There have been three important documents published in recent weeks. The first, from the California Fuel Cell Partnership (CaFCP), focuses on the infrastructure necessary to fuel the thousands of fuel cell vehicles expected to be deployed in California after 2012. The (pdf) document, entitled “Vision for Roll-out of Fuel Cell Vehicles and Hydrogen Fuel Stations,” describes in some detail the infrastructure needed to accommodate the thousands of fuel cell vehicles expected to be on the road in California by 2012, along with some ideas about how to deploy and pay for the fueling stations. The bottom line is that a phased transition is possible and affordable, but needs government support in the start-up phase.
The second (pdf) document, from the Fuel Cell Commercialization Conference of Japan (FCCJ), is a collective endorsement of a 2015 passenger vehicle “commercialization date.” Issued July 4, it calls for a large demonstration of vehicles and infrastructure beginning in 2011, a date consistent with the anticipated second Learning Demonstration in the US and with the initial scale-up to meet California ZEV requirements. Professor Hisashi Ishitani, chairman of the FCCJ planning and steering committee, states: “The just-established clear schedule for commercialization can be considered a commitment which shows the willingness and seriousness of the parties in related industries to succeed with the technology and marks a significant step towards realization. With the way now clear to realize the difficult technologies, commercialization efforts will be gaining momentum in the years ahead.” The language in the FCCJ news release is careful, but support from government in encouraging local government and consumer acceptance appears to be a critical component, along with infrastructure development.
In Europe, the schedule is driven largely by Daimler, in my opinion, and Daimler has announced a 2012 availability for its next generation “commercial ready” vehicle, though the government support programs are not so ambitious.
Overall, at least on paper, the pathways seem quite consistent. The collective embrace of a specific target date will be useful and it possibly could be characterized as an acceleration of the US program, which calls (or more precisely, called, since the federal government’s language has softened on this point) for a commercialization “decision” by 2015. Some companies have been speaking of “commercial ready” by 2010, but these dates and commitments can all fit into a continuum, since “commercialization” tends to mean different things to different people.
There is a great deal of work remaining on technology and on infrastructure to meet the 2015 date. But the cost of producing hydrogen at small scale is coming down dramatically (based on various conference presentations in Europe, Asia, and the US), at least two technology pathways now exist to get high-volume “fuel cell engine” costs below $100 per kilowatt (DOE based on two contractor studies, found here and here), vehicle efficiencies are improving by leaps and bounds (Honda, Toyota announcements), and cold start issues seem to have been figured out by various auto makers.
The 2015 date is also consistent with the anticipated scale up of battery-based vehicle technologies and biomass fuel pathways, all of which, like fuel cells, depend on additional research and development. Some see this as an either-or competition from the perspective of the public’s interest, but we all should hope that all the pathways succeed; we need all the help we can get.
The last study, Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies - A Focus on Hydrogen (pdf), from the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NRC), while not as aggressive as the other two, estimates that by 2015 production of hydrogen vehicles could increase significantly. According to NRC, the maximum practicable number of hydrogen vehicles that could be on the road by 2020 is 2 million and by 2023, the total cost of fuel cell vehicles, including the cost of hydrogen fuel over a vehicle’s lifetime, could become competitive with conventional vehicles. Until then, fuel cell vehicle cost — although dropping rapidly — would still need to be heavily subsidized for consumers or purchased at a premium for government fleets.
The number of hydrogen vehicles on the road could grow rapidly, to nearly 60 million in 2035 and 200 million by 2050. NRC noted that federal and private research have produced “impressive technical progress” in the years since the President’s decision to increase funding for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and “paths forward have been identified for further reducing hydrogen fuel cell costs while increasing durability and fuel economy.” [page S-4]
NRC estimates that the government’s share of a 50-50 cost-shared program to install sufficient hydrogen infrastructure to meet demand by 2023 would be about $8 billion, at which time NRC estimates hydrogen sales will be sufficient (in this maximum practicable case) to attract 100% private investment.
This is an extraordinarily encouraging number. The annual government subsidy for ethanol fuel could grow to $15 billion per year by 2020.
NRC estimated another $5 billion in federally funded cost-shared research would be needed to overcome remaining challenges. Most of the additional cost of the transition would come in the form of support for or purchase of vehicles.
NRC pleaded for consistent, long term policies, but held out hope that environmental and energy security goals are achievable with a technology portfolio approach. A portfolio approach recognizes that technological and marketplace risks remain for all the technology pathways. Assuming success in cellulosic biomass commercialization, and steady improvement in conventional vehicles and hybridization, these technologies could provide significant benefits over the next 20 years. But as NRC states,
“. . . the longer-term benefits of such approaches [as biofuels and advanced combustion engines] were likely to grow at a smaller rate thereafter, even with continued technological improvements, whereas hydrogen offers greater longer-term potential.
Thus, as estimated by the committee, the greatest benefits will come from a portfolio of R&D technologies that would allow the United States to achieve deep reductions in oil use, nearly 100 percent by 2050 for the light-duty vehicle fleet [with more than an 80 percent reduction in light duty greenhouse gas emissions].” [Abs-2]
All three of these studies agree, and as I mentioned in my recent post, a portfolio approach is necessary as we look down the road towards a carbon-free future.
This summary was compiled by Bob Rose, executive director of the US Fuel Cell Council and regular contributor to the Fuel Cell Insider.
|Back|
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
September 4, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
Philip A. Block says...
The taxpayer has been hit 90 billion for the nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mt. and who knows how much more in the future. The central power plant concept died with the 20th century. Any investment in nuclear power plants is a waste. By the time any of them come on line, Fuel Cells will have taken over as distributed power. The oil companies are constantly closing stations and opening new ones. I suggest that for every new one that is opened, a requirement that at least one H2 pump be installed. The time for the electric automobile is here powered by Fuel Cells/H2, and the powers that be might as well accept it. When cars first came on the scene in the 19th century, only the wealthy could afford them until Ford started mass producing them in 1908, some 20 years after the first car. Also, it took about the same time till the first gas station was built. Gas was purchased at the hardware store, pharmacy, or other outlets as a side line. So, lets get on with it and start solving the energy problem
September 6, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
Richard P. Horwitz says...
In the meantime FC’s need all the publicity they can get. Science museums such as the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, PA would be an excellent type of vehicle for a display of FC’s. This is a popular place where school kids & adults attend. They had a good elctrical area that demonstrated everything There should be a place for William Grove and his 1829 demo of the FC effect, plus a working model of a modern FC running an electric motor. I found the politicians yelling that oath “Dril Baby Drill” very depressing. I hope the country gets on with creating a new industry with Fuel Cells.
September 8, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
David Redstone says...
Philip A. Block wrote: “Any investment in nuclear power plants is a waste. By the time any of them come on line, Fuel Cells will have taken over as distributed power.”
This is nonsense. Nuclear power plants provide primary energy. Fuel cells do not. Apples and oranges. You might as well argue that investment in solar farms or wind farms or geothermal plants is a waste because fuel cells will soon be be creating energy out of thin air.
Where do you plan to get the energy to make the hydrogen to fuel your fuel cells?
September 8, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
Philip A. Block says...
Mr. David Redstone states that my comment about nuclear power is “nonsense” and “provide primary energy.” I do not quite know what he means by “primary energy.” But, what one has to remember is that nuclear energy only replaces the hot box used in oil, gas, or coal fired plants. The energy (heat) must be converted to mechanical energy and then to electrical energy before being transmitted with a total plant efficiency of 35% or so and the other 65% going off into the atmosphere as heat (note the huge cooling towers). No different with other heat engines (re: the Carnot cycle). Nuclear power for the navy was an answer to a prayer, as any WWII sailor that served in the pacific can tell you. The military, after WWII, liked the concept of nuclear power plants because the spent fuel could be made into weapons grade material, the same political problem today. The central power plant concept of the 20th century became obsolete with the end of that century. Why? The spider web of transmission lines and sub-stations with the limited efficiency of central power plants has become unwieldy and unreliable for 21st century technology. Fuel Cells are a direct conversion device–chemical energy directly into electrical energy with high efficiency–45% and much more–with no Carnot cycle limitation. Also, the big plus. The Fuel Cells can be placed at point of use. No long transmission lines or substations. The H2 factor! I would like to suggest that you get on line and read up on the present availability of H2 and the huge amount of R&D that is going on all over the world on this subject. Re: State of South Carolina, University of South Carolina, Savannah River consortium. I would be happy to discuss the subject further, but for brevity(?) I will end.
September 11, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Pete says...
Hydrogen refueling stations - the vending machine business for the 21st century?
September 15, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
John Trocciola says...
Hello!!!
Haven’t you been all reading the news?
Galveston and other parts of Texas without power; people struggling for food, gasoline , water etc.
Why???
look at the pictures, the grid is down in the streets; up to a month to fix.
Anyone have any ideas about which power source could supply those folks and not require a grid?
That’s what we should be talking about and not Joe whatever his name is.
Don’t respond to a gadfly , respond to a need
September 16, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Technologies says...
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Technologies…
Hi - just wanted to say good design and blog -…
September 17, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Philip A. Block says...
Well, Pete, not a bad idea. What a great business to be in. Now develop one. The advancement of the current automobile has just about put the basement experimenter out of business. Now, coming up with a practical H2 generator is open to all. Every parking lot, every business, school, post office, UPS, FedX, and not the least, every home. A service and installation business could be a real money maker. WOW! Excuse me while I go back down to my basement
September 18, 2008 @ 1:42 am
chinaman says...
Hi
I like your posts, It sets me thinking.
September 23, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
Jim Ahlstrom says...
The fuel cell automakers can jump start the FC market by installing portable hydrogen fueling stations at selected dealerships. Bottom line…they sell the FC car and the owner comes back to the dealership for his fill up. Every oil company will soon see the handwriting on the wall and join the surge. Also the HomeGen unit from Plug could be subsidized to make the hydrogen in your garage for the car and the home electric needs.Jim AhlstromColumbus
September 24, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
Philip A. Block says...
Not a bad idea Jim. There are many good ideas floating around out there. The problem is that the piston heads in Detroit are so hung up on ICEs that they cannot see the future is electric automobiles. My experience with mechanical engineers is that if it dosn’t move, smoke, have lots of parts, lots of chrome, and go raroooom, they don’t understand it. Anything like a nice quiet, simple, electric auto befuddles them. The asian auto companies are progressing nicely with the Fuel Cell powered auto while Detroit is still mentally stuck in the 20th century. Some 20 years ago Detroit badgered the Congress to limit imports to allow Detroit to “catch up.” Congress acquiesced for a period of time. Now Detroit is back demanding 25 billiion dollars of our money to, again, “catch up”. There isn’t anything wrong with the American worker, they are producing some pretty nice cars in foreign owned plants throughout the U.S. It’s the management, stupid (the management, not you).
October 17, 2008 @ 2:00 am
How To Run A Car On Water says...
How To Run A Car On Water…
I have been searching for this information. Thanks!…
December 9, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Richard P. Horwitz says...
December 9, 2008
I hope that you saw the oil sheik this past Sunday speaking to “60 Minutes.” While showing off the immense new oil operation in the desert he told Leslie Stahl “that he hoped the United States would not switch to Electric Cars” What more proof does the U.S. need that we should work harder for a successful switch to fuel cells?
December 12, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
Philip A. Block says...
Well Richard, you are 100% correct. A number of problems exist that are delaying the FC auto. One is the terrible lack of knowledge of our politicians and the general public of Fuel Cells. Two is the lack of the management of most of the power companies in the U.S. to implement a Fuel Cell program into their Organization (do something different? — forget it). Three is the very poor job the Fuel Cell companies themselves have done to get the word out (Smart Fuel, a German company, is opening an office in Atlanta, Ga. Their web site is in the German language. I sent them an email politely suggesting they put an English language version on. Never heard back from them. Great PR). I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.
December 16, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
Richard P. Horwitz says...
Since our gov’t has decided to help the auto industry why not get them working on a
different and necessary product than some of the lame car models they make now. They could hook-up with a fuel cell company and begin to turn out home heater/electric generator combinations that would get people off of the grid. This for when those god/awful ice storms hit and the utility poles are toppled they would have heat and hot water making survival possible
This was done in WW2 when many companies had to switch to making things they had never made before. But it made a lot of sense then and it should now.
December 16, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
Philip A. Block says...
It appears that the day of innovation of American car companies ended with the Studebaker and the Tucker back in the late 1940s. GM conviently destroyed the smaller auto makers, the street car system, and effectively became the leader in fish tails, cheaply built but flashly autos, and a great distributor of parts that was needed to keep their junk running. Their financial system kept people in new GM cars every two to three years (before they rusted out). The remaining companies became monkey see, monkey do. The stick shift is a left over from the pre WWII era as are drum brakes. Yet the automakers still insist on putting drum brakes on the rear wheels. Why? Chrysler in the 50s did away with the stick shift on some models and went to push buttons. Great for rocking the car out of snow drifts. Why they did away with them? Their answer was because GM did not have them. Marketing ruled the big three and still does. The big three (maybe Ford) will never make it against the foreign mfgs, no matter how much tax payer money is pumped into them. The needed psychology does not exist inside those companies. And, it does not exist with their dealers.They are brain dead. Richard is asking these companies to do something that is beyond their mental capacity. Look at the Congresssional hearings, they came not with a plan, but to market themselves. Look at me, I am the big shot, you better give me what I ask for or I will drive this country into a depression. Need more be said?