Amory Lovins is rightfully admired by environmentalists. But nobody is right all the time, and the hydrogen path is one of his few mistakes. He summarizes his argument for hydrogen in Twenty Hydrogen Myths (PDF). More extensive discussion is embedded in his book Winning the Oil Endgame (book-length PDF).
His basic proposal:
Since most gas stations already have access to natural gas, put natural gas reformers in enough stations to make sure everyone has access to hydrogen within 25 miles. For stations without natural gas, they can reform hydrogen from LPG or ethanol -- or use off peak electricity.
Build hypercars to run on this hydrogen. (Hypercars combine carbon fiber or other low-weight body design, electric drive, aerodynamic design to reduce wind resistance, and low rolling resistance tire to make them much more efficient than conventional cars of the same weight.) According to Amory, gas-powered hypercars run about three times more efficiently than conventional gasoline vehicles, while hydrogen-powered hypercars use about one fifth the BTUs (in hydrogen fuel) per mile that a conventional car of the same size does. (He also points out that while running a conventional automobile on hydrogen would require absurdly expensive fuel cells and storage, the small average and peak power requirements of a hydrogen hypercar would allow it to be made at the same price or less than an conventional car -- if the fuel cells were mass produced.) So you pay more for the fuel, but get five times as many miles out of each unit -- thus coming out ahead.
What about carbon? Lovins points out that running our cars this way, even with carbon released by natural gas reformers, yields lower carbon than our existing automobiles. But he also suggests we can attain truly low-carbon transport either by using wind electricity transmitted over long high-voltage lines to electrolyze water, or by building carbon pipelines to ship the CO2 from natural gas to sequestration sites. (This makes sense compared to usual hydrogen advocates. CO2 is a lot less expensive to ship than hydrogen.)
What is wrong with all this? To start with, system efficiency of hydrogen hypercars is not five times the system efficiency of gas-powered hypercars. Reasonably priced reformers for converting natural gas to hydrogen recover about 70%-75% of the energy in the natural gas. While fuel cells with high efficiency can be built, the ones that currently could be mass produced for $200-$250 per KW average 50% to 55%.
That gives an overall system efficiency of 35%-41%. Applied to natural gas with 20% less carbon content than oil, that means cars fueled by natural gas without sequestration will put about half the carbon into the air conventional cars do -- if that was the end of the story. However, natural gas requires a lot less energy to transport and refine than oil. Overall, therefore, hypercars powered by hydrogen from natural gas may (at best) break even on carbon emissions with hypercars powered by gasoline. We can do better.
Hypercars powered by batteries and charged from our current grid can get almost four times as many miles from a unit of fossil fuel as conventional cars. If the grid were converted to mainly wind and sun, eliminating thermal losses would increase that efficiency advantage to eight times conventional automobiles.
Lovins dismisses electric cars as "cars for carrying mainly batteries -- but not very far and not very fast." But he is making the same mistake some of his less informed critics make with hydrogen cars -- not taking into account the lower power needs of more efficient vehicles. He is also making a system analysis error -- not taking into consideration the number of miles most people actually drive. A hypercar powered with NiMH batteries of the sort often used in conventional hybrids will have a 200 mile range. That is not as great as the 400+ miles a conventional car gets on a tank of gas. But half the population never drives more than 40 miles a day total. And a huge percent never drives more than 200 miles in a single day.
For the five to ten percent of the population who did not find that a sufficient range, we could make plug-in hybrid hypercar electric vehicles (PHHEV) comparable to PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicles). One could drive the first 60 miles or so on battery, at 90-200 mpg carbon equivalent (depending on how decarbonized the grid was), and drive any remaining distance on biofuel -- ethanol or biodiesel (though there are good reasons a hypercar might not use the latter). With an automobile/light truck fleet of mostly EV hypercars, plus a few PHEV hypercars, we could reduce fuel use in the passenger fleet by 95% to 99%. Biofuels use could be quite sustainable in that quantity.
(To get the lower number, we would need to encourage use of true EVs. Again, we need to use Lovins' own type of system analysis. Of people who need a range of more than 200 miles, most need it seldom -- for vacations and such. Put in incentives for those people to own EVs and rent PHEV hypercars for occasional use.)
Let's look more closely at the means Lovins suggests for completely decarbonized hydrogen.
If you remember, one proposal was to pipe the carbon to someplace where it could be sequestered. This would increase the cost and lower the system energy efficiency of hydrogen still further.
Alternatively he suggests using wind-generated electricity. Well, up until the plug, system efficiencies for hydrogen and battery power are identical in this scenario. But round-trip efficiency of electricity from plug to battery and out again to drive the car is 70% to 75% (compared to 35% - 45% for near-term hydrogen).
Of course more research could lower the cost of fuel cells and improve sequestration technologies -- probably quite quickly. But then again, more research could probably lower the cost of lighter batteries with longer lifecycles too.
In short, both hydrogen- and battery-powered cars could be produced and fueled on a large scale with today's technology at a price comparable to today's cars; both would benefit from likely improvements. But battery power would be less expensive and help lower carbon use faster; battery power would also use electricity from a decarbonized grid more effectively than hydrogen.
Both would require infrastructure improvements. A hydrogen path would require reformers or electrolyzers in gas stations (along with carbon pipelines for the former, or long-distance transmission lines to allow wind to fuel the latter). An electric car path would require chargers in garages and in rental unit and residential street parking. (Chargers at work and while shopping would be nice, but not absolutely necessary, since charging while you sleep will take care of most people's needs, and charging with off-peak power puts less strain on the grid in any case. Put the basics in and the market probably will take care of demand beyond that. Please note that capacity for this appears to be available, and we want to replace our existing generation with renewable sources as quickly as possible in any case.)
Although this post focuses mainly on the automobile and light truck fleet, I will briefly cover other issues:
- Buildings are one of the many things Amory is 100% right on. There are a large number of ways we can improve efficiency in both existing and new buildings. This applies to appliances as well. Decarbonization of the grid will also contribute greatly to reducing carbon emissions in residential and commercial buildings. While hydrogen does not make sense in cars, it probably does make sense in buildings. In cold climates, in residential buildings, waste heat from fuel cells could provide hot water and space heating. In warm climates, you can similarly drive chillers with waste heat. This shrinks the efficiency differences between hydrogen and battery storage. Some of the flow battery storage I suggested for a wind powered grid could be replaced by such hydrogen systems -- at lower capital costs if a large capacity was need. (You need to add more flow batteries to add capacity to a flow battery-based system; hydrogen need only be sized for peak use -- additional capacity is added by installing more hydrogen storage. So in buildings, where you can use almost all of the hydrogen energy with combined heat and power systems, the capital costs can make up for shrunken difference in storage losses. For this to work, you might need thermal mass (possibly in the form of PCM or natural zeolite thermal storage) so that the waste heat could be time shifted to when needed.)
- The best thing we can do with heavy trucks is replace most freight-ton truck miles with freight-ton rail miles. Beyond this, most of Lovins' suggestions for improving truck efficiency (PDF) in Winning the Oil Endgame make sense. These include regulatory changes, better feedback, and technical improvements. One technical improvement he overlooks that can easily be retrofitted into existing engines is the injection of about 10% propane or CNG into the engine. Diesel fuel that is normally not burned is consumed -- improving mileage and decreasing emissions by at least 30%. (This would work with hydrogen as well.)
- As Lovins says, medium trucks can use either the same technology as heavy trucks or the technology light vehicles use.
- Lastly, dealing with industry, Amory is right on efficiency. Various means can cut industrial power consumption a good deal. Much of what remains can be switched partially or entirely to electricity. (Many industrial process that are fundamentally not electrical in nature can be replaced by others that accomplish the same thing. For example, electric arc furnaces process most scrap steel these days.) What remains could run on biofuels -- or even hydrogen, if the waste heat can be fully utilized.
As you can see, there is a place for hydrogen. But until costs are lowered and system efficiency improved, that place is where the hydrogen can be generated where consumed, and almost all the waste heat used, and where it is cost competitive with other means of electricity storage even after carbon disposal costs are counted.
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
bookerly Posted 3:47 am
24 Dec 2006
The Grid
Interesting post Gar. What you say seems to make sense for the US and Western Europe, where there is a fully developed grid.
But what about in developing nations, where the grid is minimal or inefficient? Do you have any thoughts of the benefits of electric vs. hydrogen power for places like India, Africa, China and parts of South America?
thanks,
patrick
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:04 am
24 Dec 2006
Developing nations
If these developing nations also don't have much natural gas pipeline infrastructure then a grid could be developed more cheaply than pipeline.
If they have natural gas and not a grid - well you still have efficiency issues. On the other hand not everyone has wind resources to match the U.S. Of course there is hydro-electric (which has its own environmental problems, to put it mildly). There is solar thermal and photovoltic - both if which are feasible but which are much more expensive than hydrogen from natural gas. (Although with some of the new concentrating PV, I'm not so certain - I'd be really curious to see an analysis of the economics of the Sunball and other concentrating PV systems from someone besides the manufacturers.) There are other renewable sources - but tend not be available in great quantities except in very specific areas. (For example Iceland has enough geothermal available to run its entire society, but this is not true of most nations.)
Let us assume a worst case; that a developing nation really needs to run on natural gas. Even then I think you might do better than hydrogen. Burn the natural gas in combined cycle turbines that are 55% to 60% efficient. Remove the carbon from the emissions of the plant and sequester them. (This reduces plant efficiency and adds about 2 cents per kWh to the price of the electricity.) One way to do this is by placing the plants near storage sites, and building transmission lines to ship the electricity. Another way is to decentralize the plants so you can use the waste heat, and build carbon pipelines to ship the carbon to sequestration sites. The trade-off depends on the value of the waste heat and cost of carbon pipelines. (Combined cycle turbines can gain full economies of scale in sizes as low as 30 megawatts.)
Another thought: combine development of an electric grid with development of a really first rate electric train system: avoid the whole automobile dependency trap. If electric trains become your main means of transporting people and freight, then electric cars and trucks become a supplementary from of transportation - a way to move between stations and final destinations that are too far or inconvenient to walk to, and for rural transportation.
Of course if Flying Energy Generators (FEGS) work out then everybody has enough wind energy for all their needs - but that remains to be seen.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:11 am
24 Dec 2006
developing nations
One last thought on this. The math for this is different for developing nations than for developed one. So it could be that hydrogen based upon natural gas makes sense there.
If so, that is all the more reason for developed nations to base their path on electricity. We have used up most of the atmospheric space. If natural gas is going to have be used for a while as part of a carbon neutral world economy, we in the rich nations damn well have an obligation to leave most of those reserves for the people who really need it - especially if we have a cheaper and better alternative.
Permalink
Charlie Peters Posted 5:54 am
24 Dec 2006
Taking the long way home: What's wrong with H2
CAPP supports a Smog Check inspection & repair audit, gasoline oxygen cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFÉ credit to cut car impact over 50% in 1 year.
* A Smog Check audit would cut toxic car impact in ½ in 1 year
* An oxygenate (ethanol) waiver would stop $ billions in refinery welfare.
* About 1/3 of the gasoline used by new cars nationwide is allowed by the "renewable fuel" CAFE credit
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 6:25 am
24 Dec 2006
Wilson's Rebuttal
John R. Wilson wrote The Truth about Hydrogen, a reponse to Lovins' "Twenty Myths" paper. Wilson is a consultant on coal-based synthetic fuels and unfortunately appears to be a global warming denialist. Otherwise, he makes many persuasive points. In his "Hydrogen Report - Executive Summary," Wilson writes:
More at TMG/The Management Group website.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 11:36 am
24 Dec 2006
Wilson's rebuttal
Some of Wilson's may make sense. Others don't.
For example his argument on technical breakthroughs on the auto end do not make sense. Hypercars running on hydrogen have been demonstrated. They work just as Lovins suggest. Because they use very low amounts of power they can run on small fuel cells and small hydrogen tanks. And several manufacturers have now offered to produce fuel cells for $250 per KW or less, if quantity ordered is sufficient. Now even this price is too expensive by a factor of three to five if you are to run normal cars on them - but a hypercar could run on $250 per kw quite nicely.
On the other hand his critique of efficiency makes sense. Also the point about safety makes sense too.
I would point out that I rebutted Lovins hydrogen argument using his own premises. If some of those premises are actually incorrect, that is an additional reason to avoid the hydrogen path.
Incidentally Wilson seems to be incorrect about Lovins disliking long transmission lines. At least in "Winning the Oil Endgame" he seems to suggest using them to allow tapping of cheap wind electricity. In the current U.S. grid, production represents about 60% of capital costs, distribution another 30% and transmission only 10%. Thus transmission really makes sense to the extent that it allows less expensive generation, or saves significant storage costs storage costs.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 12:07 pm
24 Dec 2006
Batteries that suck
Among those to whom unfaltering gasoline tax revenues for the next 30 years mean comfortable retirement, PEM hydrogen-air fuel cells were the rage two years ago, when stories about 50-to-55-percent efficient air-breathing fuel cells were abroad in the land.
I never was able to find out a specific make or model for any such cell. This one, at the beginning of its claimed 1500-hour life, converts 39 percent of LHV at sea level.
Enough Nexas to generate 80 kW of DC electricity would mass 870 kg. I think other models from this maker can fit that sort of peak capacity in a 500-kg mass budget, but with an efficiency lower than 39 percent by a significant but undisclosed amount.
In its 10,000-km endurance run, accomplished in early 2004 with only one fuel cell stack replacement, GM's liquid-hydrogen Zafira, for which 400 km range was once claimed, was utterly spent at 185 km when driven by an auto journalist. The next day he was more considerate and got 250 km out of it.
In short: the idea that fuel cells are more efficient than internal combustion motors burning the same fuel in the same application is wholly unsubstantiated.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Oxygen expands around B fire, car goes
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:26 pm
24 Dec 2006
Building Transmission Lines
Hi Gar,
Your point on this makes sense, except it seems to me that developing nations that have no grids probably don't have the money for grids (or electric trains for that matter).
Now if the World Bank funded such projects.... but it pretty much doesn't.
I know the Chinese have different teams rushing to work on both hydrogen and electic vehicles, as well as various possible generation sources (though coal will still play too large a part for the short near term).
It will be interesting to see what the various developing countries decide. Gasoline still looks like the current favorite for a variety of reasons.
thanks,
patrick
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 9:15 pm
24 Dec 2006
On developing countries
Be careful making generalizations about developing-countries' "needs". The needs of the low-income countries (LICs) are usually different from those of middle-income countries, like Brazil and China.
In LICs, two-wheeled transport (bicycles and scooters) and collective forms of transport -- in the form of bush taxis, buses or (for the lucky few) rail -- will remain the dominant forms of people conveyance for some time. What these countries typically need are safer roads, more bike and pedestrian paths, better maintenance of the existing bus and truck fleets, and cleaner fuels (which doesn't only mean biofuels) that can run in existing vehicles.
Regarding electricity transmission grids, thinking has changed over the last couple of decades to give more consideration towards decentralized electricity production. The World Bank and other lending agencies -- quite sensibly -- are much less inclined than in the past to finance large, lengthy transmission lines to connect remote towns and villages to a national grid. Not only are such projects expensive, but they may have to pass through land that the lenders would rather not disturb. There is increasing awareness of the value of meeting first-priority needs, like interior lighting (which enables children to do their homework and people with small businesses to work on their accounts), which can be done with light-emitting diodes run off small, renewable-energy-based systems.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:16 pm
24 Dec 2006
Hyper cars
Lighter, safer, much more efficient, and they help make battery and liquid fueled fuel cells cost effective as a replacement for ICEs.
They can be long enough to have really effective crush zones. Side air bags and racing type protective tubs, roll cages, and seat belts included.
Forget hydrogen. The amount of batteries and the size of a fuel cell for these inherently much higher mileage designs drops the cost way down.
There is no way even the smaller hydrogen fuel cell needed in a hypercar, with it's difficulties in fueling and fuel storage, can beat the latest battery and liquid fuel cell technology on cost, utility, and safety. Biodiesel (from algae/solar collectors)to power a fuel cell vehicle is orders of magnitude safer in all respects than compressed hydrogen as a fuel.
Hydrogen derived from fossil or nuclear power (the vaunted "hydrogen economy" used as a propaganda tool to delay renewables) is a horrendous nightmare of dangerous pollution and contamination.
I'm thinking maybe Lovins could be converted to this better technology and drop the hydrogen effort alltogether. Lovins and bio-willy would make a great media team to promote this better energy future.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:31 pm
24 Dec 2006
Info from 2003 GRL?
Maybe you missed this article on the latest solid oxide multi-fuel cell?
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/08/frankli...
Ballard is using dated technology. They were probably coerced into that stance by their "partners" in the US auto industry.
Meanwhile copmpanies like Franklin are starved of necessary capital for mass production. Same old monopoly gaming, by banks, venture capital firms, and the auto and oil industries.
Soldiers in WW2 would have gone into battle on mules instead of in jeeps if the corporatistas of that era had been able to make FDR buckle under to corporate power like this Bush administration does.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Mike B Posted 1:06 am
25 Dec 2006
Air and truck transport
I'd be curious to know if there are any decent proposals on the table to green power airplanes and the trucking industry.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:56 am
25 Dec 2006
Trucks yes
Planes sort of, Boeing has a project to provide backup electric power for their planes using solid oxide fuel cell/turbines. Could that be a precursor to a full size fuel cell electric hybrid turbofan engine?
Trucks are in the power range of buses and there is a microturbine generator electric bus project. And separate bus or truck sized fuel cell projects. Will they be combined into fuel cell/microturbine designs light enough for trucks and cars? Eventually I think so, because this combination has only a few moving parts, compares favorably in price to an ICE, and gets 75% efficiency. an ICE gets around 14% efficiency.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 12:35 pm
25 Dec 2006
Environmentalists Don't Drive
This line alone makes me dismiss the rebuttal to the Hydrogen cars idea ( a great idea by the way, and one that strikes fear into the heart of every agri-subsidy, ethanol loving "environmentalist" ) in the country:
You see, the fact that this represents the author's logic, means that he will never, ever understand the typical human being.
A guy who buys a car doesn't think: ok, 364 days of the year I will go 40 miles. I only need a 40 mile range car.
He thinks:
(A) Someday, I will take my new car over the mountain to visit grandma. I sure don't want to fill up every 40 miles.
(B) I go 40 miles every day, but what if I (a) get stuck in traffic (b) have an emergency that requires me to take my girlfriend to the emergency Brain Repair Hospital on the other side of town. I want to make sure I have 250 miles of range at least.
But an "environmentalist" would never think this way.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
Mike B Posted 2:07 pm
25 Dec 2006
Re: Trucks
Thanks amazingdrx.
Can someone tell me what's wrong with putting unused electric current from a wind powered grid though say, sea water, to obtain hydrogen.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:50 pm
25 Dec 2006
"environmentalists"
If you only drive more 200 miles once or twice a year - you can rent a car. And a 200 mile range for someone who normally drives 40 miles a day is plenty to allow for being stuck in traffic.
If you try again Jabailo see if you can use logic instead of sneering.
Oh and in terms of trucks: the best solutions for trucks are to substitute rail for as many truck miles as possible.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 5:38 pm
25 Dec 2006
'regular people' vs 'environmentalists'
jabailo had a valid point that you missed, Gar.
Most people who buy autos are buying into the fantasies generated by auto manufacturers.
You buy an auto as much for its practical use as for the idea of freedom that it represents - hence the large number of urbanites buying off-road vehicles that they'll never take offroad. (Let's face it, in any city with a halfway decent public transport network (I'm thinking London, Hong Kong, NY of the places I've lived in) driving a private car it a serious liability in terms of cost and time wasted, but many people who live there still aspire to owning private cars).
If someone knows upfront that they'll only get 40 or 100 miles out of a charge/tank of gas it severely compromises the idea of freedom that has been drummed into their psyches by decades of auto advertising. Telling them to be practical and rent a car if they want to go further just isn't going to fly.
Happy Xmas to you all in those other time zones (it's already Boxing Day here)!
Whiskerfish
PS Gar, if you restrict your blog posts to one key topic you'll have more focused discussion, I think. This one was VERY long and covered a lot of ground. Too much, I feel.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 5:51 pm
25 Dec 2006
Wind and Hydrogen
A combination that would let us have an electrolysis-based hydrogen economy is wind-to-hydrogen. You can read about it here:
http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com/viewtopic.php?t=200...
And another is solar fueling stations.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 5:54 pm
25 Dec 2006
I live in the 21st Century
Surely, you're joking. The whole advance of technology has been that of allowing us to move multi-point. Rail is linear, point-to-point technology. I cannot run a "rail truck" from a distribution center to every loading dock in the county.
The sad thing for environmentalists is, that the hydrogen proponent is absolutely right. I think the car and the truck in their present forms, are fantastic forms of transportation. Vehicles that can range 300 mph, and run at 60 mph are perfect for human mobility. All we're talking about is how to fuel them in ways that are sustainable and don't choke us to death.
Tweaking the "system" is wrong headed and runs away from the real problem of fueling.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
JMG Posted 1:07 am
26 Dec 2006
Questions and Answers
There's an old saying to the gist of "If you can get people worried about the wrong questions, the answers are irrelevant."
The question under discussion appears to be how the rich countries can continue to devote unimaginable levels of resources to the problem of building and maintaining an infrastructure designed to keep people moving dozens or even hundreds of miles daily at lethal speeds so they can keep the wheels of the ever-expanding consumer-spending economy humming along, using ever more energy and materials.
Is that really the problem for environmentalists? Or is our fixation on this problem the real one?
Permalink
Engineer Posted 1:46 am
26 Dec 2006
I read the link as more positive
Not quite sure how this relates to the link you provided? The link said Franklin had just gotten a $1M grant from the Navy to develop a phase 2 prototype.
Sounds more like the goverment (and the military, no less) is encouraging the concept.
Also, one of the big selling points of hydrogen fuel cells was that the exhaust was only water vapor. If the SOFC uses conventional fuels, seems like there will be residual waste, either in the form of solids (probably preferable, they could be collected when refueling and reprocessed) or gaseous.
Do you have any information on the emissions from this type of fuel cell?
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
Engineer Posted 2:07 am
26 Dec 2006
Not as much of a change as you think...
No, but, you could use rail transport cross-country to regional truck distribution centers, then use truck transport from there to the loading docks. That should reduce fuel use for product distribution substantially.
In terms of the overall efficiency of load moved to fuel consumed, rail (and ocean shipping) are far more efficient than individual trucks.
A rethinking of the distribution process might help also, considering many times you will see trucks moving identical products in opposite directions on the freeway.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
hewman1 Posted 6:11 am
26 Dec 2006
Electric Auto Association: Thanks for Plugging EVs
As a member of the Florida Electric Auto Association, I thank Gar for the informative post.
I also respect Amory Lovins and have been puzzled by his continued recommendation of FCVs, which require quadruple the overall energy to create, deliver and contain fuel to power them over the same distance as equivalent electricity will propel a battery electric vehicle (EV.)
Local photovoltaic (PV) generation can be used to power EVs in any location. I'm pleased that the state of Florida has finally funded subsidies for home-based PV installations.
Breathe free, hewman1
Permalink
seb2t Posted 10:32 am
26 Dec 2006
Our fixation and focus
Yes, we are fixated understandably, but mistakenly, on supply. We need to focus on reducing our demand for high-speed transportation.
I think one quick way to reduce our liquid fuel needs is to re-institute a nation-wide 55 mph speed limit. Yeah, I know it's unAmerican, so probably unpatriotic, etc. But this would immediately reduce our demand for oil.
Further, I would begin a program, somehow phase it in, to allow use of any given private motor vehicle only every other day. This would dramatically reduce our need for oil/gasoline/biofuels, etc. This would force people to concentrate their vehicle use, to car-pool, to maybe use a bike for their short trips. This would also have the effect of reducing traffic congestion, improving air quality, perhaps reducing accidents.
We use so much more fossil fuel than people in other nations, that we can't justify perpetuating this in the face of future constrictions on fuel supplies. So with a reduced rate of car/truck use, we could look at the use of hydrogen and other alternatives in a different light.
I know this would not be popular, but it would be better and less painful for us to do this voluntarily now, than have to do it involuntarily later.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:16 pm
26 Dec 2006
Don't regulate daily car use every other day
While I agree with the general thrust of Seb2t's remarks, I disagree with one in particular:
In the short run, regulation of car use -- such as on the basis of whether the last digit on the car's license plate is odd or even -- can reduce traffic, and is indeed resorted to on occasion in cities like Paris during pollution alerts. But, as a long-run measure to reduce fuel consumption, it encourages people to become owners of more than one car. Moreover, that second car is apt to be an older, more-polluting and probably less fuel-efficient vehicle.
If car usage is to be regulated, far better to target the usage itself, such as by charging per mile driven (as being tried in several parts of the world) if the main concern is congestion, or raising the excise tax on fuel (as practiced in Europe, Japan and elsewhere) if the target variable is fuel consumption.
Permalink
Jianguoxu Posted 1:26 am
02 Jan 2007
Fallacies of "Hydrogen economy"
I agree with many of Gar's points on the fallacies of using hydrogen for transportation. Let me add a few more:
- If hydrogen were to be used to power cars, there would be a lot of hydrogen leaked from hydrogen transportation, compressing, storage and during hydrogen filling. The leaked hydrogen would likely rise to the the stratosphere. It is very likely that this leaked hydrogen would cause disastrous impact on the ozone layer.
- PEM fuel cell life is an issue. There are many causes of fuel cell deactivation, one of which is sulfur poisoning. The Pt catalyst of a PEM fuel cell is very susceptible to poisons. 10 ppb of sulfur can cause the FC to lose capacity. The amount of sulfur on roads is higher than 10 ppb. Some of it comes from auto fume, some from degradation of organics. Occasionally, skunks provide some sulfur content peaks in air.
- The Pt production capacity in the world is only a very small fraction of what is needed for manufacturing the FCV's of the world. There would be a Pt supply issue. Chances are small that enough Pt can be discovered to allow FCV's to be used in most of the cars in the world.
- PEMFC works at about 80 deg C. It takes time to heat a fuel cell from subfreezing temperature to 80 deg C. Before reaching 80 C, the FC cannot provided the power needed. A separate, high power energy storage device is needed. That may be a large battery or supercapacitor, which adds to the cost of the car greatly.
- There is no good, inexpensive hydrogen storage means today. Prospect of finding such a storage means is not good.
- The cost of building a hydrogen manufacturing - distribution infrastructure is very high. Before such an infrastructure is present, nobody wants to buy a hydrogen car. Before hydrogen cars are wide-spread, no company wants to spend money to build hydrogen filling infrastructure.
The list can go on-and-on. While it might be possible that some of the problems can be solved through government intervention, others are technical problems or resource problems that may or may not have technical solutions, or solution at all, let alone cost-effective solutions.However, the biggest issue with hydrogen-powered transportation is that there are better alternatives. For example, hybrid vehicles are already commercialized. A hybrid vehicle costs only a few thousand dollars more than the conventional vehicle, and the battery and motor comes with 80,000 to 100,000 mile warranty. This compares with the $1 million price tag of a FCV, and its probably less than 50,000 mile practical fuel cell life. There are no technical issues in converting hybrid vehicles into plug-in hybrids. The only issue to resolve for commercialization of plug-in hybrids is the cost of the battery, which may really come in the form of battery life - the NiMH battery used in today's hybrids can only last for about 1000 cycles, while a plug-in hybrid needs a battery that can last 3000-4000 cycles. The efficiency of an electric vehicle is in the order of 75-95% (round trip), far exceeding that of a PEMFC's 50% or so. While it is true that there are inefficiencies in converting fossil fuels to electricity (60% for state-of-the-art gas turbine-steam turbine cycle using natural gas for an apple-to-apple comparison with H2 from steam reforming of NG), the overall efficiency of the electric vehicle route is still significantly better than the steam reformer - fuel cell route. When electricity is produced by renewable sources, such as wind energy and solar energy, this advantage is even further, greatly, increased. Besides, at present as well as in future, electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids can also be used to store electrical energy at low demand period of the day, which can greatly improve the efficiency of the power grid utilization. Wide-spread of PHEV's and EV's will allow the power companies to convert many of the lower efficiency (e.g., typically NG-powered gas turbine plants with 20+% efficiency) peak-shaving plants into the higher efficiency base-load plants (as was mentioned, the state-of-the-art combined cycle plants have an efficiency of about 60%), thereby indirectly, but significantly, increase the efficiency of the power plants.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:29 am
02 Jan 2007
Hydrogen co-conspirator
The fantastic hydrogen fuel cell economy was co-conspirator in killing the electric car, according to the movie.
There'll be pie in the sky when you die, hydrogen fuel cell pie, by and by.
So don't worry be happy, guzzle up to the pump, bend over, and make bandar and the rest of the bushes happy!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:34 am
02 Jan 2007
Rent
"If you only drive more 200 miles once or twice a year - you can rent a car."
Yep Gar good point!
Or rent a backup generator or extra battery pack, from your car dealership, that plugs into your car and fits in the trunk.
Also emergency zinc/air cells could be placed in the trunk just in case you go over your mileage limit. These could then be recycled, the zinc oxide in the used battery replaced with zinc recycled from the zinc oxide.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jianguoxu Posted 4:20 am
02 Jan 2007
Electric cars and size of battery
I for one do not think we need a battery for 200 miles to make EV viable. When PHEV with 60 miles of range becomes commercialized, it is likely that we will install electric cables in the major highways such that when the electric vehicles run on such highways, the vehicles will be able to get the juice for running the vehicle and at the same time charge the battery. When the vehicle leaves such highways, it will run on the battery. For most places, a battery with 60 miles of range should be enough if all the expressways are electrified. At that point, no internal combustion engine is needed, either.
What we need is a battery that can last 3000-4000 cycles.
When that happens, the vehicles can be very simple - we no longer need the internal combustion engine, the radiator, water pump, and the rest of the cooling system, the fuel pump, the fuel tank, and the rest of the fuel system, the catalytic converter, the muffler, and the rest of teh exhaust system, and we can greatly reduce the size of the transimission system, and the lubricating system. No longer the need for change of air filters and oil change. The cost of obtaining this large savings is electrification of the major highways, which is relatively simple and inexpensive .
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:50 pm
02 Jan 2007
We already have 18,000 cycles
From the Altairnano battery. And I believe most of the other nano-tech li-ion batteries.
And actually even the EV-1 and that whole generation of electric cars was cost effective with nimh anyway. The electric car was murdered.
And it is still under threat of abortion at anytime. Choose life!
The billions wasted on hydrogen fuel cell projects and fuel farming would have pushed electric car batteries into mass production by now. And global climate change and oil wars would seem far less inevitable right now.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jianguoxu Posted 12:21 am
03 Jan 2007
Altairnano battery
I read about Altairnano's battery before, and was encouraged. However, I am somewhat skeptical of their data. For example, they claim their battery has 10-15 yr life. I am sure they have not done 10+ yr test. So how do they get the number? They did not explain. An explanation is needed.
I do not know how they did the 18,000 cycle life test. It will be good to know.
In comparison with NiMH battery, Altairnano's battery uses nano-structured materials. It is not clear how expensive it is to make them. If their cycle life and calendar life claims are true, then one question that remains is their cost.
It will be good to see a big company getting interested in Altairnano's battery. Right now they are working with similar sized microcap companies. Lack of interest from large companies makes me wonder if they are telling the full story.
NiH2 battery used in space industry also has tens of thousands of cycle life, and demonstrated 16+ yr calendar life (Space Telescope Hubble). But NiH2 battery has other issues, such as the high cost of the pressure vessel and the large volume which prevented it from being considered for HEV applications by a lot of people.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:42 am
03 Jan 2007
Latest cost
It's 14,000 dollars for a 35kw hour Altairnano battery. 10 minute charge. The 10 to 15 year life is simulated by the testing.
That puts a 40 mile range in an economy car at around 2000 dollars. This is with very low production. How much did the cost of computer chips fall with mass production?
I would think that the cost would drop to 500 dollars for those 40 miles fairly quickly after billion dollar orders start rolling in. That way a car could affordably have an 80 mile plugin range and still have a backup generator that extends it's mileage indefinitely for longer mileage applications.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Engineer Posted 9:14 am
03 Jan 2007
A few issues...
My emphasis...I don't think installing a set of dual conductors on each lane of every major freeway in the country (even if only in major urban areas) could be considered inexpensive. Putting aside the cost of doing this, a few practical issues come to mind.
At what voltage do you envision this system operating? AC or DC? DC was determined impractical for distribution systems in the 1800's due to significant voltage drop after mere city blocks. Using AC will introduce losses in the conversion to the DC battery system.
To reduce losses, long distance transmission lines operate at 230 or 345 kV. More local lines are 115 or 69 kV. With the spacing required to fit inside the track width of the smallest potential car to utilize the system will probably limit the system to a system voltage of 4800 to 7200 volts (to prevent flashover during high humidity conditions). This 'low' of a voltage for this type of distance would incur very high losses.
This also raises safety concerns as it would be very easy for a person to contact both conductors at the same time. Not recommended. Metallic objects could fall (or be intentionally thrown) across the conductors, stalling traffic until that section could have the fault cleared and be re-energized.
Losses will also occur from poor contact between the conductors and whatever device is used to make the contact. In non-southern climates, snow and ice will affect the ability of the system to operate.
There is also the matter of who pays for the power and how. A smart metering chip could be imbedded in each car, but if a billing dispute arises, how does the utility defend itself if the metering equipment belongs to the car owner and the utility has no control over it?
I think the overall losses from this system would be significant, probably high enough to render it uneconomical. Not to mention the safety concerns.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
Engineer Posted 9:17 am
03 Jan 2007
Oops...typing faster than thinking...
"stalling traffic until that section could have the fault cleared and be re-energized."
Nope...battery operated cars, not full electric, dependant on the delivery system!
My bad.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:03 pm
03 Jan 2007
Induction engineer
Induction strips under the highway is what he was thinking of I believe. A pickup coil rides along the road surface under the car. As a pickup coil passes it triggers a pulse through induction coil in the roadway that draw current from conductors.
It would be AC. It would be located under a special charging lane. The vehicles would ride in the charging lane until recharged. Long distance trucks and buses could operate this way on all electric power.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Engineer Posted 1:53 am
04 Jan 2007
Thanks...
Thanks for the info. I will do some research on the efficiency of non-contact coupling. My first thought is the losses will be fairly high there as well...but... <segue to semi-apology>
Thinking of the recent post regarding 'trolls' (which, as well as it apparently did several others, made me wonder if it was aimed at me), I probably need to offer up an apology to anyone I may have been overly abrasive to in any of my posts.
And while not exactly an apology...I appreciate information such as this that offer me opportunities to check things out. I offer up my opinion where I feel I have expertise and experience, but I admit I am not up to date on the latest ideas and concepts for alternative processes and proposals. So, as long as folks are willing to put up with my sometimes acerbic (hopefully not trollish...) comments, hopefully we will all benefit.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:58 pm
04 Jan 2007
No way!
You have taken quite a few jibes good naturedly with only a few back, Engineer.
Plus you have actual information to share! This is big. It is often hard to get out of the utility industry.
Your skepticism is generally well founded and not based on unreasoning opposition to renewable energy. And you also listen to reason.
Your positive attitude and information in regard to wind power certainly helps cut the usual gloom and doom of fighting a seemingly hopeless cause.
Nothing trollish about any of that!! In fact you represent the opposite, the untrollish.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jianguoxu Posted 12:57 am
05 Jan 2007
Electrification of major highways
I am open to the best technology avaiable for such an application. However, electrically driven trolley buses were used for a long time, and are being introduced in US cities. I saw one such a line in San Francisco last November. There were two cables about 2 feet apart from each other hanging a few feet higher than the bus. I read somewhere that they are planning such a line in Washington DC also. My understanding is that this is a DC system - I am not sure of the voltage, but understand it is significantly higher than 110 V. I used to live in Shanghai. In the 70's and 80's there were many of these trolley buses running in the streets of Shanghai. I never heard of any serious safety issues associated with the falling of these cables, or discharge between the two parallel cables. However, I do remember of seeing blue sparks coming from the cable/connector at the intersections of such lines, since one couple of the cables would have to be elevated such that the contact between the connectors of the buses and the cables of buses on such lines had to be temporarily taken off, and then put back again after the bus passed the intersection area. The high voltage of the cable temporarily electrified the air between the copper cable and the (copper too?) connector, generating blue sparks when the buses were disconnected from the cables and right before the contact was established again.
Permalink
viadyello Posted 5:49 am
14 Feb 2007
Hydrogen Energy
I recommend for everyone who can´t believe that hydrogen energy makes sense and has a future the book from Jeremy Rifkin: The H2-Revolution.
Also take a look to http://www.hydrogenics.com
Hydrogen produced by w ...
and if you are not blind or have no education you understand, that hydrogen generation is the best and shortest way to use on the otherside non agricultural desert areas, roofs, windows (i. e. with www.XSunX.com solar panels). You get most of the electric energy directly converted to hydrogen. You can store it and convert it back when ever you need it - burning with internal combustion engines (ICE), normal engines or with fuel cells. Always less emission producing, the best for our destroyed nature. And that until the end of the planet, that comes once a day, when the sun loss the power.
How much emission is produced by ethanol or bio diesel before you can use it with your car? In the best case, a study makes clear, half of the produced ethanol, bio diesel
finds the way into the tank of cars, trucks... The other half is wasted by producing it, and pollute the air.
How expensive must corn and all the other agricultural products get before the world knows sure that we need all possible solutions to produce renewable energy - not only ONE.
Take a look at the price increase of corn for futures at www.cbot.com as result of all the ethanol producing plants! Crazy. Think you pay less at the pump but have to pay much for expensive food at the supermarket. Healthy for all the fat us peoples that can´t sit inside of a car?
the hungry peoples of the 3th world would stay much more hungry than today, sounds good, Make sense? No further war necessary? Forget it, please.
Hydrogen is the best solution for areas with high sun power, non agricultural areas (desert) or large buildings in hot areas with a lot of solar power potential. Please take a look to solar-thermal plants that can mass produce hydrogen you can see at http://www.solarmillenium.de/
Think or dream all the hot non agricultural country´s on that planet like africa, india, australia, asia produce hydrogen that is in the future used like oil today. A lot of energy can be cheap transported with small tanks on ships.
Remember that gas is also explosive and that the world use it for more than 100 years. Nuclear energy is also dangerous.
A high bureau building (as examble in Dallas, you remember J.R. Ewing?) can produce with the help of solar film on the windows the hydrogen for the peoples cars that work their, they use it emmision free inside of city´s and outside. The sun produce it, the solar film at the windows direct the hot sun power into electric energy and later to hydrogen. The rooms stay cool, need less energy to climate. Think about!!!!! Please excuse my english, it´s not my motherlanguage
best wishes
Martin
Permalink
viadyello Posted 5:54 am
14 Feb 2007
Hydrogen power
Following link I add to my article because their was a error by posting.
http://www.hydrogenics.com/onsite/pdf/HySTAT-P%20fact%20s ...
Thanks
Permalink
viadyello Posted 12:18 am
22 Feb 2007
Evaluating Hydrogen fuel is the best for the world
Hello, I must add a point to my blog.
USA´s need to produce bio-fuels a lot of the self produced commodities, that have been exported the last years into the world and that have been used as food for the worlds poor & rich peoples.
What happens if the bio-fuel industry buy all the future contracts at the market to have no lack of such commodities is clear: futures prices and price for food increase dramatically, exports decrease, the poor peoples can´t longer buy the expensive food and stay hungry. SOCIAL CONFLICTS & CRISIS all over the world, especially at poor country´s and region would create big trouble - terrorist, dictators and socialist, communists... will have much hungry citizens on that planet on side to reach stupid targets. A great financial damage to prevent & secure the civilization will cost much more money than the evaluation of a hydrogen infrastructure that can be possible also in desert hot areas like Africa, Australia, Iran, Iraq, India, China. People living in that country´s have a chance for work! Workless peoples are the potential of terrorism and stupid politics. The hydrogen industry gives a chance to the whole world, not only to a part of. Sounds good - it´s a no brainer. California & Arnold Schwarzenegger is the best example how it should done and that it is possible. Clean air, loud less traffic, light vehicles, less transmission losses, less hunger, less social conflicts and a good feeling about planet earth. And most of all, the US based hydrogen industry that earns the dollars that the USA spend the last years to China, Japan and other country´s the USA imports goods for consume. USA hydrogen industry has the knowledge & many years of experience to build a stable hydrogen infrastructure on that planet. Let´s do it!
Wishing all the best
Permalink
viadyello Posted 11:01 pm
02 Mar 2007
Rainbow
Rainbow Reinigungssysteme, die Wasser als Filtermedium nutzen (sogenannte Watercleaner) und mit dessen Hilfe während des Saugens die Luft mitreinigen, werden seit über 70 Jahren weiterentwickelt und ständig verbessert.
Qualität & Servicefreundlichkeit befindet sich auf einem hohen Niveau, das im besten Interesse des Besitzers ist. Wartung & Austausch von verschlissenen oder defekten Teilen ist möglich, denn der Hersteller liefert Reparaturteile an Vertriebspartner auch für die älteren Modellgenerationen.
Die Konstruktion der Geräte ist auch in Bezug auf eine Wartung oder Reinigung durchdacht und einfach genial.
Die enorme gründliche Reinigungsleistung ist gut für die Gesundheit und saugt nicht nur jeglichen Schmutz ein.
Besonders Allergiker können davon in vielen Fällen profitieren und einen enormen Beitrag zum Wohlbefinden durch den regelmäßigen Einsatz des Rainbow in den Räumen erhalten.
Ein Rainbow D3, D4, e-Series kann bei sachgemäßer Handhabung und Einhaltung der vorgesehenen Wartung, zu der nach 10 Jahre Lebensdauer geraden wird, mehrere Jahrzehnte hervorragende Dienste leisten und sich richtig bezahlt machen.
Haben Sie Probleme mit Ihrem Rainbow, ist es am besten, wenn Sie sich an einen qualifizierter Reparaturservice mit langjähriger Erfahrung & dem nötigen Know-how wenden, der zu Ihrer langfristigen Zufriedenheit arbeiten kann.
Bei http://www.planetrainbow.de finden Sie einen geeigneten Ansprechpartner, der auf mehr als 11 Jahre Erfahrung - seit März 1994 - mit Rainbow Reinigungssystemen und mehr als tausend zufriedenen Kunden zurückblicken kann.
Gute Beziehungen zu einigen Pionieren, die Rainbow in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten in Deutschland und Europa aufgebaut haben, führen zu erstaunlichen Fachwissen, überproportionalen Qualifikationen und einer historischer Chronologie, die anders nicht entstehen kann.
Dabei hat die Erfahrung gezeigt, dass man nicht überall gut aufgehoben ist, billige & teuere Reparaturen nicht immer ihr Geld wert sind und möglicherweise Folgekosten durch oberflächliche Arbeit entstehen können - zusätzlich zur bereits bezahlten Rechnung.
Deshalb sollte die Reparatur Ihres Rainbows D3 / D4 / e-Series Vertrauenssache sein - keinesfalls sollte man windige Dienstleistungen mit der frischen Luft verwechseln, die der Rainbow im Haus mit Hilfe des Wassers erzeugt, die über den Atlantik aus den USA herüber weht bzw. die der Vertreter bei der Abfahrt mit seinem Auto hinterlässt.
Am besten ist der weise Rat eines zufriedenen Kunden, der Ihnen über seine positiven Erfahrungen berichten kann.
Ihr Rainbow wird es Ihnen danken.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:37 am
03 Mar 2007
Martin - did you read before commenting
Because absolutely zero in it advocated biofuels. It suggested electric lines and electric batteries over hydrogen pipelines and electrolysis.
Permalink