Berlin Transit to Buy Up to 250 Hydrogen Buses by 2009; 20% of the Fleet
19 July 2006
 |
| A new MAN H2ICE Bus. |
The Berliner Zeitung reports that state-owned BVG (Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe), the city’s mass-transit company, will buy up to 250 hydrogen buses by 2009. At that figure, roughly one out of every five buses in the city would be hydrogen-fueled.
Manufacturers will be asked to provide offers for both diesel- and hydrogen-fueled buses in response to BVG’s request for proposals in 2007.
We want to take the path to hydrogen technology consistently.
—Thomas Necker, BVG board member
The rapidly rising cost of diesel fuel is reducing the cost gap with hydrogen. Four years ago, the BVG was paying approximately €0.68 per liter (US$3.20 per gallon). Today, the price has increased to €0.94 (US$4.44 per gallon) and is expected to increase to €1.20 per liter (US$5.68) by the end of the decade.
At that price, hydrogen, which is produced by Total from butane at its Leuna refinery (150 kilometers from Berlin), is competitive.
Berlin has two hydrogen filling stations, opened to support its participation in the European hydrogen project HyFLEET:CUTE. Berlin is running a fleet of 14 hydrogen buses as part of that project. (Earlier post.) The BVG also tested two MAN hydrogen buses (earlier post) during the FIFA Soccer World Cup, using them to transport fans from the Tegel International Airport to the Olympic Stadium.
What is the CO2/km of hydrogen? Burning it is zero, but don't they have to burn butane (in this case) to make the hydrogen. It sure seems to me the hydrogen economy is a scam, since you have to make it from somewhere...but I'm willing to be wrong!
Posted by: John McConnell | 19 July 2006 at 08:16 AM
Hydrogen could be produced with zero CO2 ... solar. It's just much cheaper to reform methane. (Until the price of NG goes up)
Posted by: N | 19 July 2006 at 08:28 AM
H2 economy is a scam only is to produce it you emmit CO2/other GHGs/pollution. Waste heat recovery for high temp electrolysis may provide a way around this. For example, a nuke plant's pile emmits enormous amounts of heat not turned into electricity. If you could stick a heat stripper into the coolant cycle to run the process, then we just recovered enormous amounts of energy otherwise thrown away, causing thermal pollution. Of course, there must be safeguards for using a nuke plant's waste heat, but coal/gas/biomass fired plants will work just the same.
Posted by: allen Z | 19 July 2006 at 08:46 AM
emits
Posted by: allen Z | 19 July 2006 at 08:47 AM
CNG better for the planet....on a well to wheel basis bio-methane from waste the best fuel. No question. Storing energy in form of hydrogen is do-lally...
Posted by: John Baldwin | 19 July 2006 at 10:44 AM
I'm feeling more and more that the way to go is an all out program to create high storage batteries and use electric vehicles -- I feel that everything should ultimately lead to that.
Posted by: John McConnell | 19 July 2006 at 11:04 AM
Nanologix is working to solve and may have already solved the problem of expensive hydrogen production and the methane problem. search Nanologix on this web-site and you will find some info on the company and its bio-reactors
Posted by: cire | 20 July 2006 at 05:03 PM