« Boston Mayor Announces Additional Initiatives to Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Main | Jülich to Showcase Direct Methanol Fuel Cell-Powered Forklift at the Hannover Messe »
Las Vegas Valley Water District Dedicates New Solar-Powered Hydrogen Station
15 April 2007
 |
| The concept of the hydrogen station. Click to enlarge. |
The Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD), in partnership with the UNLV Research Foundation, dedicated a pilot hydrogen refueling station that operates on solar power.
Solar panels produce the electricity for a Proton Energy Systems electrolyzer that generates up to 12 kg of hydrogen per day, to be used to fuel two vehicles in the LVVWD fleet. The first is a Polaris Ranger internal combustion utility vehicle that has been converted to hydrogen fuel, and the second, a Taylor-Dunn converted electric truck that runs on a hydrogen fuel cell.
This project is just one example of the Water District’s commitment to becoming a leader in incorporating sustainable practices into all aspects of its operations. Our goal is to become a 100-percent alternative-fueled fleet by 2015.
—Richard Wimmer, LVVWD Deputy General Manager
Alternative-fuel vehicles, including gas/electric hybrids and those utilizing compressed natural gas (CNG) and biodiesel, currently constitute 77% of the LVVWD’s fleet.
Wimmer said the LVVWD is planning to add a hydrogen-powered pickup truck to its fleet by the end of 2007. Plans also call for the addition of a hydrogen-dedicated car the following year. The refueling facility also will function as a laboratory for the UNLV Center for Energy Research in order to further refine and enhance hydrogen fuel technology.
The DOE funded the bulk of the hydrogen station project’s research and development as well as the construction costs through a grant to the UNLV Research Foundation. Other partners include Nevada Power Company, which provided electrical upgrades for the station along with incentives that partially fund the solar array.
The project involves 13 public and private entities. Future collaborations will emerge with the LVVWD’s ability to provide an alternative fueling location for the City of Las Vegas to fuel its hydrogen vehicles.
The project is part of a multi-faceted research project that received $12 million in research and development funding from the Department of Energy. An additional $4 million was contributed in matching funds. Other components of the project include a hydrogen safety workshop; a hydrogen road-mapping exercise for Nevada; research into the production of hydrogen using photoelectric chemistry; and improvements on membrane and electrolyzer performance and efficiency. (Earlier post.)
Resources:
April 15, 2007 in Engines, Fuel Cells, Hydrogen, Hydrogen Production | Permalink | Comments (46) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/17748508
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Las Vegas Valley Water District Dedicates New Solar-Powered Hydrogen Station:
Comments
How far can you drive with 12kg of hydrogen?
Posted by: Mike Weindl | Apr 15, 2007 12:15:05 PM
When you figure all the fossil fuel it took to make this thing, it had better be about a hundred times around the world.
Posted by: Lucas | Apr 15, 2007 12:24:26 PM
PV panel life is maybe 30 years. I have no idea for the other components. Over the long haul, this might break even, given the rise in fuel prices. It is a project that captures the imagination of people, even though it does not make a lot of sense on a much larger scale right now.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 15, 2007 1:08:44 PM
just scale it up by hundred times
then we have it;
with hydrogen we have no need for seldom precious metals or high weight, high cost batteries;
just lets use light weight cars with hydrogen combustion engines and we will be free to move forever (at low cost)
Posted by: scaleitup | Apr 15, 2007 1:11:01 PM
If you're truck can get about 20mpg on gasoline then it should be able to get about 21 miles per kg (mpkg) on hydrogen.
So 13kg = about 274 miles.
Andy
Posted by: andy | Apr 15, 2007 1:14:43 PM
scale: I agree completely with the idea of lower weight car but I think the flaw in you idea would be that hydrogen generation and the ICE engine are both very low efficiency solutions that combined together would give horrific results (50% hydrogen generation efficiency and 25% ICE efficiency leaves you with 12.5% overall) when compared to electricity generation and an electric vehicle (50% electicity generation in an 80% efficient electric motor gives you 40% overall). Please note that I was being generous for the hydrogen and conservative with my EV numbers.
Posted by: Neil | Apr 15, 2007 1:39:57 PM
The article mentions nothing about the cost of the system or the size of the solar array.
What do you want to bet that they're not being given, because they'd prove that Tesla Motors' CEO is right about hydrogen?
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 15, 2007 3:52:03 PM
Actually now h2 generation israther efficient. As for the solar array it can be replaced with a few 5 mw wind turbines to scale up as neeeded.
In a fuel cell car 1 kg will get you 60 or more miles. in tha ranger.. prolly 15 to 18 miles.
The only important bit is thet gather more and more info on how the stations work so they can make better ones lomg before h2 goes mass market.
Dont forget oh tunnel visioned peeps that biodesel is STILL very messy to burn and still fills the air with jumk. We wont want a land of biofuled cars...not at least if we wish to breath.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 15, 2007 3:53:10 PM
H2 has a lot of problems - cost of fuel cells, storage, transmission, but if you want to generate it, as wintermans says, use wind, especially, use it when there is too much wind energy.
The trick is to get a way of storing wind energy as some portable fuel - it does not have to be H2, it could be anything that can be stored and transported to a place of use and the used without too much pollution.
There is lots of wind out there, it is just in the wrong place and at the wrong time - but if you could bottle it ... you would have something.
Posted by: mahonj | Apr 15, 2007 4:03:59 PM
Once again the DOE funding nutty schemes of no practical merit whatsoever, while ignoring enormously practical solutions, like how about methanol fueled high efficiency series hybrid EV's.
An excellent critique on H2 for vehicles from CARB of all people at:
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/sb76/workshop/brooks_nov2.pdf
H2 as a fuel is absurd to the point of insanity. Think of the nightmare, you want to go on a long trip, normally you would bring a jerry can of spare gas with you, forget it, fuel can only be obtained at an expensive high-tech custom oil company owned distribution station. Run out of gas - call the tow truck. Even with a BEV, if you run your battery dead, you can charge it up with a $100 portable generator or anywhere that there is 120vac power. If you live in the country where you would store 45 gal drums of diesel or gas, forget it, you're screwed. How about fuel for your boat, lawn mower, chain saw, 4 wheeler, snow machine or aircraft - what an expensive bulky Hydrogen tank you have to take to a service station to fill, nutso. And what about driving in the winter in the country, where you should bring extra fuel in case you get stuck in a snow storm? And battery EV’s already have up to 350 miles range, more than H2 Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles would have, without the enormously expensive Hydrogen infrastructure cost.
Ever notice how heavy & bulky a standard 2300 psi O2 or N2 cylinder is, and all the safety precautions for use and storage that are required for their use, well it would hold a whopping 1.6 lbs of H2 in a 120 lb cylinder. H2 is the hardest gas to prevent from leaking, and can form explosive mixtures with air in any semi-enclosed space, which can be ignited by a lighting strike one mile away. It also causes metals to become brittle, so high tech materials are needed to use it. Insurance companies may refuse to insure people with H2 vehicles, as any leak in an enclosed parking lot or garage would easily be ignited causing a deadly, destructive explosion.
Besides, there is a far superior way to store H2, called Methanol, costs $1 per gallon, simple to produce by numerous methods including from H2 and waste CO2. Burns at 43% efficiency (H2 fuels cells are 50% efficient) in a simple Port Fuel Injection Turbocharged high Compression Spark Ignition engine and meets the tough Tier II New Low Emission Vehicle requirements. Easy to store & transport. Can be mixed in all proportions with ethanol & gasoline to facilitate a gradual change away from oil products. Six times the energy per liter of H2 compressed to 3000 psi. Whereas methanol is sold in grocery stores in flimsy plastic containers (they wouldn’t let you buy gasoline in those packages). People use it routinely in Northern Countries to add to their gas tanks to prevent gas line freeze-up. It would save many lives and the destruction of property in accidents, since it burns with a very cool flame. (that is why racing cars are required to burn it or a mix with ethanol). Also dissipates to atmosphere in a spill quickly, or can easily be washed down (mixes with water) no environmental damage, unlike petroleum. A far superior way to transport Natural Gas than LNG, safe and environmentally benign in a spill.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 15, 2007 5:52:32 PM
Once again the DOE funding nutty schemes of no practical merit whatsoever
But remember this is Las Vegas! Fortunately what happens here, stays here.
Posted by: DS | Apr 15, 2007 7:51:27 PM
I love watching people get all fanboyishly frantic about something as dull and industrial as fuel.
h2 will do fine simply because alot of big rich powerful boring people are forcing it.
Fact is if enough rich boring people want it a car running on girraffe pee would SO,EHOW be made to work.
That is the true nature of mankind. We dont do what makes sense we make sense of what we do.
Because of the size of this market its obvious that many fuels will become multi billion even tri;;ion industries. IN such aplace even some rather odd fuels mihjt make millionaires.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 15, 2007 10:04:27 PM
Its one research project amongst a basket of other technologies being tested.Real world data is gathered.Aspects can be peeled away and used in electronics,stationary power and the like.The tech and data may sit until a future developement makes it practical.At least it is beginning to become one facet of the research instead of the whole enchilada as it became in the nineties and early twenty first century.
What if pv is greatly improved by 2020 and it can provide all your electric then switch to hydrogen generation to fuel your hydrogen fuel cell vehicle? Perhaps this would be practical in the southwest and ev powered by wind would work in the best wind corridors.I like the proliferation of research throughout all these universities and want many alernative arrows in the quiver.
Posted by: Earl | Apr 16, 2007 6:38:43 AM
Warren, ever been in the midst of a car running Methanol? Give that a shot, you may change your mind about that as an everyday fuel.
Posted by: DRD T-bone | Apr 16, 2007 8:03:47 AM
There is a way hydrogen could work as a transport fuel, but it would have to be part of a larger solution like (as someone mentioned) storing wind energy. Another idea is to use the cyrogenic temperatures of liquid hydrogen to keep a superconductor cool enough to transport electricity across the continent.
See here; http://www.w2agz.com/PMG%20SuperGrid%20Home.htm
Posted by: ai_vin | Apr 16, 2007 8:25:29 AM
H2 generation already is saving some people alot of money in japan. This is because some sources of h2 are easy and cheap to convert and the result can replace some rather spendy energy soutces.
Also fot certain applications its realy the ONLY fuel.
If you want a no comptomises lux sports car or massive hummer by 2030 you will have to use h2. Cafe will strangle the entertainment car THE MONEY of carmaking.. but it wont strangle ev and h2 cars.
SO limted high milage not un to drive biofued cars for many of us.. ev xars for some of us and h2 cars for those with money and a passion for driving great cars.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 16, 2007 12:43:33 PM
If this is a 20kw PV system, just that might have cost $200k, with the other components maybe another $400k. Let's say you can go 300 miles per day from the H2 produced and we could do the functional equivalent with a 30 mpg vehicle using 10 gallons per day.
At $3 per gallon, that is a daily fuel cost of $30 times 250 work days for a fuel cost of $7500 per year. 30 years simple on $600k is $20k per year. So you would have to have quite a run up in gas prices to break even, but it is possible. This is why I say that you might want to wait a while to scale it up. PV and other component prices my drop and cross over the probable run up in oil prices.
What the price of oil will be in 30 years is anyones guess..and a pretty good reason for this web site :)
Posted by: SJC | Apr 16, 2007 1:53:10 PM
Thought some numbers might be relevant.
If you could make hydrogen from electrolysis at 100% efficiency then you'd need 37.4kWh per kg of hydrogen.
Lets, for arguments sake, assume an electrolysis efficiency of 75%
So now you need approx 50kWh per kg.
At, say, 7.5 cents per kWh you're looking at a cost of $3.75/kg.
Assume an electrolysis unit costs $300 per kW. A 2kW unit will produce about 0.88kg per day of H2.
Assume say, $1000 for a 2kWh unit plus storage tank and compressor. In reality you're likely to get economy of scale as you'd have a multi-megawatt unit at your average filling station.
So $1000 amortised over, say, 5 years, gives approx $280/year cost divided by about 280kg production, gives a cost of $1.14 per kg.
So the total cost will be $4.89 plus profit margin etc..
as 1 kg of h2 roughly = 4 litres of gasoline
equivelant cost = $1.22 litre.
Thats $4.64 per US gallon equivelant.
Expensive? Maybe, but its cheaper than European fuel is now.....
The big cost is the electrolysis unit. At the moment they're $thousands per kW capacity. That needs to fall to $hundreds per kW before we have a snowballs chance in hell of seeing H2 cars appearing.
I do think we'll see H2 cars. A few thousand extra dollars on a luxury car for a carbon fibre 200bar tank is nothing to the total purchase price, and it'll give the manufacturer a get-out-of-jail-free-card when it comes to CO2 emissions.
The H2 producers will strike deals with the utilities to purchase "nuclear" electricity in the same way that consumers can already choose "green" tariffs that guarantee a certain % of renewable kWh's in their power provision. This will sidestep the CO2 issue for the H2 producers.
Andy
Posted by: Andy | Apr 16, 2007 1:55:44 PM
DRD T-bone, please don't hide behind vague innuendo's, if you have a point to make, just come out and say it. I assume you are talking about the aldehydes that are released in untreated exhaust from ethanol & methanol fuels. About 5 times that of diesel engines. Otherwise the exhaust is substantially less in CO, HC, SOx, NOx & PM. The aldehydes can be readily removed in a catalytic convertor, not-a-problem.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 16, 2007 6:30:27 PM
Andy, your analysis has some difficulties. You are not counting compression losses. The actual power use of a solar hydrogen electrolysis is 65 kwh per kg.
Converted to electric power in a 50% efficient fuel cell (which ain’t cheap), that’s 16 kwh per kg.
i.e. 75% energy loss from electric energy to electric energy. That doesn’t include the inevitable losses due to H2 leakage and transportation (very difficult to transport). And then there is the ~8% loss in storing much of that energy in the H2 fuel cell vehicle battery. Thus we are at a maximum efficiency of 23% of input electric energy to vehicle electric energy.
Now taking that same solar power and sending it directly to a battery in a BEV or a PHEV, will result in 85% of input to output electric energy (i.e. the battery charging loss). So it takes at least 3.7 times the electric power to run the H2 vehicle as the BEV. In terms of range, the most optimistic DOE projections are a 300 mile range for the H2 vehicle. Battery vehicles are already being built with 350 mile range, and this with a trivial amount of real government funding (I’m not counting the USABC – US Anti-Battery Coalition funding), compared to the 10’s of billions that have been poured into H2 vehicle research. And we haven’t even begun the $1 trillion plus expenditure for H2 distribution & storage.
If you work the numbers with H2 ICE engine, you’ll be even worse off. So right off you are throwing out 4 times the CO2 emissions, then if you stuck with a BEV in the first place. And the BEV can easily be made as a PHEV, with a simple, cheap, efficient alcohol fueled generator as a range extender and get 800 miles range on a 15 gal cheapo plastic fuel tank. Maybe you’re in the bush, heck buy a tidy tank or a 45 gal plastic drum of alcohol just to be sure (you can always drink what you don’t use).
Also, I get a kick out of all these schemes for a carbon fibre 5,000 or 10,000 psi H2 tank when thousands of people are on workmen’s comp. from lugging 120 lb, 2300 psi gas cylinders around. Where are the lightweight gas cylinders to replace the awful, brute cylinders that are used by the millions in industry? And that with stiff safety regulations, you must not leave the regulators on the cylinders after use, you must keep the cylinders upright at all times, must be stored securely chained and the steel cap must be replaced after use. I would hate to see John Q Public using a 10,000 psi ultra-lightweight H2 (read high explosive) fuel tank. And you think Li-Ion batteries are a potential safety hazard?
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 16, 2007 7:25:28 PM
PV-powered electrolysis, hmm ... where are they going to get the water?
Posted by: cidi | Apr 16, 2007 7:26:31 PM
"I love watching people get all fanboyishly frantic about something as dull and industrial as fuel."
That dull & industrial fuel has caused how many oil wars? The latest oil company proxy war in Iraq will cost probably in excess of $1 trillion and maybe 5,000 American lives, not counting having giving Al Qaeda the greatest boost ever, and emboldened the Iran Wackos to be the regional power, soon to be nuclear armed. And that Iran problem, which may well lead to nuclear detonations in U.S. cities, was in itself caused by Oil Companies who had their U.S. & British government puppets, overthrow their legitimately elected government, replacing it with the much despised Shah, see Wikipedia "Operation Ajax".
That dull & industrial fuel has caused this most serious global warming problem, not to mention the millions who have died from the toxic exhaust fumes.
When you’re waiting in line at the gas pump for 10 hrs to get gasoline at $20 per gallon, that you can’t afford because your taxes (to pay for those oil wars & stupid pork barrel energy policies) have doubled, but that is the least of your worries with nuclear and radiological Islamic terrorism financed by your fuel purchases, putting your life in jeopardy.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 17, 2007 4:49:43 AM
The kwh needed to make h2 isnt static. It was near 100 back aways and now on many units its in the 50s. They even have a unit that is over 85 percent eff wich places it squarely in the 40s.
And for industrial users power isnt that spendy. We are talkimg 5 to 6 cents per kwh.
The goal they already laid out is h2 at the pup profitd and all for 3.5 bucks a kilo.
The same goal set has 75 percent eff electrolysis and fuel cells ad a compresser of a certain eff.
They alreadt surpassed all those goals.
So why isnt h2 here already? Simle the plan is long term and 2012-15 is innitial rollout date. They dont intend to fasttrack. They are in the cost reduction phase of the first phase of the plan. Thus fuel cells and elrctrolsys machines and storage systems ate a;; getting cheaper. What would have taken 10 million buck units now takes one 750k unit. By 2012 you can expect the units will output hundreds of kilos of h2 per day and cost under 2 mill and run at least 75 maybe even 85 eff to boot.
Now the likely outcome is gas goes to 4-5 bucks a gallon in next 7 years.. h2 crops up at 4-9 bucks a kilo dependng on sources.. And various cars and trucks will run on various fuels including h2 bio e85 e 100 b20-100 straight veg oil and various ev levels from mild to pure.
We will likely rnd u[ with h2 hummers and testarosas and various lux h2 cars,, plus many pure ev lux and sports cars and suvs.. and 0 gas or bio or disel suvs or lux or sports cars.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 17, 2007 6:59:25 AM
What a waste of hard won solar energy.
Make the engines out of platinum, and then throw away 80% of the energy before it even gets to the wheels. Yeah, that works out great. Not.
Posted by: clett | Apr 17, 2007 8:54:47 AM
Warren, you managed to ignore one of the most important points of my post. H2 generation is likely to be carried out using nuclear generated electricity so that H2 vehicles can sidestep CO2 taxes/cap’n’trade.
Next point, cylinders. I’m not suggesting that these vehicles be hydrogen only. I’m also not proposing fuel cells. I put these in the same category as cheap everlasting batteries (ie, not here yet and not likely to either)
H2 vehicles will in be ICE and will in all likelihood have dual fuel capability so will be able to run on methanol/gasoline etc in the event of running out of H2. This is the same principle as CNG vehicles in Europe today. (Germany has 10’s of thousands of CNG light vehicles now).
So you’re point of lugging H2 cylinders about is largely moot. Plus in 10 years of driving I’ve never had to tank up a vehicle from a jerry can. This seems to be a peculiarly American problem.
Lastly, you’re point about batteries. This is my pet hate. Folk always bang on about battery efficiency and like to point out how expensive hydrogen is likely to be but then conveniently forget about the cost of batteries.
If you need a range of about 100 miles, you’re looking at a 25kWh battery. Assume that this will cost about $300 per kW. If your battery is being used as a BEV, then it’ll probably be shot inside 5 years. Even before finance costs your $7500 battery pack will cost you $1500 a year in depreciation. If hydrogen costs the same as $6 gallon gasoline then your $1500 would buy you 250 gallons equivalent. At 37 mpg equivalent that’s 9250 miles of driving to break even.
Sadly the $100 per kW, 10 year lifespan battery is not yet a reality. And I place it in the same category as fuel cells too. Highly qualified, experienced people have been working on batteries for quite some time. We’ve seen some phenomenal advances but yet, we’re still not there. We still need magnitude of order improvements in operational life and cost reductions. And I’m of the opinion that we’re already close to the edge of the envelope.
Tesla’s battery pack is reputed to cost $25,000 dollars and is predicted to last just 5 years. The cost will not fall as they’re already using mass produced cells. Anyone buying a Tesla, if they wish to sell it after 4-5 years then they’re going to have to replace the battery pack before resale, or accept that the next owner will expect a significant discount over and above the normal depreciation curve.
I would also argue that in the future, batteries are likely to be leased to consumers, therefore the total cost of battery ownership will be presented to them in the monthly lease cost. And I would wager that it will be a significant cost too.
hydrogen may not be efficient, but neither is crude oil, ICE and we run the whole damn world on them, so I guess it works.
Andy
Posted by: Andy | Apr 17, 2007 10:45:07 AM
I would favor dual fuel (flex fuel/natural gas) cars in the U.S. The Phill NG compressor would go in the garage and provide CNG for local trips and commutes. The flex fuel (gasoline, methanol, ethanol) could be use for long trips where gasoline stations are on the road. You get cleaner air and less foreign oil. Sure NG supplies are getting tighter, but if we use the NG that Canada will use to process the tar sands, we might have enough. If not, gasify biomass to SNG and go CO2 neutral. I would not favor LNG tankers however.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 17, 2007 4:21:01 PM
So, Andy, you think crude oil is inefficient? You're right, but you forget that we get crude oil out of the ground for what used to be very little effort. On the other hand, we have to make every bit of hydrogen we get. In a gasoline car, the biggest inefficiences are at the end; with hydrogen, they're at the very beginning.
The cheap, long-lived battery isn't here yet... but it's coming. We've already got long-lived, very light and extremely powerful Li-ion cells from the likes of A123Systems. They cost a lot today, but individual transistors once did too. There is nothing inherently expensive about lithium iron phosphate, and the price will eventually come down to a small multiple of the raw-material cost. On the other hand, low-temperature hydrogen fuel cells inherently need precious-metal catalysts. Good luck with that.
I was at the auto parts store the other day and saw a 105 AH 12 V deep-cycle battery for $71. That's about $56/kWh. Firefly Energy's carbon-backed electrode design should take out 2/3 of the lead while eliminating several of the failure modes, and ought to yield that 5-year lifespan. If they cost $100/kWh, a 25 kWh battery would cost $2500 and cost about $500/year in depreciation and maybe $350/year in interest at 14%. If you drove 15,000 miles/year at 250 Wh/mile and 10¢/kWh, electricity would cost you $375/year for a total cost of $1225; you'd have to get about 37 MPG on $3/gallon gasoline to beat that, and 61 MPG at $5/gallon. Any fees the electric company pays you for V2G services would make the EV even more attractive.
Hydrogen is an inefficient, hyper-expensive dead end. In contrast the replacement of the gasoline engine by batteries is overdue, blocked by skulduggery and inertia.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 17, 2007 5:09:53 PM
Engineer-Poet you are right on the money, and Andy I still don't see how you can justify the nightmare of using H2 to fuel an ICE vehicle, and even add to the nightmare by having dual fuel. Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to just accept the inevitable, the full EV drivetrain, run the vehicle as a series hybrid in the short term, with a low % utilization 5 kwh NiMH battery pack, worth $1100 in volume, basically 4 times a Prius battery pack, which have been good for > 1 million km’s. And then for a generator use a high efficiency Methanol fueled engine, which can be run at 40-43% efficiency consistently, with near zero emissions, except CO2 and methanol can easily be made carbon neutral. With the handicap of dual fuel and without the EV drivetrain, you’ll be lucky to average 18% efficiency with your ICE dual fuel engine, and knock off another 15-30% of that for drivetrain losses. When you can store, produce & distribute the methanol or ethanol fuel so easily, it is simply wacky to create this foolish burden of compressed gas for fuel.
Also it doesn’t matter what fancy bookkeeping trickery you use, the fact is your H2 is coming from Grid Mix, and that means it is not CO2 neutral, and will, in most countries, produce much more CO2 than the above mentioned series hybrid running on Natural Gas Methanol. The by far most likely scenario for CO2 neutral electricity to vehicle is homeowners who install solar panels or windmills and easily charge their BEV’s or PHEV’s from them. I doubt you would find many willing to invest in a solar powered home H2 filling station, with computer hookup to fuel tank (required by safety regulations).
Regarding the Tesla battery pack, using the 18650 Li-Ion cells, rumor is Tesla is linked up with EEStor, true or not, Tesla will switch to larger automotive sized cells when demand makes them available. If only the money blown on H2 had been spent on batteries.
The Toyota Prius is about $5000 cheaper than a VW Golf TDI diesel in the U.S. Using UC Davis calculated volume cost of NiMH batteries of $220 per kwh, that would be $6,600 for a RAV4 BEV sized battery pack. Take out the 76 hp Atkinson engine, the exhaust & emission controls system, the complex Synergy drivetrain, fuel system, evaporative canister & control, ignition system and a few other components. Replace the two electric motors (67 hp) with one 80 hp electric motor, beef up the PEM a bit, simpler control system, and it’s a pretty good bet that you can make a Toyota Prius BEV for about the same price as a regular Toyota Prius, and about $5000 less than a VW Golf diesel, with much better energy economy and zero emissions as well as being very trendy. And RAV4 BEV’s are running 150,000 miles on the original old technology battery packs, with resale values of as much as double the original purchase price for a 4 year old vehicle. Tom Gage at AC propulsion has said he could make the Prius as a BEV for +/- $1000 of current price. And in addition you have the option of selling the vehicle as a series hybrid or plugin series hybrid with similar components across all models – talk about scale economy advantages.
Maybe you haven't heard but Miles Automotive is selling a 85 mph, 150 mile range, street legal vehicle (the Javlon) in the U.S. for ~$29,000, powered by Li-Ion batteries, in < 2 years See:
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1228
Certainly much cheaper to run than a VW TDI diesel and cost about the same. In 5 years battery replacement maybe $10,000 (likely much cheaper by then) but maintenance costs almost nil, and drivetrain should be good for > 500,000 miles. And this done, like the Tesla, with zero government funding, unlike your 10’s of $billions in H2 funding.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 17, 2007 6:53:12 PM
Fact is every part of the h2 system is getting far better and cheaprt and better.
The end result is h2 is improving faster then ex[ected will improve more then hoped. And will do more then they ever planned sooner then anyone expected.
At the current rate h2 sports and lux and enertainment cars are a lock for 2012-15 timeframe.
IF they manage the improvements they plan to by 2020 eveb normal midrange.. 20-35k cars wi;; be able to addordably run on a combo of hort hop ev and long h2.
Before 2012 they should be managing UNDER 50 kwh per kilo of compressed h2. That should result in h2 at 3-4 bucks a kilo.
By 2012 they should have long finished cost reducing and mass producing the simple 10k psi tanks... amd nothey dont weigh as much as the old 2.5k steel tanks...
By 2012 they will have "cheap" fuel cells capable of range extender duties..
And yes they will have the xars and fillimg stations.
The only question is how nuch these titans will invest to start phase 1 and thus how many early fuel cell cars and h2 ice cars will pop up by the goal. 1000? 10000? 50000? I doubt they will goall that high till phase 2 or 3.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 17, 2007 7:54:26 PM
Let's see. A kilogram of H2 is about 41 kWh (higher heating value) and yields about 24.6 kWh in a 60% efficient PEMFC. $3/kg assumes energy available at < 6¢/kWh; try 10¢/kWh, so $5/kg electricity cost and 20.3¢/kWh at the FC output terminals. This yields about 5¢/mile electricity cost into the motor controller. (This does not include any of the expenses of the electrolyzer or compressor, so it is a serious underestimate.)
Li-ion batteries are about 95% efficient, so the cost of juice is about 10.5¢/kWh. Further, batteries require no expense for brand-new infrastructure (which would be on the order of $1 trillion for H2).
Conclusion: Hydrogen is a boondoggle compared to the cheaper and more efficient technology, batteries.
Wintermane, whatever you're smoking may be pleasant, but it is seriously warping your sense of reality.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 17, 2007 9:05:37 PM
H2 and fuel cells are making great progress. But that doesn't mean fuel cell cars will soon be available.
Honda thinks they will be mass marketing fuel cell vehicles in 2018. And even then at $84,000 in USD. (I have to assume that is current dollars.)
What Honda says isn't Gospel but their record is good.
If we want results now they must come from improving what we have - the ICE, hybrids and EVs, plugins, better batteries, and multiple small improvements in weight, tires, accessory loads, transmission, and fuels.
Posted by: K | Apr 17, 2007 11:04:35 PM
Each FCV fuel cell stack requires 100 grammes of platinum.
If 30% of entire global platinum production goes to FCVs, that means that less than 1% of global vehicle production can be hydrogen FCV based. End of discussion.
Unless somebody has a plan on how to turn base metals into platinum....
Posted by: clett | Apr 18, 2007 2:19:41 AM
They already have designs that dont use platinum or that use vastly less of it. In the mid run as long as they reduce the plat use enough they dont have to worry. By the time phase 3 comes along they will have replaced the platinum entirely and sti;; wont be in realy massive production yet.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 18, 2007 9:26:58 AM
Wintermane, you must have the sense to realize that the only reason Hydrogen gets so much press, hype and money is because the Oil Lobby and their Big Auto cohorts are pushing it. This is for three reasons:
1) Greenwashing: it gives them an extraordinarily well advertised opportunity to pretend that they are pro-environment, whereas in actual fact they are undermining green technology at every step
2) The expense & infeasibility of the H2 economy. They know damn well that H2 is the lowest threat to their energy dominance and they will be able to sell high priced oil to us until completely depleted because the H2 fantasy is so far in the future and so expensive they have no worry about it interfering with their energy hegemony.
3) By hyping the H2 economy they are very successfully drying up funding for realistic technologies, like methanol, thorium reactors, electric drive vehicles, and biomass to ethanol via Fischer Tropsch process.
Wintermane, these people are pure, insidious EVIL. Go watch the movie Syriana to see a clear picture of their true color. No wonder George Clooney is funding Phoenix Motors. These are the good folks that had their political cronies start the Iraq War in order to profit from Iraqi Oil, a $trillion of potential green energy funding up in smoke as well as 1000's of American lives, and likely one million Iraqi lives. These are also the guys who had their politician puppets overthrow the legitimate Iran government, thus precipitating the terrible Iran nuclear theocracy nutcases.
How does that make you feel, that by supporting their Hydrogen Economy, you are a partner with the demons who are wreaking such destruction on this Earth?
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 18, 2007 7:17:26 PM
Um... no.
The reason h2 got soo much backing was even if it never worked in cars the backers got alot out of it.
1 big oil ALSO oddly is big h2. They use more h2 then anyone else. The military wants fuel cell to power energy weapons on tanks hummeers and even soldiers. Many companies use h2 today. Many others make it... h2 was already a billion buck industry waaay back when bush first pushed it. Car makes VERY obviously WANT h2 for certain cars/trucks... they pushed for it. Thre coa industry pushed for it and so did the power and gas companies.. Hell likely even the propane industry pushed for it.
And it has a sensable obvious set of uses EVEN before its cheap enough for the masses it can STILL be a 100 billion a year ind.
as for the iraq war. We didnt fight it for oil as the oil was already being sold to SOMEONE and thats all that ever mattered. The war started as ofyen they do becuase it was the last year we could have done it and we couldnt afford the risks of not doing it.
Oh and there was the ;iyyrt deal of iraq printing 16 billion in perfect funny money a year.. and who saddam was flimging alot of it to... need a hint?
Personaly I think bush should have let saddam go mental and stayed out. Would have resultrd in ALOT more deaths on all sides and alot more money spend and cities wrecked.. but it would have beeb much better for bush and the gop.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 19, 2007 12:00:08 AM
"They already have designs that dont use platinum or that use vastly less of it."
There are alternative catalyst materials, but these have dreadful efficiency conversion rates. Molten oxide fuel cells are also too impractical for vehicles. And as for reduction of platinum use, this research has been ongoing for decades and nobody has yet been able to show a decent vehicle sized fuel-cell using a small amount of platinum.
Posted by: clett | Apr 19, 2007 4:42:03 AM
I do believe you're conflating solid-oxide fuel cells and molten-carbonate fuel cells.
SOFC's are headed for vehicular use, but in the ~5 kW power range. At ~$250/kW they'll cost too much for primary power, but as APU's and stationary cogenerators (for turning heating fuel into charging power for EV's and PHEV's) they'll be able to make a big difference.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 19, 2007 2:54:26 PM
The SOFC are still running $3000/kw and realistic projections are for $500/kw. $250/kw is the equivalent of predicting Li-Ion batteries for $100/kwh, which is possible but very dubious at the moment.
It is also dubious that the high temperature fuel cells will have much application in vehicles, except perhaps as a portable charging unit. Definetely the future of SOFC's is for home CHP, fed by Natural Gas mostly.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 19, 2007 6:08:58 PM
Wintermane, there is zero doubt by anyone with any integrity whatsoever that the Iraq War was about oil. Partly to prevent from Sadam from selling his oil in quantity after the sanctions were removed (which was soon to happen as no WMD's were found except in your buddies Cheney & Bush's imagination), which of course would have pushed the Oil price down to like $30/barrell instead post invasion price of >$60/barrell. The documentation is well established that Big Oil were involved in the Iraq invasion plans long before it occurred and have obtained production-sharing agreements to clinch their control of Iraqi Oil. For good articles on how the Bush/Cheney Oil Administration are doing it, see:
http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-button150206.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2006/0714confidential.htm
A quote from the article: “According to Crude Designs, production-sharing agreements are ‘beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control.’ Because they are ‘subject to commercial confidentiality provisions, PSAs are effectively immune from public scrutiny and lock governments into economic terms that cannot be altered for decades.”
Now that we know you are pro $trillion Iraq War, for no reason that I can gather whatsoever from your convoluted logic, I fully understand why you are pro hydrogen economy, pro hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, more $trillions to throw away foolishly.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 19, 2007 6:50:54 PM
Well ounce you know the forces behind fuel cells h2 and h2 ice you know its a sure bet and a bloody profitable one at that.
The military nrrds fuel cells to power energy weapons. Thats why costly high power sracks were made.
They want a hummer mounted lazer cannon of 250 kw... so they make 250kw plus stacks.. They want man portable fannypack stacks for energy rifles and powered combat duitd...
And they want 1.5 and up mw stacks to cram into tanks.
Car makers simply are covering all bets in case thier cash cows cant be gimmicked out of cafe hell any other way. An h2 ice or fuel cell suv or heavy truck or lux car or high perf sports car makes alot of sense as none of the owners care about fuel costs and the cars already are very high cost.
Some places h2 will rock simply brcuase NOTHING else will work fully there. Also some places elrctric rates are very low. While fuel cells might not creep in everywhere the new high eff h2 ice engines might.. specialy an engibe optimized for bth h2 ice and ng...
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 19, 2007 6:51:57 PM
Sorry, Warren, but you appear to be out of date on SOFC costs. The estimated SOFC stack cost has already fallen as low as $254/kW.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 19, 2007 9:08:13 PM
Engineer-Poet, I've heard those estimates, and I've also heard EEStor are going to sell their 52 kwh array for $3,200 or $60 per kwh. And I've also heard 5 year projections of Li-Ion for $120 per kwh. I expect all of the above are over optimistic, but I sure hope they are on target. We also heard projections by Ovonics Chairman that they were on target to produce NiMH for $150 per kwh, that was way back in 1998, and we all know what happened to that one.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 20, 2007 5:29:03 AM
I find it hard to believe you will find SOFC's at anywhere near $250/kw, since 1kw decent quality stationary PEMFC's are selling at about $50,000 each. And SOFC's require a temperature of 800-1000 degC, now even a basic mass produced Self Cleaning Oven, just a box with elements and a simple-minded control runs at only 450 degC and they run $600-$800. If this was really true I would expect that PEMFC's would be one hell of a hard sell right now.
I will believe $120/kwh Li-Ion & $60/kwh ultracapacitors long before I will believe SOFC's at $250 per kwh.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 20, 2007 3:33:26 PM
I find it hard to believe you will find SOFC's at anywhere near $250/kwWhy? What's inherently expensive about them?
since 1kw decent quality stationary PEMFC's are selling at about $50,000 each.Non sequitur. Why would you expect the price structure of a mass-produced plasma-sprayed ceramic coating over metal, with nickel compounds on both sides, to resemble that of a device full of precious metals... which is currently built by hand?
After expensive compounds are eliminated, automated production is the key. The prototype of a new car can cost a million dollars or more, and sell in production for around 1% of that. The difference is in the amount of labor per unit.
And SOFC's require a temperature of 800-1000 degCTry 600°C today, and heading down to 550°C.
You really are behind the times. The major development was to make the electrolyte into a very thin layer of YSZ or the like. This increased the ion mobility, allowing a much lower operating temperature. Lower temperatures allowed the use of metal backings instead of solid ceramic construction. The effects cascade through the system, allowing more rugged cells to be made for less money with automated equipment.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 21, 2007 10:05:26 PM
“Why would you expect the price structure of a mass-produced plasma-sprayed ceramic coating over metal, with nickel compounds on both sides, to resemble that of a device full of precious metals... which is currently built by hand?”
The argument is that what kind of fool would pay $50,000 for a 1 kw H2 fueled stationary PEM fuel cell system when a $250 natural gas fed SOFC system is “just around the corner”
“…automated production is the key…”
I’m well aware of the great cost reductions due to automation, and its an argument we EV fans, use constantly mostly on the deaf ears of the “brain dead” EV critics. If and when large format Li-Ion or NiMH batteries and other EV components are produced in Automotive Volumes, prices should drop precipitously, and I could see $120/kwh Li-Ion batteries, but this may be awhile yet. Similarly, it may be that at some point well in the future SOFC’s will be available at $250/kw, which is about the cost of a home furnace, but the question is when? I’m all for it – I want one right now.
There of course is the chicken & egg problem, and getting manufacturers interested which requires government & insurance company & utilities co-operation for building regulations & insurance and construction companies to participate in making buildings designed to accommodate CHP, and all this time their will be Vested Interests opposing this disruptive technology.
In the meantime, keep me posted on where I can buy one for a reasonable cost – I haven’t seen ANY for sale at Fuel Cell Stores so far.
Posted by: Warren Heath | Apr 22, 2007 7:39:55 AM
There are developments in DME in China today:
Since DME has an advantage of decomposition at lower temperature than methane and LPG, R&D for hydrogen source for fuel cell has been carried out.
If you would like to know more on the latest DME developments, join us at upcoming North Asia DME / Methanol conference in Beijing, 27-28 June 2007, St Regis Hotel. The conference covers key areas which include:
DME productivity can be much higher especially if
country energy policies makes an effort comparable to
that invested in increasing supply.
By:
National Development Reform Commission NDRC
Ministry of Energy for Mongolia
Production of DME/ Methanol through biomass
gasification could potentially be commercialized
By:
Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and
will be sharing their experience.
Advances in conversion technologies are readily
available and offer exciting potential of DME as a
chemical feedstock
By: Kogas, Lurgi and Haldor Topsoe
Available project finance supports the investments
that DME/ Methanol can play a large energy supply role
By: International Finance Corporation
For more information: www.iceorganiser.com
Posted by: Cheryl Ho | May 23, 2007 8:31:41 PM
