Mixed views on fuel-cell funding
Well, last week’s poll, which asked whether government is investing enough in hydrogen and fuel cell development, is quite divided. Of the 42 votes cast, 48 per cent (20 votes) said the government wasn’t providing enough funding. On the other hand, 36 per cent (15 votes) said funding for hydrogen/fuels should be dropped completely and re-directed to hybrid and EV technologies.
Just 10 per cent (4 votes) said funding was just right and 6 per cent (3 votes) said too much or way too much funding was being provided.
Personally, I’m a bit divided myself. I do think funding should continue, but it should be focused on where hydrogen/fuel cells make most sense — back-up power, utility storage, and certain types of commercial and fleet vehicles. Funding for hybrids and electric vehicles, however, should go toward mass-market commercialization, cost-reduction and improved efficiency.
Tyler Hamilton is senior energy reporter and columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the cleantech market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper. Tyler can be reached at tyler@cleanbreak.ca
February 7th, 2006 at 9:28 am
I missed the poll – I think hydrogen funding is seriously flawed.
If this were honestly “research” money that would be one thing, but my accounting 1/3 to 1/2 of the funds are actually spent on promotion and “premature infrastructure.”
I mean really, why are we building hydrogen filling stations when cars still cost $1m to produce (and don’t last)? Politics, and a “hydrogen lobby” plain and simple.
February 7th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Break it down:
Our society primarily runs on electricity.
We need an efficient method to convert the Sun’s energy to work.
We need the ability to store energy long term with minimum efficiency loss.
We need an energy source that doesn’t produce byproducts that are harmful to life.
We need an energy source that is portable.
Our society primarily runs on electricity – While we modify our environment by using mechanical energy primarily by burning fossil fuels (think construction projects), most of our society depends on, or could use in place of fossil fuels, electricity to do work.
We need an efficient method to convert the Sun’s energy to work – All energy mankind uses originates from the Sun. The path of that energy may be long (such as fossil fuels) or short (such as PV cells). The possible exceptions are nuclear (which in fact really does originate from solar nuclear events but is far enough removed from those events to be considered a separate energy source) and gravity. Since we presently can’t manipulate gravity to produce usable energy, I think we can discount gravity for now. The energy cost of converting the Sun’s energy to work, as well as the energy available for conversion, dictates the viability of developing a given source of energy for work. Hydrogen is a candidate for energy storage because it doesn’t have any bad byproducts when the energy it releases energy back into the environment. Plus, there is a lot of it around. However, it is almost always tightly locked into unusable forms (in other words, something else has already used it for an energy source). In order for us to use it, we have to add the Sun’s energy it once carried back into the molecule. At the moment, we do this rather inefficiently but we’re getting better at it. One point to keep in mind, however, is that we put energy into hydrogen in order to extract it back out as heat or electricity. If we need the energy back as electricity then using hydrogen is rather inefficient. In fact, it’s only practical for a source of electricity because we have so much unused solar energy available to us (solar energy in the form of natural gas, crude oil, coal, and yes even PV cells, hydro power, solar heat, etc.). Advances in PV cells will lower the effectiveness of using hydrogen as an energy carrier, while advances in biotechnical solutions would raise it. It’s too soon to guess at which technology will win out (I would guess that both will win, but for different applications).
We need the ability to store energy long term with minimum efficiency loss – This is one of the primary reasons we use fossil fuels. They store their contained energy essentially forever with little efficiency loss. The other reason is that we don’t have to add the step of first converting the Sun’s energy into fossil fuels. So our next energy storage solution must be able to store energy very long term. The truth is, no energy technology that we use other than nuclear can do this well. The good news? We use energy so fast that we normally make it (mostly) just in time. So we really only need a technology that can get us through extended periods of a month or so (worse case are the poles — they would need a reliable energy reserve for up to a year). So, we normally concentrate on the efficiency part of the storage requirement. Lithium based batteries are very efficient and getting better. Hydrogen is also an efficient storage medium, as long as we can keep it from escaping as a gas. There are also other candidates not usually mentioned, such as highly compressed air stored in vast underground caverns. In any case, as long as the initial conversion of energy into battery stored electricity or hydrogen gas is efficient, long term storage by either of these two methods is good and getting better.
We need an energy source that doesn’t produce byproducts that are harmful to life – While anything can be deadly, hydrogen is rather benign. As long as you don’t stand near the flame, or dive into an atmosphere of mostly hydrogen, it’s ok. Combining hydrogen with oxygen produces water and heat. Under controlled conditions, also ok. The same goes for battery supplied electricity. As long as you’re reasonably careful, using batteries for an electrical source is fine. The same cannot be said for fossil fuels (hence our need to get off oil). Not to mention the politics of oil.
We need an energy source that is portable – Between hydrogen and batteries, batteries win for portability. Batteries are less complicated to use for an electrical source, and normally less hazardous to transport.
My point?
Hydrogen as an energy carrier:
Pros:
Easy to find
Environmentally neutral (assuming environmentally clean production and recycling)
Fast to refuel
Works as a burning fuel (i.e. can work in today’s auto engines or for home heating)
Works as an electrical source (i.e. fuel cell)
Very mechanically efficient when used with fuel cells
Cons:
Currently costly to liberate for use as an energy carrier (but getting better)
Currently difficult to transport (but getting better)
Currently fuel cells are way too expensive (but getting better)
Requires vast and expensive overhaul of current fuel delivery infrastructure
Current auto engines are fundamentally mechanically inefficient (and no real way to fix this)
Batteries as an energy carrier:
Pros:
Most direct conversion of stored energy to usable electricity (inherently efficient)
Most direct conversion of grid electricity to stored energy
Zero changes needed for fuel delivery infrastructure
Shortest path from Sun’s energy to electricity (assuming PV cells or solar heat applications)
Very mechanically efficient for electrical motor applications
Cons:
Lithium technology is very (very) expensive (but getting better)
Very slow to refuel for transportation applications (but getting better)
Predictions:
First, both will win the race, depending on the application. I believe batteries will win the race for autos. This depends on cheap batteries that provide at least 350 miles range and recharge in under 10 minutes. The primary reasons that batteries will win is because we run our society on electricity (easiest conversion rule) and an all electric drive train is inherently 6 times as efficient as our current engine/transmission/differential drive trains. I give it 15 years at the outside. Hydrogen will win for stationary electricity and heat production primarily because it is not directly dependent on sunlight and biotechnology will eventually learn how to release hydrogen efficiently (or we will use nuclear power to produce hydrogen). Stationary electricity production based on PV, wind, and nuclear will also be a contender.