« House Energy Package Heading to Floor Dodges CAFE, Offers Incentives for Plug-in Hybrids | Main | PSA Peugeot Citroën to Study JV with Chinese Carmaker Hafei »
British Company Developing Home Electrolyzer for Hydrogen Production; Dual-Fuel Conversion Offers Hydrogen Range of 25 Miles
29 June 2007
 |
| The home electrolyzer unit. Click to enlarge. |
A British company is developing a low-cost home electrolyzer for the production of hydrogen to refuel a converted dual-fuel vehicle that uses both low-pressure hydrogen and gasoline.
The ITM Power electrolyzer uses a 10 kW electrolyzer operating at 75 bar pressure. ITM Power modified a gasoline engine Ford Focus to make it a dual-fuel vehicle, and has fueled the converted car with the output from the electrolyzer.
The refueling is also only at 75 bar, compared to the 350- to 700-bar storage systems being developed for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. As a result, the hydrogen on-board the converted vehicle is limited, and supports an all-hydrogen range of about 25 miles before switching back to run on gasoline.
That distance, says ITM Power, is more than the more than the average commuting distance in the UK.
The bi-fuel car and refuelling system clearly demonstrate a simple, convenient and low-cost transportation solution that can significantly reduce greenhouse gases and help mitigate climate change. We believe combining electrolyzers with an internal combustion-engined vehicle brings affordable hydrogen transportation forward by many years.
—Jim Heathcote, ITM Power CEO,
Both the refuelling system, which will be able to generate and store hydrogen at home or at work, and the dual-fuel car will be demonstrated publicly later this year. Meanwhile, ITM Power is finalizing the design of a manufacturing facility in Sheffield which will deliver one of the largest electrolyzer production capabilities in the world. Manufacturing is expected to commence as early as the first half of next year.
June 29, 2007 in Engines, Hydrogen, Hydrogen Production | Permalink | Comments (94) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/19699672
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference British Company Developing Home Electrolyzer for Hydrogen Production; Dual-Fuel Conversion Offers Hydrogen Range of 25 Miles:
Comments
This is, of course, much better than a plug-in hybrid, which has a 40 mile range, because it has the magic word "hydrogen" in it.
Posted by: Brad | Jun 29, 2007 2:02:35 PM
Let us see some energy usage figures...25 miles range from how many KW-hrs of energy? Should be no more than 5kW-hr for a Hydrogen Ford Focus to compete with a BEV.
Posted by: Patrick | Jun 29, 2007 2:03:43 PM
Hydrogen is magic, especially when you see how much
electricity it takes to get to the end product. They do
make this thing called a battery that seems to be getting
better by the day.
Posted by: William | Jun 29, 2007 2:15:13 PM
Homemade H2?? Who but the e-utility, and the manufacturer of the electrolyzer has an interest in this?
Posted by: gr | Jun 29, 2007 2:36:50 PM
Does the home hydrogen generator come with a broom?
When I worked in a hydrogen manufacturing facility back in the last millinium, we always kept a broom outside the door to the hydrogen generator. You always picked up the broom and stuck it in the room first and waved it near all the equipment. If the broom burst into flames, that was a good indication that there was a hydrogen leak. (High purity hydrogen burns without color!)
I guess I've been lucky, in that I've seen only one person burned by hydrogen (hence the effectiveness of the broom policy). Even though he was only burned on the hand and arm, it was a horrific injury, requiring a skin graft and months of rehabilitation. Hydrogen burns so hotly that the skin is easily consumed.
As for the comment of operating at 75 bar - well that is about 1000 pounds force per square inch (psi). Even the tiniest leak at that pressure will ignite when flashed to atmosphere (due to static discharge and a very low ignition energy.) The impact on human flesh to a 1000 psi blowtorch would be dramatic.
Good luck getting your insurance agent to sign off on the hydrogen generator in the basement!
Posted by: WVhybrid | Jun 29, 2007 3:45:10 PM
Another interesting engineering exercise that will never go into production because the problems with H2 have yet to be solved: The net power for H2 is still far too negative, Storage tanks too contain the pressures are far too heavy and, as pointed out, H2 is too dangerous for home use.
Posted by: Lad | Jun 29, 2007 4:42:40 PM
Actually, it seems like a sensible, pragmatic approach. Given that PHEVs are still an opened ended question on the overall cost and reliability, its a good idea to have alternatives in the pipeline.
If such a system (vehicle mod + hydrogen generator) where in the $3,000 range I think its a great idea. This also makes a lot of sense for solar powered houses instead of net-metering.
Don't be skeptical, this might actually be a good approach for hydrogen.
Posted by: Mike | Jun 29, 2007 4:44:57 PM
"The net power for H2 is still far too negative"
Not to mention will always be in the negative.
Posted by: Brad | Jun 29, 2007 5:36:01 PM
How efficient is that electrolyzer?
Posted by: Ben | Jun 29, 2007 6:10:00 PM
Isn't it amazing how often we hear announcements like this one that somehow manage to omit one or more key values, like the efficiency of the electrolyzer? I'm not saying this product any any other is a scam, just that there seems to be an uncomfortable level of marketing mixed in with the engineering.
Honestly, the best part of these announcements is reading the comments about them on GCC.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Jun 29, 2007 7:20:33 PM
Yes, Hydrogen is a lousy fuel.
What do you all think of running "wet" ethanol in a solid-oxide fuel cell? Supposedly less pure ethanol requires a lot less energy to distill, SOFC's don't mind "wet" ethanaol, and are 50-80% efficient (depending on cogeneration techniques) compared to mid 30's percent for ICE, hence a much better well-to-wheel equation.
There was a post a few days ago about Imperial College running a really small SOFC continuously as a series hybrid to recharge big batteries that like to stay hot. The "running continuously" part could really mess up the energy efficiency if the car is used irregularly, but what do you think of that, or some other scheme to make biofuel cheaper, and with a substantially better well-to-wheels value?
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | Jun 29, 2007 9:24:35 PM
Somebody out there please explain to me why hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are better than purely electric vehicles. I mean, it seems completely absurd to me to turn electricity from a utility or even a renewable energy source into hydrogen, so that the vehicle's fuel cell can turn that hydrogen back into electricity and power the electric drive motors. There's a huge discrepency here that deals with efficiency of the power being used.
This article and the responses above warrant a discussion about the cradle-to-grave efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell car versus an electric car. I haven't seen any comparisons of this sort, not to mention a scientific comparison to the efficiencies of a normal combustion enginer (which would be apalling I might add.).
Posted by: BJD | Jun 29, 2007 9:54:44 PM
I'm skeptical as well. The issue of efficiency of a battery charge/discharge cycle vs. the electrolysis of hydrogen and its consumption in a fuel cell or hydrogen ICE is unresolved, as are the capital costs of both systems. A home electrolysis system may sound great on the surface, but if each do-dad costs $3k it may not compare well to running a $25 extension cord down the driveway to charge a PHEV/BEV.
Posted by: PeakVT | Jun 29, 2007 11:17:10 PM
I would have been interested if it was an onboard(vehical) system to suppliment fuel usage like some US firms have made and are being used to enhance mpg and clean up emissions.The energy used to provide 25 miles driving seems a lot but I'm sure the utilities don't mind that.Big transport firms would love to reduce their fuel costs and and the motoring public and the energy to do that comes from the vehical not the grid.
Posted by: paul | Jun 30, 2007 2:29:06 AM
this has advantages over PHEV
you can use your ICE Engine and inject hydrogen when avialable.
batteries are far to heavy and costly
here you can use a simple CNG tank
from hydrogen you get 0,5 - 1,5kwh/kgr
you could store energy from sun with this electrolyzier,
could you do that with batteries?
sure, but you have to pay additiona 5.000 of dollars for lead batteries
and here you need a simple CNG tank.
Posted by: reason | Jun 30, 2007 2:38:39 AM
efficiency could be between 80-90%, even above
because of the low pressure;
and because producing hydrogen at a slow rate, you can get a very high efficiency ...
Posted by: efficiency | Jun 30, 2007 2:46:03 AM
with solar energy at ~5-8ct/kwh this is will be interesting solution
Posted by: hyme | Jun 30, 2007 2:48:29 AM
Said it before, Hydrogen s...ks. However, the economic model based on fuell storage, distribution, transport, ownership AND taxes, will basically stay the same with a hydrogen solution. Big oil (then big-hydrogen / flex-fuell ?) will stay in power, the well-known carmakers can keep on making their well known car-models that are far more complicated than an all-electric car. They will break down earlier and more often, have a higher renewal rate and suit our current model of parts sales and repair services very well (a lot of money is made from repairs and maintenance.) I'm not suggesting a conspiring theory, but people choose what's best for themselves economically. Since a lot of money making is somehow connected to our current (oil-fueled) model, a lot of people will be happy in their wallets with an economy that stays rougly unchanged. Therefore I'm afraid bio-fuell and hydrogen are the way it will go, although rationally other solutions, like EV, would be more logical and efficient.
Posted by: JFP | Jun 30, 2007 2:59:01 AM
give me cheap and long lasting high capacity batteries
and i am behind this:
"
like EV, would be more logical and efficient.
"
but for me its not that efficient and economical to buy batteries for 15.000 dollars, which last 8-10 years;
not here where power costs around 18eurocents/kwh (no way to get it cheaper) and diesel about 1eur/liter;
for me the only solution to get out of the cage is cheap solar power, which could be stored in something
Posted by: batteries | Jun 30, 2007 3:51:34 AM
Its a good idea to have a vehicle with 25 mile range on hydrogen, but instead of using a fuel which has to be extracted from some other fuel, we can very well use the nat-gas for which thousands of kilometers (miles) of pipelines are already in place along with the gas stations.
A bi-fueled vehicle with a small CNG tank that has 10-20 mile range will cover the daily commute for many people.
Also there are 6 million CNG powered vehicles in the World today.
http://www.iangv.org/content/view/17/35
.
Posted by: Max Reid | Jun 30, 2007 5:17:55 AM
I'm really sick of everyone just running on anti-hydrogen autopilot on this one, how this has anything to do with the points you brought up is really beyond me.
Anyways, the idea itself has some real merit worth considering. Think of it as a PHEV that instead of batteries uses a low pressure hydrogen tank to power an ICE engine for the first few miles.
Its, actually an ingenious idea if you think about it, and actually worthy of some admiration.
Now the problem as I figure it is that the average efficiency for an electrolyzer seems to average about 55 KwH per 1Kp of hydrogen, which contains 134,200 BTUs of energy. So If you assume $0.05 off-peak rates, your still talking $2.50 GGE, which is not exactly impressive in the US, but might be a big deal in Europe with their high gas prices (not sure of the electricity prices).
Anyways, stop it with the canned anti-hydrogen posts, most of you didn't make it past the first line of the story.
Posted by: Mike | Jun 30, 2007 6:19:14 AM
I agree with Mike a bit, perhaps we shouldn't be too sceptical. As one of the others noted "give me cheap batteries that last for a long time , with great range and minimum recharge time". Of course that's a current problem with EV technology. But imagine, all this effort and (governmental ?) money and knowlegde was put into battery technology and solar power (to charge the batteries), instead of in hydrogen solutions. Don't you agree that the world would have a cleaner and more efficient source of energy in the end ? I'm sure battery problems would be solved and price would come down when this technolgy is embraced on a large scale. Although I applaud every attempt for developing next generation energy sources (what's the source anyway and ICE will still uses up O2) , I find it hard to see hydrogen as the ultimate solution. More to the subject; BMW had problems keeping the liquid H2 in their 700 series tanks; it dissappeared over time. Hows that in the Ford. And is the 75 Bar, or 300 - 700Bar really an issue ? How much energy does it take anyway to get and keep something under 75Bar to 700 Bar of pressure ? (It would be very tempting for certain people to know that every car has a little bomb inside. Saves them te effort of making them themselves ;-)
Posted by: JFP | Jun 30, 2007 7:35:21 AM
Hydrogen is not the solution...
to every problem.
But let's face it - nothing else is either.
This idea has its uses, like allowing existing cars to run carbon free for most day-to-day driving. The key word here is "existing." There is a lot of life left in our current fleet of vehicles and it will be some time before we switch over to BEVs.
BTW to the guy who thinks hydrogen is too dangerous for home use; once upon a time every house in London had hydrogen piped into it. Actually it was 'town gas' which is usually 3 parts H2 to 1 part CO and a couple of million people used it with little problem.
That's not to say there weren't problems, after all this was Victorian England and the technology of the time used cast iron pipes and leather valves. I think we could do better today.
Posted by: ai_vin | Jun 30, 2007 9:07:18 AM
Both hydrogen and EVs will have a place in our future. It's not one or the other, but please don't attack hydrogen. I am an ex-EV driver, and I look forward to H2 fuel cell vehicles for many reasons:
1) H2 has the ability to refuel in a short period of time. I have been stuck in a low charge EV when my wife was in the hospital across town, and I had to abandon the EV in an Albertson's parking lot and call a cab. It wasn't fun, knowing that my wife was hurt and I couldn't trust my car to get me there, sitting on the curb waiting for the cab. That day I would have given anything for the ability to recharge in a short time. Don't tell me you can do 10minute battery recharging - even the people at Tesla will tell you this is bogus (unless you want to destroy your battery...)
2) H2 allows a vehicle range over 250 miles. The next Honda FCX will have 270miles, on less than 4kg H2 at 5000psi. GM tested at over 300miles range. Consider the Tesla Roadster with a 450kg battery pack is only rated at 200miles. H2 allows vehicle users the convenience of driving long distances, and infrequent recharging for short trip driving.
3) Not everyone has a garage to install a recharger. In fact, most people do not have an appropriate location to install a private charger. I don't have a garage - I have street parking. I charged my EV at work and at public sites when I could, and when the public sites were operating. And for people who do have a garage, do you have 100A and 480V service for the 1 hour quick charge? It is not an option for me, but fueling at a public station in less than 5 minutes is fine.
4) H2 is made today from natural gas at over 70% efficiency. Compare this to generating electricity from natural gas, which is on average 36% today. Yes, future powerplants will be more efficient. Tesla cites a lab experiment by GE that is 60% efficient. This plant is not used in practice. Future hydrogen generation will be more efficient, too.
5) H2 allows generation from stranded renewables, because the electricty can be stored as H2. Utilities need to keep peaking natural gas generators spinning and ready, in case the wind dies down. This is expensive and highly inefficient. H2 allows the storage of energy in a pipeline for distribution when it is needed.
6) Pipeline losses are extremely low as far as transportation of H2 is concerned. Consider your powerline losses for electricity - 8% average on the entire grid, which includes consumption very close to the generation source. Long distance electrical transportation losses are huge! Why do you think there are no powerplants in North Dakota feeding Chicago? Yet natural gas is piped to Chicago and New York from Western Canada? H2 allows the transportation of energy from generation source to end use in a very efficient manner.
7) Hydrogen is easily contained in pipes and tanks. No problem. Look at the properties and I think you will conclude that it is safer than gasoline, propane, natural gas. How many people were electrocuted in the US today? Do a GOOGLE search. Hydrogen is very safe, relative to everything else we are used to.
There are many other reasons why I think hydrogen fuel cells have a very important role to play for transportation, but this post is long enough.
If any of my numbers are off, I welcome the criticism. But don't attack me without real facts and thoughts.
Thanks,
James
Posted by: James | Jun 30, 2007 9:34:27 AM
Even if total efficiency was the same, on board quick charge electricity storage devices (baterries and/or capacitors) + 2 or 4 in-wheel electric motors seems to be a much safer and more practical solution.
Hydrogen is not yet very easy to make, store and transport. A low cost,long lasting machine to use it efficiently in rather small vehicles is another problem. It may be OK for larger vehicles such as buses, trucks, trains and boats but it is still too large and much too expensive for compact cars.
Posted by: | Jun 30, 2007 9:50:44 AM
This would be a solution if electrical energy were not a problem to make in very large quantities, and the only other answer was simple minded extensions of our present technology.
Alternatives have advances so far however, that thesis is not going to be, or even is true today.
Even if it IS psuedo-scientific hooie, for you true believers, don't forget the exhaust of a hydrogen engine is 100% very powerful GHG gas, called H2O. That vapor is some 16 times more powerful than a CO2 molecule as a GHG on a molecule by molecule basis.
Conversion to using H2 would multiply the GHG "problem" by one and a half orders of magnitude...
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Jun 30, 2007 10:36:52 AM
Its funny, I only had to read the last post as far as "the exhaust of a hydrogen engine is 100% very powerful GHG gas, called H2O." before I knew it was Stan.
Stan, while you are correct that water vapor is some 16 times more powerful than a CO2 molecule as a GHG this is only a problem if it stays in the atmosphere. Water vapor tends to condense out of the air as rain. For this to NOT happen we would need the greenhouse effect to be a lot stronger than it is now.
If we were to switch to hydrogen it would mean we would stop using oil and coal, without oil and coal we would no longer be putting CO2 into the air. Without extra CO2 in the air to keep the atmospheric temperature high it only takes one cold day anywhere on the Earth's surface to lose the greenhouse effect from the water vapor.
In short; water vapor is only a GHG as a "force multiplier," It is a short term GHG that only becomes a long term GHG if you already have enough long term GHGs like CO2.
Posted by: ai_vin | Jun 30, 2007 11:37:49 AM
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian* spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."
-Alexander Pope (1688-1744),
Posted by: | Jun 30, 2007 11:43:23 AM
How would you stop using coal if you switch to Hydrogen? Producing electricity with gerbils on exercise wheels?
We would use MORE coal if every vehicle were switched to Hydrogen.
BTW - we still use plenty of oil in making those lightweight plastic parts you see all around you right now.
Posted by: Patrick | Jun 30, 2007 11:49:21 AM
well this is bullshit;
H2O of hydrogen cars will have the same effect on atmosphere that has the shower of everyone in the morning;
it could have a local effect on the city with dense (hydrogen) traffic leading to fog in certain conditions;
what really changes the H2O content of the atmosphere is the temperature of air;
if CO2 heats up the atomsphere more H2O could be in the air and this again raises the temperature of atmosphere;
Posted by: franz | Jun 30, 2007 11:50:30 AM
this solution fe combined with photovoltaiks it could be a great solution;
batteries are not that economical and enviroment friendly; (at least until no real option)
using a battery car with my own solar power daily to make 25miles (10kwh), i need
at least 20kwh of lead batteries to store my solar power during the day, which should cost me about 3000$ and they have to be replaced after 1000cycles (3-4 years)
with this solution i will produce and store my hydrogen during the day in a simple CNG tank; i hope that this machine would work for more then 10 years;
and then i don't need costly batteries in my car;
(saving again 10-15000$)
-------
hydrogen loss in high pressure tanks is about 1-3% /day;
in liquid tanks you can reduce them to near zeor for a few days;
http://schmidt-walter.fbe.fh-darmstadt.de/WBZ/kfz1.pdf
at low pressure and normal temperature hydrogen loss is lower then 1% day;
---------
and again:
no need for heavy,costly batteries
no need for heavy e-motors
don't forget that with every 100kgr more car weight, you increase your fuel consumption for about 0.3-0.8 liters;
with this solution you can save 75kgr of weight; if the low pressure tank will weigh about 25kgr; (maybe he will even weigh less)
Posted by: solarfan | Jun 30, 2007 12:11:21 PM
Burning gasoline in an automobile makes water vapour.
C8H18+12.5O2-->8CO2+9H2O
1 gallon of gasoline burned makes 1.1 gallons of water vapour.
A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle will produce about as much water (liquid and vapour) as a large gasoline sedan does now. And it won't be mixed with other pollutants when it's emitted from the car.
So ask yourself: is water vapour in the city a problem now?
No.
James
Posted by: James | Jun 30, 2007 12:21:47 PM
Making transport H2 from the terawatts of 100% wasted surplus electricity every night seems to be one of the ways to flatten the curve. Electric batteries, oxygen concentrators, air pneumatics and home CNG pneumatics are other ways. Diversification is a good thing.
Posted by: Mark | Jun 30, 2007 12:25:49 PM
I've argued often that PHEV is the most advanced technology with the most advantages and benefits, and downplayed hydrogen fuel cell as far too complicated and offers only limited application.
I'll state again that the #1 advantage of PHEVs is the economic incentive they create to drive less. Less expensive electricity that offers a driving range of under 30 miles or so, encourages drives of shorter distances which support development of local economies, whereby in time more destinations become accessable without having to drive. Following this logic, combustable hydrogen that offers zero-emission driving range of only 25 miles offers the same critically important advantage.
I can see combustable hydrogen as a viable fuel in this application, but the basic vehicle must be PHEV to gain the full list of technological advancements. The only way to reduce human impact upon the natural environment is to reduce by at least half our driving and transport of all kinds. To assume that we can continue business-as-usual is nonsense. "Poor boo-boo, gotta give up the special widdle car."
Posted by: Wells | Jun 30, 2007 12:57:56 PM
Patrick; Electricity doesn't need to be produced from burning coal. The ITM company in the article wants to use solar+wind+wave energy. Where I live 99% of the electricity comes from hydro dams. Iceland is converting to hydrogen using its vast resource of geothermal. In France 70-80% of their electricity comes from nuclear power. Even when you do use coal there's always CCS.
Posted by: ai_vin | Jun 30, 2007 1:02:42 PM
Its a cheap way to make a car that can be recharged as often as needed and go to the store and around town.. all on far cheaper then ga electricity stored as low pressure h2.
And with a mid pressure tank it could go 75 miles and still be rather cheap.
Perfect for a solar home.
Posted by: wintermane | Jun 30, 2007 2:16:44 PM
I just want to punctuate my above post's charge that even with a practical application of combustable hydrogen, "the basic vehicle must be PHEV in order to gain the full list of technological advancements" which begin and end with electric motor drive, (not merely electric assist), and the ability to generate and store electricity on the vehicle. And the batteries need not provide a driving range beyond 30 miles or so.
We drive too much, too far, for too many purposes, at too high cost and impact. We transport goods too far. No matter how far we fly there is no escape from the drek and ruin of motorist urbania.
Posted by: Wells | Jun 30, 2007 2:17:24 PM
ITM Power reports other interesting news. They say that the current market price of the hydrogen electrolyser is $2000 per kW but that they can produce it at $164 / per kW. They also say they will start up production of 10MW of electrolysers per year beginning before summer 2008. That is 1000 units of this 10kW electrolyser. See http://www.itm-power.com/technology.html and http://www.itm-power.com/290607.pdf So presumably they can produce the 10kW unit for about $1700. They will probably sell it for $5000 because it would still be only 25% of their competitors price at $20000 for such a unit.
This is very good new in my opinion. I would not dare to drive a retrofitted hydrogen car ICE car with void guaranties. However, I think a factory build car with a small half a kilo hydrogen tank at the relatively low pressure of 75 bar should be very safe. It would not cost more than maximum $2000 and possible as little as $500 extra to build this hydrogen capability into a regular car. So max $7000 (2000+5000) and possible as little as $3000 (2500+500) for the ability to be selfsupplied by co2 neutral fuel for 80% of your driving. This is great and it could be at our car dealer in less than 5 years.
Fuel cost? You need 66kWh to do 1 kg of hydrogen at 60% efficiency. This is $6.6 for a kilo at normal tariff c10 kWh and at of peak tariff it would be c5 kWh or $3.3 per kilo. As a rule of thumb 1 kg of hydrogen can replace 2 gallons of gasoline that cost $6 (2*3). That is the production price of this electrolyse hydrogen. It is cheaper than the gasoline equivalent.
This is great news. Can’t wait to here the final price of their 10kW unit when it go on sale next year.
Posted by: | Jun 30, 2007 2:49:22 PM
Forgot my identity for that post. Sorry.
Posted by: Henrik | Jun 30, 2007 2:51:03 PM
Oil well -> Gasoline ICE Car (83%) -> Wheel (25%): Total = 21%
Steam Powerplant (38%) -> grid (93%) -> Li-ion Battery (86%)-> wheel (~85%): Total = 26%
Combine Cycle Powerplant (58%) -> grid (93%) -> Li-ion Battery (86%)-> wheel (~85%): Total = 39%
Combine Cycle Powerplant (58%) -> grid (93%) -> High Efficiency Hydrogen Electrolyzer (70%) -> Compression & Storage (ignored) -> PEM Fuel cell (55%) -> Electric motor to wheel (~85%): Total = 18%
Combine Cycle Powerplant (58%) -> grid (93%) -> High Efficiency Hydrogen Electrolyzer (70%) -> Compression & Storage (ignored) -> ICE Car (25%): Total = 10%
Steam Reforming Hydrogen (80%) -> transport (98%) -> Compression & Storage (ignored) -> ICE Car (25%): Total = 20%
Steam Reforming Hydrogen (80%) -> transport (98%) -> Compression & Storage (ignored) -> PEM Fuel cell (55%) -> Electric motor to wheel (~85%): Total = 37%
Conclusion: What a waste of power it is to make hydrogen form off-peak electricity compared to a charging a Li-ion battery.
Posted by: Ben | Jun 30, 2007 3:59:00 PM
Source?
Posted by: Mike | Jun 30, 2007 4:29:49 PM
Just google:
"Tesla Roadster efficiency" (86% grid to battery, 80-90% battery to wheel)
"Combine Cycle Powerplant" (Number range between 55-60%)
"Power line transmission efficiencyy" (7%,)
"Hydrogen electrolysis efficiency" (50-70%, or http://bioage.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/15/qsi1.png)
"Steam reforming Hydrogen efficiency" (70-90%)
Its not meant to be a scientific report simply a point to make.
Posted by: Ben | Jun 30, 2007 4:58:34 PM
Here's some sources:
http://www.greyfalcon.net/hydrogen.png
http://www.greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
As for Steam Reformed Hydrogen.
It's nice, but it's not that nice.
As compared to say CNG, Diesel, or a Hybrid.
http://www.greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png
On top of which, the Honda FCX is cheating by using crappy acceleration ;D
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Jun 30, 2007 5:32:43 PM
its not everything about efficiency;
its cost that matters ....
such a battery car costs you 15k more ...
and you have to displace the battery after 3000cycles
batteries with over 15000 cycles (nanosafe altairnano)
are still vaporware
Posted by: cost | Jun 30, 2007 5:34:43 PM
As if FCV aren't "bleeding-edge technology" as well? Have you seen the cost of a PEM fuel cell? Hydrogen is just such a problematic answer: its not efficient even when using expensive fuel cells, its not easy to store and its a highly flammable gas. Why not alkaline fuel cells for 1/10 the price and 30% more efficiency then PEM (if your worried about CO2 poisoning just change the electrolyte fluid ever few thousand miles, NaOH is cheaper and cleaner then motor oil!) and why not Zinc instead of hydrogen (in a zinc-air fuel cell): zinc paste can be stored in a bladdered plastic "gas" tank instead of a carbon-fiber 5-10k psi tank, nor can zinc paste leak freely or burn.
Posted by: Ben | Jun 30, 2007 6:32:14 PM
James, some counterpoints:
1) Tesla's old LiCoO2 batteries cannot handle fast charging but several new lithium chemistries can. The A123Systems cells in the DeWalt 36V tools charge in 1 hour. AltairNano 10 minute recharge has been independently demonstrated, though their cells remain somewhat shrouded in mystery. IMHO PHEVs will dominate and make fast charging a non-issue, since they can "recharge" in five minutes at any of 200,000 existing gas stations.
2) PHEVs also solve the range problem.
4) 60% efficiency is no lab experiment. GE has installed their H System commercially since 2003 and other vendors have competitive combined cycle offerings. Older and cheaper single cycle natural gas powerplants still dominate, though, so systemwide efficiency is nowhere near 60%.
6) Gas pipelines need compression stations every 50-100 miles, resulting in overall energy losses not so different from long distance electric lines. H2 losses would be worse due to lower volumetric energy density. As for electricity, the Pacific Grid Intertie HVDC line is 800 miles long, and even longer HVDC lines exist overseas. We could put powerplants near the natural gas source and run HVDC lines, but we'd still need pipelines to transport gas for heating and industrial uses. Instead of building two transmission infrastructures, we just make the pipelines a little bigger and put the powerplants at the destination.
PHEVs can deliver roughly the same benefits as H2 with zero infrastructure investment and no huge leaps in technology. I support continued H2 research, but PHEVs have a huge headstart.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Jun 30, 2007 7:03:21 PM
Ben,
Nice work on the well to wheels chains.
Your FCV efficiency numbers are a few years old. Tesla doesn't update their website so often when it comes to correcting misinformation, so you can't trust what they have on their site. They still claim over 250mile range for the roadster in the places on their site where they talk about efficiency, but we all know that's not true anymore with the durability and crash countermeasures they had to add.
Honda has reported tank to wheels efficiency of 60% for their new FCX. http://world.honda.com/news/2007/4070108FCXConcept/) Daimler Chrysler (with Ballard Fuel Cell Stacks) is suggesting even better numbers than Honda for their next car, and GM has been making huge strides in fuel cells. FCV technology is very young - it has a lot of opportunity to get even better! And remember that FCVs ARE EVs, so they are making advances on motors, controllers, power electronics, control systems, etc.
If you use the 60% Tank to Wheels figure in your chain, there is not so much difference between the EV and the FCV in terms of well to wheels efficiency, especially if you get hydrogen from SMR, which is where most of it comes from today.
EV is not for everyone, and it won't be anytime soon. Lithium Ion batteries are not without their own problems (quick charge, energy density, fire risk, manufacturing base, life cycle durability, cost, to name just a few).
EVs do have a role to play, especially in inner city commuting, but they are not perfect. I had one for a couple years, and I wish I could have one again, but it won't work for me.
James
Posted by: James | Jun 30, 2007 7:54:41 PM
So FCV can get better (or actually become a commercial product, which EV are already be it limited) but EV can't get better? 3rd party checked 10min recharge and 15,000+ cycling reliability Nanosafe and A123 lithium ion power EV can overcome the range and refueling problems of EV. Still I think Zinc is the ignore superior alternative to hydrogen.
Posted by: | Jun 30, 2007 8:18:53 PM
oh that was me commenting, anonymous is nice and all on 4chan but not here.
Posted by: Ben | Jun 30, 2007 8:23:54 PM
Doggydogworld,
Thanks for the good counterpoints. A few counter-counterpoints...
1) I agree that 1hr charging is possible for PHEV, but not through a 110V cord. A special charger will be required. The AltairNano experiment was done by AeroVironment with a 225kW battery charger. You would need your own electrical substation to do that. I don't have that at my garage...
2) I agree, PHEVs will come, and they solve the range issue, and they will dominate in the near term (hopefully). But they still use gasoline (or ethanol or diesel or whatever else you want to burn and put in the air). I love the concept, though, and I can't wait for the first well integrated product, designed from scratch and meant to be a PHEV.
4) I think GE has only fired up one commercial H-System... Another should be coming on-line in California in 2008. http://www.gepower.com/corporate/ecomagination_home/press_release.htm
But I think you will agree with me that it is disingenuous to suggest that if you plug in to the grid today that the electricity is 60% efficient from natural gas.
6) Does anyone have real numbers to compare gas pipeline to HVDC transmission? That would be interesting.
Thanks,
James
Posted by: James | Jun 30, 2007 8:41:05 PM
A speical cord is a under statement: 1.5kw for standard cords and 3Kw for "electic stove" special plug, both can be found in US homes, ~60kw would be need for a 10min charger though, this is still possible for a industrial building like a dedicated "gas" station also it could be possible to have stationary batteries charged at the station that discharge into the EV.
Lets forget the powerplant as both hydrogen and Ev need powerplants, unless they do steam reforming but that requires fossil fuels, lets just assume very clean solar:
Nanosolar CIGS printed thin-film (15-20% of sunlight utilized, set at baseline 100%) -> DC to AC (90%) -> Battery (86%) -> Motor Wheel (85%): Total = 66%
Nanosolar ... -> AC to DC (90%) -> QSS NanoII Electrolyser (80%) -> High Efficiency Fuel Cell (70%) -> Motor Wheel (85%): Total = 43%
Here one for you lets say you put solar panels on your car, I don't think more then a 1kwh would be possible though but it could charge for some of its range and no DC to AC conversion loss:
Nanosolar ... -> Battery (86%) -> Motor Wheel (85%): Total = 73%
Why not move HUGE amounts of electricity and hydrogen via a liquid hydrogen superconducting underground power line?:
http://j-parc.jp/Transmutation/ws/pdfen/5-3_Hamajima.pdf
Posted by: Ben | Jun 30, 2007 10:05:29 PM
Ben:
Three points to add.
25% gasoline ICE to wheel efficiency is for highway cruise. In city traffic (50% of driving) efficiency is much worse. 25%+ efficiency overall is for hybrid car both city and highway.
Electricity generation on combined cycle as of today requires clean fuel – natural gas. It is in short supply, especially in N. America. Coal gasification with consequent combined cycle is troublesome technically, and efficiency is much less than 50%.
For electricity or hydrogen generated on nuclear power plant, or from wind/solar/hydro, efficiency does not matter. It is the cost of power plants which is detrimental.
Still, straight hydrogen (compressed gas or liquefied) is the worst energy carrier possible.
Posted by: Andrey | Jun 30, 2007 11:18:20 PM
This is ridiculous. Every wonk here wants a car that does exactly what cars do now: get stuck in traffic, gridlock freeways, expand rush hours, threaten pedestrians and bicyclists, direct urban planning in the ways that make mass transit impossible to implement, pave natural ecosystems into asphalt dead zones, waste energy and time, disempower local economies, enrich ruthless power mongers. Cars are phallic symbols boys stroke.
Posted by: Wells | Jul 1, 2007 9:54:14 AM
Did you not notice the steam power plant estimate? Even so electricity is electricity and hydrogen made for electrolysis from a steam cycle power plant is still less efficient then charging batteries from steam cycle powerplant. This means no matter the source it will cost more making hydrogen then charging batteries. Yes cost is another advantage of batteries: I bet the cost of batteries is cheaper then the cost of electrolyzer, fuel cells (especially PEM) and very high pressure-carbon composite fuel tanks.
Posted by: Ben | Jul 1, 2007 9:58:21 AM
It seems that the majority favours (for the short term) PHEVs with progressive electric range as electricity storage devices develop and become more affordable.
To keep extra cost down, why not start with 20 Km PHEVs (Prius III?) followed by 40 Km and 80 Km units by 2015 and 2020 respectively. Fuel consumption would be reduced progressively between 2010 and 2020.
With widespread use of 80+ Km PHEVs, (with much smaller more efficient on board ICE generators or fuel cells), fuel consumption would be reduced to the level where alternative fuels coud meet 100% of the demands.
After 2020, BEVs (the final solution) with better batteries could share the market with PHEVs and further reduce fuel consumption and GHG.
Producing the extra clean electricity required is not much of a challenge. Hydro, Wind, Solar, Waves, Geothermal and a few new large Nuclear Plants could easily meet the growing demand.
Posted by: | Jul 1, 2007 10:35:25 AM
Happy Canada Day, Y'All.
One of the benefits of hydrogen is that utility companies can predictably produce hydrogen during periods of low grid demand to level their load and not waste power. One could argue that several hundred thousand PEHVs plugged into the grid with remote charge disconnect switches that the utility has control over would accomplish the same thing, but it's not so easy.
In practice if you plug in your PHEV (or especially BEV) you want the thing to be charged for the next time you go for a drive, so the utility cannot predict your behavior because they don't know when you will plug in or for how long. You would not be happy if you came out of the office to find that the utility shut your charger off. So if you plug in, you add an immediate but unpredictable demand on the grid.
Hydrogen provides a buffer in the system. The utility can overproduce and store the electrical remainder as hydrogen, or underproduce and consume some of the hydrogen. At 40kWh/kg (HHV) the energy density of the storage product is much much higher than a battery. The utility could never store that much power in some battery bank at the utility. Calculate the size of the battery bank you would need and you'll see why. Again, one could argue that several hundred thousand PHEVs would do the trick, but in practice, it is much more difficult.
The utility can then sell the hydrogen they produced the previous off-peak time to the customer who wants to recharge her FCV at 2pm, and it does not increase demand to the system at 2pm. Is it inefficient? Maybe. But relative to wasting the energy by spinning the turbines without producing power (which is being done now) it is extremely efficient.
As well, hydrogen enables wind and solar resources to be utilized to their full extent by producing hydrogen for storage in periods of low demand. Currently both systems need to be idled when demand falls below supply. The efficiency at this time is exactly zero. The utility company is not going to idle their big turbines which take a long time to get spun up again (especially true for coal or nuclear plants - gas is much quicker.) So it makes a lot of sense to develop a technology to use that surplus electricity, and hydrogen is the best way anyone has found so far. I completely agree that if someone comes up with something a lot better, hydrogen will go away. But I doubt that will happen.
Hydrogen also enables some very interesting new technology. In Carson, California, BP is currently building a powerplant that will produce hydrogen from petroleum coke, a waste product. The CO2 is sequestered in a depleted oil field underground. The hydrogen is burned in a turbine to produce power. The same system could produce hydrogen for vehicles as well (although it will not be in this instance).
A similar process can be used for any hydrocarbon (and renewable biomass is hydrocarbon mass). This type of plant will probably be the predominant means of hydrogen production in the future - not electrolysis, but gassification of biomass. The process is highly efficient, and produces energy from a product that could otherwise not be utilized. And since it is a thermochemical process and not a combustion process, it is highly efficient - much more so than generating electricity from the same resource, or burning that resource in an engine.
So please don't get focussed in on the idea of straight electrolysis from the grid, which everyone agrees is generally not as efficient as battery charging. No argument. Go home. That is not the future intent of the hydrogen economy. The intent is to be able to use many other resources and many methods to produce hydrogen, which can be stored for later use. As an entire system, the hydrogen economy would be much more efficient, reliable, and consumer friendly than anything else that has been proposed.
Note that it's not only the US that is working on it (for all of you US Oil Company conspiritors) - India is the world's largest spender on hydrogen research, because they see it as the best way to meet their future energy needs. The EU, China, Canada, Japan, Australia, and others are all investing heavily in hydrogen research.
Please don't lose sight of the big picture - it is extremely important to all of us.
Thanks,
James
Posted by: James | Jul 1, 2007 3:16:03 PM
Several problems James,
Hydrogens got great energy density by mass but horrible energy density by volume, calculate the size of the gas tanks needed, the size of the larger and high pressures then nature gas piping that is need to move hydrogen around. It requires a lot of infrastructure to set up hydrogen, unlike PHEV and BEV which already have most of the infrastructure set up, and time and money is not on our side with peak oil, foot-draging politicians and lazy venture capitalist.
PHEV and BEV charging on off-peak at nights would use most of the waste powerplant energy, since 10min rapid chargers wont be around for awhile it is fair to say that PHEV and BEV will use normally waste energy efficiently.
Hydrogen is also not the best way to use surplus power: zinc can do it to and provide a much smaller, safer and cheaper system for utilizing it. But people have been touting the idea of hydrogen for decades getting there wheels spinning on the hardest to implement fuel when better alternatives like zinc have appeared in the last few years, left to be completely ignored.
Posted by: Ben | Jul 1, 2007 4:50:00 PM
Hi Ben,
Can you describe to me the process of recharging a zinc-air battery? To my knowledge the anode is basically consumed... Then you need a huge battery change machine to extract a several hundred kilogram battery from your car and replace it with another http://www.electric-fuel.com/evtech/index.shtml#regen. That doesn't work so well for packaging in automobiles.
Or is there another way? You mentioned zinc paste... I'm not familliar with that, beyond its use as sunblock when I'm skiing.
If the zinc economy is easy to implement, why has it not been done? What are the drawbacks?
So how does the utility know how many PHEVs are going to plug in tonight? They can't underproduce, so they still have to overproduce.
How do PHEVs allow surplus renewables to be utilized at the time the renewables decide to come online? I can envision a system where the utility sends out several hundred thousand text messages, asking people to stop driving and plug in somewhere because it got windy in Tehachapi. But is it practical? Hydrogen works to capture these resources.
What do PHEVs burn when the all electric range has run out? Petroleum. If you do the calculations, FCVs running on hydrogen from natural gas have lower total GHG over American's total daily driving habits, which includes a lot of driving past the magic 40mile AER (although there is a great argument to be made for Americans changing thier driving habits, among other things).
PHEVs also don't address building heating and cooling, industrial process energy, and electrical generation, which are much larger GHG concerns than transportation. Hydrogen can be utilised for all of these energy needs.
I agree that PHEVs will reduce petroleum consumption, and will have some GHG benefit, and so yes, we (society) should do it. As I've said, I'm looking forward to it, and I would buy one. But they are a stop-gap measure. We also need to develop the long solution, and that is hydrogen. Is it perfect? No. The human species has engineered itself into an imperfect situation, but hydrogen addresses more of the concerns well than any other mobile energy source. Hydrogen is meerly a great solution, not perfect.
Thanks,
James
Posted by: James | Jul 1, 2007 9:39:56 PM
"Conclusion: What a waste of power it is to make hydrogen form off-peak electricity compared to a charging a Li-ion battery." - Ben
The most economically useful way to use off-peak electrolysis would be in hydrogasification of biomass (city sewage?) or hydrocracking reforming. Home electrolysis is just one way to transition to alternate fuels. It's easier to add a cheap low-psi tank to an ICE engine than retrofit or completely replace an automobile. Personally I'd like to see a tiny (they scale down well) electrolyzer combined with a home pneumatic CNG system to make a Hythane application.
Posted by: Mark | Jul 1, 2007 10:32:48 PM
Thanks, James, for posting a balanced picture regarding hydrogen.
I'd like to add that since it would be impractical to rapidly change the output of gas or steam turbines, a more practical way to back up the electrical output of wind and solar generators is to use natural gas or hydrogen powered piston-engine generators running highly efficient diesel cycle, at ~45% efficiency. These piston-engine generators can be located at major buildings, apartment complexes, schools, hospitals, etc. and can provide waste heat for hot water and space heating, thus can attain ~80% overall energy efficiency. These generators can respond quickly to demands and has high part-load efficiency, thus would be great to generate backup electricity on windless or sunless days. On sunny or windy days, these generators can run at ~1/3 capacity, which is enough to supply at least partial heating demand of the building, depending on the season. In the winter, there will be much less solar electricity or solar thermal energy, hence these piston engine generators will run at higher % of capacity to provide higher heating requirement. Summer tends to have more sun with longer days and less clouds, with no space heating requirement, hence these generators output can be scaled wayback.
Thus, in conjuction with large-scale implementation of solar electricity and solar thermal energy collectors, along with gasification of coal or biomass to produce hydrogen for both transportation use and utility power generator, we can utilize hydrogen very efficiently, even more so than BEV's or PHEV's. It would be more efficient to feed solar and wind electricity to the grid rather than use any source of electricity to electrolyze water at normal temperature.
Now, high-temp electrolysis of water by solid oxide electrolytic cells, utilizing the waste heat from gasification of biomass or coal, or waste heat from gas turbine power plants, is twice as efficient as room-temp electrolysis, and thus can be used to generate H2 efficiently from surplus wind or solar electricity. By selling H2 to the end consummers directly at the site of H2 generation, the cost of H2 infrastructure will be much lower than distributing H2 to every gas station at every street corners via pipe lines or tanker trucks. There is no need to sell gasoline nor H2 at every major street corners.
This is another method of efficient storage of solar or wind electricity into H2, without requiring piston-engine generators.
But, one must admit that the advantage of 80% energy efficiency from distributed electrical generation and having a backup power plant from electrical outage is a mighty attractive idea. Sometimes, snow storms can cause electrical outage for days or weeks at a time. This will also reduce the strain on our fragile and overloaded electrical grid at peak demands period.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 1, 2007 11:49:30 PM
Yes traditionally zinc needs to be "mechanically" recharged by replacing the anode. Zinc paste is actually very common (most alkaline batteries use zinc paste, as well as hearing aid zinc-air batteries) Zinc paste/pellets though allows for the ability to move zinc as a liquid and store it in hoppers/tanks, ZnO waste dissolves in the electrolyte and can be removed and stored in a separate tank or a bladder in the fuel tank. At a fueling station fresh zinc paste/pellets can be added while used ZnO is extracted and through electolysis in solution formed back into zinc pellets, depending on the size of the pellets (micron vers .75mm) its a paste or a hopper pellet solution.
http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Secondaries/zn-air-fc.htm
http://www.poweraircorp.com/technology/
Drawbacks for zinc is that is very new and unheard of, lacking investment and patents held by multiple parties that need to unify in order to make a truly superior working product. ZnO needs to be recycled while water produced by a hydrogen fuel cell can just be dumped, but that about the only drawback compared to hydrogen. Zinc is not a fire hazard and does not need permits for utilized it in an enclosed space. A zinc powered car or fuel stations will never blow up or need any special protocols or systems to avoid doing so.
Sure hydrogen can utilize off-peak power better then Li-ion batteries, but it can't do so more cheaply or efficiently. If the plug are available at the parking lots as well as homes a BEV will be connect >90% of the time every day and the charging station and cars them selves can be controlled automatically via something a perrpherial internet.
Hydrogen can't generate electricity, it can only solve the problems of grid energy storage. Multiple solutions working together would be needed to make a sustainable society. Sure a hydrogen economy might make sustainable society, of course it won't be able to be made from fossil fuels (not sustainable) so that takes steam reforming right out (and its efficiency with it). Hydrogen can't make plastic/asphalt pharmaceuticals or all the other industrial uses for oil, sustaining that would have to be biomass, which also takes out making hydrogen from steam reforming biomass. That leaves hydrogen for grid energy storage and ammonia for farms. BEV can store energy more efficiently, and will be cheaper, zinc is very easy to store, provides no fire hazards and can also be used for grid storage. Sodium Sulfur batteries are already starting to be used for grid energy storage and are cheaper and more efficient then hydrogen. That leaves ammonia: so hydrogen back to where it is today only in a sustainable society albeit made from electrolysis.
Global warming is not the only problem we face, peak oil will require switching to new energy sources (not sources not storage) very fast and cheaply to avoid massive economic setbacks. Biofuels and BEV are much easier and cheaper to implement then hydrogen.
Posted by: Ben | Jul 2, 2007 12:08:54 AM
Burning hydrogen in an ICE is madness - you might as well just throw your hard-won energy down the drain.
1 kg of H2 will take an FCV (with hybrid technology) about 50 miles, with a 50% efficient FC stack.
But this ICE vehicle has no hybrid tech and should only average a third the efficiency of the fuel cell (if it is comparable to the H2 ICE of the BMW hydrogen 7).
The H2 range of this car is 25 miles, which would require around 1.5 kg of hydrogen using this ICE setup.
1.5 kg H2 = 90 kWh electricity = $9 per 25 miles = or 36 cents per mile.
Gasoline for this vehicle would be only 9 cents per mile.
PHEV costs would be only 2 cents per mile.
Posted by: clett | Jul 2, 2007 2:21:11 AM
James, Ben, Roger, Clett, thanks for the stimulating discussion of long range energy planning. It seems that part of the solution is meeting expectations and current investment in an H2 economy. That is less than perfect - but little in the creation is absolutely.
H2 grid storage is a reasonable approach with the benefits James points to in heating and cooling, industrial use and power generation. I would expect too that research into zero point and other alternatives will yield results over the next century or so.
I am puzzled that anyone thinks predicting PHEV, BEV charge patterns should be much of a challenge. Without using the most advanced predictive measures, this should not be a significant problem for present day computer models. Also, a "smart car" would be able to gauge the grid condition and adjust its internal pattern for overall system efficiency thereby including consumer behavior.
Posted by: gr | Jul 2, 2007 8:10:16 AM
A note on the possibility of using hydrogen for electricity storage / grid leverage
The electrolyser from ITM Power could also be used to create hydrogen at off peak electricity rates and later on sell electricity back to the grid at peak electricity rates using a fuel cell. This is an interesting option in a grid that depend on electricity from wind power as those that exist in Denmark, northern Germany and parts of Spain and soon also Texas and California. In these grids the price of electricity varies a lot going from 2 to 30 cents per kWh depending on how the wind blows. For example, in Denmark there are several days a year where wind power generates more than 100% of the electricity consumed in Denmark and the rest is therefore exported at very low rates 2 cents /kWh.
I can’t find the efficiency of the ITM electrolyser but it is probably close to 60%. A PEM fuel cell is about 50% with the best going at 60% (Honda fc). That means 10 kWh may be used to create 6 kWh of hydrogen that then can be converted back to 3 kWh of electricity. There will be a lot of excess heat that could be used to heat the house and heat can be stored very economically in an insulated hot water tank. If we assume that the average off peak price of electricity is 4 cents kWh and the average peak price is 20 cents per kWh then you could buy 10 kWh for a total of $0,4 and sell it for 3kWh*20=$0,60. So a profit of $0.2 for one hour of time on the electrolyser and the fuel cell. If the units could be operated for this kind of service for 10000 hours they could generate a lot of heat in addition to $2000. The ITC website says their electrolyser did 11000 hours before it broke and they believe they can make it last for 50000 hours in the near future. They also say they can produce it for $164 per kW and that they expect to produce it for less than $100 kW in the near future. That is the 10 kW electrolyser could pay itself if it was used for grid leverage. However, we will only be left with 2000-1640= $360 to buy the needed 3 kW of fuel cells. This is no good because right now a PEM fuel cell cost $900 kW and it last only 2500 hours. It does not help much that it is expected to drop to $500 by 2010.
Conclusion: The 10kW electrolyser from ITM could probably sell for as little as $1000 in a few years when it is mass produced. That would leave $1000 for 3 kW of fuel cells using the described business case. However, with the current price and durability of PEM fuel cells it will take dramatic improvements before it is economical to do this kind of grid leverage. Note that the case is very sensitive to the applied efficiency rates of 60% for the electrolyser and 50% for the fuel cell. Use instead 85% and 70% and you will get $4000 in profits and $3000 for fuel cells. Therefore, it may be that in 10 years or so it will pay off to do this kind of grid leverage. Still we need to do this case with interest rates and discount factors but that will take more time than I am interested in using with these insecure numbers.
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 2, 2007 10:20:34 AM
James,
1) PHEV don't need fast recharge. It's a BEV-only issue, to enable long trips.
4) I thought there were more H Systems out there, but you're right. GE has delivered units to California and Japan but those plants are not yet operational. I agree it's disingenuous to talk about 60% efficiency today. It's ESPECIALLY disingenuous for Tesla to use 60% in their calculations then use a $0.05/kWh retail electricity price. Natural gas fuel cost alone exceeds $0.05/kWh. That cheap off-peak electricity comes mostly from coal and nuclear.
6) I saw some pipeline data a while back but can't retrieve it. Line compressors are big: 2-5 MW for moderate pipelines and more for large pipe (I saw 30 MW for the proposed Alaskan pipeline). I figure losses are a couple tenths of a percent per station for big pipes and approach a full percent on smaller pipes. H2 would be worse, but I haven't done the math. Studies put overhead 800kV HVDC line loss at 2.5%/1000km, but it depends on many variables.
I agree PHEVs are a transitional. Solve 80% of the problem first, then work on the remaining 20%. In the 25 years it'll take to get a fleet of 200m+ PHEVs I expect lots of change. EV-only range will increase and "something" will come about to displace gasoline for long trips. Perhaps ethanol/biodiesel, perhaps fuel cells or perhaps we'll just electrify our freeways. Time will tell. I'm more focused on the 80% right now than the 20% we'll need to address in a couple decades.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Jul 2, 2007 12:33:33 PM
Some great thought provoking posts on this blog the last few days...
Doggydogworld - You don't think that a PHEV customer is going to demand quick charge capability? Especially when A123 and AltairNano are clamoring to prove their fast charge capability? If I had a PHEV, I would want to get a quick charge for another X miles of All Electric Range while waiting in line at Starbucks... "I'll have a grande skinny double cafe mocha and 8kWh of green electrons for my Plug-In Prius. I'm on charger number 4."
Ben - Why do you say hydrogen can't generate electricity? I thought that was the whole point of the hydrogen economy --> to generate electricity in fuel cells anywhere (including buildings and transportation systems), and use hydrogen as a common energy commodity.
My image of the hydrogen economy has large stationary fuel cells in buildings, generating electricity and using the waste heat for HVAC, hot water, etc. The output of large fuel cells is high temperature steam, which can run a turbine for electricity (UC Irvine has a test plant for this now) or provide process heat downstream (HVAC, water, etc).
The hydrogen comes in to buildings and fueling stations from pipelines which are fed from many diverse sources (renewable, biomass gassification with carbon sequestration, nuclear, etc). This electrical generation from hydrogen augments renewable electrical generation on site.
Hydrogen gives us the ability produce electricity on site, on demand, in a highly efficient manner, and produce no emissions, little noise, and get a high value product (steam) for use.
Also, I'm not sure why you (Ben) disregard steam reforming of biomass to hydrogen. The beauty of gassifying biomass to hydrogen and using fuel cells to convert to electricity is that your net efficiency is much higher than if the biomass is burned to simply generate electricity, and it is especially higher than if you use the biomass to make ethanol and burn the ethanol. It's this whole burning step where efficiency is lost, which is why anyone is thinking about hydrogen and fuel cells in the first place! And if you sequester the CO2 from biomass gassification, your net process is highly negative in CO2.
OK, I agree, maybe a little utopian, but I think we all need to think a bit utopian if we want to survive. I agree, society needs to move quickly, and I think it's starting to happen. Keep the big picture in mind - zero net carbon, energy independence for every nation, clean air, water, and soil for the earth.
The hydrogen economy can make this happen. It is happening. Transportation is just a part of it, but it is an important symbol that we can all touch and geel, which mobilizes the other advances to make it all work.
Thanks,
James
Posted by: James | Jul 3, 2007 8:32:40 PM
You need energy to make hydrogen, its not a energy source that what I meant.
Biomass is better used to make plastic, asphalt and industrial products that only oil (organics) can do. As such it also acts as a carbon sink, imagine that making money out of carbon sequestering without any legistation! Steam reforming biomass to get the hydrogen would waste all the organics as CO2, though this is carbon neutral it does nothing for CO2 that already in the atmosphere. Biomass could replace (on the upper end of estimates) 30% of Oil, that the same amount taken up by industrial uses of Oil.
If everyone in your world was rich enough to afford SOFC in their basement with a steam turbine and cogen system with (absorption AC for the summer months) and leakless hydrogen piping to every home (can't use NG pipes can't handle hydrogen pressure and metal-penetrating problems)or solar panels, eletrolyser, hydrogen storage tanks plus a grid power back up... yeah that would make an energy utopia aside for the occasional house blowing up due to hydrogen leaks, better add a odorant to the hydrogen, non-sulfide based though to prevent fing up the fuel cell.
Or we could use existing electric grids and steam pipes with battery backups such as NaS batteries which are already being used for grid energy storage: http://electricitystorage.org/pubs/2001/IEEE_PES_Winter2001/wm01nas.pdf
There are other ways to achieve energy independents and be sustainable that aren't as difficult to implement as hydrogen and are safer and more efficient as well.
Posted by: Ben | Jul 4, 2007 2:11:44 AM
I found some more information about the PEM fuel cells. Ballard makes on for forklifts that sell for $900 per kW but it lasts +7000 hours and they expect to drop their price to $500 by 2010. Source http://www.ballard.com/resources/documents/General%20IR%20PPT_Feb%2022%202007.pdf The future for PEM fuel cell development looks very bright according to the US department of energy. They believe that if produced in units of min 500000 the price of PEM fuel cells cold be as low as $30 per kW in 2015 with a durability of 5000 hours. Source http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review07/fc_0_garland.pdf .
Now with the cost of electrolysers going down to $100 per kW and the cost of fuel cells going down to $30 per kW there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the hydrogen economy is coming and it is coming fast. Five years from now and significant sales (thousands) of residential systems will be a reality and thereafter massive growth. For a few thousands dollars you should be able to generate you own fuel for your car and have backup power for a few days for your home. The latter can be done by adding a 2 kg hydrogen tank at 75 bar on the roof of your house. It could store 40 kWh if converted at 50% efficiency using the PEM fuel cell and the tank is cheap less than $1000. This system will also be able to generate heat and earn money utilising price differentials for electricity rates at different times. Such systems would also completely remove the only remaining problem of grid leverage in an electric power system that relied 100% on renewable energy from hydropower to wind turbines to PV solar panels.
We should really start subsidising the price of renewable energy systems now with money that are taxed from the polluting non-renewable energy systems in order to speed up the necessary transformation of our energy system. We have so much to gain and almost nothing of importance to loose form doing that. We could eliminate the risk of global warming that threatens to destroy the future of civilization making the earth inhabitable to humans and if that scenario turn out not to be true we would still gain from having eliminated air pollution.
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 4, 2007 8:10:33 AM
Henrik,
You know what, we can do the same thing today but cheaper safer and more efficient with batteries.
Posted by: Ben | Jul 4, 2007 8:17:51 AM
Ben
I really favour batteries because they are safer than hydrogen. However, if these projected prices for electrolysers and fuel cells come true and many people say they will then the hydrogen option will be very cheap and possible far cheaper than batteries. The described hydrogen residential solution would cost about $3000 for a 40kWh system that would last for many years 10000 hours and it would have many side benefits. I think it will be impossible to produce battery based systems that are cheap enough to compete with that. However, more affluent people will still buy battery systems because they are safer. In the future there will be a mix of both systems and which will dominate will depend on the price.
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 4, 2007 8:38:32 AM
Hi Ben,
Why do you think containing hydrogen in pipes, tanks, and tubing is difficult? It is not.
You can buy off-th-shelf products from every industrial gas equipment manufacturer to do it. Swagelok, Flowserve, etc. How do you think the petroleum industry can build million kg/day hydrogen production facilities to serve gasoline refineries? There is a large hydrogen pipeline running under Los Angeles right now, from Wilmington through Torrance, and up to the north end of Redondo Beach (I think that's where it ends...). It's been there for years with no problem. There is another one along the Gulf coast. Engineers have to choose materials that are compatible with hydrogen. No problem. It's been done.
Look at the system efficiencies in the NaS document you posted - <75%. Then you still have to transport it on the grid (-8%) and charge an EV battery (-10%). It would actually be MORE efficient to electrolyse, compress, and store hydrogen (66%). As well, they do not discuss the HVAC loading to cool the battery storage room. Sorry, but this document disproves your point. Also, this document is from 2000. Where's the update? If it was an effective solution, why was it not applied?
Self discharge and permanent capacity fade of batteries is a more difficult chemistry and engineering challenge than storing hydrogen. Why does your iPod battery only last 2 years? Or your cell phone? Or your lead acid car battery (especially in hot/cold climates)? Have you ever parked your Prius at the airport for two weeks and noticed that the battery level is very low when you start it again? This is a big problem for the battery industry, for all battery chemistries. Very few battery companies can provide data showing acceptable results for a wide range of temperatures. And you want to build an industrial scale energy storage system based on that?
Also, yes, I do imagine a CO2 constrained future through legislation. I think it's highly unlikely that industry (especially electrical generation industry) will ever cease dumping CO2 into the atmosphere without firm legislation. Or else the first multi-billion dollar international lawsuit victory against a CO2 polluter. That might prove more effective than legislation.
SOFCs will come down in cost, just like PEMs have done and will continue to do. And I'm thinking on the scale of an office/apartment building, not single family house, although that may find an appropriate solution as well.
Thanks,
James
Posted by: James | Jul 4, 2007 8:54:38 AM
The prices is a catch 22: the price will only go down if people buy them in mass and people will only buy them in mass is they are cheap. Same problem with Li-ion except Li-ion already has a price advantage and if Li-ion is bought in mass and it take up a large enough market that fuel cells would take up then no one is going to buy fuel cells. Not to mention that lead-acid are cheaper still and their weight problem is avoided when used for stationary power.
And that report only cites target not actualities. NaS batteries are already at $630 per Kw and that without mass production, your estimate put fuel cells grid storage at $750 by 2011 if demand induces production savings.
Posted by: Ben | Jul 4, 2007 9:00:27 AM
James,
Hydrogen induced metal fatigue: hydrogen has this nasty habit of drilling though metal like water through cardboard! Sure that problem is fixable but its not cheap especially if you have to install new pipes for every house and building in every city.
NaS isn't for charging an EV its only for grid-storage. And NaS don't need cooling for the love of god thats the opposite of whats wanted for molten sodium battery! Did you not read that report their at 300C in vacuum insulated boxes, who cares what the out side temp is as long as these batteries are being charged and discharged they stay at "red hot" running temp.
What more effective: trying for force business to stop polluting by making them pay to sequester CO2 or giving business the option of converting the CO2 into profitable products, thus making money and sequestering at the same time. All you have to do is make oil expensive, and no one will need legislation for that soon!
I'm not advocating a cure all solution like hydrogen that fits most things ok, I'm advocating multiple solutions that fit specific economies the best in price, easy of implementation and efficiency. So biomass to replace industrial oil, batteries for grid-storage, zinc -air or other metal-air battery/fuel cells for most transport. Biomass derived jet fuel for jets. Each one of these is sustainable, easier to implement and more efficient then hydrogen for everything.
Posted by: Ben | Jul 4, 2007 9:24:24 AM
James
You seem to be the right to ask. Would it be possible to use the existing infrastructure pipeline system for natural gas instead for hydrogen? I mean there are million of homes that have natural gas all over the planet possible more than a 100 million and the number is growing. It would be a waste if this infrastructure was lost the day the gas is used or that we decide to abandon fossils because of GW. The smart thing about having a hydrogen pipeline to every house is that it will be much safer than having hydrogen tanks on all rooftops. Central electrolyse and storage is safer and cheaper but the pipeline system will be costly of cause.
So is it possible to make a transition from natural gas to hydrogen using the old natural gas infrastructure?
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 4, 2007 9:25:28 AM
Henrik,
Why don't you Google it and find out for your self? Rather that wait for someone to give to the spinned version.
Posted by: Ben | Jul 4, 2007 9:39:53 AM
Ben
I do Google a lot but sometimes it is more efficient to ask first get the key words and then Google to confirm. As I read your comment hydrogen will be impossible to pipe through a natural gas line or what? Or is the picture more complex with some natural gas lines being good for both gas and hydrogen and others only for natural gas?
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 4, 2007 9:51:01 AM
The answer is yes and no: some NG pipelines can handle hydrogen (mainly the big ones not small ones to homes), some projects show that NG and hydrogen mixing is also possible in some situations (A SOFC can use NG as well as hydrogen). Of course a DOE report showed that with no new power plants, no hydrogen pipe, no home fuel cells or eletrolysis we could power 84% of all cars (if they went PHEV or BEV) off of off-peak power: that no infrastructure change other then then the car and a 230V plug in your garage (which homes already have for their washing/drier and electric heater)!
Posted by: Ben | Jul 4, 2007 10:34:27 AM
A lot of people wouldn't even need a high voltage plug. I run my e-cycle off of a regular socket (GFT). There are times during the day when I wish I could recharge a little faster, but 90% of my charging is overnight.
Posted by: NeilPackrat | Jul 4, 2007 11:33:03 AM
PHEVs will come and they will rule in a few years. Ben I also think that you are right about that biomass will be needed massively to replace fossils for industrial use. This may limit the amount available to produce bio fuels. PHEVs will need a range extender and to begin with that is going to be an ordinary ICE genset running on gasoline or diesel. However, if PEM fuel cells will be available for $30 kW then it could replace an ICE genset with fuel cells and hydrogen tanks at 700 bar at no extra cost for such a PHEV. This would make a better car because it would be almost vibration and noise fee. Using hydrogen for this would also preserve biomass to be used for industrial use and perhaps for aviation fuel. I do not know whether hydrogen home refuelling at 700 bar would be economical because it would require a hydrogen compressor and that appears to be rather expensive. I did some Google and found a source saying a 4 kg per hour hydrogen compressor cost $55000. It was for a hydrogen gas station so it is much too big. One that could do 1 kg in 24 hours would be fine for residential use but I have not been able to find the price of such a compressor. Maybe someone could help and provide a rough estimate or a websoure.
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 4, 2007 12:05:47 PM
Just wait until the first hydrogen cars with 700bar (10k psi) fuel tanks end up in car accident, I know they try to make those tanks survive car accidents but in a really nasty car accident it will just become a probability that the tanks will leak, hopefully the occupants will have died from the crash before the explosion. After a few of those kinds accidents public support for hydrogen powered cars might go the way of the zeppelin. Zinc-air fuel cells on the other hand don't not need a expensive composite 10k psi tank or high pressure compressors, or rare mental catalysis or expensive Nafion membranes, nor is it flammable. Alternatively Aluminum, Magnesium and Lithium-air cell could provide much higher energy density then zinc by volume (all beat hydrogen in volumetric energy density) lithium air for example has the potential for storing as much energy per kg as gasoline but at 80% efficiency rather then 25% for ICE) but zinc is the safest and cheapest of these metals and the only one with several groups working on easy refuelablity via pellets and pastes.
Posted by: Ben | Jul 4, 2007 1:38:24 PM
All - Happy 4th of July
Ben,
How many people died on US highways today in gasoline fed fires? Look it up and let us know. You don't hear about it because it happens every day.
How big of a hole in the freeway did the gasoline tanker make in San Francisco? It burned down a FREEWAY. Concrete, asphault, and rebar. Burned to the ground, by a gasoline fire.
Somewhere in the US today a gasoline station is on fire. Google-News "Gasoline Fire" and you will come up with some local story in some local paper that got no attention. Why are people not running in fear of their lives from this horrible, explosive, dangerous fuel?
Here's a story: http://www.register-herald.com/local/local_story_180223634.html
Another one: http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/2007070327/Men-set-woman-on-fire-with-gasoline-outside-Huntington-club-police-say/
And another one: http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/2007070327/Men-set-woman-on-fire-with-gasoline-outside-Huntington-club-police-say/
Here's one about some kids playing with gasoline and fireworks (Happy 4th of July!!): http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/070307/loc_070307030.shtml
Here's one about a firefighter who is in hospital because his car backfired and started his gasoline can on fire: http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/13621795/detail.html
These are just on the first page that GOOGLE brought up! And you want to run your PHEV on this stuff? It's insane! Why didn't anyone warn us this stuff is so dangerous? And if you breath the fumes too much you get cancer!
So why do we not run away from it as fast as we can? Because we're used to it.
At least a pressurized hydrogen system is a closed system, so that there are no fumes blowing about when you refuel. You can't spill it on your shoes when you pull the nozzle out of the car. You can't fill an open container with it in the back of your pickup truck. If it leaks it makes a very loud audible sound "PSSHHHH." If there was a leak and you breathed it, you won't get cancer, or kill brain cells. It's non toxic. It rises in air at about 45mph, compared to gasoline fumes which pool on the ground.
OK, now GOOGLE-news "Hydrogen Fire." How many incidents do you find? I got tired of looking down the list of other things. Let me know if you find one. I'd be interested in what happened. And there are thousands of hydrogen installations in the US, and it is transported all over, every day, so don't come back with the argument that "there are no incidents because there is no hydrogen" because that is false. Hydrogen is all around you.
Every engineering system has its flaws. That's our challenge as engineers to overcome those flaws. But gasoline is not safe. Far from it. Mind you, hurtling down a freeway at 85mph in a thin shell of glass and steel is extremely dangerous, but we do it every day and think absolutely nothing of it.
Will there be a 5000psi or 10,000psi explosion? Probably. I hope not, but it probably will happen. The first one will certainly catch some attention. Will it be as frequent as gasoline fires? Never. Why? Because it's a safer fuel, in a better engineered system.
Here's a good explanation of the tank systems used in hydrogen vehicles (note that this is written for CNG vehicles, but the information is basically the same):
http://www.cleanvehicle.org/technology/CNGCylinderDesignandSafety.pdf. Consider that a gasoline tank on a car is about 5mm thick plastic, or 1.5mm thick steel.
Oh, and Henryk, probably you can't use the same gas lines coming into your house for hydrogen, at least without a significant inspection to see if it's OK - there would be some rework necessary. Ben is basically right that some pipelines are hydrogen safe and others are not. It depends on the design and installation of the pipe.
Thanks,
James
Posted by: James | Jul 4, 2007 4:34:47 PM
Curious - we've all been talking about ways to use off-peak power (charging a lot of PHEVs, electrolyzing water to hydrogen, having large industrial battery installations etc).
How much power do you have to consume before it is no longer considered "off peak?" How much until demand gets close enough to supply that the utility charges more for it? It's definitely not parity. Is it 50% of supply? 80%?
If the utility thinks it is a good idea, (and I think they do...) that means it's a good idea for the utility, because they can get more money for the same or less inputs...
Or is there enough "off peak" electricity that we don't really need to worry about how it is used for a really long time?
Does anyone know a good economist?
James
Posted by: James | Jul 4, 2007 6:01:19 PM
James, I think your jumping the gun, I'm not saying hydrogen is worse then gasoline (when did i ever mention gasoline?), I'm saying if were going to replace gasoline why not replace it with a really safe fuel preferably one that can't burn at all! Sure hydrogen car could be design safer then gasoline but being a new technology people are only going to see what they see in the headlines, headlines that read "hydrogen cars safer then gasoline" are not as catchy as "hydrogen car burst into flames". With Zinc the worse it can do is cause mild chemical burns from the bleach (NaOH) electrolyte, magnesium uses a salt electrolyte its completely safe to handle, although magnesium paste when dried would make a nice explosive.
Posted by: Ben | Jul 4, 2007 9:16:42 PM
DOE report on PHEV and BEV using off-peak power:
http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf
Posted by: Ben | Jul 4, 2007 9:18:50 PM
James the answer to your question depends very much on the type of electricity system that is in place at a particular area. We all know that the demand for electricity fluctuates during the day and the year but so does the possible supply of electricity in a system that rely to some important degree on renewables such as hydro and wind power (solar is not important yet). To make it more complicated most grids has the option to import and export to neighbouring grids and these grids also have varying supplies and demands. Peak power or off-peak power is less meaningful to define as a fixed percentage of demand in terms of the possible max supply because they change all the time. It is much more relevant and objective to simply define peak power as the time where the price of electricity is above the average annual price of electricity. Off peak power is whenever the price is below the average annual price. Peak and off-peak is of cause a matter of degree because the price can be a lot above or a lot below the average price. Many may not be aware of it but the utilities are trading electricity around the clock all over the planet on these semi local markets for electricity.
One thing that is important to understand is that there is a supply hierarchy for electricity that is determined by the marginal cost of producing electricity (that is, the cost of producing one extra kWh). Those producers that have the lowest marginal cost are first to deliver to the market. The rest with higher marginal cost will only deliver when the price is higher than their marginal costs. The hierarchy is as follows with tentative marginal prices in brackets. Wind power (0 cents /kWh), Nuclear (1,6 cents /kWh), Waste (burns waste and biomass) power (2 cents), Coal (3,5 cents), Natural gas (6 cents). That is wind power is selling electricity all the time but most of it at low rates whereas natural gas powered plants only are on and sell electricity at peak power at high rates.
The average cost of wind power including the cost of capital and the cost of maintenance is about 6 cents per kWh today. However, this price is projected to drop by at least 75% before 2027 so that an average price of 1,5 cents is likely for new wind turbines at that time. No other energy forms are projected to be able to compete with that price with the exception of some hydropower installations. Therefore, we will soon see that the utilities will depend much more on wind power and this will also create serious issues with regard to grid leverage. These issues may perhaps only can be overcome in a cost conserving manner with the arrival of PHEVs and the hydrogen economy based on electrolyse of hydrogen. This is one of the reasons that have changed my opinion lately on hydrogen. We need hydrogen for cheap leverage of wind power. The other reasons that have changed my mind on hydrogen are the recent announcements by several firms that they are making good progress in dramatically reducing the cost of electrolysers and fuel cells. The hydrogen economy will come. If it takes hydrogen flex fuel ICE cars to accelerate its implementation (before fuel cells are cheap enough to replace ICE) they should be most welcome.
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 5, 2007 1:27:19 AM
Sorry, the marginal prices for waste and coal should be Coal (2 cents), waste (3,5 cents). Waste depends to some degree on co-burning of heavy oil and natural gas. In Denmark almost all waste is burned in this way at a few large facilities. This has eliminated the need for large and polluting dumps and there is a lot of energy in waste.
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 5, 2007 1:46:19 AM
Ben - No, you didn't say hydrogen was worse than gasoline, but you (and several other bloggers) mentioned several times that it's dangerous. I wanted to put the danger in perspective, relative to other dangers that we face.
Henrik - Thanks for the grid info.
James
Posted by: James | Jul 5, 2007 8:50:04 AM
Where is the problem with hydrogen storage, equipment, safety?
Did you know that german synthetic fuel plants during WWII specifically the coal hydrogenation plants handled about 50000 m3 of hydrogen an hour. The operating pressure was 700 atmospheres (10000 psi) and operating temperature 400 C (750 F). And the plant got bombed many times. And when the plant was finally taken out by a massive air attack, only two people died out of 800. And not from burning hydrogen.
I think we can do better than that today.
Posted by: euro guy | Jul 6, 2007 2:24:05 AM
Just found this report that shows GE in 2006 made a similar electrolyser as the one by ITM power. It also dramatically cuts the capital cost of hydrogen production by electrolysers adding confirmation that this technology is real and not just a gig by a firm that wants to attract investors. The GE source is http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech-R&D/wtr_16523,295,p1.html.
This source also estimate that hydrogen can be produced by electrolyse for about $3 per kilo of hydrogen with their new technology compared to about $8 per kilo that is the price of current electrolysers. If you use 1 kilo of hydrogen in a hydrogen ICE car it will replace about 1 gallon of gasoline and you could drive about 25 miles. Now use that in a fuel cell car with 50% efficiency and you can drive 50 miles and replace about 2 gallons of gasoline. In other words, hydrogen from electrolysis from renewable wind electricity will in a few years be cheaper to produce than gasoline at $3. On top of inexpensive fuel you get clean and home made fuel.
Posted by: Henrik | Jul 9, 2007 5:08:11 AM
ben - i hope you have a good idea about the zinc air fuel cell...i would like to get few information based on teh latest developments in the lithium ion batteries and zinc air fuel cells...
which will be cheaper in the running cost.
i am doing a market research on the best possible batteries and fuel cell for EV's and hybrids. i hope that we are far away from the safe hydrogen fueled vehicles to be commercialised. the efficiency is yet to be inceased for automotives.
teh best solutions are lithium ion and zinc air batteries. even thought te cost of lithium batteries is much higher tehy have better advantage in high speed/high powr vehicles than zinc air batteries. the other advantage is that the infrastructure to accomodate the Lithium ion powererd vehicles is already existing.
i would like to get some more information on the latest developments in lithioum ion batteries for EVs and their comparison with zinc air.
their running cost comparisons.. ..
what about the lithium ion batteries said to be released by toyota and GM.
is there any other developments taking place..
i would be obliged if any one can get me these details.
hope you know that powerzinc is going to release city transit busses for 2008 olympics taht will be running on zinc air batteries. it is said to have a maximum speed of 80 km/hr and can run 250kms with air conditioning. companies assure that they were successful in solving the drawback of znc anode. si believe tht tis will be a great challenge to other technologies. the max speed is expected to be increased to 130kms/hr by 2009.
the advantage of zinc is thet it can be renewed, available in abundance and can be extracted cheaply than LIthium.
hydrogen is surely to come but not in the very near future. it is surely the future but take to mature. we are going to see much higher developments in lithium ion and zinc air before hydrogen in next 10 years before major developments in hydrogen. atleast in case of automotives.
thanks
arz
Posted by: arz | Jul 10, 2007 6:26:36 AM
I GET THE SOLUTION TO OBTAIN FREE ELECTRIC POWER.
Posted by: Carlos Retuerce | Dec 23, 2007 5:21:38 PM
Free electricity is now a fact.
Hydrogen can be obtained from water at very low cost.
If anyone is interested, contact me.
Posted by: Carlos Retuerce | Dec 23, 2007 5:29:36 PM
Hi
Not sure why people are quoting 50% PEMFC stack efficiency. My understanding was it was more like 40-45% for hydrogen using net energy.
SOFC though offer better advantage with 50-60% efficiency stated, and waste heat can be used with or without pressurisation. I would expect 62-70% efficiency can be acheived, though I am struggling with the data to ascertain if these efficiency figures are HHV or LHV for hydrogen.
Also batteries above are stated to be too inefficient, and charging circuits also. Even the motors in some of the examples above are less efficient that models available bespoke. For example, PML Flightlink advertise 93% efficiency including all drive electronics loses. They claim these can plug "straight into the lithium battery". The issue of how wiring of the battery effects its charging efficiency has to be addressed. They actually claim that the motor can recycle 85% of the start energy from braking, excluding battery loses. These are stated at about 2% both for advanced capacitor and battery systems by other manufacturers.
Electrolyser efficiency (medium scale of output of 5000kwh/day of HHV hydrogen) is what I'm interested in. Anyone got any data on smaller systems and their efficiency?
Posted by: Alan | Jul 14, 2008 3:15:02 PM
Hi
Not sure why people are quoting 50% PEMFC stack efficiency. My understanding was it was more like 40-45% for hydrogen using net energy.
SOFC though offer better advantage with 50-60% efficiency stated, and waste heat can be used with or without pressurisation. I would expect 62-70% efficiency can be acheived, though I am struggling with the data to ascertain if these efficiency figures are HHV or LHV for hydrogen.
Also batteries above are stated to be too inefficient, and charging circuits also. Even the motors in some of the examples above are less efficient that models available bespoke. For example, PML Flightlink advertise 93% efficiency including all drive electronics loses. They claim these can plug "straight into the lithium battery". The issue of how wiring of the battery effects its charging efficiency has to be addressed. They actually claim that the motor can recycle 85% of the start energy from braking, excluding battery loses. These are stated at about 2% both for advanced capacitor and battery systems by other manufacturers.
Electrolyser efficiency (medium scale of output of 5000kwh/day of HHV hydrogen) is what I'm interested in. Anyone got any data on smaller systems and their efficiency?
Posted by: Alan | Jul 14, 2008 3:15:12 PM