The following is a guest essay from Bob Rose, executive director of the U.S. Fuel Cell Council. This essay responds to Joseph Romm's Gristmill post, "Flush! Department of Energy flushes $15 million down the hydrogen toilet."
-----
Joe Romm's recent post, "Flush!" disparages the Department of Energy's award of a number of projects aimed at improving hydrogen storage technology. Joe's animus towards hydrogen is well known, if regrettable. Rather than quarreling over a tiny fraction of the U.S. research budget, everyone who is serious about a solution to global warming ought to embrace this research, along with research into biofuels and batteries. We will need all these pathways to succeed -- every one. And each of the options still faces significant challenges.
For an enlightening analysis of just why we need to pursue all the pathways, see the recent National Academy report, Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies: A Focus on Hydrogen (July 08).
In a nutshell, the report concludes that while all the major options face substantial hurdles, even with success in biofuels and hybridization, we still will need hydrogen and fuel cells to achieve our policy result.
I am also mystified at the battery proponents who would pursue that form of energy storage, but reject out of hand storage of energy in the form of hydrogen. The similarities ultimately are greater than the differences. The challenges are also similar. Why should people who care about global warming insist on limiting research to only a certain subset of potential solutions?
Looking past the vitriol, here are the main points Joe raises, and my response.
- No demand for fuel cell vehicles. Joe is wrong here. Honda, which has begun leasing an extraordinarily desirable fuel cell vehicle, reports more than 65,000 inquiries within a few months of its announcement of availability. People will and do want these cars. More broadly, people want good, fast, capable cars that are affordable. The auto industry's challenge is to meet those combined expectations with its products, no matter where the motive power comes from.
- Cost share of 20 percent is not enough. With one minor exception, the awards were to research institutions, where 20 percent cost share is pretty standard -- they complain about paying that much. The 20 percent for non-profit institutions has been federal policy at least since the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
- Money for hydrogen research should be reallocated to cellulosic biomass and batteries. At least Joe recognizes that batteries and biofuels face daunting challenges worthy of a commitment of substantial federal research dollars. But a better strategy would be to increase funding for all the pathways with significant prospects. Barack Obama got it right when he proposed $150 billion over 10 years. Even this number is trivial in light of the dollar cost of oil -- $150 billion would cover the cost of eight months of U.S. imports from OPEC at $100 per barrel. There is no future in like-minded people quarreling over the few crumbs that represent our energy research budget today.
- What's left after the researchers take their share should be spent on deploying plug-in hybrids. Advocates estimate that plug-ins will cost $10,000 more than conventional cars if and when they hit the marketplace. If the feds covered the entire cost delta, the $300 million hydrogen budget would only deploy 30,000 plug-in hybrids, not much in a passenger vehicle market that regularly tops 15 million annually. In fact, the federal government already is and certainly will be supporting deployment of hybrids. They will need the help.
Joe's proposal implicitly recognizes that plug-ins are not viable yet in today's marketplace, even with gasoline at $4 plus. But none of the options is "commercially viable" today. All of us who care about global warming are hoping desperately that plug-ins can get to the marketplace with the performance and cost that will attract real customers and not coincidentally provide some benefits to society to hold the fort until fully capable EVs (battery or fuel cell, or more likely, both) come online.
Just a couple more inconvenient truths about hydrogen and the alternatives:
- There are more fuel cell vehicles on the road today than plug-ins by a factor of 10.
- Hydrogen today can be manufactured for $3 per gallon equivalent, and the effective cost is less than $1.50 when efficiency is factored in.
- Honda's newest vehicle has been certified by EPA at more than 80 miles per gallon equivalent.
- Sure, we will need to invest in infrastructure, but we would need infrastructure for biofuels -- hundreds of plants -- and deep subsidies. We would also need charging infrastructure -- not to mention a refurbished power grid -- for plug-ins if they ever capture significant market share. A recent study by some Harvard business school types estimated sales of plug-ins in the "thousands" in 2030. I hope they are wrong.
On the other hand, the National Academy study calculated that $8 billion in federal support would be sufficient to jump start a national hydrogen infrastructure -- a very encouraging number, indeed.
But the most telling argument in favor of hydrogen is that both the alternative pathways Joe Romm advocates require the combustion of fuels onboard vehicles, with all the attendant emissions, inefficiencies, noise, and so on. Only dedicated battery EVs and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would allow us to break our combustion habit and fully electrify our vehicle fleet. Neither option is commercial at the moment. Research is complementary -- better electric drive trains yield benefit both pathways, better batteries mean better FCVs.
It's too soon, and bad policy, to pick a winner.
EPA affirms California’s right to set tougher automobile emissions standards
Daimler launches first German hybrid car
One man’s plan to re-create suburbia, sans cars
Comments View as Flat
sindark Posted 5:10 am
27 Aug 2008
Inferior fuel
Simply put, hydrogen is an inferior fuel. It takes lots of energy to convert into an energy-dense state, and it is hard to store. Fuel cells are delicate and expensive. Most importantly, hydrogen can only be produced by using up better fuels: either hydrocarbons or electricity. If we have either of those for use in making hydrogen, we are generally better off just using them directly.
One exception might be renewable generating stations in locations too remote to link to the grid. For instance, wind turbines very far offshore might best be used to electrolyze hydrogen.
That said, it seems destined to remain a niche technology, at best.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 12:33 pm
27 Aug 2008
Trucks, tractors, graders etc???
Is either technology likely to be able to power trucks, farm machinery and other such equipment, which currently runs on deisel?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:42 pm
27 Aug 2008
Hydrogen is used as delay and diversion
Plugin hybrids are ready now, hydrogen is used to discourage mass production capital investment. Investors are worried that putting money in plugin hybrids will be lost if hydrogen works. The nig three are using it as an excuse to keep gas guzzling going.
"Only dedicated battery EVs and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would allow us to break our combustion habit and fully electrify our vehicle fleet."
Nope, plugin hybrids with solid ixide fuel cell/turbines can do it too. And use muti-fuels. Including biogas from waste, that actually offsets many times the GHG it emits.
"It's too soon, and bad policy, to pick a winner."
Yeah it is always too soon and always bad policy to pick the wrong technology. The evidence that hydrogen is the pick?
"There are more fuel cell vehicles on the road today than plug-ins by a factor of 10."
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:46 pm
27 Aug 2008
Yeah pico
Diesel locomotives and heavy mining and construction equipment are often hybrids, diesel generators running electric motors. peterbilt has a hydrid semi tractor.
Put in a solid oxide fuel cell/turbine and plugin battery pack and those can be plugin hybrid too. Hydrogen would be too hard to store for these.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:47 pm
27 Aug 2008
Sure looks purdy....
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/photo/hondahydroalyore.jpg
Here's a link to that Honda leasing program. Leasing cars is also how GM tested the market for the EV1. I wonder. Will the conspiracy theorists make a documentary if Honda refuses to sell these test cars when the lease is up?
I suspect that they only lease them to people in southern California because that is where hydrogen industry lobbyists have managed to talk unenlightened politicians into funding hydrogen fueling stations.
Powering a car with hydrogen is easy. You can burn it in an internal combustion engine in the same manner you can burn natural gas in one. The only difference is that a fuel cell using hydrogen to power an electric motor would use rougly ten to twenty percent less hydrogen than a normal car burning it in an internal combustion engine.
In short, you don't need fuel cells to use hydrogen for a fuel. So, where are the cars running around burning hydrogen instead of gasoline in internal combustion engines? There are none because it would be ridiculously expensive to do so and fuel cells wouldn't change that problem. The problem is the gargantuan cost of making transporting, and storing it. My comment here tries to explain why it would cost so much in terms of money and lost energy to use this gas for car transport.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:00 pm
27 Aug 2008
Nice bit of rockhopping there
While ignoring all the well known problems with hydrogen as a fuel.
Infrastructure for plug-in hybrids:one heavy duty extension cord or shared curbside charging station per vehicle.
Infrastructure for hydrogen would be some ungodly combination of new pipelines, trucking and storage facilities completely replacing our current gasoline system while leaving the gasoline network largely intact during the transition.
Currently a hydrogen fuel cell to power my Toyota Matrix (which would still require substantial advanced batteries) would exceed the new cost of the car by a factor of at least four.
Gas tank:steel. Ethanol tank:polypropylene. Electricity tank:batteries, ultracaps or flywheel. Hydrogen tank:super-high pressure carbon fiber tank or very, very heavy metal hydride tank.
I'm not even an advocate of plug-ins or BEVs; I think that the whole one car per household model has to be tossed. But I think the future of cars is electric with or without on-board generators.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
patrickS Posted 12:11 am
28 Aug 2008
The real winner? A vehicle that uses a combination
If you really understand what Bob Rose's post says--that all alternative technologies need improvement and none of them are yet commercial so we need to advance them together--you will see how inane it is to badmouth one technology over the other. Healthy debate? Sure. But mindless and early technology picking will never help us. Here's a concept that might:
I spend the majority of my time working with the National Hydrogen Association, the automakers, energy companies, non-profits, the government and others and if there's one thing I've come to understand, it's that we're going to need a variety of vehicle technologies to reduce the amount of carbon we're importing from overseas and putting into the atmosphere.
Batteries, plug-ins, fuel cells, etc. are going to be ready for commercialization at different times. The automakers and others are trying to get all of them to work because in many ways, they complement each other.
No one from the hydrogen industry will deny the challenges in front of the technologies. Engage us and we will tell you how they are being overcome. But let's make sure that at the same time, we recognize the challenges that batteries and plug-ins have, like range, weight and cost to name a few. Then, let's talk about the way that we'll use all three together, embracing the advantages of each so we can truly transform the vehicles we want to drive the next time we go into a showroom.
Now we're doing something that might actually be helpful.
Permalink
patrickS Posted 12:36 am
28 Aug 2008
Responses to Previous Comments
In the interest of healthy debate here are some responses to the questions and challenges posted so far:
Tank weight: Yes, hydrogen tanks are heavier. But that's not the whole picture. Look at the whole vehicle. Fuel cells eliminate the need for a transmission, for example. And that high-tech tank is so strong that it can actually help protect you in an accident. Plus, batteries aren't light as a feather.
Heavy trucks: Hydrogen injection systems (combustion, not fuel cells) are being sold to heavy trucks today. They aren't 100% hydrogen engines--more like a hydrogen assist, but they reduce fuel consumption by about 10% or more, increase power by about 5% and significantly reduce emissions. And they can do this today. Find out more about how hydrogen injection systems clean up emissions, reduce fuel. Plus as the costs of fuel cells come down, you can put them on board as auxillary (quiet) power units to reduce/stop idling.
The cost of distributing hydrogen: Yes, moving hydrogen long distances can be expensive and an energy balance loser. But you don't have to truck it around like you do gasoline. You can make hydrogen on-site, on a small scale--small enough for a single camera--or on a larger scale, for your home, neighborhood or city. When really large quantities are needed, pipelines can be installed, adding to the over 700 miles of hydrogen pipelines installed and in use today. With today's technology, we can dsipense hydrogen at the pump for the equivalent of $3/gal of gasoline. And those costs are still coming down.
Cost of the fuel cell: It's not 4 times as much as your engine today. It's now down to less than 2 times ($94/kW compared to $50/kW for gasoline engines) at volume (500,000 units). And that cost is coming down too. One nice thing about fuel cells though is that they'll last longer than the 2-3 years that advanced batteries last. So while the cost needs to come down, even at the current price, fuel cells already have some cost advantanges compared to other alternatives. Hydrogen engines which some automakers have developed are much cheaper than fuel cells today and so those vehicles could enter the marketplace now if more stations were in place.
I hope this helps. Working for the National Hydrogen Association, our job is to make sure you have the information you need.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:16 am
28 Aug 2008
Question for Mr. Hydrogen man
I went to your site because while I frankly don't think fuel cells will pan out for cars, they might be important for storage of intermittent wind and solar power in stationary situations, at the home, neighborhood, or perhaps even city level. But your only links to stationary fuel cells seems to be a rather intimidating database. Got anything else? Reports? Discussion?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:24 am
28 Aug 2008
Displacing coal is the goal
Just because it can be done does not mean it is feasible to do so. Hydrogen as a source of fuel for cars falls into that category. The fact that hydrogen has thousands of industrial uses (like potentially powering cell phones) has nothing to do with the debate over using limited tax dollars to fund the hydrogen industry's efforts to promote their product as car fuel. $Just imagine, hundreds of millions of cars burning our product....using our equipment... aaarrrggh$
Being the lightest element on the periodic table, it is constrained by the laws of physics to be difficult (expensive and energy intensive) to store and transport, and will also inherently require lots of energy to create because, unlike solar, wind, and even fossil fuels, it is not a source of energy but the product of it.
Generate electricity--lose x% as waste heat to make hydrogen--lose x% to waste heat using fossil fueled pumps to compress it--lose x% to waste heat using fossil fuels to pump it through pipes--lose x% as waste heat passing it through fuel cell. Pick values from various sources for X and you will find that if you used hydrogen to power all of that equipment you would have very little hydrogen left, if any to move your car and that much less coal being burned to make electricity will be displaced by wind or solar because the electricity went into making hydrogen for cars. Displacing coal is the goal.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:29 am
28 Aug 2008
Well, BioD
I assume that the hydrogen industry, such as it is, is licking their chops contemplating replacing gasoline motors with fuel cells, but I'm wondering if there is any potential for stationary fuel cells (sorry if I've asked this before) -- the problem in the hydrogen industry probably being, they don't see much of a demand so they are not even dealing with it. But the advantage of, say, a neighborhood fuel cell storage facility would be that professionals would be in charge, and we wouldn't be talking about pipelines, etc. (as a side note, the hydrogen industry points to the great safety record of hydrogen, without pointing out that that is because it's always handled by trained professionals, which gas station attendants and/or regular drivers would not be).
I realize it's still not particularly efficient, but it still might be one way around the renewable energy storage problem.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:14 am
28 Aug 2008
No question, Jon
Hydrogen is a useful industrial gas and I'm sure we will continue to find more uses for it.
The only thing up for debate is the use of government funds to do stupid things like build a string of hydrogen filling stations in Southern California. If those stations are part of a research project and the results will be published in a peer reviewed journal like Science, great. But I don't think that's the case. They are probably the result of a combination of government lobbying and dumb politicians.
It is already being used for things like emergency generators at cell phone towers, to power forklifts in warehouses. Although, I'm not privy to the details of those projects and can't really say if they are economically feasible choices or just experiments. Companies can decide on their own on the feasibility. The government does not need to be involved in that decision.
You can run an emergency generator with an internal combustion engine using hydrogen. You don't need a fuel cell. You can run a forklift using an internal combustion engine and hydrogen, getting water as a by product where emissions are to be avoided, just like with a fuel cell. Fuel cells simply use less hydrogen, but not all that much less. Turning hydrogen into useful work isn't the problem. Making it and moving it are the problems.
If you don't move it you have eliminated half of the problem. So, if you have a solar or wind source that can affordably store excess power as hydrogen gas (forget liquid) to burn in a fuel cell or gas turbine or reciprocating engine generator when the sun isn't shining, you may have a good use for it. If you have to subsidize that system to make it affordable to users, you have a canard. This kind of use comes much closer to feasibility than trying to use it in cars. If you have to transport it the game is over.
My educated guess on safety is that it is not a major point of contention. My house uses natural gas. If the pilot goes out on my stove or hot water heater my house could blow up. If I puncture the gas line buried in my yard while gardening I could have a giant gas flare in front of me.
My house has 240 volts in its walls. Anyone getting their hands on it is in big trouble. If it manages to contact plumbing, it could prove fatal to anyone taking a shower. We have gotten used to these dangerous sources of energy. As a society we have decided it is worth it.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:03 am
28 Aug 2008
Are fuel cells more dense?...
...so that you don't have to store the hydrogen in huge tanks? Or do they take up as much room as hydrogen tanks? In which case they really don't make sense, it would be better to have something (like a microturbine) in a building/neighborhood that could use gas of whatever kind or hydrogen.
Permalink
KevinH Posted 5:07 am
28 Aug 2008
The Winner is Anything But Fossil Fuels
I'm not sure on why some people are focused on dividing the AFV community and have us turn on each other? The real enemy of the AFV community is the fossil fuel vehicle community. All the AFV's whether its hydrogen, BEV's, PHEV's or biofuel vehicles have advantages and disadvantages compared to each other. But, compared to vehicles running on fossil fuels, I only see advantages.
I think it's much more important that AFV people take on Big Oil rather than each other. People who try to divide the AFV community are not doing us a favor, as the common driver will stick with fossil fuels as we "fight it out amongst ourselves" as to which technology is best. I think we need to keep our eye on the prize of energy independence and elimination of fossil fuel vehicles and not let in-fighting distract us from this goal.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:25 am
28 Aug 2008
Jon, a fuel cell is a device that generates
electricity when you pass hydrogen through it. It does not store hydrogen. It combines the hydrogen with oxygen found in the surrounding air. When hydrogen and oxygen are combined inside the cell, electrons are given up that become a current in a wire. That is how it makes electricity to drive an electric motor. The exact opposite happens when you pass a current through water--it splits water up into oxygen and hydrogen.
Engineers, always screwing around with various trade offs, may find a fuel cell better for some applications than a gas turbine or reciprocating engine used to spin a generator. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. A reciprocating engine has hundreds of moving parts. A gas turbine has one. A fuel cell has none. It is much more complicated than just counting moving parts but you get the idea. Like I said before, converting hydrogen into work is not the issue at hand. Nobody is arguing against research into new technology like fuel cells. Energy sources are running out. Hydrogen isn't an energy source. Moving it and storing it in liquid form is extremely energy intensive (throws a huge percentage of that stored energy away).
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:33 am
28 Aug 2008
OK, one more ignorant question,
so with a fuel cell you need a tank of hydrogen sitting there anyway? Then it seems to me that something that can handle both gas and hydrogen would make sense. Thanks for the learnin'.
KevinH --
I don't see this as ganging up or being divided. We're discussing technological choices, which is actually a great thing, because often in history technological choices are "chosen" for all kinds of reasons, many of them not rational. And unfortunately, energy is not the only problem, so for instance there is much discussion of biofuels in terms of their impacts on ecosystems, and on particular, on soil and water -- just as important as climate, in a way. But as long as the discussion is at least somewhat civil, there's nothing wrong with point-counterpoint.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 5:46 am
28 Aug 2008
Bob is right.
The transition off of fossil fuel is a long distance marathon race and we are about 5 feet off the starting line now. It is a little early to be picking winners.
The ultimate winner may be some technology that has not been invented yet. That is why I propose a $100 billion per year R&D program to push every idea as hard as possible, and a level playing field without any subsidies so that the best technology will automatically move into the lead.
Things Everybody Should Know About Energy
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:12 am
28 Aug 2008
Kevin,
I'm sure it isn't the intent of the hydrogen enthusiasts to turn people against one another. Critique and debate is the backbone of science. They are just joining in the debate. No need to suspect their motives.
I'm not sure who you are talking about. Certainly one could argue that everyone here is a member of that community. We all use fossil fuels to get around to different extents. If you are referring to car manufactuers, the comical Live Green, Go Yellow campaign is evidence that they are not entirely against alternative fuels. Certainly Honda hopes hydrogen industry lobbyists here may be successful at creating filling stations that would allow them to profit by selling a hydrogen car.
If you are referring to oil companies, well, they or companies that look and act just like them, will eventually own all biofuel refining and distribution. Hydrogen will never get that far but the same would be true if it did.
Several recent peer reviewed studies in renown science journals have shown all crop based biofuels to be worse for global warming than fossil fuels for multiple reasons: Science, The Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and physics, The Journal of Conservation Biology, and on and on. How did you manage to miss all that?
From http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2976 :
http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/biodiesel/img4.gif
If, by "take on big oil," you mean strive for ways to reduce the destruction of the biosphere caused by our energy use, then that's what we are trying to do. It turns out in the real world, that some forms of energy are as bad or worse than oil when it comes to the destruction of the biosphere. The second leading cause of global warming is deforestation and land use changes. Coal is the biggest single cause of CO2 emissions. If we throw away our electrical production trying to move cars with hydrogen instead of displace coal we will actually be going back wards, as biofuels are doing.
Nobody is trying to divide the alternate fuel community, or the environmental community, or any other community. That's a straw man. Again, you should not be critical of the scientific method. It is the best tool we have to find reality. The hydrogen car enthusiasts are not fighting with the rest of the community, they are merely debating with it. Humanity can't afford to bark up too many wrong trees.
All of our eyes are on that prize. As crop based biofuels have demonstrated, it is entirely possible to replace fossil fuels with something worse. The goal is to keep that from happening again and again.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:28 am
28 Aug 2008
Bill, I agree with everything you said except
the part about Bob being right. Bob thinks hydrogen as a fuel for cars is a winner. His post is all about the wonders of hydrogen, but the real debate is about car fuel. Am I the only one who sees irony in his concluding sentence:
"It's too soon, and bad policy, to pick a winner."
--like hydrogen.
I'm all for research, and agree that quibbling over where a few million dollars goes is not important. The overall debate on the viability of hydrogen as a car fuel is the main thrust of Joe's original post, which got this debate rolling.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:34 am
28 Aug 2008
Correct Jon
An engineer might make that same conclusion. The engineers who design space vehicles certainly prefer fuel cells over a turbine or recip engine. Cost in this case would take a distant back seat to other design variables. I fully expect to see the aluminum associtation take this cue to hire a guy to write up the advantages of using aluminum on cars whenever his google search turns up a blog discussion on the subject. Engineers use it for planes but not for cars for good reasons.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 6:55 am
28 Aug 2008
Hydrogen 7, I presume?
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-an ...
Permalink
Angelsnecropolis Posted 9:58 am
30 Aug 2008
Why H20 Will Beat EV
The reason Hydrogen will beat the EV car in this race has nothing to do with ease or use or better technology. Its about the all mighty dollar. Think about the millions of gas stations we currently have that would go unused if every car was an EV. Big Oil won't let that happen.
However, It's not difficult to see how a gas station could be retro-fitted to dispense hydrogen instead of gas. Therefore Big Oil will push for a fuel that they can sell and would be difficult or impossible for the average American to utilize.
I'm sure we could all make hydrogen to fill our own tanks but the amount we would need to fill the take would be too energy intensive.
This is why the government and auto manufacturers are going to invest more heavily into Hydrogen instead of a car I can just plug in at home.
Permalink