-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Top arguments concerning fuel cell vehicles?
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
It seems to me this thread as gotten off target. AudubonB asked for reasons supporting FCV's. Not surprisingly it turned into reasons why the world of FCV's are a bad idea. So AudubonB here is a link to Toyota's site.
And just because I posted this link doesn't mean I agree with it:wink:
"The fuel cell vehicle (FCV) is the nearest thing yet to an "ultimate eco-car" that offers solutions to energy and emissions issues"
http://www.toyota-global.com/innovation/environmental_technology/fuelcell_vehicle/.
bluefuego
Member
Thank you for starting this thread. I encountered someone at the BMW i3 test drive event yesterday who asked me why we don't have hydrogen/fuel cell vehicles here in the states (nevermind the fact that he also thought that Hydrogen had taken off in Europe and was literally all around us). I could only respond with "well, it's nice to finally have alternatives". I look forward to learning more here.
Hey! I'm the thread starter and I'll decide whether....
just kidding. In all seriousness, it's utterly critical to understand as fully as possible all the positives and negatives of this technique or that technology. If you're not fluent in those basics, then you can't effectively decide for yourself which alternative is the one you believe to be superior, and you'll most certainly make a fool of yourself if your arguing your side against someone who chooses the other...and knows more than you.
just kidding. In all seriousness, it's utterly critical to understand as fully as possible all the positives and negatives of this technique or that technology. If you're not fluent in those basics, then you can't effectively decide for yourself which alternative is the one you believe to be superior, and you'll most certainly make a fool of yourself if your arguing your side against someone who chooses the other...and knows more than you.
bluefuego
Member
my favorite article to dispel the myth that hydrogen can take us anywhere:
Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense
This image from the linked article illustrates how hydrogen as an energy carrier is 3 times less efficient than electricity.
Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense
This image from the linked article illustrates how hydrogen as an energy carrier is 3 times less efficient than electricity.
Last edited:
Using clean energy to electrolyze water into Hydrogen is too expensive, so Hydrogen is made from natural gas. However, it's less efficient to strip the Carbon out of natural gas and put that through a fuel cell than it is to just burn natural gas in your engine. Natural gas is easier to store and transport than Hydrogen, so why would you complicate things by using an intermediary fuel? If fuel cells can be made super-efficient, you'd still be better off using a natural gas fuel cell in your car over a Hydrogen fuel cell.
In today's world, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are usually LESS efficient than equivalent gasoline engines.
Today's electric grid and batteries are very efficient and getting better, so it's hard to conceive of anything that could make more efficient use of electricity than a battery.
If your source of energy is natural gas, a natural gas vehicle (either combustion or fuel cell) is better than a Hydrogen vehicle.
If your source of energy is something that generates electricity, batteries are much more efficient than Hydrogen.
The limited range and slow fueling are currently [no pun intended] drawbacks to batteries, however. You could bet that fuel cell technology will improve and be better than gasoline, but you might equally bet that BEV range and charge speed will improve. (I'm using the term "battery" to include any efficient storage of electrical energy in the car.)
Folks that say that companies should "leapfrog" BEVs to get to Hydrogen vehicles are mistaking the ideal. BEVs are as efficient as you can get in the foreseeable future (until, say, your "Mr. Fusion" takes banana peels). Hydrogen is only useful while BEV charging is slow. Once there are BEVs that can charge or swap out a 100 kWh battery in 5 minutes, Hydrogen will be obsolete, so Hydrogen is at best an interim solution.
Hydrogen only makes sense if:
1) A cheap clean source of Hydrogen (e.g., artificial photosynthesis) is available (otherwise, just build a natural gas vehicle).
2) Losses in Hydrogen systems can be cut substantially before BEV charge/swap times can be cut substantially.
Incidentally, Robert.Boston, the cost of pressurizing Hydrogen is noticeable, but really isn't that bad. I think it's "only" about 10% of your energy is lost to compression, which is on par with a battery. The problem is that it's one more piece in a litany of places where Hydrogen has losses.
In today's world, Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are usually LESS efficient than equivalent gasoline engines.
Today's electric grid and batteries are very efficient and getting better, so it's hard to conceive of anything that could make more efficient use of electricity than a battery.
If your source of energy is natural gas, a natural gas vehicle (either combustion or fuel cell) is better than a Hydrogen vehicle.
If your source of energy is something that generates electricity, batteries are much more efficient than Hydrogen.
The limited range and slow fueling are currently [no pun intended] drawbacks to batteries, however. You could bet that fuel cell technology will improve and be better than gasoline, but you might equally bet that BEV range and charge speed will improve. (I'm using the term "battery" to include any efficient storage of electrical energy in the car.)
Folks that say that companies should "leapfrog" BEVs to get to Hydrogen vehicles are mistaking the ideal. BEVs are as efficient as you can get in the foreseeable future (until, say, your "Mr. Fusion" takes banana peels). Hydrogen is only useful while BEV charging is slow. Once there are BEVs that can charge or swap out a 100 kWh battery in 5 minutes, Hydrogen will be obsolete, so Hydrogen is at best an interim solution.
Hydrogen only makes sense if:
1) A cheap clean source of Hydrogen (e.g., artificial photosynthesis) is available (otherwise, just build a natural gas vehicle).
2) Losses in Hydrogen systems can be cut substantially before BEV charge/swap times can be cut substantially.
Incidentally, Robert.Boston, the cost of pressurizing Hydrogen is noticeable, but really isn't that bad. I think it's "only" about 10% of your energy is lost to compression, which is on par with a battery. The problem is that it's one more piece in a litany of places where Hydrogen has losses.
It's the sheer number of conversion steps with hydrogen in comparison to electricity that kills efficiency. Switching to natural gas as the hydrogen source, I ran the numbers in a similar way and compared it to solar. Hydrogen still loses out.
A Civic CNG gets 31 MPGe combined according to US EPA. Using 33.6kWh/gal equivalent, you get 0.923mi/kWh. So for the same 100kWh equivalent natural gas input, the Civic can go 92 miles. CNG compression also takes some energy, but probably less than compressing H2. Applying 95% efficiency still gives you 87 miles from the same natural gas that would only take you 80 miles in a FCEV using reformed natural gas. The Civic CNG also starts at about $26,000.
Fuel Cell Technologies Office: Accomplishments and Progress
Toyota insists that HFCV can be a more efficient use of NG than BEV. I'm not actually sure where they think the reformation would happen, though.
The DoE is suggesting that it's at a $55/kW price for fuel cells at high volume, and reasonable durability (10% performance drop after 75k miles). (The statements do not necessarily go together).. 100kW is 134hp. So, a lot of progress has been made, but HFCV has to deal with all the hydrogen chain issues, from production to tank, which means the fuel cell will need to come down in price further to compete with all the alternatives.
Toyota insists that HFCV can be a more efficient use of NG than BEV. I'm not actually sure where they think the reformation would happen, though.
The DoE is suggesting that it's at a $55/kW price for fuel cells at high volume, and reasonable durability (10% performance drop after 75k miles). (The statements do not necessarily go together).. 100kW is 134hp. So, a lot of progress has been made, but HFCV has to deal with all the hydrogen chain issues, from production to tank, which means the fuel cell will need to come down in price further to compete with all the alternatives.
If the FCV reforms NG, then it's still not emissions-free. BEVs are as clean as the grid, and we can make the grid very close to 100% carbon-free.
That simply doesn't make sense:
Getting from a electricity at a power plant to electricity at your car's motor using the grid is pretty efficient. 77% according to VolkerP.
Compression of Hydrogen will sap 10% no matter what (that's physics), and it's hard to see transfer getting much better than VolkerP's 80%, so that's 72% efficiency even if your fuel cell is 100% efficient compared to today's 50%.
Of course, power plants aren't perfectly efficient at converting natural gas to electricity, so you might say that we need to look there, but I claim we really don't:
Natural gas -> Hydrogen -> mobile fuel cell -> electricity
will never be more efficient than
Natural gas -> electricity at a large, stationary power plant.
If fuel cells ever achieve the theoretical maximum of 83% (according to wikipedia), then it will be the industrial-sized power plants that can achieve it, not the ones in your mobile $40k vehicle. and that will be without the steam reformation.
So even if they can beat physics and steam reform natural gas into Hydrogen with 100% efficiency AND they can beat physics and construct a 100% efficient fuel cell, a HFCV is still 72% efficient getting electricity to a motor compared to a BEV's 77%.
Saying that a HFCV can be more efficient is laughable.
Another key point, @derekt75: there's no reason that electricity needs to be made with natural gas. As we put more renewable sources on the grid, EVs become even cleaner but HFCVs that rely on direct NG reformation will always be stuck on fossil fuels.
My personal opinion - EV's work from a business perspective because they get to use power generation and distribution infrastructure that's already in place. Once we get affordable 400 mile battery packs, all people need to do is add charging circuits at home and install more Superchargers and we're done. This is pretty cheap.
Unless you can ship the fuel to existing stores using existing trucks and sell the fuel (or fuel cells) using existing equipment (possibly with low-cost modifications), spinning up the power distribution infrastructure is going to cost big $$. No business in their right mind can justify that investment. So it's not going to happen unless it's mostly funded by the government. But the government cannot and should not do that unless it becomes clear that affordable 400 mile battery packs are impossible or the alternative fuel is incredibly compelling from an efficiency or environmental standpoint.
Hydrogen, fuel cells and natural gas are all good but not that good.
Unless you can ship the fuel to existing stores using existing trucks and sell the fuel (or fuel cells) using existing equipment (possibly with low-cost modifications), spinning up the power distribution infrastructure is going to cost big $$. No business in their right mind can justify that investment. So it's not going to happen unless it's mostly funded by the government. But the government cannot and should not do that unless it becomes clear that affordable 400 mile battery packs are impossible or the alternative fuel is incredibly compelling from an efficiency or environmental standpoint.
Hydrogen, fuel cells and natural gas are all good but not that good.
The infrastructure issue is probably the killer app for EVs over FCV. But there's more than a bit of arm waving in the arguments I read here about efficiency. According to USEIA the sources of electricity in the US are:
There isn't an absolute winning argument for any transportable fuel. They are all fundamentally and inescapably inefficient. But guess what--so is gasoline. So is even diesel.
If the climate scientists are right (and I believe they are) then we have limited time to get our ducks in a row. Assuming the unlikely scenario that politicians will get their heads out of their asses (a terrible assumption) the issues will not be which approach is the most efficient, but which approach can be executed to lower the carbon profile for people in the wealthy world--and eventually the whole world. EV's have a huge infrastructure advantage--even better than ICV's. You don't have to go anywhere to fuel up. And with a few thousand charging stations vs. a few hundred thousand gas stations you can travel anywhere in the US. Gasoline stations need to be on every corner, because you need access to them even if you are only making local trips.
The second killer app, which makes EVs even more attractive, is smartgrids. Most smartgrid designs assume stationary batteries, but there are valid designs based on statistical use patters for EVs and scheduled charging that make even more sense. Smartgrids enable utilities to supply power reliably with less concern for source reliability. Broaden the small smartgrid into a smart network and you have a highly reliable energy source running mostly on car batteries.
- - - Updated - - -
Okay, I got a little carried away there. The smartgrid storage can run mostly on car batteries, but they are obviously not an energy source--just a storage device. And the rant about efficiency was in aid of saying FCV's are not as stupid as they sound, because you CAN convert natural gas, methane, coal, and other stuff (including water) directly to hydrogen, and the efficiency of the conversion is about 80% for steam reformation. Hydrogen is a byproduct for numerous industrial processes, including making fertilizer. It's often vented now because while there is a current $100 Billion demand in the USA for H2 the infrastructure for collecting it from lesser sources doesn't exist. In the same way that the infrastructure for turning fryer oil into diesel didn't exist.
- Coal 37%
- Natural Gas 30%
- Nuclear 19%
- Hydropower 7%
- Other Renewable 5%
- Biomass 1.42%
- Geothermal 0.41%
- Solar 0.11%
- Wind 3.46%
There isn't an absolute winning argument for any transportable fuel. They are all fundamentally and inescapably inefficient. But guess what--so is gasoline. So is even diesel.
If the climate scientists are right (and I believe they are) then we have limited time to get our ducks in a row. Assuming the unlikely scenario that politicians will get their heads out of their asses (a terrible assumption) the issues will not be which approach is the most efficient, but which approach can be executed to lower the carbon profile for people in the wealthy world--and eventually the whole world. EV's have a huge infrastructure advantage--even better than ICV's. You don't have to go anywhere to fuel up. And with a few thousand charging stations vs. a few hundred thousand gas stations you can travel anywhere in the US. Gasoline stations need to be on every corner, because you need access to them even if you are only making local trips.
The second killer app, which makes EVs even more attractive, is smartgrids. Most smartgrid designs assume stationary batteries, but there are valid designs based on statistical use patters for EVs and scheduled charging that make even more sense. Smartgrids enable utilities to supply power reliably with less concern for source reliability. Broaden the small smartgrid into a smart network and you have a highly reliable energy source running mostly on car batteries.
- - - Updated - - -
Okay, I got a little carried away there. The smartgrid storage can run mostly on car batteries, but they are obviously not an energy source--just a storage device. And the rant about efficiency was in aid of saying FCV's are not as stupid as they sound, because you CAN convert natural gas, methane, coal, and other stuff (including water) directly to hydrogen, and the efficiency of the conversion is about 80% for steam reformation. Hydrogen is a byproduct for numerous industrial processes, including making fertilizer. It's often vented now because while there is a current $100 Billion demand in the USA for H2 the infrastructure for collecting it from lesser sources doesn't exist. In the same way that the infrastructure for turning fryer oil into diesel didn't exist.
Nuclear plants in the US are extremely reliable. They are on almost all the time. They have a capacity factor of 90% which is higher than all other sources of power (by a lot):
EIA - Electricity Data
EIA - Electricity Data
If you want lots of reliable, carbon free power, then you do build nuclear.
You omitted to mention the price-tag on these plants, which is extremely high (in large part because of the inefficient regulation by the NRC). Unless one imposes a substantial carbon tax, no for-profit non-regulated company would build a nuke in the US under current market conditions.
Similar threads
- Article
