In S.C., high-tech bet on hydrogen-powered cars may be move in wrong direction
May 10, 2009 By Jeff WilkinsonThe Obama administration's plan to cut research dollars for hydrogen-powered cars is not good news for South Carolina and its capital city Columbia, which just last month opened two hydrogen fueling stations and unveiled the state's "hydrogen freeway."
Taxpayers have pumped $40.7 million in the Midlands region of the state alone into building a new high-tech economy based, in large part, on hydrogen and fuel-cell research, primarily at the University of South Carolina.
A spokesman for South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said Friday the Obama administration cutbacks show hydrogen proponents in the state Legislature might be backing the wrong technology in the effort to build a high-tech economy.
Federal officials favor hybrid electric plug-ins cars -- not fuel-cell-powered vehicles -- to help ease the country's dependence on oil.
"Government should not try to pick the industry of the future," Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said. "We shouldn't be in the business of picking horses in this race."
But local officials say most of their efforts -- and those of USC -- have been on stationary applications for the pollution-free technology, such as generators, and might not feel the pinch of the cutbacks.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu told reporters Thursday the president will recommend that federal dollars be drastically cut for hydrogen transportation research because the infrastructure -- fueling stations and hydrogen production and transport systems -- is too costly and would take too long to develop -- up to 20 years.
Chu said the Energy Department will back other fuel-efficient, nonpolluting cars, such as plug-in hybrids, in an effort to more quickly stem the nation's dependence on foreign oil.
The Energy Department funded $160 million in hydrogen transportation research this year. Next year, under President Barack Obama's proposal, that funding could drop as low as $60 million, said Shannon Baxter-Clemmons, executive director of the S.C. Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Alliance.
"This is a strange turn of events," Baxter-Clemmons said. "We are very close to the tipping point (making fuel-cell applications, including cars, commercially viable). To stop that now is a waste of taxpayer dollars."
The one bright spot in the news is that Chu told reporters the Energy Department should continue research into stationary fuel cells for applications like batteries or backup power sources.
Columbia Mayor Bob Coble said those stationary uses -- such as fuel-cell backup power batteries at Fort Jackson and the fuel cell-powered scoreboard at USC's new baseball stadium -- "are where our efforts and research have focused. That's where the short-term economic development is."
The mayor added: "I would agree with them that hydrogen cars are not a short-term solution (to the nation's dependence on oil). But we should go to Washington and make the case that not funding the long-term solution is short-sighted."
USC officials said it was unclear Friday how grants for fuel-cell research would be affected -- which grants would be considered research for cars and which would be for other purposes.
USC recently announced a $12.5 million grant from the Energy Department for hydrogen research, the largest research grant in school history. That grant was for stationary applications, school officials said.
The news also could affect Columbia's and the state's emergence as a hydrogen research and development hub.
Last month, Columbia hosted the National Hydrogen Association Conference & Expo, drawing about 700 attendees from around the world and 2,500 members of the public -- most of those to view and ride in hydrogen-powered cars.
As part of the event, Aiken County and Columbia also announced the opening of two hydrogen fueling stations, and S.C. Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, proclaimed the opening of the S.C. Hydrogen Freeway.
___
(c) 2009, The State (Columbia, S.C.).
Visit the State at http://www.thestate.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
Feb 21, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
On the other hand, I have always thought that hydrogen power was the wrong way to go. Instead of improving on existing battery technology, let's create a brand new storage medium for the electricity we produce AND a new technology to then turn the hydrogen back into electricity. It just sounds so impractical.
Hydrogen powered cars vs plug in hybrids:
Pros:
Hydrogen- no particulate matter emissions, refuelable within minutes utilizing current pump infrastructure, comparable performance, weight, manufacture process, and repair.
Hybrid/plug in - reduced particulate emissions if you ignore the power infrastructure
Cons:
Hydrogen - expense, water based economy
Hybrid/Plug in - expense, non-comparable material systems, incompatible with current infrastructure, extended multihour downtime for refueling, maintains and reinforces reliance on fossil fuels
Hydrogen cars could be deployed TODAY, with little infrastructure change and a large reduction in fossil fuel usage. You could stick an electrolyzer at any shell station and it's now hydrogen capable.
A hybrid infrastructure would require an overhaul of the grid, not to get away from fossil fuels, but increasing our usage to support the larger electrical needs of society.
If you think Obama's cuts in hydrogen were for the benefit of the common man or the environment you're ridiculously misinformed. Overhauling the energy infrastructure and our way of life will make diverging from fossil fuels take far longer.
Remember that you have to somehow make the Hydrogen.
http://en.wikiped...ki/EROEI
Why are people stuck on combustion? Tons of wasted energy in that method. Too many moving parts. Cars burning fuel just sitting at a red light. Freakin stupid.
You can generate electricity any number of ways.
The major benefit seems to be that, once you make the hydrogen, you would have a fuel that would be ready to go and transportable, much like gasoline.
Personally, I don't give a darn what they use. I am not supporting either hydrogen or plug-in hybrid technology. Gasoline is so easy that nothing competes right now. The market will decide what eventually replaces gasoline.
I just think that, if I was looking to invest in one or the other, I'd go with an electric car that could run off any power source: gasoline powered generator, battery, hydrogen fuel cell, nuclear battery (just kidding), it really doesn't matter.
Electric cars go like this:
Power Plant ==> Grid ==> Car ==> Convert to mechanical energy
Hydrogen cars go like this:
Power Plant ==> Grid ==> Hydrogen generation/filling station ==> Covert electricity to hydrogen ==> Car ==> Covert hydrogen to chemical energy ==> covert chemical energy to mechanical energy
As you can see there are MANY inefficiencies when using hydrogen as a fuel source for a car, unfortunately.
But this doesn't mean that there are no good uses for hydrogen in our economy.
Hydrogen wouldn't make a good transportable fuel, but it could well make a good battery technology in the form of self contained fuel cells. Pour electricity in, and you get hydrogen and oxygen (charging the cell). Combine the hydrogen and oxygen, and you get electricity to run your car.
*That* might well turn out to be a good use of hydrogen as an energy storage system, but fuel? No.
If you have a 4 step cycle, then you have (0.95 * 0.95 * 0.95 * 0.95) = 0.95^4 = 81.5% efficiency.
If you have a 10 step fuel cycle, then you have 0.95^10 = 59.9% efficiency.
As you can see, with each added step, efficiency drops like crazy. And that's with *95 freaking percent efficiency in each step. That's insanely high, and not achievable in practice. For instance, a power plant is typically about 35%-40% efficient, depending on the exact design. An internal combustion engine, which a hydrogen engine is, is normally less than 20% efficient. Stick numbers between 20% and 50% in for each step, and see how low your total efficiency goes for a hydrogen engine. Insanely low total efficiency.
So the fewer steps the better (a step would be something like transportation of fuel, conversion of fuel, usage of fuel, or generation of electricity, or anything like that).
India has an auto that runs on high pressure AIR!
That makes more sense! DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT!
Have none of you seen the pumpable hydrogen cars out in california? They run all the electrolyzers with solar, wind, etc. Electrolyzers do not require grid attachment.
Not any more dangerous than a truck hauling gasoline or natural gas...and the fact that hydrogen is lighter than air would mean that explosions due to leaks would be less dramatic since most of the gas would already have dissipated...I would think.
Where I live in the north east part of the US, you could run electrolyzers powered by solar, wind, etc... for about 5 minutes. On a nice day. Maybe that might work in SoCal during the day, but it won't work in most other area. Grid dependency is a pre-req unless you want people waiting in line while their tanks slooooowly fill up on less than optimally sunny/windy days.
But that's not really important, since no one in their right mind is suggesting that we use liquid hydrogen in its natural state as a fuel. All the serious conceptualizations that I've seen have had the hydrogen safely stored in a way that would (nearly) preclude the possibility of an explosion.
Yes but you're neglecting the fact that an electric or hybrid car doesn't fuel anywhere near as quickly. The problems with hybrid and plug in are that they are not available whenever you need them. They don't fit our societal model and as such will not be widely used.
THat's semi-incorrect. Gasoline is "volatile" because it readily turns to vapor at room temperature. Hydrogen is far more volatile, but vapors, of any type are not volatile. Just a terminology clarification, not a disagreement.
Dozer, I'm also in the Northeast, MA to be precise, and I know that it's either sunny, or windy every day up here. But you're right, it would not be a fitting solution for all locations.
This isn't about the Al Gore BS, but instead, a kick to the groin for terrorists who are funded with Saudi Oil profits.
JL Mealer
http://www.mealercompanies.com
I had a lot going on this evening and have not had time to look into this more. When I did a search for hydrogen cars and electrolyzers I got a bunch of hocus pocus DIY crap. Could you post a link to a good article about the cars in Cali you mentioned?
In the GE article, it stated that a large electrolyzer could produce an amount of hydrogen equivalent to a gallon of gas in an hour. I realize that it was still in developement at the time of the article, but that doesn't sound very impressive.
http://www.altern...r-award/
I still have doubts, but I'll look into it more when I have time. I'll give you this: It could be one possible answer to the problem of storing the intermittent power generated by wind and solar.
Now, for me, its off to bed, legions of fuel cells dance in my head.
Every time I hear about plug in vehicles I just think about how trustworthy my cell phone is...
And you've read about how the faster you charge a battery, the more you shorten its usable life.
I do, no wait, I don't live here, just feels like it some days.
It's much easier to slowly upgrade the electrical grid than build a whole H2 infrastructure. And of course you haven't really addressed the whole issue of the horrible inefficiencies of H2 compared to direct electric batteries.
Difference is my car doesn't have to be attached to the grid, and so I can drive it as well as the added ability to refuel it in under 5 minutes as opposed to being dead in the water for 14 hours.
One electrolyzer can satisfy the needs of many motorists where as a grid attached vehicle satisfies one user and requires the same amount of power as a single electrolyzer.
Why not:
(Power Source) ---> Car
Power source:
Hydrogen
Electricity (solar or batteries)
Gas
Wind
heat (to reconvert to mech energy)
Have breaks that regen electricty.
Have wind used for breaking as well.
Solar panels that is either built into the car, or flexible cover for when the car is parked outside (as option).
Suppose all of the above would bump the cost of cars up.
Hydrogen fuel cells are nice because they can be replenished with out worries of memory effect.
Though in all sources, heat is generated, which is wasted energy.
hybrids aren't bad, various combo's can be made.
Though fossil fuel/electric doesn't liberate us from fuel dependence.
Oil barons and it's respective lobbyists would not like it. Especially when they invested millions into oil platforms/oil refineries. They know their days are numbered...but they will do anything and everything to slow change to increase profit.
If we can use hydrogen fuel cells we can last longer and that would be better. Using hydrogen direct to burn as a fuel is inefficient but has quicker turn over time for fueling stations.
Although converting fueling stations into battery swap stations would eliminate the recharging of batteries and also eliminates the problem of limited lifespan of batteries. To my mind the biggest problem with battery powered cars is not the time it takes to refuel which is not a small problem but the lifespan of the battery itself.
So by renting the batteries and not owning them and by changing them often we push the battery lifespan problem into an ongoing cost rather than a terminal end cost after less than ten years of life.
I want to own and run my car for 20 years not just 5 years. But we will have to move on from lithium batteries anyway. Sure they cost a lot now when there is not that huge number of them in the market just imagine how much they will cost when there is 100 million cars out there with enormous lithium Ion Batteries in them. The world output of Lithium might be sitting out there in every ones car.
The most important thing here is that WE take back control of the decision-making as to what kinds of vehicles are being manufactured. Big Oil has had way too much to say in the matter. Step one is to kick the financial legs out from under them. The ONLY way to do that is to take your OWN hard-earned dollars and to invest them into your OWN micro-infrastructure (above-mentioned refueling/recharging equipment). Let's face it, our reliance on Big Oil is our own lazy fault...as is the pollution and subsequent damage to the planet that OUR vehicles have caused.
Additionally, battery-swapping stations will never work. The people want to be LESS reliant on outside power sources, not more. Imagine driving into a gas station to have your near-empty gas tank changed for a full one...they didn't do it that way because it made more sense to fill them externally. Now multiply the weight of that gas tank by, let's say, 100. And it gets changed several times a week, because the batteries have been kept smaller by the service-providers to "minimize the wear-and-tear on the batteries and their high-capacity connectors". IT IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT!
Hydrogen is Big Oil's only way to stay in our lives-they already have most of the infrastructure.
I have always been a proponent of hydrogen and electricity as sources of energy for vehicles, but I must be able to maintain control over how much it costs me to "refuel"...we have a great chance here shift things in our favors, let us not SCREW IT UP AGAIN!
Wrong. Hydrogen gas will be produced from natural gas and coal through gasification.
Wrong. There is no current hydrogen infrastructure.
All nonsense. Hydrogen offers energy density barely better than a pure electric vehicle when you consider the poor efficiency of the fuel cell and the massive weight of the hydrogen tank. Fuel cells rivaling an ICE cost on the order of $500 000 and last nowhere near as long as an ICE. From the electric drive to the fuel cell and compressed hydrogen tank, manufacturing and repair is nothing like an ICE.
If you ignore the power infrastructure you'll at least be consistent.
Hydrogen gas is produced exclusively from gasification of natural gas and coal and that's the way it will remain. Chemical fuels don't have to go via electricity and back to hydrogen. This puts a tremendous gearing against using emissions free sources of electricity like nuclear to run vehicles and in favour of coal and gas. In addition, large electrolyzers are costly where as gasification is simple and cheap.
When you only get 30-40% of the embodied energy back out of the fuel cell it's no more emissions free than an electric car powered entirely by coal plants.
Platinum electrolysis is the most viable type of non-fossilfuel hydrogen production. Do you REALLY want to have to buy megatonnes of platinum? Do you know that not only is platinum very rare (hence its cost), but that 90% of the world's platinum supply is located in a single African country? Do you REALLY want the entire world economy to be dependant on one politically unstable country?
At least with oil the US can buy most of it's supply from Canada and Mexico. Only a tiny portion of the US oil supply comes from the middle east.
It is currently easier, cheaper, and more politically viable to produce Hydrogen via natural gas or coal. That won't change for a long time unless an incredible breakthrough is made (which it could be, but if you want an example of people sitting around waiting for an incredible breakthrough instead of slowly chipping away at the problem by doing basic research like they should have been doing, just look at Fusion Power).
The difference is you don't need platinum to split water, you do need palladium to make plug in hybrids.
Now let's talk methane. Cap a landfill and you have an excellent source of methane, as well as serving the purpose of finding a use for the garbage we already have collected, let alone that which we will produce.
It's almost like Doc Brown's DeLorean, only it actually works, and it isn't movie fantasy.
Lith-ion batteries may not be the best technology possible (although recent advances have improved them significantly, and the next generation of batteries that will be coming out soon is substantially better in every way than current lith-ion batteries are), but they're a damned sight further along than safe, reliable, cheap, secure, hydrogen fuel cell technology is.
Seeing as the automotive industry already stockpiles palladium and platinum for uses with catalytic converters what do you think they'll use?
But more to the point, if the platinum for catalytic converters supply dried up, would every car on the planet just halt? Would the production of fuel for those cars just stop? No. One little non-crucial part would need a minor redesign. That's it. Same with battery tech. It isn't dependant on a single compound or element in the way viable hydrogen fuel cell tech is (the current oil economy is the same way. That's why it's bad. CO2 be damned, it is the political instability of oil that will do it in, not the pollution).