Archive for June, 2010
A UTC Power PureMotion® Model 120 fuel cell powerplant aboard an Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) bus operating in the Greater Oakland, California, area has surpassed 7,000 hours in service with the original cell stacks and no cell replacements, and another has exceeded 6,000 hours.
Three of AC Transit’s buses are equipped with UTC Power fuel cell systems and have now traveled more than 255,000 miles, with an average fuel economy that is 65 percent better than the control fleet of diesel buses running the same routes and duty cycles. AC Transit has 12 more fuel cell buses on order.
In addition to the great reduction in greenhouse gases that fuel cells provide, other benefits of fuel cell buses include a smooth, quiet ride and centralized fueling. There are at least ten bus manufacturers working with fuel cell developers and transit agencies to put these vehicles in service. To see how transit agencies and their riders feel about the fuel cell and hydrogen bus demonstrations, take a look at “A Report on Worldwide Hydrogen Bus Demonstrations, 2002-2007.”
more from Greg Blencoe -
Thanks for publishing my guest post. I really appreciate it.
One key point I want to mention that I didn’t discuss in the post is that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will be affordable in 2015 if they are mass produced (i.e. hundreds of thousands of cars per company).
There has been a lot of discussion about the $50,000 figure for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in 2015 that was brought up by Toyota recently. Here is the May 6th Bloomberg article where this was discussed:
“Toyota Plans $50,000 Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Sedan by 2015″
However, a very important point is that this is a low-volume figure which is misleading to people who likely view this as a high-volume figure.
In the article, Toyota said a small number of vehicles would be produced and the company would set a price where money would be made on the vehicles.
Here is the most important sentence in the Bloomberg article: “Shifting from low-volume assembly to mass-scale production would lead to further cost reductions, he said.”
Toyota would obviously need to sell the cars for $50,000 if only a small number were produced. But the cost would be much lower if a large number were produced.
Here are two previous comments from Toyota executives that discuss the cost of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles:
1. Here is a comment made by Justin Ward, advanced powertrain program manager-Toyota Technical Center, in a Ward’s Automotive article (see link below - subscription required) that was published on July 16, 2009:
“Toyota’s First Fuel-Cell Vehicle to be Priced ‘Shockingly’ Low”
“We have some confidence the vehicle released around 2015 is going to have costs that are going to be shocking for most of the people in the industry. They are going to be very surprised we were able to achieve such an impressive cost reduction.”
2. Irv Miller, TMS group vice president, environmental and public affairs, made the following comment (see link below) on August 6, 2009:
“In 2015, our plan is to bring to market a reliable and durable fuel cell vehicle with exceptional fuel economy and zero emissions, at an affordable price.”
http://multivu.prnewswire.com/mnr/toyota/39419/
Moreover, Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche discussed the cost of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in the following excerpt from a Spiegel (Germany) article (see link below) that was published in March 2009:
“But the question remains: When will hydrogen-fueled cars be mass-produced and affordable? Zetsche says that annual production of the new vehicles would have to reach 100,000 and that by around 2015, the vehicle prices could match those of conventional cars.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,615673,00.html
Furthermore, Hyundai/Kia said in July 2009 (see link below) that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles produced at that time would cost $50,000 if 50,000 units were made each year. Furthermore, Hyundai/Kia did not start researching hydrogen fuel cell vehicles until 2000.
Here are three very important points:
1. If Hyundai/Kia discussed producing 250,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles last July instead of 50,000, the costs would be even lower due to economies of scale.
2. The cost of Hyundai/Kia hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will likely go down a lot between 2009 and 2015 due to technology advancements.
3. Toyota started their hydrogen fuel cell program back in 1992 (Daimler started their program in 1994) which was 8 years before Hyundai/Kia. Moreover, Toyota invests nearly one million dollars per hour on future technologies (part of this goes to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles). Therefore, Toyota should be at least as far along as Hyundai/Kia is.
Moreover, here is an excerpt from a Bloomberg article (see link below) that was written by Alan Ohnsman on October 9, 2009:
“GM, Toyota, Honda Motor Co. and Daimler AG say durability improvements and cost reductions may enable them to sell the zero-emission vehicles by 2015. Costs to make the fuel-cell cars have fallen from $1 million each a few years ago, and automakers are working to meet a proposed goal of slashing the premium for the cars to $3,600 more than a midsized gasoline model.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=az48qD9Cl_kQ
In my opinion, if hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are mass produced in 2015 on a scale of hundreds of thousands of vehicles per company, I believe several car companies could sell them for about the same price as a hybrid (i.e. several thousand dollars more than a conventional gasoline-powered vehicle).
Why would the car companies be spending billions of dollars on hydrogen fuel cell technology if the cars were not going to be affordable?
Our friend Greg Blencoe at Hydrogen Discoveries has an innovative and interesting idea to solve the potential chicken and egg dilemma with regards to fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen fueling stations.
With viable hydrogen fuel cell vehicles from several car companies set to arrive at dealerships in 2015, the last major hurdle is to build the hydrogen fueling stations.
But the ultimate question is:
Who will finance the hydrogen fueling stations?
The U.S. federal government, state governments, oil companies, etc. don’t have plans to build lots of hydrogen fueling stations any time soon. Therefore, a different approach is needed.
With oil prices likely to go much higher over the coming years, consumers will benefit the most from transitioning to an affordable alternative fuel. And consumers can finance hydrogen fueling stations through cooperatives.
The basic cooperative idea is to have 2000 people who live near each other each pay $2500 extra when purchasing a hydrogen fuel cell car to own a small part of a $5 million large-scale hydrogen fueling station (though, the most practical strategy is to build a large number of stations at the same time in a densely populated area).
Furthermore, this approach solves the “chicken and egg” problem since the hydrogen fuel cell cars and hydrogen fueling stations would come at the same time.
With lots of hydrogen activity in Los Angeles and Orange County, Southern California seems like the best place to apply this concept first. Therefore, I recently proposed the Southern California Hydrogen Fueling Station Cooperative.
The idea is to have 100,000 people in Southern California agree to buy a hydrogen fuel cell car in 2015 and pay $2500 extra to own a small part of a group of 50 hydrogen fueling stations. The stations would be spread throughout Southern California with 24 in Los Angeles, 8 in Orange County, 8 in San Diego, and 10 others in the best remaining locations.
Most customers would probably finance the extra $2500 cost for the hydrogen fueling stations. Depending on the interest rate, the payment would likely be between $50 to $70 per month for five years. However, the fuel savings with hydrogen would likely more than make up for this, because gas prices are very likely to be higher (maybe $4-5 per gallon in California) by 2015.
While Southern California is the best location to have the first hydrogen fueling station cooperative, the idea can be replicated throughout the U.S. and throughout the world.
Resources for the Future in a partnership with the National Energy Policy Institute released a study today titled “Toward a New National Energy Policy: Assessing the Options.” The study was unveiled this morning by Tony Knowles, President of NEPI, and Alan Krupnick, Project Leader of the RFF study. The study analyzes on policy initiatives, and models how various energy policies will effect reductions in CO2 emissions and oil use.
The study is broken down into 35 different policy initiative models, including 4 cross-cutting models taking into account multiple different initiatives. Energy Initatives covered are broken down into categories of transportation/oil policies, CO2 Pricing Policies, Energy Efficiency Policies, Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees, and Renewable Energy Technologies.
Each policy is shown side by side with estimates based on the new model NEMS-RFF, an adjusted version of the U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Modeling System. This model shows the decrease in millions of barrels of oil per year and million metric tons of CO2 that each policy will provide.
Fuel cells were not named in the presentation, but Alan Krupnick explained that the United States needs a portfolio of policies implemented to bring about real change. In addition, Tony Knowles further reported that this study was not trying to focus on naming technologies, but rather which policy decisions would bring the best change. Hopefully in the coming weeks as Congress works to enact comprehensive energy legislation, our nation’s lawmakers will take this study and view into account.
The study is available in its entirety online here, along with a wealth of papers on the study provided by the RFF community.
A new state-commissioned study in Massachusetts found that some biomass, i.e. wood- and plant-burning, power plants could produce more carbon emissions than coal plants over the next several decades. This runs contrary to Massachusetts’ current classification of biomass as a clean renewable energy source. Ideally, burning wood is nearly carbon neutral because the carbon released is balanced by carbon absorbed from the air over the course of a tree’s life. However, this report states that biomass power can have a significant upfront release of carbon and a net carbon footprint bigger than coal in some scenarios.
Burning wood or organic matter simultaneously releases heat, carbon dioxide, soot, and other particulate matter. The emissions must be filtered and cleaned with electrostatic precipitators, cyclones, and other traditional devices. Power is generated from the heat with an efficiency of 25-30%, on par with most large combustion power plants.
Fuel cells can harness biomass energy in a much cleaner and more efficient manner. Biomass can be run through an anaerobic digester where microorganisms break down the organic matter and produce biogas. Biogas, which is composed primarily of methane and carbon dioxide, can be cleaned, reformed, and used to power fuel cells. The efficiency of fuel cells is upwards of 50%, higher with cogeneration. Fuel cells produce no carbon emissions.
Biomass as a fuel makes sense. Trees and plants absorb carbon from the air and use it to build complex, energy-rich molecules. We should definitely take advantage of this energy source, but we have to be smart in our methods. Burning biomass is dirty and inefficient. Processing biomass into fuel for fuel cells is a much more controlled process. If you had to tear down a house, would you burn it and salvage what you could or deconstruct it in parts and save twice as much material? That’s the difference between combustion power plants and fuel cells.
Massachusetts is considering removing the renewable energy label and incentives for biomass power plants. I can understand this given the results of study, but hope that the regulations leave some incentives for biomass powered fuel cells. Biomass power is cheap and can be clean and efficient if carried out the right way. Let’s hope Massachusetts keeps this in mind.
David Teichroeb gave a great presentation yesterday about his company ,the natural gas giant Enbridge, and their partnership with FuelCell Energy, which has found a new niche for the fuel cell market. Currently, our natural gas infrastructure has to spend large amounts of energy compressing the gas so that it can travel the long distances from its source to its users. Subsequently, that built up pressure must be released to distribute the fuel to end-users. Traditional systems release that pressure with a valve, which wastes energy. Furthermore, reducing the pressure of natural gas cools it down, so much so that it must be heated by gas or coal boilers before the gas can be piped on. Fuel cells can play an essential role in making this process more efficient, as well as producing clean heat and power.
FuelCell Energy a major fuel cell producer, has joined in a partnership with natural gas giant Enbridge to potentially revolutionize natural gas infrastructure and employ hundreds of megawatts of fuel cells into market. This partnership brought the Direct Fuel Cell - Energy Recovery Generation TM (DFC-ERGTM) power plant, the first of which was built in a natural gas station in Toronto, Canada in 2008. The DFC-ERF puts the high pressure gas through a turbo expander to convert much of the wasted energy into electricity; the DFC-ERF employed in Toronto creates 2.2 MW of electricity. At the same time FuelCell Energy utilizes the abundant natural gas in the station to power a 1.2MW fuel cell, creating clean energy. In addition, the fuel cell doubles as a combined heat and power unit, reheating the cooled gas without the need for coal-buring boilers.
David explained that this is a vast market open for the taking, and could be an excellent way for fuel cell manufacturers to partner with natural gas utilities to create a more efficient grid network.
David’s presentation on this partnership will be posted later this week on the USEA website.
At a panel put on by the US Energy Association yesterday, Robert Babcock of the Elemental Power Group explained that fuel cells have the most potential in the large urban centers of the East Coast. Many have said that fuel cells are a solution in search of a problem, but Babcock’s presentation explained that fuel cells solve the renewable energy needs of the East Coast.
The East Coast does not have the space, level ground, high heat, or ideal wind associated with other clean power. They need renewable power that can be located anywhere, without the need for transmission lines, and fuel cells are the solution.
Fuel cells utilize the resources of the East Coast, the existing natural gas infrastructure located underground. Fuel cells are a perfect fit for the East Coast because they can be located anywhere, they are easy to install, and do not require transmission lines to distribute power, a large problem for many urban developers with other technology.
Babcock explained that fuel cells are a clean technology and with the many restrictions on emissions going into effect in most cities, fuel cells can fill the necessary power niche while keeping emissions within standards.
Babcock also related that fuel cells are an excellent fit for the cities of the East, because of their near 24/7 base-load power. Fuel cells tend to run over 90% of the time after installation. This is a great advantage over other alternative and renewable energy solutions, where wind’s availability averages around 20%, and solar power’s availability is 50%.
Because fuel cells can use the existing infrastructure, while providing clean, efficient energy, fuel cells can solve the renewable energy problem that the Eastern cities face.
Robert Babcock and his fellow panelists’ presentations will be posted later this week on the USEA website.
Argonne National Laboratory has released a review of their June 2010 Report on Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV), with respect to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and oil consumption. The report also considers Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV), claiming that the lowest GHG emissions are released by fuel cell PHEVs when using hydrogen made from biomass, even when compared to other PHEVs. Because of the emissions associated with generating electricity for the grid, PHEVs consequentially have increased GHG emissions. However, FCEVs with any all electric range were found to produce lower GHG emissions than Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV). The comparison of hydrogen FCEVs to gasoline and ethanol PHEVs in this report leaves an obvious answer in solving our nation’s oil dependence: the need to push for development of more hydrogen and FCEV programs.
It is clear that the development of hydrogen powered FCEVs could play a major role in helping the U.S. to become an energy-independent nation.
The full Argonne Report can be found HERE.
Researchers at Purdue University have discovered a new highly efficient technique for making hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles. The new process is called hydrothermolysis, so named for its use of combining two hydrogen generating processes, hydrolysis and thermolysis. This process uses ammonia borane, the substance with the highest hydrogen content of all solid materials.
The fuel cells created from this process are claimed to be ideal conditions for use in vehicles with the potential to be twice as effective as current fuel cells. These fuel cells will operate at around half the temperature and will require only 200 psi of pressures unlike most hydrogen fuel cells of today which require 5,000 psi of pressure.
Currently hydrogen fuel cells run at a temperature of 85 degrees Celsius and require high pressures to function. Hydrolysis alone requires a catalyst to turn hydrogen into energy, and thermolysis requires a temperature of 170 degrees Celsius to function. However, when these processes are combined and ammonia borane is introduced into the reaction, the temperature and pressure requirements lower. Purdue researchers believe that if scaled up, this would be the perfect reaction to generate electricity for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
Future work on hydrothermolysis will explore scaling up the reactor to the size required for a vehicle to drive 350 miles before refueling. Additional research also is needed to develop recycling technologies for turning waste residues produced in the process back into ammonia borane.
The technology may also be used to produce hydrogen for fuel cells to recharge batteries in portable electronics, such as notebook computers, cell phones, personal digital assistants, digital cameras, handheld medical diagnostic devices and defibrillators.
A link to the article is found here.
As oil continues to pour into the Gulf, some clean energy companies are taking the opportunity to point out the benefits of switching fuels to replace gasoline. Proton Energy recently ran this full-page ad in the New York Times. In addition to the environmental benefit of significantly reduced emissions of greenhouse gases (close to zero if using wind or solar power to electrolyze the hydrogen), hydrogen fuel also avoids the major environmental impact of drilling and all of its ramifications and can be made from domestic resources. Proton Energy makes some very valid and apt points in this ad, and more public support for hydrogen and other forms of clean energy is sure to come.
