Inexpensive renewable hydrogen . . .

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/rss_story_tip.cfm?ID=143&Article=2

…

Solar and wind energy could become more viable because of an innovation that produces a hydrogen stream of greater than 99 percent purity without using the more traditional proton-conducting polymers. This allows electricity generated by solar panels or wind turbines to feed the electrolyzers that produce hydrogen gas, which is then fed into a biofuels reactor for the production of liquid biofuels. Making this possible is a new materials and structural approach to electrolytic hydrogen production. Using modern lithographic techniques, a team led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Ivan Kravchenko fabricated porous silicon and plastic wafer barriers that serve as both proton conductors and electrode surface supports. Kravchenko demonstrated the feasibility of this approach using a 30-centimeter prototype design tower that separated the flow of hydrogen and oxygen bubbles.

…

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Not going to help with cars

but a good storage solution for off-sun/wind load.

This will further diminish the 'but the wind doesn't always blow' arguments.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Might help with cars

“…production of liquid biofuels…”

[kristopher]

3. When I see some major advances in system efficiency numbers for hydrogen schemes

...then I'll be more inclinded to embrace it.

Wind or solar>hydrogen>biofuels>15% efficient internal combustion engine?

Sounds like a bad deal in comparison to:

wind/solar>battery>electric motor.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Now, if only there was a way to convert the entire fleet to electric overnight

You have to deal with what is, rather that what you would like to be true.

In the meantime, a clean source of liquid fuels would be good.

[txlibdem]

5. The Hydrogen Hoax rears its ugly head again

Hydrogen is the most INEFFICIENT fuel to use for anything but stars.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Strange

Which fuels are more efficient? (And how do you measure the efficiency of fuels?)

[wtmusic]

7. Well-to-wheels is the traditional measure for fossil fuels

but all have their analogue.

Sunlight -> Electricity -> Hydrogen -> Biofuels? Cold fusion may show more promise.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Oh! Well-to-wheels efficiency? That’s your only concern? No concern about range?

http://www.cleancaroptions.com/html/energy_efficiency.html

…

Well-to-wheels system efficiency. But we need to take into account the entire fuel cycle, not just the efficiency of the vehicle itself. The total system efficiencies will depend on the source of fuel for hydrogen and electricity. We have analyzed three generic fuel sources: fossil fuels such as natural gas, biomass, and intermittent renewables such as wind or solar energy. Converting either natural gas or biomass to hydrogen is more efficient than converting natural gas or biomass to electricity.

The well-to-wheels total system efficiency is higher for the fuel cell EV than the battery EV as follows, when each vehicle is designed for 250 miles range:

• With natural gas as the source, the FCEV is 28% to 92% more efficient than a BEV
• With coal as the source, the FCEV is 44% more efficient than a BEV
• With biomass as the source, the FCEV is also 44% more efficient than a BEV

On the other hand, the well-to-wheels efficiency is higher for the battery EV than the fuel cell EV for intermittent renewables such as wind or solar that produce electricity directly; in this case the FCEV must absorb the losses inherent in converting renewable electricity to hydrogen:

• With wind energy as the source, the BEV system is 67% more efficient than a FCEV system. (Still not a factor of three or four!)

…

[wtmusic]

10. OMG...I had never seen this Scientific Web Site before!

OK please...you know better than to post this shit.

If you really believe this is true and don't want to waste others' time run a GREET model (there's a brand new version out). I'd be amazed if this scenario was even 5% efficient, but then we'll all have something credible to look at.

btw, well-to-wheels fuel efficiency compares energy pulled from the ground to energy available to turn the wheels. "But what if the electric vehicle is using lead-acid batteries, and fuel cells cost 1/500 of what they currently do?", you ask.

Please don't ask.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Hmmm… let’s see what the DoE has to say…

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10001_well_to_wheels_gge_petroleum_use.pdf

[kristopher]

15. What are the SPECIFIC numbers you think support your case?

Now that you've attempted to mislead, why not address the specific claim in the OP which says this is a good idea:

Wind or solar>hydrogen>biofuels>15% efficient internal combustion engine

Where is that on the chart? What are the SPECIFIC numbers you think support your case?

The alternative on for comparison is this:
wind/solar>battery>electric motor.

Which according to your source is zero (0).

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. In what way have I attempted to mislead

I’ve been responding to others, who were talking about hydrogen.

[kristopher]

19. Post #8 and the Hydrogen Indsutry website - it is as misleading as they come.

What DOE says in clear text:
"Fuel  Cells

DOE’s support of fuel cell research has led to significant progress in recent years, helping reduce the cost of fuel cells by a factor of five and improve on-vehicle hydrogen storage to acceptable ranges for a light-duty vehicle. However, significant further improvements in key technologies remain to be demonstrated to meet program goals. If those program goals are met, the cost of driving (vehicle plus fuel) for FCEVs will likely be comparable to other alternative technologies (including vehicle efficiency improvements, electrification from HEVs to PHEVs to AEVs, and biofuels). However, those other alternative technologies are currently economically superior and will continue to improve rapidly.

Infrastructure deployment is a major hurdle for FCEVs. Other alternative technologies that integrate smoothly with the existing infrastructure are being deployed now and will accelerate progress toward national energy goals. DOE will therefore maintain a limited program of fundamental R&D in fuel cells for transportation and in hydrogen production and storage."


IF HFCs want to get some positive traction in the current matrix of energy choices they should focus on doing it with reformers and heavy transportation and equipment. That machinery already has a high capital cost along with high fuel costs. It is prime meat for Fuel cells.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. And the DoE research?

I suppose that’s biased as well.

Read on for more similarly biased Department of Energy research:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/education/pdfs/thomas_fcev_vs_battery_evs.pdf

…

In other words, we need to estimate the total “well­-to­-wheels” efficiency of the vehicle, not just the efficiency of any one component acting in isolation. For example, suppose we have one million btu’s of natural gas. What is more efficient: to convert that natural gas to electricity to drive a battery EV, or to convert that natural gas to hydrogen to run a fuel cell electric vehicle?

Figure 10 illustrates the answer: one would need to burn approximately 1.77 million btu’s (MBTU) of natural gas in a combustion turbine generate the electricity to power a battery EV for 300 miles on the EPA’s 1.25X accelerated combined driving cycle. For a more efficient combined cycle gas turbine generator system, 1.18 MBTU’s of natural gas would be required. But only 0.81 MBTU’s of natural gas would be required to generate enough hydrogen to power a fuel cell EV for 300 miles. On a full­cycle well­-to­-wheels basis, then, the hydrogen­-powered fuel cell electric vehicle is between 1.5 to 2.2 times more energy efficient than a battery EV in converting natural gas to vehicle fuel.

Figure 10. Comparison of the amount of natural gas required to propel a battery EV 300 miles compared to a fuel cell EV traveling 300 miles

In effect, the increased weight of a long range battery EV, even assuming advanced Li­ion battery systems, almost eliminates the improved round­trip efficiency of the battery pack compared to the fuel cell system. Note that the heavy battery EV (2,269 kg) requires almost as much energy (152.7 kWh) as the fuel cell EV (165.7 kWh) to travel 300 miles. This advantage diminishes at shorter range as the battery EV becomes lighter. As shown in Figure 11, the efficiency of a battery EV with only 100 miles range is almost identical to the total system efficiency of a fuel cell EV, assuming that the electricity is generated by a modern combined cycle turbine with 48% total system efficiency.

Figure 11. Quantity of natural gas required to power an advanced Li-ion battery EV compared to a hydrogen-powered fuel cell EV as a function of vehicle range

4.0 Conclusions

The fuel cell EV is superior to the advanced Li­ion battery full function EV on six major counts; the fuel cell EV:

• Weighs less
• Takes up less space on the vehicle
• Generates less greenhouse gases
• Costs less
• Requires less well-­to­-wheels energy
• Takes less time to refuel

…

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Biased EU Research

http://www.zeroemissionvehicles.eu/uploads/Power_trains_for_Europe.pdf

A portfolio of power-trains for Europe: a fact-based analysis

…

3. A portfolio of power-trains can satisfy the needs of consumers and the environment

Over the next 40 years, no single power-train satisfies all key criteria for economics, performance and the environment. As different power-trains meet the needs of different consumers, the world is therefore likely to move from a single power-train (ICE) to a portfolio of power-trains in which BEVs and FCEVs play a complementary role.

The results show that BEVs are ideally suited to smaller cars and shorter trips, FCEVs to medium/larger cars and longer trips, with PHEVs providing an intermediate solution to a zero-emission world.

a. FCEVs and PHEVs are comparable to ICEs on driving performance and range

…

b. Snapshot of 2030: different power-trains meet different needs

…

[kristopher]

22. That is nothing more than another attempt to mislead...

It also supports what I wrote about heavy equipment, but it doesn't make the case for personal transportation. I posted a question upthread twice now (post 3 and 15) and you've avoided addressing it. Why? Because you know that with a renewable grid a personal transportation sector powered using fuel cells will require nearly 2X the amount of renewable generation as a fleet running off of batteries. You use examples that convert chemical fuels to electricity because sources like wind and solar do not have the losses that the thermal systems do. Your attempts to mislead

Lithium batteries and renewables are a superior system for the which is why all of the money and attention is flowing that way. You can pretend it is otherwise, but that isn't going to change a damned thing - this isn't a matter that relies on public opinion.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. When will that renewable grid be on-line?

Any time soon? Seriously, you know I’m a fan of renewable electricity, but at what point will our grid be dominated by solar, wind and geothermal?

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/10001_well_to_wheels_gge_petroleum_use.pdf

…

The carbon intensity of electricity from the average U.S. grid is based on the projection in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2010 for calendar year 2035, namely reduced by 11% from the current U.S. grid’s carbon intensity.

…

Data, Assumptions, References:

• Results for all pathways are based a projected state of the technologies in 25 to 35 years, and they incorporate fuel economy improvements based on new corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards adopted in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s latest method was used in deriving on-road fuel economies from results of simulations of laboratory driving tests. For more information on EPA’s method, see: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/06-9749.pdf.
• Argonne National Laboratory’s Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model (version 1.8c.0, March 23, 2009) was used to determine all the well-to-wheels (WTW) greenhouse gases (GHGs) and petroleum energy use estimates shown in the table below. For more information on the GREET model, see: www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/index.html.
• Key input parameters for hydrogen production simulations were developed by National Renewable Energy Laboratory staff using the H2A hydrogen production and delivery models (version 2.01). For more information on the H2A models, see: www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_analysis.html.

…

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Ones that don't embrittle and destroy the fuel tank would be a start.

Hydrogen does bad things to metal. Making this work commercially has so many hurdles, I don't even know where to start.

And batteries are quickly 'getting there'.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Something like this perhaps?

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/better-hydrogen-storage-0919.html

Findings could lead to better hydrogen storage

MIT-led research demonstrates method that could allow inexpensive carbon materials to store the volatile gas at room temperature.

David L. Chandler, MIT News Office

September 19, 2011

Hydrogen has long been considered a promising alternative to fossil fuels for powering cars, trucks and even homes. But one major obstacle has been finding lightweight, robust and inexpensive ways of storing the gas, whose atoms are so tiny they can easily escape from many kinds of containers.

New research by a team from MIT and several other institutions analyzes the performance of a class of materials considered a promising candidate for such storage: activated carbon that incorporates a platinum catalyst, so hydrogen atoms can bond directly to the surface of carbon particles and then be released when needed.

Such a storage system could avoid the cost and weight associated with conventional hydrogen storage: Current approaches either liquefy the gas, requiring energy-intensive systems and heavy insulation to maintain a temperature of minus 423 degrees Fahrenheit; or store it under high pressure, requiring powerful pumps and robust tanks to withstand 5,000 to 10,000 pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. Bonding the hydrogen to a highly porous, sponge-like material such as a metal hydride or activated carbon makes it possible to use ambient pressure and room temperature in storage tanks that could be lighter, cheaper and safer.

…

This storage system, once tuned to achieve the desired capacity, should be capable of storing hydrogen under moderate pressure (possibly around 500 psi), then releasing the gas on demand simply by releasing the pressure, Chen says. “When you break the hydrogen molecules down to atoms” using the spillover effect, “it binds with the material with much less binding energy, so you can pump it out easily,” he says.

…

[txlibdem]

13. Toyota anounced that their 2015 FCEV will cost $50,000, then changed it to $110,000

I can see the middle class buyers lining up now.

1.

"Toyota: $50,000 fuel cell sedan on track to launch in 2015, or sooner
By Eric Loveday RSS feed
Posted Jan 14th 2011 6:50PM"

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/01/14/toyota-fuel-cell-sedan-on-track-for-2015/

2.

"Toyota's Fuel Cell Car for 2015 Gets A Whole Lot More Expensive
By Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield
November 8, 2011

But according to recent reports, Toyota has changed the estimated price of the as-yet un-named fuel cell car from $50,000 up to €100,000 -- the equivalent of around $138,000.

Admittedly, the European pricing given in the Automotive News article includes european sales taxes of around 20% -- but even after removing an estimated €20,000 of tax, we come to an estimated sticker price of around €80,000, or just over $110,000"

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1068346_toyotas-fuel-cell-car-for-2015-gets-a-whole-lot-more-expensive

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Let’s see… what did the Tesla Roadster cost initially?

Projections call for fuel cell vehicles to be less expensive than battery electrics over time.

http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/kromer_electric_powertrains.pdf

[txlibdem]

17. What a farsical chart made using massaged data? Tsk, tsk.

I thought that beneath you...

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. It’s not my chart

Take it up with the folks at MIT.

It all boils down to this, a large battery pack is heavy and expensive, and will likely stay fairly expensive. A hydrogen tank is relatively lightweight and inexpensive, and a fuel cell, while expensive today is likely to come down in cost due in large part to the elimination of platinum catalysts.


(Moderators, please note, the following is a press release from a US Federal Research Lab — copyright concerns are nil.)
http://tri-lab.lanl.gov/index.php/energy-security/124-cheaper-hydrogen-fuel-cells

Hello to Cheaper Hydrogen Fuel Cells

In a paper published today in Science, Los Alamos researchers Gang Wu, Christina Johnston, and Piotr Zelenay, joined by researcher Karren More of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, describe the use of a platinum-free catalyst in the cathode of a hydrogen fuel cell. Eliminating platinum—a precious metal more expensive than gold—would solve a significant economic challenge that has thwarted widespread use of large-scale hydrogen fuel cell systems.

Polymer-electrolyte hydrogen fuel cells convert hydrogen and oxygen into electricity. The cells can be enlarged and combined in series for high-power applications, including automobiles. Under optimal conditions, the hydrogen fuel cell produces water as a "waste" product and does not emit greenhouse gasses. However, because the use of platinum in catalysts is necessary to facilitate the reactions that produce electricity within a fuel cell, widespread use of fuel cells in common applications has been cost prohibitive. An increase in the demand for platinum-based catalysts could drive up the cost of platinum even higher than its current value of nearly $1,800 an ounce.

The Los Alamos researchers developed non-precious-metal catalysts for the part of the fuel cell that reacts with oxygen. The catalysts—which use carbon (partially derived from polyaniline in a high-temperature process), and inexpensive iron and cobalt instead of platinum—yielded high power output, good efficiency, and promising longevity. The researchers found that fuel cells containing the carbon-iron-cobalt catalyst synthesized by Wu not only generated currents comparable to the output of precious-metal-catalyst fuel cells, but held up favorably when cycled on and off—a condition that can damage inferior catalysts relatively quickly.

Moreover, the carbon-iron-cobalt catalyst fuel cells effectively completed the conversion of hydrogen and oxygen into water, rather than producing large amounts of undesirable hydrogen peroxide. Inefficient conversion of the fuels, which generates hydrogen peroxide, can reduce power output by up to 50 percent, and also has the potential to destroy fuel cell membranes. Fortunately, the carbon- iron-cobalt catalysts synthesized at Los Alamos create extremely small amounts of hydrogen peroxide, even when compared with state-of-the-art platinum-based oxygen-reduction catalysts.

Because of the successful performance of the new catalyst, the Los Alamos researchers have filed a patent for it.

"The encouraging point is that we have found a catalyst with a good durability and life cycle relative to platinum-based catalysts," said Zelenay, corresponding author for the paper. "For all intents and purposes, this is a zero-cost catalyst in comparison to platinum, so it directly addresses one of the main barriers to hydrogen fuel cells."

The next step in the team’s research will be to better understand the mechanism underlying the carbon-iron-cobalt catalyst. Micrographic images of portions of the catalyst by researcher More have provided some insight into how it functions, but further work must be done to confirm theories by the research team. Such an understanding could lead to improvements in non-precious-metal catalysts, further increasing their efficiency and lifespan.

Project funding for the Los Alamos research came from the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Office as well as from Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Laboratory-Directed Research and Development program. Microscopy research was done at Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s SHaRE user facility with support from the DOE's Office of Basic Energy Sciences.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1200832