« Self-Supporting Cobalt Oxide Nanowire Anodes for Li-Ion Batteries Offer High Capacities and Rate Capabilities | Main | AEP Orders 18 Hybrid Utility Trucks »
PSA Peugeot Citroën and Intelligent Energy Unveil Electric Van with Fuel Cell Range Extender
22 April 2008
 |
| The Peugeot Partner H2Origin. |
In the UK, PSA Peugeot Citroën and Intelligent Energy presented the Peugeot Partner H2Origin technology demonstrator—a battery-electric Partner Origin (earlier post) outfitted with a Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cell stack from Intelligent Energy as a range extender.
The H2Origin Partner uses a 10 kW fuel cell system combined with 700-bar hydrogen storage to support a range of 300 km (186 miles). The battery-only version of the Partner has a range of 100 km (62 miles). Compact design for both the fuel cell stack and ancillary equipment enables integration into the front engine bay in place of the internal combustion engine.
The hydrogen tanks are mounted on a sliding rack under the rear cargo area, making it possible to easily swap in new ones. This offers a practical alternative to refueling at a service station.
Venturi Automobiles and PSA Peugeot Citroën announced in March that they are partnering to supply electric vans based on the Citroën Berlingo First / Peugeot Partner Origin in response to a tender from the French Post Office, La Poste. The van uses a 20 kWh sodium nickel chloride (Zebra) battery pack. The liquid-cooled electric motor delivers maximum power of 45 kW, and maximum torque of 173 Nm.
The three-year joint H2Origin research project was aimed at fitting an advanced technology fuel cell stack into a zero-emissions urban delivery van. H2Origin is the sixth fuel-cell vehicle built by PSA Peugeot Citroën since 2000. The company has no immediate plans for commercialization.
The Intelligent Energy fuel cell has increased the electric Peugeot Partner H2Origin’s range from 100 to 300 km. Extending the range of electric city delivery vans in this way considerably broadens their potential applications and use. This looks like an extremely interesting solution to help drive future growth in EV demand, once the various economic factors are into place.
—Jean Pierre Goedgebuer, Scientific Director of PSA Peugeot Citroën
April 22, 2008 in Electric (Battery), Fuel Cells | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/28379222
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference PSA Peugeot Citroën and Intelligent Energy Unveil Electric Van with Fuel Cell Range Extender:
Comments
Make it reformed ANG and you are all set.
Posted by: sjc | Apr 22, 2008 9:08:36 AM
10Kw is too small for a vehicle.
So the fuel cell has to be used to charge the vehicle. Ridiculous. That's what a plug is for...
Let's view efficiency:
CH4 -> H2 80% (generous)
H2 -> 700 Bar H2 (90%)
H2 -> elec. (FC) (50%)
elec. -> Battery (Charging) (85%)
Battery -> engine (95%)
Total: 29%
Versus methane-driven Atkinson-Drive engine: 30%
With a lot less cost and much more power available.
Posted by: Jim | Apr 22, 2008 9:12:24 AM
Maybe some people would prefer a natural gas engine, but certainly some people (like people with solar panels on their roofs) may prefer to fill their tanks with home-made hydrogen.
I like to see they make methane-driven cars, but there will certainly be customers for H2/Battery cars.
Depends on where you live, and on the price of solar (or other) energy.
Posted by: Alain | Apr 22, 2008 9:38:12 AM
This may be where the reforming ANG comes in, you do not have the 700 bar compression losses. I think the 10kw goes to power the vehicle and when it stops the FV charges the batteries then the batteries provide the power needed to accelerate.
We have ICEs with all their complexity at an affordable price due to mass production. All the pistons, cylinders, valves, cams, gears and what not are a marvel of modern manufacturing but very complex.
If they can get over some of the issues like expensive catalysts and contamination, PEMs may be affordable. I just think that ANG reformed on board makes more sense. Trying to compress hydrogen to get range seems foolish.
The startup time for the reformer is not an issue, if you have enough batteries. If it takes 5 minutes, you have 15 minutes worth of EV time. By the time you get to the freeway on ramp, the reformer and FC are up to speed and ready to go.
Posted by: sjc | Apr 22, 2008 9:41:57 AM
Alain,
With home-made hydrogen, you can easily get methane.
Pluck some CO2 out of the air (with some easy to find sorbents) and react it with hydrogen: CO2 + 4H2 -> CH4 + 2H2O. Resulting fuel is 3.2 times denser than hydrogen. Methane production reaction uses up about 20% of the hydrogen energy content as waste heat.
On-board reforming of methane is not that easy. I've heard the odorants added to NG, for example, will damage either the reformer or the fuel cell. Maybe both.
Plus 10kW is just not enough power for much driving. A Prius needs about 400 w-hrs/mile, so 10kW would only get you to about 25 MPH.
And we probably shouldn't even talk about the tiny issue of cost....
Posted by: Jim | Apr 22, 2008 10:24:38 AM
I read a paper about a group that took a Honda Civic GX natural gas car and added ANG tanks. They had a processor that removed the ethane and other components from the NG before the ANG tanks. I see no reason why you could not remove the unwanted materials from the NG at the compressor in your garage before putting it in the NG tanks.
Posted by: sjc | Apr 22, 2008 10:30:27 AM
Oh no, they said the F*** word, here we go again....
Posted by: clett | Apr 22, 2008 11:05:03 AM
It takes a great deal of energy to compress hydrogen to 700 bar. Do they recover any of that "compressed air" energy or is it all wasted?
Posted by: Hybrid fan | Apr 22, 2008 2:08:27 PM
It heats when you compress it and Honda's FCX fueling station uses that as Combined Heat and Power for the home. It cools when you decompress it. I suppose that you could use that to cool the car, but have not heard of anyone doing that.
Posted by: sjc | Apr 22, 2008 2:50:08 PM
hi jim,
The best ICE methane has 18 % efficiency in the NEDC cycle 30% is just the peak (generous) efficiency! (and you did not take in account the methane compression.
Bye
Posted by: Paolo | Apr 22, 2008 3:24:44 PM
Methane is 130 octane. You can get some pretty good efficiency with a turbo and boost pressure in a small displacement engine. ANG only requires 500 psi pressure. The energy to compress is much less than the 10,000 psi for H2.
Posted by: sjc | Apr 22, 2008 3:51:52 PM
These batteries are not really sustainable. Also, nickel prices have doubled over the past year and there's no end in sight.
Once you scale up these battery-packs, the technology becomes wholly unsustainable.
Posted by: Jonas | Apr 22, 2008 4:27:10 PM
sjc-Jim
Have you ever developed a CNG ICE engine?
We did!.
with turbo and VVT and with a lot of NOx you can get up to 20% in the NEDC Cycle (Stop & start included). That because very often the ICE is operated at very low load with poor efficiency, no matter if you use impressive Cratios or whatever.
No one in the world can do better.
There is a little difference between to speak and to do...: DEVIL
Posted by: Paolo | Apr 23, 2008 3:14:10 AM
Why would anybody run an IC methane engine in a series hybrid at low loads?
Posted by: globi | Apr 23, 2008 5:05:35 AM
The EPA, AQMD and natural gas utilities have lots of data on NG cars and trucks. They know what comes out the tailpipes and have measured and documented the results. Those result look pretty encouraging to me. The Honda Civic GX natural gas car was rated the cleanest ICE car in production.
I like the 130 octane rating for NG. If you can remove substances that you do not want at the compressor and put the NG into ANG tanks at 500-1000 psi you can get range and performance. I do not think most people are going to develop NG engines in their garages, but it has been done with some success by car makers and after market manufacturers.
Posted by: sjc | Apr 23, 2008 9:12:03 AM
Paulo,
"The Passat Estate TSI EcoFuel is powered by a 1.4-liter TSI 110 kW (148 hp) engine running on either natural gas or gasoline. The engine features both a supercharger and a turbocharger operating sequentially to provide relatively high power outputs from a small capacity engine."
"In normal conditions the vehicle consumes 5.2 kg of natural gas every 100 km."
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/vw-introduces-d.html#more
When you can get this kind of horsepower and economy out of a small engine with boost running CNG, I call that efficiency.
Posted by: sjc | Apr 23, 2008 10:18:12 AM
5.2 kg NG equates to about 2.3 gallons of gasoline, so that would be about 27 MPG. Not too bad. Would be better as a PHEV or even a hybrid.
Posted by: Jim | Apr 23, 2008 1:55:12 PM
Dear SJC, JIM
That is not particularly efficient: in fact 5,2 kg of NG every 100 km means an emisions of more than 140 gr of CO2 per km this is not good enough! Moreover we did take in account only the TTW and not WTW (20 % worse). We can do better with our engines but not so mach as a FC can do.
I do not undersaand why lot of people are so negative about FC...that is an interesting option for the future!
Bye bye
Posted by: Paolo | Apr 23, 2008 2:27:05 PM
There are lots of examples of even more efficient automobiles that run CNG. If it were a hybrid, it would get more miles per therm of NG or gasoline equivalent BTU. The point is, a small engine with forced induction and direct injection can do well. Put that in a hybrid and it can do even better.
I would like SOFCs, but I am in a minority on this one. They take NG directly as a fuel and reform in the stack. Since they remain on standby to minimize thermal cycling, they can be used in V2G and do CHP for the home in the garage.
There are lots of good ideas and no one has the best one because they all have merit. No one will save the day, we all will if we work together. This is something that goes beyond patents and egos. Our modern way of life is at stake and I for one like a modern way of life. So here is to hoping that we get our act together soon enough to keep things on track.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 23, 2008 5:48:50 PM
I actually like SOFCs too. There are some good ones out there now, but like Hydrogen FCs, they are all very small at this time, 50-100 watts.
A big problem with fuel cells is that they are membrane-based, and the membrane tends to be expensive. Lots of membrane is needed to provide high current with low resistance. If you flood the membrane with current, your efficiency drops horribly. That's why FC vehicles at 'idle' are really efficient, but that's not where efficiency is (only) needed.
IC engines are based on a volume or space for power generation. Once all the ancillary stuff is in place for an IC engine, it's not that hard to increase the volume to allow for more power.
A system with a small SOFC (perhaps to trickle-charge batteries) and an IC engine might make sense in a PHEV.
Posted by: Jim | Apr 24, 2008 7:51:41 AM
Use renewable methane derived from waste and you have the performance of the Passat with a net zero CO2. Can't beat that, very simple, very efficient overall.
Posted by: John Baldwin | Apr 24, 2008 11:53:40 PM
John
Your aimis to beat the fuel cell,
my aim is to have a better world.
I work on NG engines , but I'm not blind.
From the same amount of waste you can drive much more fcv.
Bye
Posted by: | Apr 25, 2008 12:24:55 AM
SOFCs do not work with membranes, PEMs do. SOFCs use either tubular or planar ceramic with electrolytes deposited on them. That is one of the beauties of the design, no precious expensive metal catalysts. They run at temperatures above 1000F and can use natural gas directly. Combine that with ANG storage, V2G and CHP for a real nice package.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 26, 2008 8:53:49 AM
