 |
|
EV WORLD EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE |
Is this progress? At the top is a 1997 Mercedes Benz A-Class battery electric vehicle with real world range of 125 miles. At the bottom is the 2004 hydrogen fuel cell version of the same car with a range of only 90 miles. Fitted with a current technology version of the same battery, the 1997 EV would have a range of 180 miles. In addition, the author contends it will take four times the energy to power the bottom car.
|
CARB's Fuel Cell Detour on the Road to Zero Emission Vehicles
By Alec Brooks
Journal of Alec Brooks' on-going debate with California's Air Resources Board management on the wisdom of pursuing hydrogen fuel cell technology
Open Access Article Originally Published: May 07, 2004
Summary
On April 20, 2004, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order aimed at creating a network of 200 hydrogen refueling stations throughout the state by 2010. The goals for hydrogen powered transportation sound good on paper – zero emission vehicles propelled by hydrogen produced with clean renewable energy.
It sounds almost too good. Is the governor’s Hydrogen Highways program really the bold step that jump starts the future of transportation, or is it a monumental boondoggle that leads to a dead end? The conventional wisdom is that the former is true, but a growing body of analysis and evidence leads instead to the dead end conclusion.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has recently made a U-turn in their zero emission vehicle (ZEV) program just as everything was coming together. Battery electric vehicles had been improving rapidly and were almost universally loved by their drivers. Battery durability was shown to be better than expected and cost parity with conventional gasoline powered vehicles was clearly attainable.
By dithering on the ZEV mandate and putting all their chips on fuel cell vehicles, CARB has set back the development of practical zero emission vehicles by at least a decade. The current situation has much similarity to the California energy deregulation fiasco of the 1990s.
| |
EDITOR'S NOTE: This document represents one person's
view of decisions made by officials of the California
Air Resources Board. EV World invites ARB to respond
to Mr. Brooks' statements.
Due to the length of the article, we have had to divide it into three major sections.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Download Copy
You can download a complete copy of this document in
pdf format by clicking link
|
|
|
California is again being led down the primrose path by automakers, with the promise of a future vehicle vision that on the face of it, sounds great. In the 1990s, California was manipulated by energy companies; now it is the automotive companies’ turn. By convincing CARB that fuel cell vehicles will be the ultimate future solution, they have bought ten or more years to avoid bringing real zero emission vehicles to market.
Support for fuel cell vehicles derives primarily from conventional wisdom and commonly accepted facts about these vehicles. These “facts” have been repeated so often that they have become generally accepted as the truth. But it turns out that many of the facts are not supported by the data; much of what is universally accepted about hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles is, in fact, wrong.
This article documents my long, and so far unsuccessful, effort to get CARB to pay attention to the real and serious issues with hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles rather than simply jumping to a conclusion. I felt that there needed to be real discussion and analysis of whether hydrogen powered vehicles were what the state really should strive for in the near term or even in the long term. What started out as my brief reply to CARB’s reply to my original written comments has expanded into a very lengthy article. The length is needed to provide the relevant background, to give a detailed response to CARB’s comments, and finally, to make recommendations as to what should be done to fix the mess CARB has made.
In condensed form, here are some of the key highlights of this story:
- The commonly held belief is that fuel cell vehicles will have two to three times the fuel economy of gasoline powered vehicles. But so far, fuel cell vehicles are losing. The mid-sized gasoline powered Toyota Prius gets 13 percent better EPA fuel economy than the subcompact Honda FCX fuel cell vehicle.
- Fuel cell vehicles are energy pigs. Fuel cell vehicles that operate on hydrogen made with electrolysis consume four times as much electricity per mile as similarly-sized battery electric vehicles.
- Battery electric vehicles powered by today’s available battery technology can have twice as much driving range as current fuel cell vehicles.
- Fuel cell vehicles will inconvenience their drivers with more than ten times as much time devoted to refueling compared with battery electric or gasoline powered vehicles.
- CARB chairman Alan Lloyd hung battery electric vehicles out to dry in reaction to auto company threats to pull fuel cell vehicles out of California.
- As they were publicly trumpeting the arrival of the second generation EV1, General Motors privately vowed never to produce any more of them.
Introduction
For the last several years, CARB has grappled with amending the ZEV regulations to address multiple lawsuits brought by automakers. On January 9, 2004, the final regulations were published, along with the FSOR, or Final Statement of Reasons. The FSOR is a document in which CARB is required to note all substantive comments and recommendations submitted to them during designated comment periods, and to explain how that information was considered in the rulemaking process.
On February 20, CARB issued a supplement to the FSOR to the California Office of Administrative Law, the agency that is charged with making sure that state agencies like CARB follow the proper rulemaking procedures.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 7914 |
|
|
|
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.
16 comments so far...
07-Dec-2004
5569
| |
I beleive that mainly American oil and vehicle makers are selfish and do not seem to care what the general public or the rest of the world actually needs right now. I think that American companies will lose out heavily to EU environmentally green competitors in the future, and truely beleive that all Americans, not just a few, but all of you, desperately need to change your current selfish attitudes to global warming and the causes of global warming, before it is to late.
Remember, mother nature can rid itself of everything, at anytime mother nature likes. I feel that on current form, this could and can happen now. "
Posted by: David Sampford
|
|
12-May-2004
2890
| |
Sirs; unobtainum
All that is true about the renewables. But burn the H in an IC engine and you will be better off.
H burn IC Hybred is cheaper than $5000 wourth of
Pt/Ru/Ir EXPENSIVE nobel metals in a fuel cell.
Head of the DOE fuel cell program "If we had 10% of the american autos equiped with the best fuel cell tech. it would be using ~70 metric tons of nobel metals, and there are only 55 metric tons in the intire world reserve.""
Posted by: Lin Higley
|
|
12-May-2004
2891
| |
*COGENERATION* is the word that Larry Rix runs into trouble by not noticing in the blurb about the Ebara Ballard natural gas-fired thing. A reformer/fuel-cell combo that gives 20 percent of the LHV of the gas it takes as AC electricity, and 72 percent as heat transferred to a building interior, and only 8 percent up the flue, could be considered 92 percent efficient if those 72 points of heat were really wanted. That's the trick behind that 92 percent number.
Nice to see someone mentioning boron as an energy carrier. Can't get it from algae ponds? Well, no-one's getting oil or hydrogen from those either...
--- Graham Cowan
Boron: fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions"
Posted by: Graham Cowan
|
|
12-May-2004
2900
| |
Lin.. come back in two weeks and listen to my interview with Joseph Romm, the author of "Hydrogen Hype." I think you'll re-evaluate your view of hydrogen ICE or better yet, buy the book.
And if you think Romm is down on hydrogen, think again. While he was at the DOE, he was responsible for increasing the funding for both H2 and fuel cell funding.
How does he feel now? Wait and see.
"
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
17-May-2004
2964
| |
Using the 92% efficiency number without mentioning that the most of the energy recovered is low level heat at below 80 deg C is to me like saying the silicon yield of sand in a construction site is 100% when comparing with the low yield of a silicon wafer plant. If such a low level heat is the objective, one can use a natural gas burner with an air preheater and get over 95% efficiency.
The truth of the matter is a PEMFC only gives 35-40% LHV-to-electricity efficiency, while that of the most advanced gas turbine-steam turbine combined cycle has an efficieny of 60%. Allowing for 15% loss in the grid, and you still get 51% efficiency at consumer site. If low level heat is your objective, you can run a heat pump with a COP of 3 and get 0.51 * 3 * 100% = 153% efficiency, beating your 92% number by a big margin.
Let's separate electricity from the below 80% low level heat please! Or we would be misleading the general population who do not understand that different forms of energy have different qualities, and should be treated differently. "
Posted by: Jianguo Xu
|
|
28-May-2004
3131
| |
WELL YOU WNTED TO NOW ABOUT HYDROGEN FUEL CELL WEB SITE www.gm.com www.ford.com www.honda.com got all that"
Posted by: james braselton
|
|
10-May-2004
2799
| |
I agree that CARB is itself a waste of carbon,
however, there is one thing I wanted to disagree
about:
Fast recharging/refueling is a necessity.
I realize it is not 95%+ of the time, but using
tortured logic doesn't help me when I have to
recharge a 30kwh pack on a standard 220V line with
my four year old in the backseat, blissfully
asleep on the way to her grandparent's. Yeah,
great, my time/mile driven is low -- except on
a few occasions....
We need to develop fast recharging for our
batteries -- a ten minute recharge for a 60%
refill would go a *long* way....
BOL,
-Dave
"
Posted by: David Navas
|
|
10-May-2004
2805
| |
i am doing a project on hydrogen powerd cars can any one tell where some other good hydrogen car wabsites are"
Posted by: j w
|
|
10-May-2004
2810
| |
This sounds like a good topic for NPR, Front Line or Bill Moyer's NOW. Ever think of sending this to them? I bet Alan Lloyd may have a few things turned upside down on him with some investigative reporting. This just goes to show how politics at large always puts itself first before the greater good. Don't we ever learn?"
Posted by: Serafino Carri
|
|
10-May-2004
2811
| |
OK, I went to the Frontline website and sent the following:
With the higher cost of gasoline, what ever happened to Battery Electric Vehicles?
Will Fuel Cells save or collective butts?
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=691
Check out this article. I think you will find a story here worth telling.
How about a few more emails suggesting the same story line.
-- Brandy
Posted by: Dennis Brandenburg
|
|
10-May-2004
2813
| |
Energy boondogles are not a new thing.
About 1880, when acetylene was discovered and found to be a much better source of light than gas lights without mantles (the mantle had not yet been invented), huge amounts of money all over Europe were invested in acetylene plants. Then, the mantle was invented, enabling gas lights to be much more effective with the commonly available gas, and those who invested in acetylene lost everything.
Will history repeat itself, only with hydrogen instead of acetylene?
"
Posted by: Frank Eggers
|
|
11-May-2004
2815
| |
Here's a hydrogen car timeline, in answer to j w's question.
--- Graham Cowan
Boron -- fireproof fuel, real-car range, no emissions"
Posted by: Graham Cowan
|
|
11-May-2004
2816
| |
Thank you Dennis for sending the suggestion to Frontline - I have done the same - I encourage others to do it too. Bigger question for everyone reading this story including Alec Brrooks; how does this play with the Rev. Chris who was hoping to influence an auto maker to build an EV for a dedicated group of buyers? Remember that not all to long ago? Alec - if you are reading these threads what are you doing today? You say you used to work for AC Propulsion, are you still in the EV industry? Are you still working to champion the EV cause? Has there been any interest by any car company to take your research results and rethink their strategy. Basically is anyone listening out there that you could tell us about? I pretty much wrote EVs off when the whole hydrogen economy buzz started about 4 years ago. Everything EV has gone by the NEV wayside and reinforced the golf car image. We are back to the garage tinkerer era working with DC motors and car batteries keeping real innovation suppressed in the market place. I'd like to believe that there is some ability to change all that and get this all back on track. Maybe OKA Automotive might be interested in EVs ( auto company in former USSR ) - they have a product line around an EV coming up and may not be under the same pressures seen here in the USA - how about Fiat or Renault? Europe may have some interest in this with their new laws on urban vehicles to reduce oil consumption. Beside the CARB battle, is anyone in industry listening US based or otherwise? Is any Japanese company taking note of your comments? IC/hybrid technology is a great example of how Japanese companies used common sense and executed on a fundamenatally good idea. Perhaps it will take the Japanese to do the same with EVs once again despite their withdrawl from that market not long ago. As for CARB, I'm really dissapointed with them - Alan Lloyd needs to get real and do what is good for CA and the rest of the USA. He is working at cross purposes. Unless fusion reactors or some other great technical innovation comes along the hydrogen economy is bunk. As soon as I realized that hydrogen is an energy carrier and not a source some years back it all was smoke and mirrors to me. How could this be any good to anyone, especially in light of the consumption figures Alec documents here. Thanks Alec for trying so hard and sticking with it!"
Posted by: Serafino Carri
|
|
11-May-2004
2853
| |
Lots of great points, Alec, but you actually understate the problems and challenges of the putative hydrogen economy, as I will point out.
The National Academy of Science and National Academy of Engineering (NAS/NAE) have recently released the most thorough study thus far on the 'hydrogen economy', The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs, http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/ . This study definitely gets it right on most accounts, though there are some problems with this study.
First, the NAS/NAE study gets it right on both current fuel-cell (FC) state-of-the-art and on CO2 emissions from hydrogen production. Production of hydrogen gas from natural gas, then liquefying it (as required for practical distribution) using coal-fired power plants (and this is the only option we can expect without building hundreds of nuclear power plants), results in the release of over 20 kg of CO2 for every kilogram of liquid hydrogen (H2) produced (1 kg of H2 has the energy of 1 gal. of gasoline). Liquid hydrogen from coal, which is what we'll be using in 25 years, results in the release of 30 kg of CO2 per kg of H2 (unless the CO2 is sequestered, which adds $1 per kg of H2). After another decade of progress, hydrogen vehicles (with production-grade FCs then getting 38% efficiency) will cause over three times as much CO2 to be released per mile as advanced diesel hybrids – and that's without even using biodiesel.
By far the biggest problem in your assessment, Alec, is in FC costs. No objective and knowledgeable manufacturing expert that I know still thinks it will be possible to produce FC vehicles with acceptable performance at under $140K. The NAS/NAE study notes that 75 kW (100 hp) proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) with unimpressive efficiency (30-35%) are finally commercially available in the range of $3000-5500/kW for stationary applications, but these FCs (which would come to $500K for a typical car) would be quickly and seriously incapacitated under road conditions – by vibration, freezing temperatures, or the air pollution levels often encountered in heavy traffic. In addition, they are much too large, massive, and inefficient to be suitable for vehicles. Financial data from the largest FC manufacturer (Ballard Power) suggests FC engines are actually costing over a million dollars for a typical car, and they still last less than 30,000 miles before efficiency has dropped in half.
Another major problem in the NAS/NAE study was its hydrogen price estimates. The study acknowledges 'the impacts (of hydrogen) on oil imports and CO2 emissions are likely to be minor during the next 25 years', so it seems silly to use natural-gas city-gate prices below today's well-head prices in estimating the cost of hydrogen (made from natural gas) 25 years from now. Amazingly, the DOE/EIA (officially) thinks natural gas will be cheaper 20 years from now than it is today (see http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/ ). However, the DOE/EIA has been forced to make significant upward revisions in their price projections for all fossil fuels every year for the past six years, and this pattern undoubtedly will continue for several more years. Perhaps we can excuse the NAS/NAE report, as it was completed before major reserves overstatements by several large energy firms (especially, Royal Dutch/Shell and El Paso). More realistic projections expect natural gas in 2025 to cost $16/GJ at the city gate (see http://www.postcarbon.org/ ), which is still only 50% above recent peaks but 3.5 times the price assumed in the NAS/NAE report. The evidence for an impending energy disaster if we do not respond soon is becoming irrefutable (see http://www.peakoil.net/ ). My hydrogen price projections (see 'A Realistic Look at Hydrogen Price Projections', http://www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_H2Price.pdf ) indicate hydrogen will cost 3 to 6 times what they are expecting, and the fuel cost per mile in the FC vehicle will be 4 to 8 times that in the advanced bio-diesel hybrid in 2025.
Both the NAS/NAE report and your article Alec should have emphasized that next-generation biofuels for future transportation fuels need greatly increased attention and funding. For more detailed information on this most viable option to practical zero emissions, see 'Fuels for Tomorrow's Vehicles', http://www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_FutureFuels.pdf .
"
Posted by: David Doty
|
|
12-May-2004
2857
| |
We keep thinking that battery EVs and fuel cells are competitive technologies. I tend to think that they are complementary technologies. Battery EVs are without question 3 - 4 times more energy efficient than the hydrogen fuel cells. However, the renewables including the intermittent ones are the only long term energy source that can technically be described as sustainable. Fossil fuels are not and nuclear is definitely not. Given this situation, many of the renewables, particularly the intermittent ones need to be stored. Batteries are not acceptable for the scale and time frame (in some cases seasonal and annually) of storage that is required for renewables to 100% power the economy. With current state of the art, hydrogen appears to be the best candidate. We must recognize that once the fossil energy sources are consumed, energy will be much more expensive, maybe 4 - 5 times more expensive. It will be a real bargain when electricity directly from renewables can be used to charge batteries but energy is required at all times and thus hydrogen costs represent the additional cost of having energy available at convenient times in convenient quantities. In light of this, I foresee hydrogen fuel cell / battery hybrids or even trailing hydrogen generators to provide additional range on top of what a battery can provide. It must be remembered that hydrogen can be produced from biomass (partial oxidation, gasification, algae etc.); from thermochemical heat splitting of water ; photochemical splitting of water (more research needed) as well as from electrolysis (of which some energy input can be heat offsetting electricity requirements) No other chemical energy carrier is as versatile in terms of production sources; not methanol, not ethanol, not ammonia, not boron, not zinc, not aluminium, or any of the myriad other potential energy carriers available. Therefore, I say let's continue development of both advanced batteries for efficient direct use of renewable electricity as well as fuel cells for (comparatively efficient use of stored renewable energy versus heat engines (the fuel cell's real competitor, not batteries))"
Posted by: Sheldon Harrison
|
|
12-May-2004
2871
| |
Wait a Minute!
'The NAS/NAE study notes that 75 kW (100 hp) proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) with unimpressive efficiency (30-35%) are finally commercially available in the range of $3000-5500/kW for stationary applications ... '
Ballard Power has this to say:
'EBARA BALLARD's first generation, pre-commercial generator, unveiled in January 2003, achieved an AC gross electrical efficiency of 92% LHV (lower heating value).'
I may not be comparing apples-to-apples, but it sure seems that we have a two contradicting statements here. I wonder that the study that David is referring to is somewhat out of date or that research and development is faster than what people think.
Please think about this as well:
It was the automakers that built the EV1 and other electric or hybrid electric vehicles. They are the ones that made the decision to drop the EV1 and pursue the FC vehicle. The question is, 'Why?'
For those who like to demonize everything and look for conspiritorial situations under every rock, I suppose we could, without clear evidence, draw conclusions as to the reasonings going on in the minds and hearts of automaker executives. I will not do so.
Money motivates. The automakers see profit and so they will go after it. There is something about FC vehicles that is more to their liking when they look at the future. To say that it is all made up of 'screw the little guy' conspiracies is baseless except in the mind of the paranoid.
The electricity for those batteries has to come from somewhere as well. And batteries have thier own set of problems. FC engines are improving at a very rapid rate. Perhaps the automaker engineers (not the CEO's) see a light up ahead that they don't see with battery technology. Perhaps they are weighing out the issues and seeing something in the R&D side that we don't know because of just the way information works: some things you know and some things you don't.
I am not ready to jump on the naysayer bandwagon full of conspiracy theories just yet."
Posted by: Larry Rix
|
|
|
|
|
