Is the fuel-cell car dead?
It’s been a long time coming, but Ballard Power is finally reading the tea leaves and realizing that the dream of a fuel-cell car powered by hydrogen is a dream that only a million-dollar prototype can occupy. The Vancouver-based fuel cell company, an industry pioneer and leader, confirmed today that it was in talks with part owners Daimler AG and Ford Motor Co. about, well, it didn’t say exactly. But we know it’s generally about “strategic alternatives,” and it’s likely about selling off the auto unit so that Ballard can focus on forklifts and power generation. I guess the market has been wishing for this for a long time, because the confirmation sent Ballard’s stock up 13 per cent today.
Now, how do we read this? Perhaps it’s not the death of the fuel-cell car, particularly if Daimler or Ford do take over the business. It kind of makes sense, at least at this point, that the auto companies embrace and drive forward the fuel-cell approach from hereon in. Failing that, the market is not going to happen. Ballard has done a good job lowering the cost of its fuel cells, though there’s still a long way to go. But there are other factors beyond its control — infrastructure, storage, standards, regulation, progess with competing technologies. The auto manufacturers are in a better position, given their scale, to influence these factors.
I can say one thing, however. As an avid reader — and generator — of news related to clean technologies, there is considerably more hype and excitement these days about the potential for electric vehicles powered by batteries/ultracaps than fuel-cell vehicles powered by hydrogen. The recent announcement from Shai Agassi re: the $200 million in private equity raised for his Project Better Place is a case in point. This is a big chunk of change aimed at supporting a major shift in the way we buy, sell and power vehicles, not unlike earlier ambitions for fuel-cell vehicles. The difference, however, is that momentum is on the side of battery technology and the infrastructure to support it needs to be extended and upgraded, instead of created from scratch. This isn’t to say Agassi’s vision of the future is a slam dunk — I’ve got some problems with his mobile phone analogy and the issue of lithium availability, which I’ll be addressing in a later post — but I do think the battery approach bypasses a couple of steps that makes hydrogen fuel-cell an inefficient choice for mass transportation. I also think millions of “smart” electric cars plugged into the grid can offer an extremely valuable way of managing electricity supply and demand and smoothing out peaks.
I’d be more than happy to host comments on the fuel-cell versus battery/EV debate on this post. I always love a good scrap. 
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
November 6th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Tyler,
Yes, hydrogen FCV is DOA. This is dated, but telling:
Ian Wright compares the weight of his entire EV sports car to the weight of a hydrogen fuel tank on the second page of this article.
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=1106
Progress has been made but I think problems remain:
(1) H2 comes from fossils fuels or is inefficiently generated from H20.
(2) H2 transport infrastructure does not exist yet. It will be expensive to build. (…and if there’s a leak in an H2 pipe that catches on fire it will burn invisibly …nasty)
(3) H2 tanks are heavy relative to other alternatives.
(4) PEM fuel cells are expensive and can get poisoned from carbon and other impurities. (I think some real progress may have been made here.)
Basically, all the major aspects of using H2 for transportation have major critical-path development problems. Meanwhile electric transportation is on the edge of hitting mainstream viability.
Why solve all the H2 problems if there’s a viable PHEV and BEV alternative? H2 is DOA. Sorry.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:52 am
Fine, so it’s dead.
But who realistically would have expected fuel cell cars on the streets by 2010? It’s a long term concept.
First the range of EV might be extended by gasoline or our beloved biofuels. Then either your batteries get better or you switch to H2 as fuel. Maybe we’ll never see H2 vehicles on the streets but I think there is potential when it comes to H2 as a storage solution (some advances needed there, solid H2 etc.).
November 6th, 2007 at 10:04 am
“Oh, come now,” he scoffs.
General Motors is deploying Chevy Equinox SUVs; Honda is commercially offering the FCX; and, Sebastian Blanco informs us, “the countries with the largest natural gas reserves are Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.” Thus, the Reason Foundation contends that if transportation would switch to the Hydrogen Highway, as has been advocated, then supplying the hydrogen for all the cars in the U.S., would “significantly increase the need for foreign-produced natural gas.” The “soundbite”, says Seb: “Instead of depending on Middle Eastern oil, we would be reliant on the Middle East’s natural gas.”
My money is on Death of Life as We know It on this Planet, before the Hydrogen Highway Hype dies.
November 6th, 2007 at 11:14 am
The challenge with fuel cells and hydrogen is much more about perception and public policy than technology. There are no technical show stoppers with fuel cells. They will be cost competitive when mass produced. The trash talk comes from people who have an agenda. There is no basis for concluding that the sale of Ballard’s automotive technology to Daimler means anything negative about fuel cells, unless of course one’s purpose is to undermine a competitive technology.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Sure there’s potential for long term energy storage for homes and businesses. Solar energy storage for winter use, when solar gets so cheap that this might make sense.
For cars it’s really looking like more and more of a long shot though. New Li Ion batteries, new Pb Acid batteries (FireFly’s 3D2), or EEStor’s ultra-capacitor could each spell the end of the FCV effort.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Trash talk? Hey, I was all in favor of hydrogen for vehicles several years ago when battery development was crawling along. “That was then and this is now?” By the time Bush came out with a couple of billions to support hydrogen and fuel cell development, it was already clear that battery technology was changing more rapidly and was going to be a able solve our transportation problems. The battery technology is now here to solve our problems. Why wait for hydrogen and fuel-cells? Maybe they are not a better answer.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I’ve always wondered – if fuel cells are so viable in autos, shouldn’t they first become cost feasible for homes where weight, volume, and crash safety aren’t constraints?
November 6th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Tyler, it’s hard to fight with you about this when I agree, sorry.
I think hydrogen is dead. I just wish it were in the ground already. Tesla’s white paper is a must read (pages 2 and 3 esp.).
Stephen
November 6th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
This reminds me of “The Death of Equities” Business Week cover story in August 1979. At the time, the Dow was at 800. Now it is 13,600 which is 17 times higher. If you follow the crowd, you are often wrong.
At the upcoming Los Angeles Auto Show, the 2008 Honda FCX fuel cell car is going to be unveiled. Toyota is supposed to be making a “major” fuel cell announcement at the L.A. auto show. GM has already spent over $1 billion on fuel cells and is launching Project Driveway next year where 100 fuel cell cars will be driven by consumers. Ford and Chrysler own part of Ballard now and seem to at least be considering buying the rest of their automotive fuel cell division.
And yet fuel cells are dead?
I think it would have been accurate to say that the Ballard (as an independent company) automotive fuel cell program is dead, which is sad considering their contribution in this area. But Ford and Chrysler may take over this part of the company, so it might just be absorbed into them. Ballard ran out of money. Fuel cell cars won’t be mass produced in the next two or three years. They possibly sell out to car companies who can take on the expenses until fuel cells are commercialized. No big deal.
This just shows the obvious bias that there is in the blogosphere against hydrogen. I think it’s safe to say that fuel cell cars are dead in the blogosphere.
But they are alive and well at Toyota, Honda, and GM. Which one matters?
If hydrogen is so horrible, why haven’t these car companies announced that they are shutting down their fuel cell programs and simply going with plug-ins that have ethanol as a reserve fuel? It’s baffling why so many people don’t stop to think about this.
For a detailed analysis of various hydrogen myths, please go to:
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/the-hype-against-hydrogen-setting-the-record-straight-on-six-hydrogen-myths-perpetuated-by-joseph-romm/
However, the most valid criticism of hydrogen is the storage issue. Will 5000 psi hydrogen give vehicles enough range? Will 10,000 psi hydrogen be safe enough? Will a solid hydrogen fueling system be the answer? This is the most pressing issue with hydrogen, but very few people realize it.
Hydrogen isn’t perfect. Neither are plug-ins (which, by the way, can be used in hydrogen cars like in the Volt). However, the truth is that plug-ins get the benefit of the doubt in the blogosphere (the fact that the CEO of Honda harshly criticized them recently was largely ignored), whereas there is a “religious pessimism” against hydrogen fuel cell cars in the blogosphere.
Am I the only one to notice the irony of the post “Is the fuel-cell car dead?” being right next to the post “EEStor should talk”? Perhaps “the fuel-cell car” should be replaced with “EEStor”? This doesn’t mean all plug-ins should be criticized as a result of what has happened with that company, but it goes to show that issues that get a lot of coverage don’t always translate to real solutions. And maybe some of the real solutions don’t get a lot of coverage?
All I can say is that when you harshly criticize hydrogen fuel cell cars, you are going against what Toyota and Honda are doing. And betting against these companies has not been a good business to be in.
November 6th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Is the fuel-cell car dead? No. The Washington D.C./Mecca cartel in cahoots with the buggy whip auto industry will continue to pump anything and everything except electricity to keep the “peak oil” hustle intact. That includes hydrogen.
Notice that “all-electric” is never mentioned within those “green” TV ads? Ever heard all-electric mentioned by a standing politician? Case closed. Hydrogen fuel cells are here to stay.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Hi Greg, perhaps you should look closer at why h2 is loosing ground in circles that have no obvious interest in this path.
‘Having an interest in’ might be the water shed between pro and con.
pro1: car manufacturers who can show how willing they are in exploring possibilities to make cars cleaner / less dependent on oil. And while doing so put off solutions that are achievable now; see the RAV 100k club> and PML’s technology, which can be scaled up within 2 years and be used to retrofit any car, truck, bus, new or used
pro2: oil industries and related, because it perpetuates their business model, including making h2 from cng (& extracting oil from tar sands with cng & getting jet fuel and diesel from cng). Grosso modo same story for bio fuels
pro3: others with in interest in this -ineffecient- model, like you
Consider well (lets use RES, but this is secundary) to wheel efficiency is less than 25%.
This is not helpful, when installing climate change mitigating size RES means major investments and according limiting factor. And silly when (i) a fc car already is an ev, (ii) this ev without a fc has sufficient range for 90 % of the trips cummuters and mums make, (iii) is already possible and (iv) has 95% well to wheel efficiency.
So, let’s build a bridge and get over it.
Imagine your children’s children > how would you like them to live? With tons of money spent on ineffecient technologies, power generation in overriding in traditional ways (h2 leaves that in tact, see here for a viable, disruptive and scalable path) and cynical large org’s given an extra opportunity to hinder progress re effective action for the Common Good?
Reverse engineer your arguments and see how h2 shows up in what you promote now.
Cheers,
Emil M
November 6th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Emil,
Are you aware that plug-in hybrid technology can be used in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (e.g. the Chevy Volt)? If so, why are you comparing the efficiency of plug-ins to fuel cells when fuel cell vehicles can contain plug-in technology?
Plug-in technology (if it turns out to be viable) can be used by any vehicle. The key is what the reserve fuel is. Therefore, the argument is between ethanol, gasoline, and hydrogen.
For example, imagine you want to drive 100 miles. One car has plug-in technology with an internal combustion engine run on ethanol and the other car has plug-in technology with a hydrogen fuel cell. Let’s say both will drive 30-40 miles on the battery. The other 60-70 has to be driven on an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell. At no point during this trip does the fuel cell compete with the plug-in technology!
Furthermore, plug-in advocates love to talk about efficiency (even though it is a moot point since fuel cells don’t compete with plug-in technology – see above), because that distracts attention from the real issue which is the cost per mile. Unless you want to have a maximum 30-40 mile range (by the way, Toyota and Honda are very skeptical about plug-ins getting this much distance and still being safe, durable, and economical), every car has to have an internal combustion engine that runs on gasoline and/or ethanol or a fuel cell that runs on hydrogen. But the plug-in technology will always be an extra expense. Right now, this is thousands of dollars even if they were mass produced. Have you ever done a cost per mile analysis of plug-in technology that includes the cost of the plug-in system? I have and it doesn’t come out to $0.75 or $1.00 per gallon of gasoline equivalent.
You mentioned hydrogen being produced from fossil fuels. I agree that some oil companies would be in favor of this if they could make money from it. But hydrogen should NEVER be made with fossil fuels (only clean sources of electricity such as wind, nuclear, solar, etc.). It will be up to citizens to make sure there are policies that promote the right sources of electricity. And wind and nuclear are inexpensive right now anyway.
Don’t you worry that plug-in technology will just be used to perpetuate the use of coal? I’m not sure how much is used in the Netherlands, but the U.S. currently gets 50% of their electricity from coal.
Although the problems with the hydrogen infrastructure are always brought up, plug-ins will have them, too. The grid in the U.S. is nearly tapped out, so using a lot more electricity will require a major infrastructure investment. It obviously wouldn’t be as much as hydrogen, but plug-in advocates tend to act like no additional infrastructure investment is necessary. Moreover, if you don’t invest in a hydrogen infrastructure, then you have to deal with the costs of the problems that come with ethanol and/or gasoline. This will be very expensive. Keep this in mind.
Does your argument mean you advocate ethanol as the reserve fuel? That has MAJOR water, food, and land issues tied to it. And a gallon of ethanol only has 73% of the energy that gasoline has, so the cost per mile isn’t great. Are large trucks and airplanes also going to be run on ethanol or are fossil fuels going to remain there, too? If there is only so much ethanol that can be used and fossil fuels are used for these purposes, prepare for global warming problems that are going to be even worse.
And do you think countries with high population densities such as China and India will use ethanol as a reserve fuel? On what land?
Finally, do you really think GM has already spent over $1 billion on fuel cells to perpetuate the way things are? I think that argument holds with some of the oil companies, but you can’t tell me an investment of this magnitude is done for show. And Toyota is making a ton of money off of cars that use less gasoline, so I don’t buy that argument with them either. The “I care about the environment and none of the corporations do” argument only goes so far.
If you think all of the fuel cell activity from Honda, Toyota, and GM is a sham, then we will have to agree to disagree. But with all of the smart moves Honda and Toyota have made, I’m surprised you aren’t asking yourself why they are pursuing hydrogen.
The future is hydrogen made from wind, nuclear, and solar power. Plug-ins may or may not make it. Even if they do make it, the reserve fuel will be hydrogen and not ethanol or gasoline. And that is why the smart money is going that way.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I’m with Greg Blencoe. I am not against PHEV technology. I think its great technology. I think the playing field should be technology neutral, without the disingenuous trash talk. The people that talk trash about hydrogen have an agenda. They want public policy to turn away from hydrogen, so they aggressively crap on its potential with baseless techno-drivel. Isn’t it interesting that both GM and Ford introduced their showcase PHEV technology with fuel cells on board. Is fuel cell technology dead? No way. Is the FCPHEV the best iteration to confront climate change? Could be. For the sake of our children, can’t those of us who favor different technologies just learn to get along?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
I am a strong supporter of electric cars and i think that they have a huge potential. Personally, i think that there should be electric rails that we can hop on and off and use batteries when we are not “riding the rails.” However, i also agree in being “energy neutral.” Whatever is best for the planet. Also, for those who think hydrogen fuel cells are dead look at some of the promising research:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071030121117.htm
November 6th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
That’s funny. You’re with Greg because he doesn’t have an agenda? Let’s see, he’s CEO of Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc. Apparently people who support hydrogen also have an agenda. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but your phrasing is rather unfortunate.
What’s my agenda? I think the biggest problem most of us have with hydrogen is that 1) it needs to come from somewhere and 2)fuel cell vehicles are no more efficient, if the hydrogen comes from electricity, than an ICE vehicle. For 1), regardless of Greg’s wishes, the hydrogen will likely be hydrocarbon based, as this will be several times cheaper (though sequestration of CO2 would be possible). Regarding 2), Pure electric cars are 3-4x more efficient. Seems like we should focus on the most promising goal, and not shoot for the lowest return. There’s room for research on both, but fuel cells get more than their share and it would be nice to see some government research grants for batteries like the $1 billion+ for fuel cells. My guess is that batteries would benefit, just as fuel cells have, from additional funding.
“Techno-drivel” sounds like something Stephen Colbert might say while thinking with his gut. Hopefully this doesn’t fall in that category for you, but I’ve tried to provide simple, solid reasoning and avoid “techno” talk (though it really is a technical subject, and kind of requires technical talk to see the pluses and minuses).
November 7th, 2007 at 12:03 am
G Holland – “They want public policy to turn away from hydrogen, so they aggressively crap on its potential with baseless techno-drivel.”
Thats a pretty sweeping statement. The main objection I have to fuel cells is that they are being pushed with an agenda in mind when better alternatives exist.
Fuel cell cars are simply an electric car with a messy chemical battery. Right now solid state batteries exist that have no moving parts, no compressed chemicals, no pumps, and no platinum catalysts.
What is happening that these superior solid state battery cars are being developed without the billions that are being spent on fuel cells. Really fuel cells should be developed but only as the eventual solution as the auxilary power system for long range electric cars.
In this way we could start to replace IC cars TODAY instead of in 2020 when fuel cells will be ready. Starting today and using the money that is going into fuel cells we could have hundreds of thousands of battery electric and plug in hybrids on the road rather that waiting until 2020 and starting then with fuel cell cars. I would also like the thousands of BEVs and PHEVS helping renewable power with V2G so I do not want to wait until 2020 when car companies and oil companies have made all the money that they are going to make from IC cars and oil, and then finally switch to fuel cell cars and hydrogen.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Mjtimber,
I think the point Geoff was making was that hydrogen people are much less likely to completely dismiss plug-in technology than plug-in advocates are to dismiss fuel cell technology. And as Geoff mentioned, plug-in technology works with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles so they can both succeed!
I obviously have a vested interest in hydrogen (and put my name and website on my responses so people would know I did have one), so I don’t have a problem with people taking a close look at what I say. But you will notice I didn’t completely write off plug-in technology and I brought up some of the issues with hydrogen. That is much more unbiased than most of the plug-in advocates that I have come across.
Regarding your issues with hydrogen, you said:
1) It must come from somewhere –
Of course. I have never heard a hydrogen advocate say that it didn’t have to come from somewhere. The electricity used for plug-ins has to come from somewhere, too. I am not sure what the point of this is. Both need electricity. And hopefully in both cases the sources of the electricity are clean such as wind, nuclear, solar, etc.
2) Fuel cells are no more efficient, if the hydrogen comes from electricity, than an ICE vehicle –
This is simply wrong. Fuel cells are twice as efficient as internal combustion engines. Just simply do the following simple Google search (without the quotes) and you will see: “fuel cells, twice as efficient, internal combustion engines.”
If fuel cells weren’t more efficient than internal combustion engines, why do you think that the car companies are making such a commitment to them? After all, a properly modified hydrogen ICE is 1.25 times as efficient as a gasoline-powered ICE.
3) Regardless of Greg’s wishes, the hydrogen will likely be hydrocarbon based, as this will be several times cheaper –
Once again, this is simply wrong. GE says on their website that wind power costs “approximately 3.5 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour and declining” (http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_wind_energy/en/about_wind_ener.htm). And Westinghouse says their AP1000 nuclear plant (two on the same site) can produce electricity at 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
Solar power is more expensive than this right now, but it is coming down in price a lot. LOTS of venture capital money is pouring into this area, so it won’t be long before utility-scale (e.g. Mojave Desert) solar power becomes very inexpensive.
4) Pure electric cars are 3-4 times more efficient –
I’ll copy my response to Emil about this issue: “Are you aware that plug-in hybrid technology can be used in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (e.g. the Chevy Volt)? If so, why are you comparing the efficiency of plug-ins to fuel cells when fuel cell vehicles can contain plug-in technology?
Plug-in technology (if it turns out to be viable) can be used by any vehicle. The key is what the reserve fuel is. Therefore, the argument is between ethanol, gasoline, and hydrogen.
For example, imagine you want to drive 100 miles. One car has plug-in technology with an internal combustion engine run on ethanol and the other car has plug-in technology with a hydrogen fuel cell. Let’s say both will drive 30-40 miles on the battery. The other 60-70 has to be driven on an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell. At no point during this trip does the fuel cell compete with the plug-in technology!”
5) My guess is that batteries would benefit, just as fuel cells have, from additional funding –
I TOTALLY agree with this. The federal government should drastically increase funding levels for all possible solutions. It makes absolutely no sense to spend close to $500 billion (the final amount will obviously be much more than that) on the Iraq War and spend a tiny fraction of that amount on the solution to being free from oil!
Greg
November 7th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Ender,
I’m all for moving forward with plug-in vehicles as soon as they are ready. If they are viable (and the electricity comes from renewable sources), then they can be put in fuel cell cars. And I agree funding research in this area should be a priority. It shouldn’t be a matter of funding fuel cells or battery research. BOTH should be done.
Although I’ve read that other car companies don’t think this is realistic, GM is trying to have a plug-in vehicle that will travel 40 miles ready by 2010.
I disagree that fuel cells cars won’t be ready until 2020.
In November 2006, GM announced that fuel cell cars will cost the same as gasoline-powered cars once they reach a production volume of 1 million units (http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/11/fuel_cell_vehic.html).
And Ballard, though it looks like they are going to be sold well before this time, appeared to be on pace to meet their fuel cell targets by the end of 2010. At the end of 2005, Ballard achieved a cost of $73/kW (based on a production volume of 500,000 units per year which was audited by TIAX LLC) which is about twice what it would take for them to be competitive with internal combustion engines. And they had five years to cut the cost in half.
In my view, fuel cell cars start looking viable around 2011 or 2012. But there are two wild cards that will determine how quickly fuel cells (and I suppose this also applies to batteries) will get into the market: the price of oil and how seriously people take global warming. Three years ago, the price of oil was much lower and very few people took global warming seriously. If the price of oil continues to rise over the next couple of years and more people continue to take global warming seriously (I happen to think both will happen), then fuel cells and batteries will arrive on a much larger scale beginning in 4-5 years.
Greg
November 7th, 2007 at 2:35 am
I suspect that the reason Honda is dismissing PHEV technology is more because it doesn’t work with THEIR hybrid system. The electric motor on the Insight provides power assist during accelleration, allowing it to use a smaller, lighter gasoline engine. The Insight is not considered a “full” hybrid vehicle because it cannot run on the electric motor alone. Since the gasoline engine on the Insight is always turning, and it’s always coupled to the electric motor, PHEV technology doesn’t provide any significant benefits for the cost/weight added.
Whereas its competitor, the Prius, CAN be operated solely on the electric motor, and third-party PHEV technology has already been shown to offer significant benefits. And that’s without newer technologies like ultra-capacitors that stand to play a major role in recharging and regenerative braking systems.
Further, your comments about the electric grid, while true to a certain degree, miss the point that most PHEVs will recharge at night during off-peak periods and as such will help BALANCE the load. In fact, I believe a study has shown that if two thirds of the cars in the US were electric or PHEV they could be supported on the current system with no significant infrastructure upgrades whatsoever.
And I have to add that picking and choosing among your facts doesn’t help your credibility.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:57 am
As I understand it, we can easily make hydrogen in one of two ways. The first is from fossil fuels, which obviously doesn’t solve one of the major problems at hand, and futher, you’re better off from an energy budget/efficiency standpoint leaving gas or oil as gas and oil.
The second is via electricity and water, which assumes that we have ample supplies of both. You’ve already mentioned power infrastructure issues, so I’ll go with water, which in many areas is an increasingly scarce resource. And again, from a energy budget/efficiency standpoint you’re much better off using the elecricity as such instead of converting into a low-density fuel that you’re simply going to turn back into electricity. Especially when that low-density fuel is going to require major infrastructure changes for transport and delivery.
I totally agree, however, with your final statement. It makes absolutely no sense to have spent close to $500 billion on the Iraq War and only spend a tiny fraction of that amount on being free from oil. Imagine where we could have been today if five years ago we’d begun investing $500 billion in our own technologies and infrastructure.
But no, we wasted it on war, and Ford and GM wasted their lead dirthering about building ever larger SUVs. It’s no wonder that today Toyota is eating their lunch, breakfast, and dinner.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:23 am
Ender,
You’re saying that those battery enthusiasts that like to misrepresent the potential of hydrogen technology don’t have an agenda? You made a statement that fuel cells won’t be ready until 2020. That’s your agenda driven opinion. My opinion is, if we had the right public policy it could be a lot sooner than that. It is also my opinion that the FCPHEV platform may be the best iteration of all. Of course we do need some kind of delivery infrastructure first. GM says we can do it for $12 billion. That would out a fueling station within a few miles of 70% of the US population.
Look, I hope batteries turn out to be hugely successful. They are going to have a big place in the world’s energy future. But, they are not a panacea. I don’t expect that we will ever see a battery powered transcontinental airliner.
When a blog turns up with anything good to say about hydrogen, the comments, for the most part, come from people who seem determined to belittle the technology. Very often the statements that are made amount to little more than techno-drivel. We need to get beyond that.
You wrote, “I do not want to wait until 2020 when car companies and oil companies have made all the money that they are going to make from IC cars and oil, and then finally switch to fuel cell cars and hydrogen.”
I don’t want to wait till 2020 either. I hope we see PHEVs by 2010. We need to get off the oil ASAP. I also hope we’ll start to see either FCPHEV or FCV in showrooms by no later than 2015.
It is in everybody’s interest to have a technology neutral energy playing field so the best options will emerge based on merit, without any kind of hype, positive or negative.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:43 am
Well, some might argue it’s because pure electric is the theoretically better technology; if one were to build a perfect battery and a perfect fuel cell, which one would be a gold mine and which worthless? I don’t dismiss the technology, it’s amazing stuff. I’ve even had to opportunity to work on some of in my engineering work, for several big names. Obviously, I’m “biased” toward what I think is the best point, and my point referred more to where “smart” money SHOULD go. Why complicate things?
That said, in the above text I was avoiding “techno-drivel”, as mentioned by Geoff (curious, how do you know his first name?), and didn’t write a dissertation about the numbers I was discussing, as Mr. Holland clearly wasn’t interested in “details”, so I’ll give them to you.
1) Not my point at all, though I thought it was quite obvious if you continue reading that I was discussing the energy eventually coming from hydrocarbons. Clearly, recognize this, as much of your technology/research seems to revolve around CO2 sequestration.
2) On the face of it, I’m wrong on this one. But, the caveat was my “from electricity” statement. To avoid technical talk, I neglected my usual “well-to-wheels” accompaniment.
If you assume your standard gas fired plant here in California, at 60% efficiency, followed by electrolysis at 50-70%, followed by a fuel cell at 30-50%, with ~30% losses for compression of the gas, the fuel cell is at 10% efficiency. Obviously, this number is heavily subject to the energy source, varying from 7% for coal (40% efficient) to 17% for wind (100% efficient)(which would be my reasoning for why the auto companies like the technology; it provides redundancy in energy sources).
An ICE burning gasoline generally runs at about 15-20% efficiency, though refining losses will bring this down to the 12-15% level, or lower if assuming oil sands (a disgustingly inefficient process in itself).
Obviously, this is a gross simplification of the efficiencies, but gives an idea of the differences:
Fuel Cell: 7-17%
ICE: 12-15%
Obviously, technological advances could improve many of these numbers on the fuel cell side, perhaps even 2x the ICE. But the total energy cost is far more important than just what the fuel cell loses.
3) Well, I may be wrong, as I don’t have a firm number, but I’m pretty certain that steam methane reforming can create hydrogen significantly cheaper than electrolysis. As mentioned above, the electrolysis process is only 50% efficient, while steam reforming is over 70%. Since the capital cost of a windmill would still far exceed the outlay for natural gas or gasified coal, and since steam methane reforming is currently used for all hydrogen production outside high school classroom experiments, I’m guessing that the hydrocarbons would win out. Not the way I want it, but “the business of America is business”, and cheap generally wins (though not for me, as I have 100% renewable).
4) You can’t see it? Ah, you must be new to Clean Break, by your insistence on limiting electric vehicles to a 30 mile range. Well, as an obvious supporter of batteries, my hope would be for an all electric vehicle. Many of the new Li-ion batteries are capable of rapid (<10 minute) recharging. You’re infrastructure comments from above would obviously apply here (though not for the general plug in market, as there is capacity for 200 million cars charging at night, when plants generally idle), but electric would win as it would now be able to recharge quickly and still maintain the efficiency gains over fuel cells. Obviously, fuel cells would be an improvement over the other option such as ethanol or gas, but if we can skip that extra step…
5) Amen. We just might break that $500 billion down a little differently. Believe me, I’ve done the calculation of how many solar panels and wind turbines this could buy too many times to count.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:01 am
To be fair, the water use will be very limited, and potentially reusable, as the “exhaust” can be captured and reprocessed (in fact, this might be preferable as it should be very pure). That said, your other point more than make up for the rest.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:56 am
Hi Greg, some remarks intended to conclude this thread.
1. the sheer mentioning of 2 technologies creates no relationship re the qualities of those technologies. Toasters and fc’s, or jet engines and fc’s have different domains and comparing them is futile
2. using a fc and if so what kind is a secondary issue. Main point is that ev’s have, or should have a smaller footprint, or as McDonough & Braungart would have it: a larger beneficial one
3. as Stephen (‘Ender’) points out: ev’s are conducive to RES. I’d like to add: in 2 ways
3.1 ev’s offer a solution to the intermittent character of wind and pv by buffering (relevant for distributed generation dimension of RES and reason for utilities to position / want ev’s through the v2g concept to meet their emission reduction obligations
3.2 ev’s raise the question of how to generate base load RES. Yesterday I attended the presentation of the Destertec concept by the German node of the Club of Rome (a full 300 people house at host Dresdener Bank @ Paris square, with the Kennedy museum and the Brandenburger Tor in sight)
Qua content the stage of discussion can be superseded by the question of how to take away the veils of ignorance with politics, business, academia, ngo’s and the public domain in order to see that it delivers what all seek. It has the best cards to supply all people on our spaceship with RES. An all electric society has the best cards of delivering a clean, durable, just and bright future.
Take a look at large scale CSP, which is cheaper as clean coal already and which enables desalination as solution to falling water tables. Through hvdc technology any source of RES can go on the grid and serve demand anywhere else, within some 1000’s of km’s. See interview with Khosla
4. re what kind of fc: as I see it, the dmfc seems most promising, to a large extent due to the sustainable context it is a part of and helps bringing about. But again, the source of electricity is secondary when it can be stored to a sufficient degree in ways that deliver lca, eroi, footprint our children will appreciate.
PML delivers a 300km range ev now. For 1100 km range an auxilary generator is installed, which runs on petrol. It being modular, one can choose it’s favourite electron pump. Or leave it out, carry more groceries or just weigh less and increase range
5. current phev’s are a manifestation of bau thinking: there’s this sort of horse department under a horizontal stable door and since it eats too much, some gizmo’s are added to make it eat less (and add usp’s for the oem’s, or at least an excuse to make the suppliers of all these gizmo’s happy)
Again, see PML (+ Volvo now, and all other oem’s when the European Commission & Parlaiment get to know that zero emission vehicles [when taking the mentioned potential for RES into account]) can be mass produced within 2 years (instead of the stated 8+). In wheel motors do away with the in box thinking, tying us to inefficient and ineffective lines of reasoning re vehicle propulsion. Since they’re also inherently cheaper, rising middle classes in China and India could be offered these vehicles and perhaps leapfrog us, ice-addicts
Imagine this:
Ratan Tata (the Indian car oem and social entrepeneur) having a serious talk with Shai Agassi (the ev-grid man), Vinod Khosla (the large scale csp man) and Deepak Chopra (the largest picture man). Afterwards calling the president of the European Commission for a stroll in the park.
Then Barosso calling the oem ceo’s like Roosevelt did in 1942. Then see what the federal gov’t in the US will do (with Ca and indiv cities already on course)
6. at the same time oem’s know most people, when reduced to consumers, will be tempted to choose with their abdomen, where size matters: more volume, weight, cost, complexity is the way to go. Which delivers the oem’s with nice roi and bonuses for the ceo and the like. When oem’s would perceive people as strategic partners in serving the interests of all children, of all species of all times, including their own, then marketing would look quite different and the needed system change would be within reach. Since the system as such, the ways we behave as a global society, is self destructive.
Which is a by and large an expectable result of our low grade of consciousness vis a vis the means to manifest ourselves (ever given a cocked gun to a toddler, ever given millions of years of fossil deposits to greedy smart guys governments in corporations?)
Focussing on technology, policies, institutions, ngo-intentions, consumer appeals is futile when not engaged in a larger picture
7. Greg, please take the issue of efficient use of energy serious. There are billions of people waiting for a better material life. Choosing the 75+ % waste h2 route is somewhere between ignorant and cynical in the perspectice of a 5% waste route (15% when the RES is 1000 of km’s away)
8. re a fc being 1.25 as efficient as an ice: see all points before
9. re GE stating costs for wind to fall, idem
10. re Westinghouse stating cost of nuclear to fall: since it costs approx 15 years to commission a plant, it will take too long to deliver emission reduction @ expected rising global demand within that time. When taking into account the cost of decommissioning at the end of the life cycle of nuclear plants (higher than commissiong costs; ask your children for advice, since they will be the ones paying), the cost per kw are higher than the option
- that doesn’t need to be dismantled anyway
- that has proven itself in 20 years of zero down time
- is cheaper as clean coal
- mitigates climate change on shortest possible notice (ask –re- insurance companies how quickly they want to reduce paying for climate change related claims)
- has no risk of disaster, abuse or waste
- desalinates at lowest cost (ask people in the Middle east, North Africa and Himalaya water dependent regions about the significance of this)
- can be scaled up or down, moved, improved, hybridized or dehybridized
- delivers jobs in areas & sectors people need work, can relate to, work in, can be proud of, all want to see spin offs from
- that can show other cultures, religions, regions that ‘the West’ is also able to deliver solutions that serve all people.
Enabling a cultural heritage the West has to offer the world to piggyback: due process, quality of life, representative governments, openness to other points of view and of course Marco Borsato
11. re reserve fuel: in Europe an average driver does 40km/day, with no variance hampering massive introduction of ev for commuting purposes. In other regions that number will be higher, but the indicated 300km range will serve most commuters adequately. Making auxililary power (or extra book) modular, also longer trips can be accommodated. Gas stations can have these extra batteries or other auxiliary power units in stock, for those drivers changing their mind while en route. Including those with a strong liking for h2 fc’s. Something like Rolex watches or LL Bean sportsware
12. ethanol, like any bio based source of power is significantly less efficient in using nuclear fusion energy than solar thermal. It competes with food stock, is inefficient to transport and has relatively many hidden / externalised cost. Focus comes from partly well intending politics, in tandem with agriculture and traditional industries for bau reasons
13. billions will continue to be wasted on anything, inducing a caleidoscope of suffering, as long as we don’t shift up mentally, psychologically and in the end spiritually
14. read Wilber before we continue
Emil Möller
November 7th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Michael,
(If the answers below aren’t sufficient, can you give me examples of where I am picking and choosing facts? I wrote about many things in the initial response and want to know exactly where you think this was done so I can clear things up if necessary.)
Good point about a lot of the electricity for the plug-in cars being needed at night.
But do you really think if two-thirds of the cars have plug-in technology that there won’t need to be an upgrade to the electricity distribution infrastructure? Not everybody will work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., go home, and then plug in to recharge their vehicle at 10 or 11 p.m. ever night right before they go to bed. Some might plug in right after 5 p.m. when they get home. Though a larger percentage of people work the normal “9 to 5” shift, people work at all hours of the day. Some work ten or twelve hour shifts and have more days off. What about weekends when people could plug their vehicles in at any time since they are home?!
Right now, the grid is pretty much tapped out during peak times. And a very small increase in electricity demand during peak times will be too much.
Furthermore, unless you want half of the electricity for plug-ins to come from coal, new electrical infrastructure will need to be built to take advantage of wind and solar power. And since nuclear is base load power, most additional off-peak electricity right now will likely come from sources of electricity that aren’t clean (the exception would be a little hydroelectric power).
When the CEO of Honda said harshly criticized plug-in technology, he didn’t say it was because it didn’t work with their system. He said it was because he didn’t think the environmental benefits would be there. And if they thought plug-ins were the way to go, they would be developing a system that worked. Although they aren’t stopping all plug-in research, it is clear that their primary focus is fuel cells.
You mentioned that the Prius can use third party plug-in technology for their system. I think that’s great and applaud those companies. But why isn’t Toyota making a big commitment to plug-in technology? Why are they going towards fuel cells? If a company as successful as Toyota is going in a certain direction, wouldn’t it make sense to at least consider that they may be right?
You didn’t mention fuel cells in your response, but I’m curious how you feel about them? I’m actually all for plug-in technology. But the reserve fuel should be hydrogen from clean sources of electricity and not ethanol or gasoline.
What do you think about hydrogen cars that have plug-in capability?
Greg
November 7th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Michael,
(Regarding the water issue) As Mjtimber said, “the water use will be very limited, and potentially reusable.”
You mentioned that Toyota is eating Ford and GM’s breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Since Toyota is big on fuel cells, I’m surprised the critics of fuel cell cars don’t stop to think that they are going against a company that has been extremely successful.
You said, “And again, from an energy budget/efficiency standpoint you’re much better off using the electricity as such instead of converting into a low-density fuel that you’re simply going to turn back into electricity.” Since plug-in technology can be used in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (important point!), there is no reason to compare the efficiency of electricity usage with the batteries and fuel cells.
Here was my response to Emil about this:
“Imagine you want to drive 100 miles. One car has plug-in technology with an internal combustion engine run on ethanol and the other car has plug-in technology with a hydrogen fuel cell. Let’s say both will drive 30-40 miles on the battery. The other 60-70 has to be driven on an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell. At no point during this trip does the fuel cell compete with the plug-in technology!”
Therefore, the argument for the reserve fuel in plug-in cars is between hydrogen, ethanol, and gasoline.
You mentioned the problem with making hydrogen from fossil fuels. I agree. I personally don’t think hydrogen for future fuel cell cars should ever be made from fossil fuels. In my mind, that is not even an option. It should come from clean sources of electricity (e.g. wind, nuclear, solar, etc.).
You said, “Imagine where we could have been today if five years ago we’d begun investing $500 billion in our own technologies and infrastructure.” GREAT point!!! I think one of the responses to 9/11 should have been to make it national priority #1 to be free from foreign oil. But that didn’t happen. And now we are paying for it. Sadly, people only seem to take action when there is a crisis. Well, we’re about to have a major one.
Greg
November 7th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
MJ,
I have to take issue with some of the assumptions you use in your calculations. Here is what Amory Lovins says in his paper, ‘Twenty Myths About Hydrogen’. The assumptions used by Amory are footnoted in his paper. See http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf
Myth #3. Making hydrogen uses more energy than it yields, so it’s prohibitively inefficient.
Any conversion from one form of energy to another consumes more useful energy than it yields.
If it could do the opposite, creating energy out of nothing, you could create a perpetual-motion machine violating the laws of physics. Conversion losses are unavoidable; the issue is whether they’re worth incurring. If they were intolerable as a matter of principle, as Myth #3 implies, then we’d have to stop making gasoline from crude oil (~73–91% efficient from wellhead to retail
pump) and electricity from fossil fuel (~29–35% efficient from coal at the power plant to retail meter). Such conversion losses are thus not specific to producing hydrogen. Hydrogen production is typically about 72% to 85% percent efficient in natural-gas reformers or ~70–75% efficient in electrolyzers; the rest is heat that may also be reusable. (These efficiency figures are all reduced by 15% because of the way hydrogen’s energy content is normally measured) So why incur these losses to make hydrogen? Because hydrogen’s greater end-use efficiency can more than offset the conversion losses, much as an electric heat pump or air conditioner can offset fuel-to-electricity conversion losses by using one unit of electricity to concentrate and deliver several units of heat. That is, conversion losses and costs are tolerable if the resulting form of energy is more efficiently or conveniently usable than the original form, hence justified by its greater economic value. Making hydrogen can readily achieve this goal.
Crude oil can be more efficiently converted into delivered gasoline than can natural gas into delivered hydrogen. But that’s a red herring: the difference is far more than offset by the hydrogen’s 2–3-fold higher efficiency in running a fuel-cell car than gasoline’s in running an engine driven car. Using Japanese round numbers from Toyota, 88% of oil at the wellhead ends up as gasoline in your tank, and then 16% of that gasoline energy reaches the wheels of your typical modern car, so the well-to-wheels efficiency is 14%. A gasoline-fueled hybrid-electric car like the 2002 Toyota Prius nearly doubles the gasoline-to-wheels efficiency from 16% to 30% and the overall well-to-wheels efficiency from 14% to 26%. But locally reforming natural gas can deliver 70% of the gas’s wellhead energy into the car’s compressed-hydrogen tank. That “meager” conversion efficiency is then more than offset by an advanced fuel-cell drive system’s superior 60% efficiency in converting that hydrogen energy into traction, for an overall well-to wheels efficiency of 42%. That’s three times higher than the normal gasoline-engine car’s, or 1.5 times higher than the gasoline-hybrid-electric car’s. This helps explain why most automakers see today’s gasoline-hybrid cars as a stepping-stone to their ultimate goal — direct-hydrogen fuel-cell cars.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
It’s not really necessary to brief me on perpetual motion machines, but thanks. The first 2/3 of your reply are a rehashing of what I’ve already shown that I know, so I’m not clear what point your getting at. The numbers are even similar, so I have no argument with you on this (although your electrolysis number is a bit higher). Yes, they are not 100% efficient. I wouldn’t bother typing here if I didn’t know that.
Now, I though I had a gross simplification of the well-to-wheels equation, but your’s takes the cake. Somehow, you’ve improved the efficiency of the fuel cell drastically (laboratory performance, from what I’ve observed, is more in line with my stated 30-50%) and plan to compress the gas rather than liquefying, though I think 70% is pretty optimistic, even for reforming. Regardless, I was quite clear in spelling out that I was using electrolysis for my calculation; do you have a source for your 70-75% efficient electrolysis? While your numbers, and even mine, assume best cases, the real world application of fuel cells lags behind even my pessimistic numbers. The EPA tests on the Honda FCX, the most efficient model tested to date, show it at about 75% of a standard diesel Jetta. Do you have newer, hard data? I’d love to see it. The only information I found was the GM Sequel, running at about 38 miles per kg of Hydrogen, or 75% of the Honda FCX. And according to this (http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/twentyfirstcenturycar.pdf), the Honda FCX is about as efficient as a Porsche Turbo if using electrolysis. Similar to my numbers.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Geoff,
By the way, when you say your “with” Greg, do you work with him? Just curious, as he seems to know your name from somewhere (it isn’t listed anywhere here).
November 7th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Anonymous – “You’re saying that those battery enthusiasts that like to misrepresent the potential of hydrogen technology don’t have an agenda? You made a statement that fuel cells won’t be ready until 2020. That’s your agenda driven opinion”
There are still non-trivial problems to solve before FC cars are on the road as consumer items. The question is why is a electric car with a chemical battery better and more deserving of research dollars that an electric car with a solid state battery?
Unless 10000psi tanks become cheaper the range of an average FC car will be the same (200km) as an average BEV with the new lithium batteries. The recharge time will be about the same – 10 minutes or so and the solid state battery does it with existing infrastructure, with 2 or 3 times the overall efficiency and with an order of magnitude less complexity.
What is the one advantage that fuel cell electric car would have to justify the lower efficiency, need to build a whole new hydrogen distribution network and the greater complexity of a chemical battery?
My basic question is what is the pressing need for FC cars when existing BEVs do the same job with better efficiency and they are ready today?
If you can answer that then I will agree that FC cars are the future however I suspect that you cannot.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Greg – “I’m all for moving forward with plug-in vehicles as soon as they are ready. If they are viable (and the electricity comes from renewable sources), then they can be put in fuel cell cars. And I agree funding research in this area should be a priority. It shouldn’t be a matter of funding fuel cells or battery research. BOTH should be done. ”
I completely agree as FC cars will need batteries as well or at least ultracaps as FC are not really good at high current demands so a reserve will be needed.
“But there are two wild cards that will determine how quickly fuel cells (and I suppose this also applies to batteries) will get into the market: the price of oil and how seriously people take global warming.”
I agree and as crude has hit the magic $100 per barrel it would seem that the time is right for rapid deployment. However FC cars still have many technical hurdles to overcome and a new fuel distribution network to build. It think 2020 is a pretty accurate figure before FC cars are sold in showrooms and operated by normal punters.
Whereas as there are no technical problems preventing widespread use of battery electric cars given a crash program with existing technology hundreds of thousands of BEVs could be on the road by 2020.
I ask you the same question as in the following post – What is the overwhelming advantage of electric cars with a chemical battery over electric cars with a solid state battery that would justify waiting until FC cars are ready for the mass market? I do take both Peak Oil and AGW very seriously and it is a wonder to me that people that think the same way I do would want to wait for one technology rather than starting with what we have.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Mjtimber,
We don’t work together. I first met him recently during my hydrogen debate with Joseph Romm. There aren’t a lot of hydrogen advocates on the internet so it doesn’t take long to connect with the ones who are out there. I saw his username and knew it was him.
Greg
November 7th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Ender,
It’s clear that we both think MAJOR changes are needed, but we are going to have to agree to disagree on the path to solve the problem.
With Honda set to lease (even a very limited number) of fuel cell cars next year and GM testing 100 of them with customers next year, I don’t think it’s going to take another 12 years to get them ready for the mass market. As I mentioned before, I think 2011 or 2012 is more accurate. The infrastructure can be built in the biggest cities (e.g. Los Angeles, Houston, etc.) first and then grow out from there until the transition is complete in about ten years.
You said that fuel cells cars “still have many technical hurdles to overcome.” This just isn’t true. If there were many technical hurdles to overcome, Honda and GM wouldn’t be putting them on the streets next year.
With oil prices going up a lot higher and many more people becoming convinced of the global warming problem, I think we’re about to reach a tipping point and REAL action will start to be taken in the next 2-4 years. This means both batteries and fuel cells will move forward as quickly as they possibly can ($150 or $200 per barrel oil will be very motivational).
On the other hand, I don’t think it is fair to say that plug-in technology is ready right now. GM has said it is trying to have a plug-in that will go 40 miles ready by 2010, but the other car companies are very skeptical about this.
I think the issue is that the technology must be economical which means it must work for 150,000 miles. Perhaps there are start-up companies that have solved this problem, but the talk from the car companies is that this issue has not been resolved yet. I have to think GM would be selling these cars right now if they were viable. Why wouldn’t they?
And for those that say plug-ins can go a lot more than 40 miles right now, they should start selling them to customers because I’m sure there is a demand for this. But the car companies clearly don’t have this level of confidence in plug-in technology right now. Hopefully that will change sooner than later.
Another point I want to make again is that promoting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles doesn’t mean you are anti-plug-in. I am actually pro-hydrogen fuel cells and pro-plug-in. After all, the Volt can have plug-in technology and a fuel cell!
However, it really is true that plug-in advocates have an “us versus them” mentality. As I’ve said before, since hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can have plug-in technology, they really compete with ICEs with ethanol and/or gasoline as the reserve fuel. But this has been ignored EVERY time I’ve brought it up. Instead, hydrogen is typically instantly attacked without giving this any thought.
Also, I don’t think any hydrogen supporters are saying that plug-in technology should have to wait on fuel cells or the hydrogen infrastructure. I am certainly not! It will move forward with ICEs on its own merits regardless of the status of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
Greg
November 7th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Ender,
You said “Unless 10000psi tanks become cheaper the range of an average FC car will be the same (200km) as an average BEV with the new lithium batteries.”
I genuinely want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is the most outrageous piece of fiction I’ve read in a long time. Where in the world did you read that 10,000 psi tanks will only have a 200 km or 125 mile range unless they become less expensive?
Toyota recently announced that their 10,000 psi hydrogen fuel cell vehicle could go 480 miles in real world conditions. Here is a link to the story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21030098/
And here is the story that said GM is trying to have a plug-in that goes 40 miles available by 2010 and how Toyota and Honda are skeptical about this:
http://www.powerpulse.net/story.php?storyID=17953
Here is the part of the article that discusses Toyota’s opinion of GM’s goal:
“Toyota Motor Corp. also expressed skepticism regarding the GM plug-in hybrid plan. Among the concerns given by company executives were: the lingering unanswered questions regarding the safety (related to overheating) of lithium-ion batteries; the practical feasibility of the concept of a car that can run on battery power for up to 40 miles (according to Toyota, a battery that powerful would take up the entire area of a vehicle’s trunk); and doubts that consumers want to have to plug-in their cars every night to re-charge them.
Toyota is investigating different possibilities for the development of hybrid technology, including the possible use of batteries to power a vehicle for short bursts, alternating with power supplied from the gasoline-fueled engine. The company thinks that it is more realistic to expect plug-in hybrids to run in electric-only mode for between 10 and 20 miles, rather than the GM 40-mile target.”
This opinion of plug-in technology comes from what a lot of people think is the top car company on the planet (who is also investing heavily in fuel cells).
November 7th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Greg – “You said “Unless 10000psi tanks become cheaper the range of an average FC car will be the same (200km) as an average BEV with the new lithium batteries.” I genuinely want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this is the most outrageous piece of fiction I’ve read in a long time”
Perhaps I did not express myself properly. What I meant to say that only with 10 000psi tanks can a fuel cell car have any real advantage over a BEV. With the new batteries the maximum range of a practical BEV will be about 400km. With 5000psi tanks or lower the range of an FCV will be about the same. Only 10000psi tanks will allow an FCV to have a greater range however at the moment such tanks are neither cheap or practical. Honda might have development models however they are handmade items not even close to production. Also the filling stations for 10000psi tanks are not even on the drawing board. It takes up to 28% of the energy available in the H2 to compress it that much.
PHEVS have short EV only ranges by design not possible capability. The Tesla BEV does 250 miles on a charge without even using the latest batteries. The Tesla is (or soon will be) a production car not a concept car and it is refuelled from a standard electricity outlet. 10 minute chargers of battery packs will require new outlets however such 480V 90A per phase waterproof electrical plugs exist off the shelf. They are used to connect ROVs in the offshore oil industry.
You still have not answered the question that I posed.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
I like Greg’s analysis, but I’ve never met him. What difference does that make. What I provided comes directly from Amory Lovins. If you don’t agree with Amory’s conclusions, check the footnotes in his paper. I gave the reference where it can be found on the net.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Anonymous – You are only comparing FCV with IC cars here. The real issue is why you would select chemical batteries instead of solid state batteries.
The wheel to well chart of H2 is:
Generate electricity (lose 50 to 60%) -> make hydrogen (lose 50%) -> compress H2 to 10kpsi (lose 28%) -> generate electricity in FC (lose 50% to 70%) -> drive electric motor (lose 10%)
The wheel to well chart of a BEV is:
Generate electricity (lose 50 to 60%) -> reticulate electricity (lose 10%) -> (charge batteries (lose 15%) -> drive electric motor (lose 10%)
So far no-one has explained the reason why we should muck about and take all the extra losses just to have a FCV. Nobody could seriously consider H2 produced from natural gas as a solution as it still produces CO2 and offers almost nothing as a clean energy source. You really might as well just use the natural gas instead of reforming it.
Can you dispute these diagrams?
November 7th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Greg – “You said that fuel cells cars “still have many technical hurdles to overcome.” This just isn’t true.”
Apart from the fact that fuel cells do not last and need 99.9999% pure hydrogen to work I guess not. The technical hurdles are to allow a FC to last a reasonable lifetime with normal drivers. Honda leasing some vehicles does not mean that FCV are ready for the mainstream yet. How much did they cost? I bet 3 or 4 times more than even the Tesla. The technical challenges remain of making a long lasting vehicle for a price that people can afford. BEVs have same problem however are much further down the track than fuel cells.
I am not against FCV per se. They will make fantastic engines for PHEVs when they are ready. The problem is that everyone seems to be waiting for the solution that is the FCV and that is where the money is. If the same effort was put into BEVs then we could solve the problem sooner.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Ender,
You will find the answer to your question in the eight long responses I have already posted.
If you don’t believe the arguments I have made about the benefits of fuel cell vehicles, perhaps you should ask some people from Toyota, Honda, GM, or Hyundai. You must think they are all really foolish for not doing what you think is right.
Perhaps you should sell Toyota’s stock short since you obviously think they have absolutely no clue what they are doing.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Ender,
If you would read what I said before, I am totally against producing hydrogen from fossil fuels. For an analysis of the cost of hydrogen from renewable sources, go to Myth #4 in the following link:
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/the-hype-against-hydrogen-setting-the-record-straight-on-six-hydrogen-myths-perpetuated-by-joseph-romm/
If battery vehicles can meet customer requirements for driving range (on their own without an ICE or fuel cell) and can be charged in a time that meets customer requirements, then why are Toyota and Honda pursuing fuel cells?
Don’t you ever wonder about this?
November 8th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Just so you know where I stand, I think fuel cells will have all of their issues worked out in about 3-4 years. The transition over to fuel cells will begin around 2011 or 2012. And a long-term solution just might be a hydrogen fuel cell car with plug-in capability (though I TOTALLY agree that plug-in technology should be moved forward with ICEs as soon as it is viable).
It sounds as though the real issue is that you want a lot more government funding for battery research. I’ve already said I TOTALLY agree with that! I want plug-in technology to be commercialized as soon as possible, because it will decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
Are the battery advocates angry that hydrogen and fuel cells have gotten a lot of federal research dollars? Is this why they attack fuel cells all the time?
My stance has been that ALL technologies that can solve the energy problem should get much more funding than they are currently getting. And then the best ones will win in the long run.
It seems to me that it would make a lot more sense for battery and hydrogen people to work together in the more wide-ranging argument that all solutions to gasoline should get A LOT more funding NOW. As was dicussed before, it makes no sense to spend almost $500 billion (so far) on the Iraq War and a very, very small fraction of that amount on the solution to the problem.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to work together instead of using the energy to tear each other down?
How do you feel about this?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Geoff,
It makes no difference, it just seemed as though every time I responded to either one of you, the other would answer.
I didn’t realize you were quoting directly from the Lovins’ paper, but I guess that explains why it looks familiar. Yes, I do take issue with those numbers, as I believe they are grounded more in laboratory results rather than real world applications, much less mass production. I know that some of them are wrong, such as the 60% fuel cell conversion to traction, as typical losses due to drivetrain, electric motor, and electric controller will be at least 10%, so this would require a 67% efficient fuel cell. There is no such thing as a PEM fuel cell anywhere close to this efficiency. The 70% value for the hydrogen also seems over sold. While the reformer may create hydrogen at that level, the compression of hydrogen at 10,000 psi uses another 20%.
His endnotes didn’t help too much, as I couldn’t find actual numbers that I could source, though I would be glad to see that they were accurate. While it’s great to look at what a fuel cell can do, current fuel cell vehicles don’t come close, as my example of the Honda FCX illustrates. If Li-ion was accomplishing what it can in the lab (>250 Wh/kg), BEV’s would already be out there.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Greg – “You will find the answer to your question in the eight long responses I have already posted”
I have read your posts an I cannot find a clear answer to the question I have posed. False appeals to authority (Honda, Toyota et) do not really cut it. I actually know the answer I just wanted to hear it from you.
Lets say you were responsible for designing the output amplifiers for the new iPod. For some inexplicable reason you want to use valves and not the compact and efficient solid state transistors that are present in the millions in the rest of the iPod. You think glowing valves are really nice and you are prepared to put up with the much lower efficiency because they look nice. Don’t get me wrong valves still have their place in niche markets like guitar amps however 99.9% of all amplifers in the world are now solid state transistors because solid state devices are more efficient, more compact, more reliable and the list goes on. I hope you will see the analogy. You propose that a chemical battery (valves) has enough advantages to justify its use in a car despite the fact that every single other devices in the car (computers, stereos etc) have changed to solid state wherever possible even down to the circuits that will control the chemical battery.
And yet in the eight long responses you have not articulated any reason or justification why a retrograde step like selecting a chemical system over a solid state system is justified. You have just basically said “Well Toyota, Honda and GM are doing it so it must be right”
So here is the answer that you are so shy of articulating. The reason that a FC would be chosen over a battery is that the FCV is seen in the corporate boardrooms as an acceptable substitute for present IC cars because adopting FCVs will cause minimum disruption to the car consumers driver experience and the present corporate world. For a driver of a FCV he/she will pull into a corporate filling station and fill up with corporate branded hydrogen and drive it around until it is empty and then fill it up again EXACTLY like he/she did with the IC car they used to own. In short the FCV is very attractive to present corporations like Toyota and Honda etc because there will be no scary changes that consumers will have to make. Car companies want to make the changeover as seamless as possible so that there will be no danger of customers being scared away with ‘different’ electric cars. In fact FCVs are NEVER advertised or promoted as being electric cars because car companies desperately want FCVs to be perceived by the general public as IC cars with a different green fuel.
For the oil companies that are presently running out of oil and therefore their own existence is threatened hydrogen can be branded and sold by these new green fuel companies preserving the huge supply chain intact. In fact the rollout of the H2 filling stations will be a bonanza of government grants and pork barrelling all in the name of corporate welfare.
So it is hardly a surprise that large car companies are pursuing the FCV so hard. The choice of a less efficient, less reliable and more complicated chemical battery (valves for an iPod) for our future electric cars becomes obvious when the reasons are explored. I just wish that you would be honest with yourself and really think about why such a path would be chosen.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
See my reply above.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:25 am
Greg,
The batteries that can do this are very new, but I have to admit that I’m confused as to why the car companies haven’t moved on this at all. Both A123 and Altair Nano batteries have these capabilities. I would have to guess that it has to do with the investment they have already made in hydrogen technology, though battery technology simply replaces the fuel cell and tanks with batteries. The controller, motor, and drivetrain are identical.
I realize you are a “marketplace is always right” type of guy, but just because the car companies are focusing their energies elsewhere doesn’t mean they necessarily have the best path. Look at the American auto companies; they’re all bordering on bankruptcy.
There real answer is that the battery materials required (lithium, cobalt) will likely stay expensive, even in high quantity production. This doesn’t preclude something like Firefly Energy from changing the cost equation, but come up with real answers, not business knows best.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Hi Greg,
Read the report by the guys from Tesla and please ask yourself why you seem to attached to fc-proponents, who have an array of possible motives for pursuing this route.
Not all of which connected with its inherent technical / efficiency /sustainability serving qualities.
Emil M
November 9th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Mjtimber,
Actually, though I have brought up the issue many times, I don’t think the marketplace is always right. The main point I wanted to make was that Toyota and Honda have been right in the past, so the path they are pursuing ought to get a lot of attention. But this point is almost totally ignored in discussions with battery advocates.
As I mentioned in a post above, GM is trying to have a plug-in that gets 40 miles by 2010 and Toyota and Honda are very skeptical about this. Toyota said they think a more realistic plug-in will eventually go 10-20 miles.
There is a huge difference between plug-in technology that will drive a car anywhere from 10-40 miles and technology that can go a couple of hundred miles and only take 10 minutes to charge. If the latter is viable, why aren’t the car companies buying it and announcing future cars will have this technology?
My guess is that the car companies have one or more problems with the technology: durability, safety, reliability, or economics. THIS DOESN’T MEAN THEY ARE RIGHT, but the car companies that have been right in the past like Toyota and Honda are not moving at all in this direction (a complete battery car with no ICE or fuel cell).
Fuel cell cars are actually a pain, because of the infrastructure issue. It would be much easier to make money off of plug-in cars, because they can work today and the car companies wouldn’t have to rely on the oil companies to build the hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
Why waste time with fuel cell cars unless there are benefits to the technology when you could sell and make money off of the battery cars today?
Toyota has made lots of money off of the Prius. Why wouldn’t they make money off of plug-in technology if they could? Why haven’t they attempted to just buy Tesla? They could do it easily. Again, it doesn’t mean they are right. But they have been right in the past and that gives them a lot of credibility.
I personally would be very surprised if an EEStor type of technology (a pure battery car that gets several hundred miles of range and can be charged up in just a few minutes) turns out to be viable.
But I do think that plug-in technology with a modest range will DEFINITELY be viable. And I think the reserve fuel in the cars with plug-in technology will be hydrogen produced from clean sources of electricity.
Just so I know where all of you stand, I’d like to ask this question:
Do you think batteries will be able to power large SUVs on their own (i.e. where they have at least a 300 mile driving range and can be charged up in a few minutes)?
November 9th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Ender,
I read your comment, but we just see things totally differently. It seems like you think the car companies are working with the oil companies in some conspiracy to help the oil companies.
Car companies could care less about the oil companies. If cars could run solely on batteries, they could sell them right now, make lots of money off of them, and cut out the oil companies. And even if this did happen, the oil companies would just get into the electricity business (like Shell and BP have already started to do with some wind and solar investments).
I can’t believe you are using the argument that battery cars are “different” and fuel cell cars aren’t. Give me a break! Fuel cell cars will require a HUGE infrastructure investment. And most people have no idea what a fuel cell is. Furthermore, nearly every person I tell about hydrogen cars who knows nothing about them first asks about their safety.
On the other hand, everybody knows what a battery is and most know somebody who owns a Prius. How many people have ever fueled a hydrogen car? Do you realize all of the codes and standards issues that hydrogen faces with the people who have no clue about it?
November 9th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Emil,
I tried to click on the Tesla link, but it just took me back to Tyler’s post. Could you post the website address?
Thanks,
Greg
November 9th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Emil,
You need a little background on Greg and Geoff. They ARE the fc-proponents. Greg is CEO of Hydrogen Discoveries, a group supporting development in the fuel cell business, while Geoff Holland is a media producer (perhaps consultant) for fuel cell technologies. Both have clear reason for supporting the technology, whether it works or not. I happen to believe that both feel that it works, and are not merely shills for those that pay their salaries. But no matter how much time we waste on convincing them otherwise, they have economic reasons to ignore our reasoning.
Greg,
Now, to waste my breath a little more. Your list of hydrogen myths has a significant problem on #4. First, you assume wind power at $0.04 per kWh. That might be fine for PRODUCERS of wind power, but CONSUMERS will pay more than that. Coal generates electricity at about $0.02 per kWh, but I don’t think anyone sees that on their utility bill; usually it is double that, at a minimum, for manufacturing rates. So your 50 kWh becomes $3.50/kg. Don’t forget the energy to compress the gas, either, which will add another 10 kWh, up to $4.20/kg. Fortunately for the cost, according to Honda’s own website, the FCX can’t go 2x as far as a hybrid on a gallon/kg (http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/FCX/operationalcapabilities/efficiency/), only adding about 30% to the tax rate, taking us to $4.85/kg. Now, add in the processing profit, storage, etc. and we tack another 50% on this, up to $7.30/kg. Now, gas is at about $3.30/gallon, so the hybrid costs $0.066 per mile. The FCX, at $7.30/kg and 62 miles/kg, costs about $0.118 per mile, almost 2x as much! Please tell me if I have gone astray in these calculations. As a comparison, an efficient, similarly sized battery electric vehicle will get about 200-250 Wh per mile, all charging inefficiencies included, or 4 miles per kWh. So at the $0.07 per kWh I used above (which is very generous for California, even for manufacturing rates), this works out to $0.018 per mile; since you can do this at home, no need to head to a filling station and pay an additional fee. Please don’t talk of additional infrastructure; most studies show over 200 million cars can charge at night, on the current power grid. In summation:
Fuel Cell: $0.118/mile
Hybrid: $0.066/mile
Battery: $0.018/mile
Additionally, your total is at 65 kWh for production of 1 kg, plus another 5 kWh or the associated industries, for about 1.1 kWh per mile, four times the electricity of a battery electric vehicle.
Doesn’t seem like a hard choice. For the fuel cell vehicle, it truly would become “somewhere else” emission, because it will be a long time before your myth #5 becomes fact. Right now, it’s just a dream. While there might be enough POTENTIAL renewable energy, actual renewable energy is not that common.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
You guys as just way too smart for me, but I’m enjoying the debate. Just an FYI: I wrote a story that appeared today about Ballard selling its fuel-cell unit. Interesting comment from John Sheridan, CEO of Ballard:
“It’s not throwing in the towel, but it is a dramatic shift for Ballard,” Sheridan told the Star, adding that the choice was to pursue the automotive market or focus on existing commercial opportunities around backup power, forklifts and home co-generation systems. “Do you hang in for 10 or 20 years and potentially have a crack at a very large market that never happens?”
Even Ballard isn’t so sure that after 10 or 20 years the fuel-cell market is going to happen. In my discussion with Sheridan, he raised the same issues that many of you have here which are beyond the control of company’s like Ballard: storage and delivery.
Greg, I can only say that even if the OEMs do overcome all the technical and cost issues related to the fuel cell, it has no control over the infrastructure portion.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Mjtimber,
I’ve used my real name and provided a link to my website from the beginning, so I’ve been very upfront about who I am. Actually, if batteries totally eliminate the need for fuel cells, it is in my economic interest to move on and do something else.
In regard to the cost of hydrogen, you failed to read that the distribution cost HAS been included.
For solid hydrogen, the $5.58 per kilogram includes transporting the fuel and spent fuel 500 miles by rail and also transporting it by truck to and from retail fueling stations.
For high pressure hydrogen, it would take 50 kilowatt hours of electricity with electrolysis instead of 85 kilowatt hours so this would make up for the compression costs. And the compression costs of 5000 psi are obviously lower if that turns out to be the standard. Furthermore, the distribution costs would be much, much lower with high-pressure hydrogen, because pipelines could be used instead of rail/trucks.
Therefore, the $4 to $6 per kilogram figure is accurate. Though, the method of storage and the distance from the source of electricity will affect where in this range the cost is.
Here is a quote from a recent USA today article about the Honda FCX:
“Hydrogen with the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline sells for $3 to $6. Because fuel-cell cars are much more efficient, the cost per mile is much less than with gasoline.”
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-05-10-honda-fuel-cell_N.htm
I even disagreed with the article in “The Hype Against Hydrogen” blog post and said that $3 was too low (it should be $4), because the taxes will have to be doubled due to getting twice as much range.
The problem with your battery comparison is that you are assuming that batteries can power cars for several hundred miles. Everything goes back to that point. If plug-ins only work for 10-40 miles, your point about efficiency is a non-issue because hydrogen fuel cell cars can use plug-in technology and the fuel cell would NEVER be competing against the battery.
I’ll say this…If you can run cars, large SUVs, etc. TOTALLY on batteries (meaning that they can get 300 miles in driving range and can be recharged in a few minutes), then you and EEStor are absolutely right.
Regarding your point about renewable energy not being built right now, that hurts plug-ins, too. I’m sure you don’t support coal, but 50% of the electricity in the U.S. is generated from coal right now. If plug-ins were used right now, more coal would be used. I hope your goal is to power future cars with a clean source of electricity.
Just so you know, my focus is on the 2011/2012 to 2020 time frame. I’m not even thinking about fuel cells before 2011. This means there is enough time to build the initial facilities (e.g. wind). Another shorter-term suggestion I have heard is to use the extra hydro power in Quebec to produce hydrogen.
Before 2011, I hope plug-in technology is really successful. Some of you seem to think I don’t feel this way even though I’ve said this several times. The ironic part is that plug-in technology (used in hydrogen fuel cell cars) would actually DECREASE the hydrogen infrastructure cost. I’m sure this isn’t something the anti-fuel cell crowd likes to think about.
I just doubt all of our cars, SUVs, etc. will be totally powered by batteries.
I’ll ask the question again, do you think batteries will power all cars, SUVs, etc. on their own?
When Toyota and Honda question GMs ability to have a plug-in that goes 40 miles, I hope you can understand my skepticism about a car going at least 300 miles on batteries (and being able to charge up in a few minutes).
And if this technology is viable, why aren’t the car companies just going this way. It would be MUCH easier than dealing with the infrastructure issue of hydrogen fuel cell cars.
Based on their actions, it seems pretty obvious that the car companies don’t share your view on batteries. They seem to view them as being able to realistically get anywhere from 10-40 miles and not 300.
Greg
November 9th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Well, maybe you’ve brought this up in you head or in other conversations, but my guess is that half your posts here use the “Toyota/Honda is doing it” excuse, rather than an actual explanation. I don’t think anyone is saying that battery technology is ready to roll off the shelf. But go to the Honda website and scroll through their FCX program. The advances since 2001 are not very significant. I would argue that, yes, they have sold fuel cells very well, but not to consumers (I couldn’t buy one if I wanted to). They’ve sold it to the government, who have funded the project since. That’s all fine and good, I just haven’t seen much advancement for our money spent.
Do I think batteries will power large SUVs? I don’t know, the power is certainly there and the rest of the drivetrain will be identical to a fuel cell vehicle, though I don’t know if the energy density will be high enough.
But I suppose I fall into the Ender camp. I think we are trying to solve a problem of energy supply, as well as prevent global warming, so it seems silly to replace one inefficient method of transportation with another. I think large SUVs will become too expensive to run for your average American, FC or ICE, now that we have hit peak conventional oil in May 2005 (and peak natural gas will likely occur by 2010). We need less energy intensive means of transportation, such as electric trains and buses and, hopefully, battery electric cars. I think the time and energy spent on FC vehicles is only a holding pattern. Perhaps it diversifies our energy supply, but I’m not sure that should be our goal.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Tyler,
(Quick note: Thanks for hosting the debate!)
It’s a shame Ballard couldn’t hold out long enough since they have made such a contribution in this area. But I agree they would sell virtually no fuel cells for cars before 2011 (only those used for demonstration projects). Four years is a long time (and the real big sales won’t come until a couple of years after that), especially when you don’t have the funding coming in from other areas to support it. The car companies can deal with this problem, because they are selling cars now. But Ballard can’t.
I covered the infrastructure and storage issues at the end of “The Hype Against Hydrogen” blog post:
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/the-hype-against-hydrogen-setting-the-record-straight-on-six-hydrogen-myths-perpetuated-by-joseph-romm/
The infrastructure will cost a tremendous amount of money, but take a look at the list of costs that we will have if no action is taken. They are much, much higher. The money ALREADY spent on the Iraq War could have financed half of the entire hydrogen infrastructure (assuming that total will be $1 trillion, others say it will be less).
The storage issue is SO important. Will 10,000 psi hydrogen, 5000 psi hydrogen, or a solid hydrogen become the standard? Some people in the hydrogen community think that 5000 or 10,000 psi hydrogen tanks have already solved the problem (in cars, light trucks, and SUVs, not 18-wheelers). Others think 5000 psi hydrogen won’t get the necessary driving range and 10,000 psi is too dangerous. Solid hydrogen fueling systems have the potential to provide longer driving ranges and much lower hydrogen pressures, but they are obviously going to be more complicated than simply pumping hydrogen gas into tanks.
Regarding the delivery issue, I’m very confident that Hydrogen Discoveries has solved this with our polymer/metal pipeline technology. Though, we’ll have to look back on this in a few years to see if I am right.
I agree that the car companies don’t have control over the infrastructure issue. But I think the oil companies are going to be forced into this area. Just think, it has only taken a couple of years for the price of oil to double. What if peak oil, increasing demand from China and India, problems with Iran, etc. cause oil to double again in a few years? What if people really start to demand action on global warming? In the last 2-3 years, awareness of global warming has gone mainstream. If that momentum continues over the next 2-3 years and oil prices are much higher, don’t you think the oil companies are going to begin to move much more aggressively into the next energy model?
By that time, solar, wind, fuel cells, etc. will be that much more developed. From my point of view (and maybe I’m wrong), it’s pretty clear where things are going.
My point is that hydrogen is the only viable long-term solution (KEY POINT: NOT the next 3-4 years) unless the car companies are way off in their view of batteries (that they won’t be able to power vehicles ON THEIR OWN).
Just look at what Toyota and Honda are doing with fuel cells and what they are doing with batteries. Some will say they are wrong or that there is a conspiracy there, but considering their track record you would think what they are doing would get MUCH more coverage. However, it doesn’t.
Greg
November 9th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Fuel cells (I’m guessing batteries are the same way) have made tremendous technical advances since 2001. But you’re right that you can’t go buy one now (and there aren’t a lot of plug-in vehicles out there either). My focus is beginning in 3-4 years.
In all fairness, I’ve written a tremendous amount of material during this debate and it’s much more than “Toyota and Honda are doing it.”
I think where we see things differently is the extent to which batteries are viable. I think they are more in the 10-40 mile range. It seems like you think that they are in the several hundred mile range.
As I mentioned, you are right about the efficiency argument if batteries can realistically power vehicles as much as you think they can. If not, the argument turns to fuel cell vehicles with hydrogen versus ICEs with gasoline and/or ethanol. The reason is that plug-in technology can be used in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles which cancels out the efficiency issue during those miles travelled.
The bottom line is that we disagree on the extent to which batteries are going to be viable. Only time will tell who turns out to be right.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Hi Greg,
Ok, sorry: http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/21stCentElectricCar.pdf
Regards,
Emil M
November 9th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
And I was very clear in saying I have no problem with you doing what you do. I was informing someone who was not aware of that fact. I do prefer your method to Geoff’s, who both here and on the Energy Blog site accuses others of having an agenda while not disclosing his own background.
Now, you didn’t really go through my explanation point by point, so I’m assuming you didn’t examine it too closely. Fine. I was using your numbers on the amount of electricity but disputing your cost analysis (wind will not, on the market, cost 3.5-4 cents per kWh). Please dispute these numbers. I’m willing to admit if I’m wrong, but I say your electricity cost is 1/2 what it should be. This calculation was for compressed, not solid, hydrogen, and I’m probably off if the 50 kWh includes energy used to compress hydrogen, though only by about 70 cents.
As for the batteries, I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, these are very new technologies. The fuel cells have advanced very little in the past ten years, while the past 1 1/2 – 2 years have seen rapid change in battery technology. The car companies also have ~1000 fuel cell engineers on staff, and ~0 battery engineers. Consequently, these new technologies don’t buy them much, as all the profit will go elsewhere (A123, Altair Nano, Firefly, etc.). I wouldn’t want to start over on a $1 billion dollar investment either, especially with battery technology that is fairly new and unproven. It’s just that the end game for battery technology is so much higher. By the way, if you read the most recent EEStor post, I don’t hold out much hope for this, either.
In all honesty, I have difficulty understanding Toyota and Honda’s skepticism: a 40 mile range is only about 10 kWh of batteries, which is ~220 lbs with current technology at 100 Wh/kg taking up about 2 cubic feet. Not really an earth shattering amount of weight or volume. When/if Firefly is released (and if it meets projections), I will likely build my own electric car if the auto companies don’t provide what I’m looking for. Try doing that with a fuel cell.
November 9th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Emil,
I got an error message when I clicked on this link a couple of times. I’m not sure if I’m doing something wrong or if there is a problem with the link. But I’ll go to the Tesla website and see if I can find the paper.
Greg
November 9th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Mjtimber,
(I’m going to dump a lot of information on you, but please bear with me.)
I have never said that you will have wind power delivered to your home or business for 3.5 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour. My calculations have always separated out the distribution costs. I’ll say it again: This figure only covers the cost to produce the hydrogen and nothing else.
The cost of electricity (assuming gaseous hydrogen at 5000 or 10,000 psi and NOT including compression costs) is on Myth #4 of “The Hype Against Hydrogen” which as I mentioned before can be found at:
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/the-hype-against-hydrogen-setting-the-record-straight-on-six-hydrogen-myths-perpetuated-by-joseph-romm/
In the third paragraph, it says:
“GE Wind says on their website that electricity generated from wind power costs “approximately 3.5 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour and declining.” Therefore, the energy needed to produce one kilogram of hydrogen with wind power would cost about $1.75 to $2.00.”
Here is the cost breakdown for a solid form of hydrogen called magnesium hydride (as mentioned below, please note that solid hydrogen is a little more expensive than gaseous hydrogen at 5000 or 10,000 psi, mostly due to the electricity requirements going from 50 to 85 kilowatt hours).
Here is a breakdown of all of the costs:
Electricity (85 kilowatt hours) – $2.98
Magnesium hydride recycling plants – $0.43
Transporting the fuel and spent fuel – $0.47 (Mjtimber – THIS AND THE COST OF THE RETAIL FUELING STATIONS BELOW IS THE DISTRIBUTION COST)
Retail fueling stations – $0.37
Initial inventory of magnesium – $0.14
5% loss of hydrogen fuel – $0.28
Taxes – $0.91 (Note that this is double the average of what we pay now in taxes in order to make up for the efficiency of fuel cells so the cost per-mile is the same)
Total – $5.58 per kilogram of hydrogen
Please note that the economics of solid hydrogen and high-pressure hydrogen are different. You will notice that the number of kilowatt hours for solid hydrogen is 85 instead of 50. It takes more energy to recycle the solid hydrogen than it does to produce one kilogram of hydrogen from electrolysis.
Therefore, the extra 35 kilowatt hours translate to $1.23 more at 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Moreover, the amount to transport the fuel and spent fuel by rail and truck that is listed above for solid hydrogen would obviously be a lot higher than transporting gaseous hydrogen through pipelines. And the 5% loss of hydrogen fuel would not apply to gaseous hydrogen.
On the other hand, the compression costs would offset some of these savings. But 5000 and even 10,000 psi hydrogen would still be less expensive than magnesium hydride. Therefore, to be very general, it is best to say that a kilogram of hydrogen would cost $4 to $6 depending on how it is stored and how close the retail fueling station is to the source of the electricity.
I know I’ve thrown a lot of information out there and it is probably confusing, so let me know if you have any questions.
You’re right that fuel cells won’t be built by individuals. And I honestly hope you end up building your own electric car. I think it’s a great idea.
It will be interesting to see if the new battery technology turns out to be as good as advertised. But as I mentioned before, any of the major car companies could attempt to buy up any of these companies if they wanted. As far as I know, that hasn’t happened. And I seriously doubt they would all continue to invest in an inferior technology instead of buying a better technology just because they had more money invested in the inferior technology. That would be a horrible business move and I’ve never seen Toyota make one of those.
One question: What is the charging time claimed to be on the new batteries? I saw that you mentioned that you aren’t holding out much for the EEStor technology. How do these other batteries compare? I think I saw on Tesla’s website that it the full charging time for 250 (or 200?) miles of driving range is 3 1/2 hours. Are the new batteries supposed to be about the same as this? Or better?
November 10th, 2007 at 2:15 am
Greg – “I read your comment, but we just see things totally differently. It seems like you think the car companies are working with the oil companies in some conspiracy to help the oil companies. ”
On the contrary I do not think that there is any conspiracy at all. It is simply corporations choosing paths that ensure their own existence. The fact that it is against the more efficient and faster path is irrelevant.
“If cars could run solely on batteries, they could sell them right now, make lots of money off of them, and cut out the oil companies.”
Cars can run solely off batteries – have you not heard of the Tesla? So you think huge corporations that have setup a core business of oil can suddenly and easily switch to something else in an eyeblink. One of the commonest causes of corporation failure is when they move outside their knowledge base.
“I can’t believe you are using the argument that battery cars are “different” and fuel cell cars aren’t. Give me a break! Fuel cell cars will require a HUGE infrastructure investment. And most people have no idea what a fuel cell is.”
Which is EXACTLY my point. Joe Public has no idea what a fuel cell car is or a BEV. However one he fills up at the fuel station down the road just like the car he used to own and one he plugs in at home to an electricity outlet. For the average consumer the car that he fills up will be far more familiar and easier to sell. It is exactly this ignorance that car companies are selling to.
“Furthermore, nearly every person I tell about hydrogen cars who knows nothing about them first asks about their safety.”
Yes because hydrogen equals Hindenburg. And everybody knows you recharge a battery from the wall socket so this is not a surprise. Everyone I talk to equates electric cars with golf buggies and gets a shock when I show them the Tesla and the tzero.
“How many people have ever fueled a hydrogen car?”
Virtually no-body however, everyone has fuelled an IC car and thousands of people have fuelled an LPG car. The experience of filling a fuel cell car will be made to exactly mimic an LPG car which thousands of people here in Australia do every day.
“Fuel cell cars will require a HUGE infrastructure investment”
Yes all the more reason not to do it and use the one already in place. You still have not given one reason that we should make this huge investment of taxpayers money.
I really would like you to list in a single post the advantages of FCVs that you feel justify making this investment. It should not be hard as the reasons must be overwhelming.
So can you do that or repost where you have said because I cannot find it.
November 10th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
The advantage of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles over vehicles ONLY powered by batteries is that they will be able to meet customer requirements of cars, light trucks, and SUVs safely getting at least 300 miles of travel range and being fueled in minutes.
If I read it correctly, Tesla says that their car (which is quite small) will now be able to get a little over 200 miles of driving range and will take 3 ½ hours to fully charge. And there are serious safety concerns with these vehicles (though I know battery proponents will say this isn’t an issue).
(Keep in mind that Toyota has delayed their next generation Prius by one or two years because of safety issues with the batteries. See this Wall Street Journal article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118659859395791929.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
And those batteries will only drive the Prius a very short distance – not 200 miles! I’m sure the battery advocates will say other batteries are better. If that is true, why isn’t Toyota using them in the Prius?)
Do you really think customers will accept this? Is somebody who takes a 400 mile trip going to accept waiting for 3 ½ hours to finish the last half? Furthermore, what would the driving range and charging time be for an SUV totally run on batteries?
On the other hand, the Honda FCX has gotten a 270 mile range with 5000 psi hydrogen and the Toyota FCHV has gotten 480 miles of driving range with 10,000 psi hydrogen. Both will improve as fuel cells become more efficient. Please note that these vehicles are much larger than the Tesla.
And the fueling time is in minutes for hydrogen. Assuming customers accept them as safe enough (there are obviously varying opinions on what is safe), hydrogen meets all three requirements.
On another note, you are saying that car companies want to keep the current method of fueling so customers aren’t uncomfortable with something new. If that is true, why are Honda and GM developing home hydrogen fueling stations? Do you have a response to this?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2006-09-24-gm-hydrogen-usat_x.htm
November 10th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Greg – “The advantage of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles over vehicles ONLY powered by batteries is that they will be able to meet customer requirements of cars, light trucks, and SUVs safely getting at least 300 miles of travel range and being fueled in minutes.”
So basically you are agreeing with me and the sole advantage of the FCV is that it meets current customer expectations. This is at the expense of efficiency and complexity.
“If I read it correctly, Tesla says that their car (which is quite small) will now be able to get a little over 200 miles of driving range and will take 3 ½ hours to fully charge.”
If you look a little deeper the Tesla uses the previous generation of Lithium batteries not the ones from AltairNano and A123. These batteries will charge in minutes. They are also much safer that the present generation of batteries.
“And those batteries will only drive the Prius a very short distance – not 200 miles! I’m sure the battery advocates will say other batteries are better. If that is true, why isn’t Toyota using them in the Prius?)”
I don’t know but GM is using them in the Volt.
“Do you really think customers will accept this? Is somebody who takes a 400 mile trip going to accept waiting for 3 ½ hours to finish the last half? Furthermore, what would the driving range and charging time be for an SUV totally run on batteries?”
Quite apart from the sad fact that 85% of car journeys are under 100km to avoid the problems that we find ourselves in I am afraid that yes we do need to change. The main problem that I have with FCVs is that it is a desperate attempt to preserve the status-quo when it is obvious to anyone that changes need to be made. We are pandering to people who drive huge SUVs in West Perth (an expensive city suburb) when the reality is that there are very few to see in Kalgoorlie (an ouback gold mining town).
A future electric car with AltairNano batteries will be able to have at least a 500km range and recharge this within 10 to 30 minutes. Now a 10 or 30 minute stop every 500km is exactly what most authorities recommend as sensible to avoid driver fatique. Driving an electric car could be safer.
“On the other hand, the Honda FCX has gotten a 270 mile range with 5000 psi hydrogen and the Toyota FCHV has gotten 480 miles of driving range with 10,000 psi hydrogen. Both will improve as fuel cells become more efficient. Please note that these vehicles are much larger than the Tesla.”
However it is quite likely that such long range cars will have range extenders. Right now PHEVs with IC engines could easily be getting this range and ease of use. BEVs will have a niche as short range commuters that will easily do the 85% of driving that most people do. When fuel cells are ready they can take the place of the IC engines in PHEVs.
What you are proposing is not to make any changes just try to substitute a car that matches current cars even thought it has much lower efficiency.
“And the fueling time is in minutes for hydrogen. Assuming customers accept them as safe enough (there are obviously varying opinions on what is safe), hydrogen meets all three requirements.”
As do the new batteries. It is not a given how long a FCV will take to take to refuel. If you want quick refuelling then the filling station will have to keep 10000 psi tanks ready to fuel. Compressing the gas on the fly will take quite a long time and not be much quicker than the charging the new batteries.
“On another note, you are saying that car companies want to keep the current method of fueling so customers aren’t uncomfortable with something new. If that is true, why are Honda and GM developing home hydrogen fueling stations? Do you have a response to this?
And how much do they cost? And what do they use – natural gas perhaps? If it is home hydrolysers then they will be using 3 times the amount of energy to produce hydrogen and fuel the car that it would be if they were just charging batteries. This will put an even greater load on the electricity grid than BEVs would. I expect home hydrogen fuelling stations to be an expensive option that few people will take up and will quickly die. Whereas most electric cars have built in battery chargers. I would be more impressed if Honda and GM were offering FCVs with built in refuelling stations. Somehow I don’t think that will happen.
The conclusion to all this is that you are promoting a future transport system that is less efficient, require an admitted huge infrastructure investment and is more complex against the current trend to solid state simply to preserve a flawed customer experience that you also have admitted.
The present IC car is only possible because of the huge EROI of fossil fuels. To attempt to replace this with a system that has a much lower EROI with no changes is an invitation to disaster. The system is stretched enough without having to fuel FCVs that the sole reason for their existence is our expectations that we should be able to drive any car, anywhere we want, anytime, and damn the environment.
November 14th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Many of the comments I’ve read on this post are out dated. Please do some research before you post outdated comments such as ” hydrogen comes from fossil fuels.” and ” There is no infrastructure “. Hello! It seem everyone is an expert in regurgitating 10 year old news clippings. Try searching “hydrogen generation with titanium oxide” for an example of other ways to generate it.
More important, though, is this push for battery powered vehicles. Batteries don’t last forever. Batteries are toxic. Batteries give false readings halfway through their life cycle. Doesn’t anyone out their have any experience with leaving home with a fully charge cellphone only to have it register half-full by mid day? I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict the replacement for the battery in the Tesla Roadster and Wrightspeed X1 is going to be $50K. Now don’t get me wrong. I love the Tesla Roadster. I’d love to see these vehicles powered buy induction (VW’s factory in Germany uses it. We run powercables all over the place already anyway. How about under the roads in our cities for starters?
January 15th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I see some negative assumptions about hydrogen here. I believe hydrogen is the right way to go. I would like to provide some cut-and-paste of some well-known postings of others, on the internet, which counter some of the points against H2:
“Hydrogen beats batteries, biofuel and all other vehicle power solutions:
A. Hydrogen can be made at home and requires NO NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. Anybody who says it can’t be made at home or work is either a shill or completely out of touch with reality and technology. You can make it for free, at home, all day long and all night long. The production can be powered by solar, wind, microbes and other free sources. The volume of H2 produced “IS” enough to charge solid state H2 containers. The metrics quoted by the anti-hydrogen crowd are just lies to protect their competing business interests.
B. It now costs less to make hydrogen from water than any known way to make gasoline and it continues to get cheaper every month: The GE Noryl system, The R4 processor and over a hundred different systems can do this NOW; with many more expected next year. The “battery shill” spin has worn thin and has been supplanted by facts. Hydrogen is made from WATER via solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio waves, sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy. Hydrogen can also be made from any organic garbage, waste, plants or ANYTHING organic via lasers, plasma beams or dozens of other powered exotics which can be run off of EITHER the grid or the free hydrogen made from solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio waves, sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy OR the grid. There is no oil that needs to be involved anywhere in the production of hydrogen. These systems trickle charge hydrogen into storage containers, either tanks or solid state cassettes, 24/7.
C. Tens of millions of dollars are being spent by battery companies like A123, Cobasys, AltairNano, etc. in order to discredit hydrogen because hydrogen works better than batteries. A large number of “pundits” who act as “writers”, “bloggers”, “authors” and “non-profit evangelist group founders” are actually supported by financial gain from battery companies who are terrified of hydrogen displacing their revenue streams. They include:
Ulf Bossel of the European Fuel Cell Forum,
Alec Brooks
James Woolsey
EV World
Sam Thurber
Cal Cars
Felix Kramer
Lets go over the battery and bio-fuel shills lies:
Lie # 1:
“But critics say the process of producing hydrogen requires three to four times more energy than the hydrogen later generates in the fuel cell.”
RESPONSE: This is data from the 60’s. It is now more efficient to make hydrogen than it is to make gasoline, build or use batteries or process bio-fuel. The technology has beat everything else.
Lie # 2:
“the cars are too expensive.”
RESPONSE: The production of hydrogen cars is at an early stage while battery cars have been around for almost a hundred years and the battery cars are still expensive for what you get. The Moore’s law on hydrogen cars shows a clear price decline to low cost in market volume. A Fuel Cell car that goes 500 miles without a charge costs half as much TODAY as a battery car that goes 500 miles without a charge.
Lie #3:
“ hydrogen molecules can’t be contained easily without energy-consuming compressors or maintaining them in liquid form at extremely low temperatures , and it’s extremely difficult to store,”
RESPONSE: This data is also from the 60’s. Hydrogen is stored in chemical powders and muds that easily contain vast amounts of hydrogen. Pressure and liquid tanks to store hydrogen are old school archaic technologies. Hydrogen can be easily stored in over 2800 different solid state compounds.
Lie #4:
“The infrastructure isn’t there”
RESPONSE: Solid state hydrogen can be shipped by UPS, Common Carrier and uses all existing infrastructure. DOPT has already licensed and approved such solid state delivery via common EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE. This method can reavch every person on earth TODAY! This requires almost NO NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. NO INFRASTRUCTURE IS NEEDED!!! This is the biggest lie of all. A large number of start-ups have solid state hydrogen solutions that entirely use existing infrastructure.
Lie #5:
“the hydrogen is too expensive”
RESPONSE: Hydrogen can be made at home or office in numerous ways powered by solar or wind or microbes or any number of free power sources. It is always being made by such devices and constantly trickle charged into solid state storage systems all day and night FOR FREE without grid power. Hydrogen processors now make hydrogen with 91% efficiency.
Lie #6:
“Hydrogen is too dangerous”
RESPONSE: If the gasoline in your car blows up it will do a VAST AMOUNT more death and damage than H2 ever will. You are driving a MOLOTOV COCKTAIL. H2 on fire rapidly dissipates up an into the air. Gasoline flows all over people, cars and streets and covers all of the above with flaming death you can’t easily extinguish. In 2030 oil is GONE and there is NO OTHER OPTION that can be delivered world-wide in time but H2! Biofuel only solves 2% of the problem. Batteries have failed. Nuclear is too dangerous.
Lie #7:
“We have enough gasoline to last forever”
RESPONSE: Gasoline/petroleum/petrochemicals have now been shown to be the number one cause of cancer, and maybe the primary cause of cancer, in the world. Besides causing global warming, lung disease and all of the other bad things that it does; the oil industry itself knows that affordable oil is gone around the year 2030. Even if it wasn’t, do you really want the ROOT CAUSE OF CANCER around one day longer than it needs to be? (See the EPA report “EPA/600/S-6-87/001 Sept. 1987” as one of over 16,000 studies validating this.)
A “fuel cell car” and an “electric car” ARE THE SAME THING. The shills want you to think otherwise. The only difference is where the electricity is stored. You can pull the batteries out of every Zenn, Tesla, Zap, EV1, Venture Vehicle, etc. and pop a fuel cell/hydrogen pack in the same hole and go further, more efficiently in EVERY SINGLE CASE.
A modern fuel cell and hydrogen system beats batteries on every front including
FIRE- Batteries catch on fire constantly and have been the result of massively more fires and explosions than hydrogen.
Life Span- Hydrogen power systems run massively longer and provide massively greater range per charge than batteries.
Run Time – The run time of batteries constantly shortens while hydrogen does not.
Memory Effect- This effect is not present in hydrogen systems
Recharge Time- modern hydrogen systems are instant recharge.
Charge life- Modern hydrogen systems can recharge massively longer than batteries before end of life.
Nano powder batteries have cancer causing powder that falls into the pores of the Chinese factory workers skin and gives them potentially fatal diseases
Cost- The cost per 300 mile range for a hydrogen car system is massively lower than a battery system. A hydrogen powered car TODAY that will drive 300 miles without a refill is 50% of the price of a battery car that will drive 300 miles without a refill.
Energy from “sour-grid”- A modern hydrogen system can be charged from a completely clean home energy system.
Can’t make energy at home- Hydrogen can be made at home. Batteries cannot.
Storage Density – Modern hydrogen technology has a massively higher storage density than batteries.
Bulky Size- Hydrogen systems are dramatically less bulky than batteries.
High Weight- The weight of batteries is so great ir reduces the reange of travel of a vehicle which causes the use of wasteful energy just to haul the batteries along with the car. Hydrogen energy systems weigh far less.
Environmental soundness- The disposal of batteries after use presents a deadly environmental issue.
Self Discharge issues- Hydrogen does not self discharge like batteries.
Batteries cause a greater carbon footprint than hydrogen
Battery shills are mostly paid for by military contractors.
The charge-keeping capability of a typical lithium-ion battery degrades steadily over time and with use. After only one or two years of use, the runtime of a laptop or cell phone battery is reduced to the point where the user experience is significantly impacted. For example, the runtime of a typical 4-hour laptop battery drops to only about 2.5 hours after 3,000 hours of use. By contrast, the latest fuel cells continue to deliver nearly their original levels of runtime well past the 2,000 and 3,000 hour marks and are still going strong at 5,000+ hours
The electrical capacity of batteries has not kept up with the increasing power consumption of electronic devices. Features such as W-LAN, higher CPU speed, “always-on”, large and bright displays and many others are important for the user but severely limited by today`s battery life. Lithium ion batteries, and lithium-polymer batteries have almost reached fundamental limits. A laptop playing a DVD today has a runtime of just above one hour on one battery pack, which is clearly not acceptable.
Batteries require coal be burned to charge them. One pound of coal has roughly 14,000 Btu of chemical energy in it. Any reference textbook says that. When that pound is burned in an electric powerplant, steam is made, which drives turbines at high speed, alternators are turned, and electricity is made. When everything operates well, all that turns out to be generally around 30% efficient, meaning that 30% of the chemical energy that started out in the coal has become actual electricity.