Why a fuel cell blog?
The blogosphere generates an estimated five million posts a day. Do we really need another blog? We would argue yes.
- There are a number of excellent blogs about energy and energy policy, but most are vast in focus and scope. The societal payoff of fuel cells and their fuels justifies a specialized forum.
- There is no shortage of opinion about fuel cells, hydrogen and hydrogen rich fuels. But there is far too little actual dialogue and a lot of misconceptions and misinformation are being perpetuated by critics. The current “debate” is less an exchange than a series of pronouncements. A fuel cell forum will help people of goodwill engage the debate, identify common ground and sharpen the focus on issues truly in dispute.
- There is no time like the present. In the US, serious debate has begun on a response to global warming. The rest of the world has begun to focus on a post-Kyoto regime. Smog still kills millions of people every year, according to the UN. And energy prices are shoving many economies toward stagflation if not worse. Developing a response to those challenges will require the best efforts of our leaders, and of each one of us.
In the 1970’s, when we last suffered an oil price shock, most people had never heard of global warming. And very few imagined the exceptional nature of the internet. Whether we can unite on a common agenda, or merely help each other understand the nature of our disagreements, it’s time for a forum on fuel cells and their fuels.
Here’s your chance to “strike the last word,” let everyone know what policy would look like if you were king or queen, and help us all toward a better future.
07.01.2008
|Back|
|Back|
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
July 3, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
fc-skeptic says...
“a lot of misconceptions and misinformation [about fuel cells] are being perpetuated by critics”
Like what? Can you provide some examples?
July 4, 2008 @ 11:35 am
agreeable says...
I agree with fc-skeptic, perhaps not for the same reason. I doubt if I could tell “misinformation” from fact if it were standing right in front of me on the subject of fuel cell science. What are the most common lines of misinformation?
July 7, 2008 @ 11:39 am
snbess says...
I’d ask that sources be quoted for “facts” being presented, so we know where they are coming from and can verify them. I love that fuel cells produce so much less pollution than many sources…but is that number on the main page verifiable?
July 7, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Jennifer says...
The quote in the notepad is based on measured data from UTC Power. They have quite a few units that have been in the field for several years now, some even as long as a decade. I have compiled a bunch of charts showing emissions and other savings from fuel cell companies and other sources - you can find that HERE.
July 7, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Rei says...
Certainly you could have put a less misleading statistic on the front page. That’s like saying that batteries emit no pollution during operation. It’s technically true, but grossly misleading.
Not a promising start to this blog.
July 8, 2008 @ 8:50 am
JAF says...
Thanks for starting a neutral (i.e. not driven by a particular company) fuel cell conversation blog. There is obviously a lot of passion on this topic. I believe that allowing a candid conversation will allow the non-committed to form their own opinions. I do hope that the passionate will back their passion with fact and reason.
For example, REI’s statement is quite passionate about pollution. Fuel cells will be used in multiple applications, including both power generation and transportation. In transportation, hydrogen fuel cells, like batteries, generate zero emissions. This is as significant as it is technically true.
I will agree that under today’s electricity and H2 generation schemes, the amount of pollution reduction is not as great as it will be at such a time that we significantly reduce use of fossil fuels. However, we are seeing great strides in zero pollution generation - solar, wind, hydro, etc. These techniques cannot be used in transportation, unfortunately. Further, due to the intermittent nature of solar and wind, fuel cells which are high efficiency power generation techniques will be used in concert for load leveling, local generation and more. Their high efficiency means significantly less pollutants in the generation stage - certainly better than the relatively low efficiency of internal combustion engines (15-25%) or even coal power plants (<40%). Finally, any pollution during the product creation stage must be weighed against similar measures for more highly polluting technologies. I am certain you’ll find this difference to be minimal.
Thus, having a transportation power technology that is zero polluting during operation is a significant benefit to society.
July 8, 2008 @ 9:38 am
fc-skeptic says...
Fuel Cells 2000, the sponsor of this blog, is anything but “neutral”. The employees of Fuel Cells 2000 make their living promoting the idea of fuel cells.
Still waiting for examples of “misconceptions and misinformation about fuel cells being perpetuated by critics”.
July 8, 2008 @ 9:46 am
Jennifer says...
Fuel Cells 2000 is a non-proft organization and we are neutral in the sense that we aren’t affiliated with any fuel cell company, don’t promote any one type of fuel cell over the other, or promote any fuel over the other, although hydrogen is the main fuel right now. We do fuel cell education and outreach.
The misconceptions and misinformation about fuel cells is probably too general because I was also including hydrogen in that thought. Most people read articles saying that hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars will never happen, so they don’t learn about the thousands of fuel cells already installed around the world in stationary applications or the numerous fuel cell forklifts already in deployment in the warehouses of Wal-Mart, GM, Ace Hardware, Michelin and the DoD Defense Logistics Agency.
When a proponent of biofuel or plug-in electric vehicles bash hydrogen fuel cells, they usually only present half an argument like ‘it takes too much energy to create hydrogen’, leaving out that a fuel cell is 2-3 times more efficient so the well-to-wheels overall is better than comparative technologies and fuel sources. When they say creating hydrogen makes emissions, they leave out that our electric grid is powered by dirty coal, things like that.
July 8, 2008 @ 11:47 am
Rei says...
“When a proponent of biofuel or plug-in electric vehicles bash hydrogen fuel cells, they usually only present half an argument like ‘it takes too much energy to create hydrogen’, leaving out that a fuel cell is 2-3 times more efficient so the well-to-wheels overall is better than comparative.”
Finally, a criticism. And now, a response. Peer review says you’ve got it backwards:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2S-4M04DW9-1&_user=440026&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000020939&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=440026&md5=e7b3b8bfb288aaed28ee38d247e49a24
Your typical “green” electricity from a thermal source will be less efficient than natural gas, but let’s use natural gas-fired electricity as our example. This would be case P9 - PEMFC with natural gas power plant and CO2 capture: 13% well-to-wheels efficiency. This is the analog of P10 — wlectric car with natural gas power plant and CO2 capture: 35% well-to-wheels efficiency. This even beats case P5 — PEMFC with natural gas reformation, at 25% (which obviously doesn’t map to non-natural gas thermal sources).
Don’t want to use a thermal power source for your green electricity? Then let’s compare hydropower. The comparison is P12 (PEMFC) to P14 (Electric Car). P12 gets 26%; P14 gets 74%. In each case, so long as electricity is your initial input, EVs get three times what the fuel cell vehicles get. Meanwhile, the fuel cell vehicles are getting numbers only similar to conventional cars — 14% gasoline ICE, 27% gasoline ICE hybrid, 17% diesel ICE, 16% CNG ICE, etc.
The fact that you’re getting your stats backwards is, once again, not a good start to this blog.
Now, don’t get me wrong. It’s not that I have something against fuel cells. I have something against them being used for *this application* due to their inefficiency in this application. I’m all for fuel cells in stationary power generation, where cogen makes them more efficient than conventional power plants. I’m all for fuel cells providing auxiliary power for aircraft, and for hydrogen as a next-generation “green” jet fuel. But for automotive applications, it’s trying to wedge a square peg in a round hole.
July 9, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
John Trocciola says...
SNBESS,
With regards to your question about FC emissions I can tell you that I was part of a US EPA sponsered FC program in which the levels of CO, NOx and SOx coming out of a UTC 200 KW PAFC were measured by EPA accepted protocols and the results were verified by peer review
July 11, 2008 @ 9:06 am
FuelCells4Power says...
Rei, can you send me a copy of that study. Very interested in reading it - info@fuelcellsforpower.com.
July 11, 2008 @ 11:00 am
snbess says...
John,
Cool - I am not saying the data doesn’t exist. Just saying it would be good to cite it, so it doesn’t appear we’re pulling “factoids” from thin air.
July 18, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
water powered cars says...
water powered cars…
Just the information that I need. I am so glad I found this post. Thanks :)…
August 3, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Oscillollasy says...
Thank you
September 24, 2008 @ 1:39 am
reophommense says...
well done, bro