Fuel cells won't significantly dent fuel consumption for 50 years -- we need to look elsewhere.
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.
Guest (Mark Wonsil)
A different home for fuel cells
The energy issue goes beyond just vehicles. Many are turning to electricity to reduce the demand for fossil fuels in the home or office. Since nuclear is still has issues for many, the fuel cell may find its home producing electricity for residential use. It may also find a place with the automobile - although not on the car but in the garage as a source of power for the hybrid.
Guest (dan)
Tom Friedman, the New York Times columnist made an interesting point, saying he hopes for Oil at $100 a barrel! Because only then will America get deadly serious about our dependance on foreign oil and put our engineering master minds to work to find a solution... Necessity is the mother of invention!
Guest (peter mastellone)
People do not like change...they are basically insecure....they will change only when they relize there is no other way. Don't sell your wisdom short....$150.00 per barrell should wake our future "Children of the Corn" up! Oil is way too important for other things then to Burn!!!
well... back in 2006 with a barrel of oil at about $60.00 a barrel, $100 a barrel sounds like doomsday. now, with $120.00 sounding "cheap" I think that the public and oil companies will not willingly go to other sources of energy without significant willingness of the US gov't to fund hydrogen fueling stations and the like.
eather that or when oil hits $200.00 a barrel thats when the market will turn to alternitive sources
Guest (George Santamaria)
Promoters of the benefits of hydrogen are like children who tell their parents to write another check.
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)
Cost effectiveness is the issue, absolutely. R&D on coal to hydrogen (especially low-rank) is one interesting area of activity. If doable on a large scale at a competitive cost viz coal to liquids, all you then need is an effective way to transport and store it.
Guest (David Matthews)
Travelling regularly to Europe and having just returned, there is not the angst about gas prices that is found here. The reason is simple, gas prices 5 years back were about 85 Euro cents a litre now they are 98 cents. The cars also use less fuel. There is no doubt that higher fuel prices encourage more economical cars. A gradual increase in the tax on fuel is desirable to reduce consumtion but who collects the money so raised and what is done with it matters most. Unfortunately in Europe it goes into the general taxation and not into development of alternate energys or systems.
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)
Electolosys can be derived from windpower or other environmentally
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)
Guest
Hydrogen from no compressed cylinder
I forgot to mention that
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)
Hydrogen from Aluminum sounds postive
http://www.hydrogenpowerinc.com/techdiagram.html
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)
Electrolysis via renewables or non-renewables is not the only way to produce hydrogen. Other methods, some relying on microbes, are being developed. Clearly a breakthrough is necessary and many are being explored. Check out www.nrel.gov. We are headed at 100 mph towards a concrete wall. Let's hope the rise in prices continue and people start taking responsiblity.
Guest (Randy Dutton)
Why not eliminate the nearly double insurance and taxes for two vehicles and let the driver pick the most efficient vehicle for the required purpose? Sometimes a pickup truck or SUV is necessary, often a little commuter car is all that is needed. A driver can only use one vehicle at a time - why charge nearly double for insurance? And why not drop the sales tax for the second energy efficient vehicle? Legislatively, this could be done overnight.
Guest (Horton)
Why not rent an SUV or pickup for the few times that you have a legitimate need for one, instead of owning two cars?
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)
Renting a vehicle for many would be the way, but not for all of us who live in a rural environment and use the towing or carrying capacity frequently.
Guest (Randy Dutton)
Simple solutions to gas efficiency
Require gas stations to provide free air-filling services. Poorly inflated tires waste fuel. Often gas stations don't have the air inflation equipment or charge $0.50 per use. That is a disincentive for individuals to keep tires at proper inflation, which not only results in poor gas mileage but increases accidents and tire wear. The California Legislature, years ago, mandated gas stations provide the air free. I've not seen any studies that show whether it worked or not but it certainly made it more likely people would check their tires.
Guest (George Fleming)
Gasoline rationing is the only fair way to reduce consumption. When the stockbroker must bargain with the homeless man for gas coupons, we will have gone a long way toward solving the worst of our problems.
Guest (Keith)
While I am sure this man has done his homework, I have a basic belief that statistics and projections lie. Sure, if things continue status quo, it will take a long time for hydrogen - or another great technology - to be widely adopted. However, we need a Manhattan/Appollo project mentality. I guarantee we could be using hydrogen in 10 years (or less) if we really wanted to.
Guest (Mike)
Guest (Schwee)
I was six years old when I saw my first fuel cell vehicle, and I am now 40. Virtually nothing has changed, and nothing changed in the 35 years before that. It's a beautiful idea. So is perpetual motion, and turning lead into gold.
Guest (CKE)
An additional government gas tax is just another unwelcome hand stuck in the consumer's already-empty pockets, taking out hard-earned cash and giving nothing back in return. Any rational person can see that increasing the costs of delivering a good to the consumer without a larger offsetting tangible economic good is the definition of inefficiency. Academic professors should stick to improving their technologies and contributing, if they can, to the effectiveness of our daily energy-consuming devices - where they actually have some training to do so. Oh by the way, that's not some great insight that the hydrogen foolsell economy is a lot farther off than everyone, MIT included, had been spouting. It's not 50 years, it's more like 100 years or never. The more likely long term scenario will be electrically-charged vehicles with new type rechargeable batteries.
Guest (David Claypool)
Exactly what do we hope to accomplish by using hydrogen gas vs. hydrocarbons in our automobiles? The two main SOURCES of hydrogen are hydrocarbons (by reforming with CO2 byproduct)and electrolysis of water (using electricity produced by hydrocarbon combustion). It does have some pollution advantages vs. hydrocarbon combusion in congested cities. But until we have ALL of our electrical energy coming from sources other than hydrocarbons hydrogen will never be a replacement for hydrocarbons as an energy source. This is reality/perspective that NOONE wants to talk about as they continue the feel-good myth of a hydrogen "energy source".
Guest (Kev)
"But until we have ALL of our electrical energy coming from sources other than hydrocarbons hydrogen will never be a replacement for hydrocarbons as an energy source."
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)
You're talking about something different...
Using hydrogen gas in an ICE is different from having a Hydrogen FUEL CELL powered car. Two different designs. I believe this article is refering to the former.
Guest (Schwee)
Mr. Claypool is exactly right. It is self-delusion to believe hydrogen will save us from our dependence on fossil fuels. Hydrogen is in fact not an energy source at all--it is an energy transport medium. And it is a horrible one, at that--expensive and dangerous to store (remember the Hindenburg?), almost impossible to keep from leaking, dangerous to dispense, takes up a huge amount of space. The idea of a hydrogen econmy is a pipe dream, and the sooner we accept it, the better.
Guest (Roy Davis)
Schwee and Claypool are right that hydrogen has lots of problems - I agree completely. But let's not drag out the Hindenburg and beat that dead horse any longer - it caught fire and burned because of the dope in the fabric covering, not the H2.
Guest (Schwee)
OK, granted on the "dope" observation. And hydrogen is dangerous as hell, sure, but so is gasoline.
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)
Who’s in the driver seat? Sounds like big money. All this rhetoric about solving oil issues always turns around and gives short shrift to hydrogen. Making hydrogen by not reforming natural gas or carbon sourced electricity is a huge problem only surmounted by the global oil heating war one. Here’s what the people are doing at the grass roots level, an effective reduction in fuel consumption. Hydrogen is "currently" made for used on demand on board vehicles from many different electrolyzer manufacturers in increasing numbers and claiming up to 50% reduction in fuel consumption. This is exciting for newer cars which control fuel rate by oxygen sensor microprocessing as it makes it easier to install hassle-free. Works for diesel trucks too.
Guest (Steve Koelzer)
Of course, if all vehicles could do this half the fuel would not be consumed, sold, produced. Likewise, profits from this commodity would be lost by companies like EXXON representing 22M daily. Stockholders would be outraged. Green would wage war on green. Here we go again. Another oil war may give us all gas, Hydrogen gas. Or not. But remember, when Germany was cut off from oil in WWII they made their own using peat burnt to carbon monoxide and hydrogen from watermill electricity for water hydrolysis (I think Mobil owns Fischer-Tropsch process now). Similarly cut off from hydrogen we’re able to do something auto manufaturers, oil and military can’t, won’t or didn’t think up as it ultimately partly solves the ugly problem.
Guest (Manan)
Do you think Joe Cell could be it?
I see the hype around all the alternative fuel sources. I have been reading a lot about the joe cell a very cheaply made orgone accumulator that can run motors. This is it the technology thats outside of the box of social norm but it also seems to defy normal physics as we understand them. Read all about this at www.freeenergynews.com
Guest (Bob)
I think the joe cell might be the answer, or the Papp engine.
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue51/papp.html
Guest (LeeMc)
The big wiz now is corn ethanol @ .7 -1.27 equiv gal if fossil energy per equiv gal of ethanol, now much of a Green Improvment, We have developed a new crop/process that will produce 2 times the ethanol/acre as corn, and at ZERO FOSSIL ENERGY INPUT,
see > sorganol.com < or search > sorganol < this is truely a 'green fuel',, LFM
Guest (Steve Koelzer)
I heard a surprising. Even corn as an alternative "green" ethanol fuel source runs off of oil, on NPR radio. That’s because the fertilizer used has a petroleum base it its manufacture. A platinum catalyst converts nitrogen gas to ammonia and thence to nitrate at high pressure & temp. Since sorgohol (it sounds better) is not a nitrogen fixing plant it’s not a truly "green" fuel. In fact it’s an annual crop and most likely will be rotated with corn. The guy who’s trying to promote this is trying to sell his harvesting juicer machinery invention which still needs improvement.
Guest (bill)
Ethanol can't be sent down a pipeline. That's why ga is spikong now. They have to switch to a summer blend which now requires ethanol instead of MTBE.
Guest (Bob Hargraves)
Check out George Olah's new book, Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy. He shows how practical it is to use the existing petroleum distribution system for methanol derived from CO2 and H2O, synthesized by nuclear power.
Guest (Steve Koelzer)
Methanol is made (2001) by the electroreduction of carbon dioxide on an electrodeposited polycrystalline platinum porous electrode in perchloric acid. Byproducts are formic acid and (trace) methane. If Olah, et al. can do it by reversing their methanol fuel cell (see http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16466&ch=biztech) let’s just put solar photovoltaics to work at home! while we have the credits available.
Guest (Hunter)
To date the only 'Methanol Economy' extant is Brazil's which, with the sole exception of sugar cane farms benefiting from special tax treatment, is largely supported by taxes on the very consumers of the product.
Get your facts straight people.
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 has no such "Methanol Economy". Brazil has an ETHANOL Economy. If you don't know the difference between ethanol and methanol see Google for help.
Guest (Schwee)
Carpooling is a great deal more effective than adding an extra 5 psi to your tires, or driving slowly, or, in fact, even buying a small, efficient vehicle. I get about 35 mpg in my Civic, but some clown in an F250 can meet or even beat my fuel economy on my commute to work without even trying--just by picking up a passenger. (Of course, I do this as well, and get 70 mpg equivalent. I'd like to take on another passenger and get 105, or yet another and get 140.) When the real pinch comes--which it will, starting as early as this summer--you're going to see carpooling really take off. With a huge push, we could essentially cut fuel consumption in half overnight. This is not a difficult concept, folks.
Guest (ace)
I think a Stirling/electric hybrid is the way to go. A Stirling is 30% more efficient and the electric will avoid the starting and stoping problems.
Guest (CKE)
Stirling is more efficient - but much heavier for the same HP. So much of the gain is lost. Detroit had some Stirling efforts about 10-20 years ago. Gave up on the serious temperature/ceramics difficulties, and minimal overall improvement over gas engines.
Guest (K. Hunter)
Am I the only person in America who recognizes that "investment" in terms of government intervention translates to taxpayer funding of for profit technology? Does no one else find it irksome that we are coerced into funding research into fields like alternative fuels and stem cell research, both intended to become profitable ventures, in the name of public welfare? Do none of you object to being essentially forced to provide the capital that by rights ought to be provided by those who would use it to their own profit?
Guest (R Nelson)
From a business perspective, the "investment" is required by the government because the actual rate of return on the initial capital investment and research is low. You'd be better off with your money in the bank than in a ventuer like this. In addition, it is highly risky, so almost no one would make the investment for fear of total loss. Technology like ethanol production for instance doesn't show higher returns and become worth a capital investment until it becomes more efficient after years of R&D expenses.
Guest (Paul McLachlan)
Mass requires energy to move it.
More mass = more energy / more energy = more fuel / More fuel = more emissions. High power density has to be design into the complete vehicle. At this point less than 2% of the thermal energy from your gallon of gasoline is actually used to drive a person from one side of town to the other. New vehicles with high power density engines and light/strong vehicle design with high utility in space for total vehicle efficiency is what is needed. Start with a compact Pivotal ICE switchable between CNG/hydrogen or CNG/gasoline then design the ideal vehicle to match and real progress, that the public will embrace, can be made. www.pivotalengine.com
The commercial potential is huge and the improvement in fuel economy of real value to national security. Not to mention that it presents the long term answer for the introduction and sustainability of hydrogen powered transportation. MIT, we would welcome you on board.
Guest (Steve Howg)
Guest (Steve Howe)
Check out Exxons' website - it has a section extolling their research into onboard reformers and the properties of hydrogen. Kind of strange, aint it, when the CEO just got up in front of Congress and told them that Exxon had no interest in alternatives because 'that's not our business'?
I dont think theyre involved in these activities out of a sense of environmental responsibility - maybe profits?
Guest (Rob Aquadro)
What is so wrong with the incentive of making a buck? When did we turn into a nation of socialists? Who cares if they market their research under the facade of environmental improvement? At least they are investing in alternative energy platforms. Quit your griping…if the oil companies don't invest in such technologies they are evil, polluting masters of oil that enslave us, and if they do they're greedy duplicitous capitalists. What gives? Leave the USA if you're so opposed to the idea of capitalism.
Guest (ted)
Guest (Alfred Nassim, UK)
Some years ago, I saw proposals for a simple, light-weight, tramway system. The trams would be propelled by flywheels. The flywheels would be "charged" at the terminii and could drive a loaded tram over a 20-mile distance. Clearly, the flywheel could be speeded up electrically in a more efficient way than fuel cells and the braking used to speed up the flywheels.
Guest (Bob)
On the first story for May 10 on this page click the link for HHO unit runs car. It is from Fox news.Only question I have is what is powering it.
http://freeenergynews.com/news/index.html
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (Dennis Hart)
Prof Heywood on Hydrogen
His comments on taxes are not accurate. He proposes there be penalities for buying a gas guzzler like an SUV.. There are already such burdens on the people with these vehicles. The vehicle costs more in the beginning, so the sales taxes and excise taxes are higher than for a tiny econo-car .. Annual fees for registration are higher, fuel consumption is higher, tires cost more. EVERYTHING about a large vehicle is higher priced..
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
Reply
Guest
I could be wrong (and I'm not saying I agree with him anyway), but I think he was talking about making the SUV-type vehicle less favorable than expensive vehicles with new, more expensive fuel-efficiency technologies, not simply standard fuel-efficiient.
Reply
Guest (Dan)
SUV's and taxes
Your argument failed to mention the tax break people got for buying a vehicle over something like 4000 lbs. It allowed a business to deduct the full cost of that vehicle in one year, consequently you have all sorts of self employed professionals and their families driving Suburbans and other SUV's that do not need them for work. Thankfully, that's been repealled.
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!
Reply
Guest (Gary D. Lewis)
tax break for over 4000#
The politicains screwed up the over 4000# truck. The intention was with more trucks on the road
would translate to more goods transported. This obviouly did not work
Reply