxury sedan. I opened the trunk and marveled at the heavy steel tank that held liquid hydrogen at -253 ºC. While driving, I touched a button on the steering wheel to switch from gasoline to hydrogen; I noted no hiccup, just a higher-pitched engine noise. The car is very nice. But does it make environmental sense? The simple answer is no. In the context of the overall energy economy, a car like the Hydrogen 7 would probably produce far more carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline-powered cars available today. And changing this calculation would take multiple breakthroughs--which study after study has predicted will take decades, if they arrive at all. In fact, the Hydrogen 7 and its hydrogen-fuel-cell cousins are, in many ways, simply flashy distractions produced by automakers who should be taking stronger immediate action to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions of their cars. As of 2003, transportation emissions accounted for one-third of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Nobody has made this point more clearly than Joseph Romm does in Hell and High Water. Romm is an MIT-trained physicist who managed energy-efficiency programs in the U.S. Department of Energy during President Clinton's administration and now runs a consultancy called the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions. His book provides an accurate summary of what is known about global warming and climate change, a sensible agenda for technology and policy, and a primer on how political disinformation has undermined climate science. In his view, the rhetoric of "technology breakthroughs"--including the emphasis by President Bush and some in the auto industry on a future hydrogen economy--provides little more than official cover for near-term inaction. |
 |
|
||||
| |||||
Audio »
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Favorite
Print
E-mail
Comments
rhapsodyinglue on 03/12/2007 at 3:28 PM
54
The learning/technology curve of batteries makes it very obvious that the EV world will come far sooner and at far less of a cost than a hydrogen based world.
ssargent on 03/13/2007 at 8:05 AM
11
hydrogren might be a component of the energy future if nuclear power is a major component of our energy future. unless we start building plants right now because we'll need a lot of them and they take a long time to build and come online, hydrogen is guarenteed not to happen.
rhapsodyinglue on 03/13/2007 at 3:02 PM
54
However... is the efficiency of nuclear generated hydrogen, distributed through an as yet nonexistent infrastructure and converted into electric power for cars in fuel cells (cells which are as yet way to costly), more efficient than using that same high heat from nuclear plants to generate electricity directly to be used to charge highly efficient and currently available batteries to power cars?
Where is the gain of putting hydrogen in the loop even considering nuclear plants? Isn't it still less efficient overall and far more costly to develop? Anyone??? Am I missing something?
Gypsy_EV on 03/13/2007 at 6:58 PM
15
rhapsodyinglue on 03/13/2007 at 9:32 PM
54
I still would be interested if anyone has comments on nuclear plant generated hydrogen and any potential economic advantages that has over electric grid distribution and batteries. Any proponents???
7point62by39 on 03/29/2007 at 12:12 PM
1
Bearings
Brakes
Tierods
Bushings
Switches
Glass (chips and scratches)
Gages
Foam
Paint
Tires
RUST
Good lord, everything breaks by then...
The only thing that doesn’t wear out in 200k is the ENGINE! Modern IC engines/transmissions are incredibly long lived and some companies boast a 100k mile drive train warrantee, this would only be economical if they last a really, really long time. A diesel engine can routinely go for 300k miles with no major overhaul, just ask truckers.
If the electric motor lasts perhaps 500k miles you still have EVERY THING ELSE ON THE CAR to deal with. Why would this "cheaper, longer lasting" car be any different in design from what we have now? Cars have more components than just "door hinges" and "interior". To me, a certified mechanic and Mechanical Engineer, this is total absurdity. Obviously you know nothing of car repair or automotive design. But anyway...
People fundamentally don't take care of their cars, and they drive into each other. Service centers IMHO will enjoy business as usual and will hardly need to change their maintenance training. Body shops will be just as well off.
You might say, "but all the "old" systems that go along with IC engines will not be needed." I beg to differ; what about A/C, and power steering? Okay, you say that this could all be 'electrified' How does electricity compress refrigerant, how does electricity pressurize hydraulic fluid? You might need a pump, and pumps have a lovely tendency to wear out. Perhaps all these things can be redesigned to have more longevity. IC vehicles right now are at their apex of engineering refinement, they are as good and cheap as they will ever be. Any change to this epitome of design will surely be reflected as a cost increase to the consumer in at least the short-term. And the laws of economics will be the only determinant of what people will spend hard earned money on.
You say "How long is the short term"? Well seeing that IC engines have been continually evolving since about 1900, we have seen 107 years of refinement to get to where we are. The engine technology we run with right now dates back to the 1960's. Yes we have PLC's to control the engine now but twin cams, 4valves/cylinder, fuel injection, alloy blocks and cylinder heads were all products of the 60's, designed to create tremendous power, far more per unit of displacement than we see now. A modern desire to lower pollution has sidelined maximum power for minimum pollution. I would expect many years of R and D until we see a cheap and feasible EV, something that the mass-market will embrace.
I totally agree with the notion that electric cars of the way of the future, we need to learn about batteries; storage and charging. This is the key to energy independence. We know how to get renewable electricity, let’s just put it to the road. In the mean time you can look forward to enjoying engineering perfection as you hear the quiet hum of the tried and true IC engine in your corolla as you drive to work.
Elroch on 03/29/2007 at 4:00 PM
27
Specifically, the gaping chasm in the author's argument is that he says since renawables only supply 2% of current energy they will never be significant. The simple fact is that there is enough solar energy to supply all human needs: it just needs to be harnessed on a stupendous scale. And the only thing that could threaten this happening eventually, is that we harness fusion ourselves.
Either of these events will make hydrogen transport or something equally renewable, universal within 100 years.
The one thing about the long term future that has always remained the same is that it is very different to today.
Gurthang on 03/30/2007 at 1:26 PM
13
And while we are shooting down pipe dreams on the EV front.. although I have seen some recient prommise in battery technologies. (A123's lion systems for example) So what if that motor has a 500k mile expected lifetime if battery system needs replacement every 80k - 100k. And you know any battery system that gives a mid-sized car a 200-300 mile range is not going to be an acceptible $1000 to replace.. EVER.
Don't get me wrong... I think EV cars are a great concept. But honestly uneless you can get power put in the highways and other large roads with a much smaller battery for "local" driving. Without that I don't see EV cars as ever becomming acceptible in the near term.
In the near term some form of Hybrid ICE still looks like the best bet. The trick is getting the costs down. Maybe dump electric storage for a pneumatic or hydraulic power boost/storage system.
modotx on 03/31/2007 at 9:35 AM
1
Lets assume 80000 miles between battery replacements vs 400 miles between oil changes and 1000 miles between air filter changes.
Your assertion: Battery replacement = $1000.00 US
Replaced professionally
22.00/oil change = $4400.00 US (200 oil changes)
12.00/air filter = $ 960.00 US (80 filter changes)
Total Cost = $5300.00 US
Savings = $4300.00 US
DIY (Do It Yourself(er))
10.00/oil change = $2000.00 US (200 oil changes)
8.00/air filter = $ 640.00 US (80 filter changes)
Total Cost = $2600.00 US
Savings = $1600.00 US
So over the life of the battery one would still save nearly 2/3's the cost of oil and air filter changes even if you are a DIY. And never mind the time saved regardless of whether you are or are not a DIY.
Also, the cost of changing the oil and filter will continue to increase. While the cost of batteries will most likely drop. Also, the ranges that cars will be able to go on a battery charge will increase over time and the length of time to recharge a battery will decrease as well. Besides, for commuting purposes 300 miles is more than enough and the occassional extended excursion. Consider this as well, the number of over-tired drivers would also be dramaticaly reduced if they were forced sleep overnight, thereby reducing the potential for accidents to happen. Another advantage would be that the bus and train industry would probably once again begin to fluorish.
Given the figures above, I think switching over to EVs is even more cost effective using technology available now. We no longer have the excuse of "Its not economical" to hide behind to not switch.
bmn on 04/02/2007 at 11:40 AM
25
jim_b on 04/10/2007 at 12:56 AM
2
Phoenix Motorcars has small SUT with 130 mile range for sale to fleets today, with SUV with 250 mile range planned for late this year/early next year.
Pure BEVs can definitely provide >120mi range and if you must have longer range consider a series hybrid like GM's Volt concept car that is a much better long term solution than today's hybrids.
mvoigt01 on 04/02/2007 at 1:37 PM
1
If someone out there can tell me where you can get a LI pack, to power a vehicle for less than $10,000 US, let me know, cause I can sell millions of them.
jim_b on 04/10/2007 at 1:34 AM
2
That's still not cheap, but there's already suggestions out there that battery prices could go well below $300/kWh in the next several years. US Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) just put out an RFP that sets target of $150/kWh for BEV-type battery, with a long term target of $100/kWh. Are those targets reasonable? I don't know. Depends on how informed you think they are and what you think their agenda might be (put pressure on battery companies v. prove that batteries can't meet their needs). If those numbers are reasonable, that's $6,000/$4,000 for a battery pack with what looks like (from the other specs) a >100,000 mile life.
Also, at 100K the battery isn't really dead, it just has reduced capacity (typical graph I've seen measures cycle life as point where capacity falls below 80% of original). That means whether the battery needs to be replaced depends on the range that is needed.
gsteele531 on 04/16/2007 at 8:12 PM
1
Over 80,000 miles, we have 10 or 11 oil changes and 5 air filter changes. Oil changes at $22 and filter changes at $12 make the maintenance cost $220 to $242 plus $60, so let's use $300. Battery replacement of a 40 KWh lion battery at current prices is about $20,000. Whaddya know - the cost of "maintenance" is $19,700 more for the electrocar over the 80,000 miles. Whoops.
But let's add in the cost of gas, at 20 miles/gallon and $2.50 per gallon, to be fair. That's 4000 gallons of gas, and $10,000 to buy it. Still a $9,700 premium. Oh, yes - there's cost for the electricity to run the 80,000 miles; at the current ~$.15/KWh, assuming 150 mile range for the battery pack = 80000/150 (number of charges) * 40KWh (per charge) * .15/KWh. Oops, another inconvenient truth - $3,200 more, bringing us up to a $12,900 premium to operate the electrocar, assuming 100% electrical conversion efficiency. Mebbe not.
That's maintenance-based. How about acquisition cost? Well, simple; just sell electrocars for $12,900 less than 20 mpg gas cars, and you're all set. Given that the cheapest gas cars are about $12,900 after the haggling, all we need is for the government to "give" us one, and we're home free. And since the government gets their money from butterfly nets in space, there should be NO tax impact to replace the 250 million US cars with free electrocars at all . . .
Despite the above, there is an excellent reason to move away from gasoline engines: the psychopathic murderers that we are enriching and enabling with a billion dollars a day in imported oil. But let's be clear: it's a strategic, long-term national security issue, not an economic or environmental one.
But it won't be as much fun; who wants to go to the drag races and just hear Hmmmm... as the cars head for the end of the quarter mile. And, of course, that's a higher priority than keeping mass murderers at bay . . .
Photomabob on 04/02/2007 at 3:05 PM
2
They shrugged off questions about nuclear waste, saying it was a minor problem that science would quickly solve.
Now, 50 years later, we still have no permanent, safe place to put that waste. On account of economics, no new plants have been built in this country for 20 years. It costs over 10 times more to dismantle a plant after its useful lifetime than it did to build the plant in the first place (a cost PG&E is now passing to its ratepayers), and there is still no safe permanent place to put the waste. What is cheap about that?
Photomabob on 04/02/2007 at 3:08 PM
2
thegreatest on 03/14/2007 at 1:35 PM
1
riffcon on 03/15/2007 at 11:18 AM
2
abcarterjr on 03/27/2007 at 1:53 PM
45
than a nuclear power plant, could furnish a gravity fed process stream for thermo-catalytic
seperation into H2 & O2 using byproduct heat
available from nuclear tubo-electric power
generation. This is called thermal cracking
of distilled water to produce hydrogen. The
byproduct oxygen could be uilized in hydroponic
facilities.
narlin on 03/29/2007 at 2:11 AM
1
The point of this article, however, was that immediate reductions in CO2 emissions are needed, and the best way to do that is to "pick the low hanging fruit" of efficiency and increased use of photovoltics, and wind power. All things currently within our technical knowhow and budgets.
bmn on 04/02/2007 at 11:43 AM
25
Northwest Mariner on 03/30/2007 at 12:08 AM
1
http://www.genoil.net/technologies_allegretto.php
rhapsodyinglue on 04/02/2007 at 2:49 PM
54
I'd still be interested in someone walking me through the numbers of how thermal cracking, hydrogen distribution and fuel cells is (or ever will be) more effecient than using that same thermal energy to create electricity and power cars with batteries (PHEV or pure EV).
Peregrine on 03/29/2007 at 5:05 AM
2
Coal-fired power plants are notorious for pollution; it would be very ineffective to produce hydrogen from electricity from coal.
What about hydrogen from methane?
Plataputylus on 03/29/2007 at 8:47 AM
3
Gaetano Marano on 03/29/2007 at 9:59 AM
51
that's absolutely TRUE
hydrogen is NOT the solution for future cars
not only for the problems explained in the article, but (first of all) for a VERY SIMPLE reason: ELECTRIC CARS
many years ago, when the hydrogen cars' research started, the best electric cars was slow, low-range, heavy and very expensive (that mainly due to the big and heavy lead-cell batteries used) but, now, everything is changed
to-day's Li-Ion batteries are small and (relatively) low cost, so, the cars made with that batteries may have good performances, also, an electric cars is very much simpler than a classic (gasoline, hydrogen, ethanol, etc.) engine's car
the future electric cars models will have better and smaller ultra-fast-recharge batteries and the price of (both) batteries and cars will fall very quickly due to scale economy
then, when the H2-cars will be ready for the mass market, they will be too expensive and outdated by small, cheap and reliable electric cars built in millions units (maybe, in China, like to-day's computer, TV, cellphones, etc.)
another very good reason of the H2-cars' fail vs. the electric cars is the problem and the risks to produce, store, transport and distribute the hydrogen compared with the easy and safe storage of the electricity
last but not least, the production process and the infrastructures for the electricity in simpler
only... power plant (or solar cells or wind motors or other sources) >>> electric lines >>> car batteries
instead of... power plant >>> H2 electrolysis production plant >>> liquid H2 plant >>> H2 transport >>> pressurized or cryogenic storage >>> cars refuel
EVERYTIME the simpler, cheaper ans safer solution WINS ...and "hydrogen" is NOT that case...
www.gaetanomarano.it
.
lkrndu on 03/30/2007 at 10:24 AM
14
Efficient cars + hydrogen fuel + adaptation of power generation / hydrogen production scaled to the system efficiencies = better systems performance in terms of fuel consumption and environmental load.
More detail is available in extensive articles on the RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute) website.
This is NOT to say that hydrogen can be taken as the panacea. It DOES have it's costs. And in the realities of the present and near future the infrastructural costs and cultural barrier to adoption are considerable. And grave.
Gaetano Marano on 03/30/2007 at 10:38 PM
51
surely, the hydogen will be used in some niche markets and products, but it will NEVER be (not could be) so simple, cheap and safe like the (soon available) low cost electric batteries/motors/vehicles
"low price" always WINS (and the electric vehicles' price will be VERY MUCH lower than H2-cars)
but there is a further reason why the H2 economy may never born: it needs HEAVY oil/gasoline-like infrastructures that can be built only in (at least) 30 years, while the next-generation cars will need only a simple "infrastructure" ready available everywhere: "the AC outlet"
www.gaetanomarano.it
.
rhapsodyinglue on 04/02/2007 at 3:05 PM
54