Last month, GM announced plans to distribute 100 fuel-cell-powered vehicles to customers next fall, along with plans to develop home-based hydrogen refueling stations. It's the automaker's latest move in its stated goal to build the world's largest fuel-cell vehicle fleet. The first 100 vehicles will be available for evaluation in California, New York, and Washington, DC.
But, from an environmental and technical standpoint, does it make sense?
Fuel-cell vehicles, which are being developed by other automakers as well, are powered by electricity generated from hydrogen. They emit only water vapor from their tailpipes, and the fuel cells are significantly more efficient than an internal-combustion engine in extracting energy from the fuel.
But GM's focus on creating a fleet of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles could be a costly mistake as a strategy for combating global climate change and for decreasing U.S. dependence on oil, many energy experts say. The problem, these critics argue, is that powering electric vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells is both inefficient and expensive.
Hydrogen fuel must be extracted from fossil fuels or water--both energy-consuming processes. Once produced, the gas must be compressed or liquefied for distribution, and this process and the distribution itself take yet more energy. By the time the hydrogen has been delivered to the fuel cell for conversion to electricity, then, a significant amount of energy has been lost to these processes.
"Along the way, you've thrown away nearly three-quarters of the electricity. No one in their right mind would do that--if your alternative is to just string a power line from zero-carbon electricity and charge a battery onboard a car," says Joseph Romm, executive director of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, and formerly in charge of energy efficiency and renewable energy at the U.S. Department of Energy.
Romm says a more promising alternative to internal-combustion engines are plug-in hybrids, which combine an electric motor powered by batteries with a conventional gasoline- or diesel-powered engine, but rely on the electric motor far more than today's hybrids. Plug-in hybrids, which are being developed by Toyota, with conversion kits for ordinary hybrids already available through several companies, would not eliminate the use of gas, but they would cut down on it significantly. In one type of plug-in hybrid, electricity from the grid can provide enough power for an average commute, at a fraction of the cost of gasoline.
E-mail
Audio »
Print
Favorite
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
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
Jack
10/06/2006
Posts:4
I think GM's inclusion of batteries in their fuel cell cars is a clear sign that the most promising alternative to Hydrogen is batteries.
It's borderline now on the performance, and the cost is slightly above that. I think there are a lot more barriers to a Hydrogen fleet than a battery electric.
asdar
10/06/2006
Posts:69
Even if fuel cells for vehicles become technically and economically possible, there is a strong case for configuring even fuel cell vehicles as PHEVs — plug-in hybrid electrics — so that the ‘fuel’ for short trips is electric power from the wall.
A PHEV can have a combustion power plant or a fuel cell power plant. The important thing is that it can also use electric power generated from any source.
Electricity for propulsion is three times more efficient than hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels — whether the power plant is a combustion engine or a fuel cell.
Most drivers want the ability to drive longer distances when required which is why most of them need more than just a battery electric vehicle.
Methanol and ethanol, as fuels for vehicles — both hydrogen-rich fuels — are good fuel candidates for both combustion engines and fuel cells.
Methanol is the fuel used in the Indianapolis 500.
Methanol can also be a fuel for direct liquid and DMFC direct methanol fuel cells. An advantage of using methanol in fuel cells is that the process temperature is well below combustion temperature and avoids chemical reactions with nitrogen in the air — which avoids the emission of oxides of nitrogen. Also, methanol and ethanol fuel cells are more efficient than methanol and ethanol combustion engines.
Feedstock for the synthesis of alcohol fuel is very diverse — and any energy source can be utilized to power the synthesis process. An important feedstock component can be carbon dioxide — which can be gathered as waste from other industrial processes.
Other feedstock sources can include corn, sugar beet and sugar cane sources — that are used around the world for E85 and E100 fuel.
The utilization of cellulosic biomass materials is even more worthwhile. The processing of willow, poplar and wood waste into ethanol has several advantages. Willow, for example, doesn’t need fertilizer, and after each harvest it just grows again without needing to be replanted.
Another source for fuel production is algae. Waste water treatment plants can be designed so that solar energy is utilized to maximize algae growth which is harvested and converted into fuel. It’s a great way to utilize solar energy — and a bonus is the pure water that leaves the treatment plant.
It’s good news that there are so many renewable sources of fuel.
The important role of PHEVs is to greatly diversify the sources of transport energy that we use — so that half the energy used is electrical power from the wall (or from renewable and distributed generation) — and the other half is from a liquid or gaseous fuel carried in an on-board tank (which can be renewable or petroleum).
Because a PHEV operates all short trips on electrical power from the wall and longer trips by consuming a fuel from an on-board tank, almost any renewable energy can be an energy source that contributes to transport energy requirements.
Phil.j
10/06/2006
Posts:1
lary999
10/11/2006
Posts:3
sihanat
10/11/2006
Posts:4
jrolson
10/27/2006
Posts:1
Surfing_Nico
10/06/2006
Posts:1
so even if you drive plug-in hybrids, or other electric cars, they are in fact powered by coal. So there is not much reduction in total carbon dioxide levels. The advantage is mostly political - by driving hybrids and electric vehicles, we become less dependent on oil producing countries.
Hydrogen is the best energy carrier, no doubt about it. There is no other fuel that will give you only water as the reaction product.
If we couple hydrogen production to advanced, clean nuclear power plants we can save the planet, and we can become energy independent.
GM's fuel cell strategy is smart and visionary.
gabrielg01
10/06/2006
Posts:400
Task 1: Electric cars - make them run efficiently. improve their storage batteries capacity & charging speeds. make home-charging infrastructure better
Task 2: Generate & distribute electricity - use best available technology to create sufficient electricity. improve distribution systems efficiency and capacity. transition energy source from coal and other carbon heavy types to more benign sources like renewables as they become practical.
In this fashion, the entire transporation problem is solved in piecemeal fashion in small, sound steps. Every intermediate state is solid and fiscally sound. This is the practical way to go versus the "Hail Mary" approach of hydrogen highway-fuelcell cars that will certainly fail.
SVE
10/06/2006
Posts:48
The problem is in the political process. If you follow the piecemeal approach, it usually means that the whole program gets fragmented into smaller pieces, and as a result of that it loses momentum. The sub-programs may fall victim to "brownian political motion" so to speak - they lose sight of the initial vision, get derailed, become someone's pet project etc.
A larger, more vertically integrated project may maintain its momentum and its integrity until its goals are achieved. As an example, I believe we could have never gone to the Moon, if we broke up the process into smaller pieces, and farmed these pieces out to a dozen different agencies. A single agency, NASA, was in charge of all key aspects, and it single-mindedly stayed focused until we got to the Moon.
In energy research we are all over the place, completely unfocused, and going nowhere. We need to be focused, we need an Apollo program for our energy needs.
gabrielg01
10/06/2006
Posts:400
Again:
Task 1 - Electric cars - Get them designed better and better. Longer travel range. Cheaper. Easier to charge. The latest improvements at any time are immediately adopted in the current car model year and used.
Task 2 - Electricity generation - Transition to better, carbon-reduced, renewable technologies. Improve generation efficiencies. Customers see only the electricity delivered over the wires to their homes and pay for them with their regular monthly bills. The fact that the electricity supply mix is steadily becoming more green is just a freebie. Customers will use the latest best electricity supplies with no action on their part. If you think nuclear is the best approach, great. Use it to make electricity and sell it on the open, competitive electricity market against all the other suppliers. Let the best producers of the moment win, until someone with better approaches beats them. And all the electric cars will be potential customers.
All parties involved in the automotive & energy industry will have individual incentives to improve their wares since they will immediately recieve financial benefits from their improved offerings. They will not have to wait for any improvements made by the other parts of the transportation supply chain until they see their payoffs.
SVE
10/06/2006
Posts:48
The piecemeal approach will produce good results as well, nou doubt about it. But my contention with this is that it will be too slow - it will be a stop-and-go type frustrating crawling. And by that time, I'm afraid, we will have done an immense amount of environmental damage.
gabrielg01
10/07/2006
Posts:400
sihanat
10/11/2006
Posts:4
mjtimber
10/13/2006
Posts:6
In the meantime, keep improving hybrids, and deploy them where they make the most sense: stop and go vehicles like buses, taxis, and delivery vehicles. Make them lighter, more aerodynamic, and more efficient. So when fuel cells are ready, just plug them to the vehicles.
MarkShapiro
10/06/2006
Posts:13
If they intend to sell their H-Cars in 2014 is because they can and they know something that we don’t.
edsonbila
10/06/2006
Posts:7
Go here http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html
teedil
10/06/2006
Posts:1
We should acknowledge that conversion of renewable energy to electricity to hydrogen & back again is not particularly efficient, but the REAL point is that wind, solar, tidal current, etc., energy IS renewable & its capture is relatively inexpensive once capital costs of the capture mechanism is amortised.
Fossil fuels are not expected to run out within our lifetimes, but the supply of AFFORDABLE oil [i.e., cheap enough to extract, transport, process and sell at prices (including a profit margin) we 'ordinary' folk can afford] IS expected to deplete in the near-to-mid-term future, so a number of alternatives to oil must be planned AND IMPLEMENTED before the so-called "Peak Oil" event occurs.
It should be noted that it's not just GM's boffins & management who are sufficiently convinced that Fuel Cell vehicles will be a reality and should be the subject of ongoing (and expensive) R&D, but also Honda, Toyota, Peugot, FIAT, Hyundai, Volkswagen, DaimlerChrysler and Ford.
The efforts of those companies alone is likely to make the Hydrogen Economy a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it should be noted that there is a small but growing number of international companies which are dedicated to R&D in the Fuel Cell arena who are also convinced that their efforts will not be in vain.
Those companies include Hydrogenics, Proton Energy, Intelligent Energy and a plethora of others.
Political [read, anti-western] problems causing perceptions of uncertainty of supply of oil is a reality, but so is the actual 'Peak Oil' scenario, not to mention Global warming, an issue which is turning into a problem that is now more widely accepted as becoming a genuinely serious threat to the world's economies, and no longer just the rantings of extreme environmentalists, as it was once thought to be.
Hydrogen WILL BE a part of the future & vehicles using it will be quieter [what a relief!], cause very little or no local pollution and help to reduce the eggects of global climate change [we hope].
we strongly support all the Hydrogen Economy and renewable Energy technology companies and so should the governments of the world.
aahine
10/06/2006
Posts:4
SVE
10/06/2006
Posts:48
Certainly a myriad of hybrids will appear over the years but in the end I consider hydrogen will be the major power carrier. Jack.
Jack
10/07/2006
Posts:4
SVE
10/07/2006
Posts:48
I am associated with one of those companies, so know whereof I speak!
aahine
10/08/2006
Posts:4
The conclusion is that hydrogen is NOT an efficent way to provide energy for transportation. Instead of a "Hydrogen Economy", Bossel promotes the concept of an "Electron Economy".
Dr. Bossel supports fuel cell research, but only for fuel cells that can use liquid fuels directly, not those that use hydrogen.
JMB
10/12/2006
Posts:3
okneg
10/07/2006
Posts:1
right while driving thru the field, haul juice in add bio-agents, pump into storage, 2 days later,
ethanol, Zero Fossil Fuel/Energy Input,, then distill the Ethanol, using about 4-5% baled stalk
material, the only thing that leaves the farm is a tanker load of Sorganol(R)[fuel ethanol], made at ZERO FOSSIL FUEL/ENERGY INPUTS,, So why can't
I get any support from our government or industry,
been have to design, engineer, build, and finance
the Project all myself, zero support,,??? LFM
mcclune
10/07/2006
Posts:5
techwatcher3...
11/01/2006
Posts:1
As if we all pump crude directly into our tanks. The reality of life is gasoline is manufactured in a process called refining. That process requires an enormous amount of hydrogen today and will require even more hydrogen tomorrow as only we are left with dirtier and dirtier crudes.
We will soon be closing in 1 kg of hydrogen being produced for oil refining for every 10 gallons of gasoline we get out.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/praxair_starts_.html
The situation is even worse though...as that 1 kg of hydrogen in a fuel cell vehicle will take you 3 times as far as the gasoline will take you in an internal combustion engine.
If we just stopped making refining crude oil and simply used the hydrogen that is already produced today in a fuel cell vehicles, it would be sufficient to fuel over 100 million fuel cell vehicles.
If we took all hydrogen already produced today, it would be be sufficient to fuel over 250 million fuel cell vehicles. Or said differently...that's enough for every man, woman, and child within the U.S. to own and operate a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle today.
You can find that stat here on the Air Products hydrogen FAQ:
http://www.airproducts.com/Products/LiquidBulkGases/HydrogenEnergyFuelCells/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.htm?wbc_purpose=basic%23other%23other%23products%23other%23top
The problems with hydrogen are political...not technical.
h2ohhhhhhhh
10/07/2006
Posts:1
13 million barrels crude oil per day used in transportation
– equivalent to 1.46 billion pounds per day hydrogen
• This would require doubling the total US power
production (850 GWe to 1780 GWe) if hydrogen were
produced by conventional electrolysis (assume 1 MW
per 1000 lbs and efficiency improvements)
OR
• This would require 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year - approximately 110% of the 2002 total US consumption, nearly doubling the total natural gas requirement.
So according to Mr. McKain, to displace half of our current oil consumed for transportation would require the dedication of the total US electrical power production of 850 GWe.
On the other hand you link to Air Products and they claim "..About 45 billion kilograms (50 million tons) is produced every year—enough hydrogen to fuel 250 million fuel cell cars."
Rich
10/12/2006
Posts:2
mjtimber
10/13/2006
Posts:6
samitch
10/07/2006
Posts:1
SVE
10/07/2006
Posts:48
gabrielg01
10/07/2006
Posts:400
It is also a highly toxic element.
The battery manufacturers themselves already advise that existing-technology batteries must be disposed of in an appropriate manner.
To safely dispose of Li batteries will require extra expense [whether that be by costly recycling or disposal to a dedicated 'safe' receiving zone - and unfortunately, every technology has to be subjected to a financial bottom line, including ALL costs associated with its whole-of-life use.
Li is, as are so many technologies, merely a part of the energy storage answer - don't write of Fuel Cells just yet!
aahine
10/08/2006
Posts:4
mjtimber
10/13/2006
Posts:6
ulf bossel
10/07/2006
Posts:1
Jack
10/08/2006
Posts:4
The only storage necessary is in vehicles, and advanced batteries will beat out hydrogen handily when it comes to energy density (joule/kg). Hydrogen is a very inefficient way to store energy, largely because of the energy costs associated with compressing or liquefying it.
jpdemers
10/08/2006
Posts:40
Jack
10/09/2006
Posts:4
SVE
10/09/2006
Posts:48
JMB
10/12/2006
Posts:3
mjtimber
10/13/2006
Posts:6
In addition, molten salt can be used to store power in solar thermal electric power stations to cover low-light/no-light periods as described here:
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/news/article/mps/uan/642/v/3/sp/
JMB
10/12/2006
Posts:3
The core agreements in this thread: improving energy efficiency remains priority one. In transportation this means lighter, more aerodynamic, and also, more electrified. Battery electric, gasoline and diesel hybrid electric, and fuel cell electric are all in a race to the top. Perhaps there is room for all. And all cars should be lowest weight, lowest drag to get the best out of whichever propulsion technology is used.
And don't bother storing clean electricity such as wind and solar. A robust grid connecting a diverse portfolio of clean sources, PLUS real-time pricing will match supply and demand.
MarkShapiro
10/09/2006
Posts:13
Our cleanest sources of energy generate electricity, directly/indirectly (solar,nuclear, hydro, wind). To take this energy and waste part of it by converting liquids or gases (that also took energy to produce) to hydrogen to be transported by pipeline or truck (also consuming more energy) to the end user to put in his vehicle and wast a bit more of the energy by converting the hydrogen back to electricity to drive the wheels is not very smart, and counterproductive. If the hydrogen is generated with electricity derived from a CO2 dirty process (coal, oil), it is even more wasteful. This seems to be that approach GM is proposing.
The best technologies for reducing vehicle CO2 emissions in the short term are plug-in hybrids (burning ethanol, ideally) and pure electric vehicles charged directly from the grid. Either needs a boost in energy storage technology before replacing gasoline in most applications. It seems to me that ultra capacitors have the edge for a ground breaking shift in electricity storage density. They also have the potential to charge very rapidly. Will they make it to the mainstream? I don't have a crystal ball, but my sense is that they will.
cobraphx
10/09/2006
Posts:14
To those who remain unconvinced that Hydrogen and Fuel Cells are going to become commonplace, here is a current news article which indicates that 'The Market' is already embracing H2 & FC's.
Ballard Announces Follow-On Supply Agreement With General Hydrogen Corporation
Contract valued at approximately US$22 Million
2,900 Mark 9 SSL'TM' fuel cells to ship in 2007 and 2008
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- October 10, 2006 -- Ballard Power Systems (TSX: BLD)(NASDAQ: BLDP) today announced that it has signed an agreement valued at approximately US$22 Million with General Hydrogen Corporation to supply 2,900 Mark 9 SSL™ fuel cells. These fuel cells are for integration into General Hydrogen's products that are being sold to customers converting from conventional lead-acid batteries in their materials handling fleets. Under the agreement, Ballard expects to ship fuel cells ranging in size from 4 to 20 kilowatts, with roughly one-quarter of these units to ship in 2007, and the balance to ship in 2008.
This year, through September 30, 2006, Ballard has shipped 100 Mark 9 SSL™ fuel cells. This agreement reflects the growing confidence of Ballard and General Hydrogen in the potential for fuel cell products in the materials handling equipment market. With this agreement, Ballard has exceeded its publicly stated corporate goal of shipping or booking 300 Mark 9 SSL™ units in 2006.
aahine
10/10/2006
Posts:4
mjtimber
10/13/2006
Posts:6
"It was interesting to see last week's brief disclosure that highly secretive fuel-cell venture Ion America -- yet another John Doerr/Kleiner investment -- has raised $102 million (U.S.) in a Series D round of financing. Rob Day at Cleantech Investing says that brings Ion's overall VC funding up to $165 million. That's not bad for a
company we know little about. What we do know is that Ion is focusing on solid-oxide fuel cell technology for stationary, distributed energy
generation. One can imagine the markets would include back-up power for businesses and homes and primary co-generation systems (heat and
power) for the same markets."
Have there been equivalent recent VC investments in vehicle-related FC companies? I think the VC community is on the same page as Ulf Bossel that the 'hydrogen economy' can never compete with the 'electron economy.'
Rich
10/16/2006
Posts:2
gwf_fly
10/11/2006
Posts:9
bryfarr
10/16/2006
Posts:1