Three developments could make ceramic fuel cell electric cars more practical than plug-in models
Open Access Article Originally Published: September 23, 2009
The hydrogen initiative is stalled. The hydrogen fuel cell
cars work fine but no good solutions have been found to the problems of where to get the hydrogen, how to
deliver it and how to store it. 95%< of our hydrogen is made from natural
gas, which is abundant on earth and already distributed at 1/3rd of the price
of gasoline. Three recent breakthroughs have made natural gas a very
interesting fuel:
- Ceramic fuel cells that can make electricity from natural
gas at 60%
efficiency.
- ANG: Adsorption stores natural gas at low (500 psi)
pressure in compact tanks.
- A glut of cheap natural gas caused by new shale drilling/extraction techniques.
The fuel cell breakthrough is particularly important because it
means a car can generate its own electricity
more
efficiently than a massive power plant! Big plants typically average
30% efficiency, so a 60% NG fuel cell hybrid is
twice as efficient as an electric vehicle charged from
the grid. That means half as much fuel is consumed.
Twice as efficient as an electric car is saying a lot because
electric cars are already
three times more efficient than
conventional cars. This is because internal combustion engines are less
than 30% efficient verses 90% for electric motors. Natural gas fuel cell cars
are thus about six times more
efficient than today’s cars.
Using 1/6th as much fuel means pollution
is also 1/6th . But NG is inherently very clean.
and has 30% lower carbon content and virtually no sulfur, mercury, volatiles,
and Nox so pollution is way less than 1/6th.
Since NG fuel cells have a warm up time, the hybrid
batteries must have enough capacity for all-electric operation until warm up is
complete. After warm up, the fuel cell keeps the batteries charged and the
batteries provide power for peak loads and acceleration and recapture energy on
braking. A Prius uses 16.8 kW for continuous 70 mph driving on a level
road. The fuel cell must be able to supply this much power for steady
driving.
Natural gas is already distributed by pipeline to homes all over
the US, so home refueling is possible. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is
already used to run five
million vehicles worldwide.
Pump prices for CNG are about one third of the price of gasoline in spite of the expensive ($350k),
3600 psi pumps and fittings currently used for delivery. The pipeline cost of
natural gas is only 1/4th of the cost of crude oil with the same energy content. If much
simpler, 500 psi Adsorbed
Natural Gas refueling is adopted, prices could be reduced even
further.. Cost per mile for a NG fuel cell hybrid would currently be only 1/18th of present cars but could be reduced even further with low
pressure ANG refueling!
ANG fuel tanks contain activated carbon “sponges” that adsorb 160
times their own volume of natural gas. They can be made from Corn
cobs , which have a network
of nanoscale passageways that remain after carbonization. One gram of
this material has as much adsorbing surface area as a football field. When
natural gas is adsorbed on a carbon surface it ceases to act like a gas. Dense
storage at low pressure makes it possible to hide the much smaller tank inside
the car's frame. Even if we kept the existing CNG high pressure storage, the
tripled efficiency would allow fuel cylinders only 1/3rd as large as present CNG tanks.
So an NG fuel cell hybrid is a lot like a Chevy Volt with a fuel
cell replacing the range extender (engine/generator) and a much smaller
battery. Its battery only needs to be large enough to run the car during
warm-up of the fuel cell, currently about 15 miles. The Chevy Volt's 40-mile
battery is rumored to cost $5000, so the NG car's 15-mile battery would
cost $3125 less. Incidentally, at these battery prices a 400-mile range pure
electric car would need $50,000
worth of batteries! Clearly, small batteries with range extenders are the
way to go until we have a significant battery breakthrough. Pure electrics have
other problems too: A 110v, 20A household plug can only supply 2.2 kW
which means that, unless you add 220v service, 10 hours of home charging will
only take you 10 x 2.2 x 4 mi/kW = 88 miles.
Natural gas today is primarily a non-renewable, fossil fuel. But
people have already begun selling renewable gas into the pipeline. Landfills,
manure piles and sewage plants that used to release significant amounts of
methane into the atmosphere are now selling it as green gas. Biomass< and
garbage can also be gasified to add to the supply. The energy balance of grass
biomethane production is 50%
better than annual crops now used.
Though the US power grid uses significant hydro power and other
renewables, CO2 emissions are still almost twice as much per kilowatt-hour as a
60% efficient NG fuel cell. In 2007 the US power grid emitted 605 grams/kWh. A NG fuel cell emits only 327 grams.
At 4mi/kWh that translates to about 151 grams per mile for a grid charged car
verses 82 for the NG fuel cell car.
Someday the grid could be cleaned up so that electric cars charged
from it are cleaner than NG fuel cell hybrids. EIA data makes it easy to track our progress
towards this goal: In 1996 we emitted 627 grams of CO2 per kWh and by 2007 this
was reduced to 605 grams. That’s a 2-gram per year decrease. If we continue at
that rate, it will take 139
years to equal what we can do
now with a NG fuel cell. Recent years show even less progress. There was no improvement between 2006 and 2007. Plugging into
the grid is, unfortunately, a bit like plugging into a lump of coal.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 7898 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
5 comments so far...
23-Sep-2009
68110
| |
Thomas, you make a good case for NG fuel cells, except that you leave out their cost.
Being ceramic perhaps they are affordable, perhaps not. It's hard to buy into your argument without that piece of information.
And you sully your piece with the "ugly transmission line" bit. Unnecessary swipe, especially since HVDC transmission lines can be buried just as gas lines are.
Furthermore, are you overlooking 'energy loss' with gas distribution in pipe lines?
Yes, HVDC looses about 1% per 3,000 km and an additional ~1.5% combined loss at the ends of the line. But how about gas? How much energy is used pumping that gas? What percentage of gas would not arrive at its destination if it was also being used to propel itself?
Posted by: Bob Wallace
|
|
25-Sep-2009
68144
| |
Cool ideas, for sure. Biogas itself should be pushed initially WHILE FUEL CELL ARE DEVELOPED. Sweden already gets 25% of it's electricity from biogas,operates numberous municipally owned cars and buses, heats buildings and water and even runs an old re-engineered train on biogas. All with present in-place technology. They are harvesting what most of mankind is trying to throw away. Spend more time and money developing biogas WHILE FUEL CELLS ARE DEVELOPED. If Sweden can get more electrity this way than we get from VERY EXPENSIVE Nukes, don't you think that we might figure it out as well?Look where most sewerage treatment plants are in the world .. downhill from town,outside of town, and there is often space around them to intercept the sewerage main and build a methane digestor plant to extract a readily available gas that is 26 times harder on global warming than CO2. NOW, imagine doing this thru out the world....no more sewerage bills (it turns into income) no more city's going broke from paying utilities (they will sell the excess biogas) AND imagine a world where we aren't sending trillions of dollars to Russia, Venezula and the middle-east.
Posted by: steve poppitz
|
|
28-Sep-2009
68174
| |
Thomas,
Nice article, I’m very happy to see progress in methane fuel cells. Methane (a.k.a. natural gas) is the richest molecule in hydrogen (CH4), and as you correctly point out, is renewable. That’s because methane can be produced via biological sources (i.e., methanogens) in landfills, manure piles, sewage plants and even switch grass.
But did you know methane can also be produced from coal via methanogens without the need for combustion? The byproduct of methanogen coal digestion is methane gas and stable (non-oxidizing) humic acid. Have you ever heard of Terra Preta, have you ever wondered why it can capture so much CO2? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta)
Using the current state of the art technology, 1 ton of coal digested by methanogens can produce enough methane to provide 80% of the BTU's of 1 ton of coal combusted, without releasing any CO2 into the atmosphere. In addition, enough humic acid is co-produced to make possible 20 acres of land reclamation. If you plant trees on those 20 acres, you've created a large carbon sink that absorbs 20 times more CO2 from the atmosphere than is released by combusting the methane co-produced.
Posted by: C Lominac
|
|
29-Sep-2009
68182
| |
I'm a little confused. If fossil-fuel based power plants operate about 1/3 efficiency (backed up by a quick google search), and ICE's operate at about the same, and electric motors are at 90% efficiency, doesn't that make electric cars = .9 * .33 = 30% total efficiency, same as an ICE car?
Electricity will be from a different fuel source typically (usually not imported), and a fair bit is from nuclear and hydro-electric dams, but still I don't see how you can claim an electric car is 3x as efficient as an oil-powered car on a wells-to-wheels basis.
Posted by: Rob N
|
|
25-Sep-2009
68146
| |
Bob
I think you have it backwards. HVDC losses are typically 3% per 1000 km which is about 9% for 3000 km plus 3% for conversion.
http://www.transmissiondevelopers.com/page.asp?id=6&name=AboutHVdc
http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=76881
Posted by: Thomas Blakeslee
|
|