Driving in Circles: Hydrogen Cars Close to Production at Ford
by George Spyros, New York City, USA on 07.12.07
AP breaks the news that "the relatively quick-and-easy answer to foreign oil dependence and automotive greenhouse gas emissions is circling the grounds every day at Orlando International Airport in Florida..." Great news -- oh, that's according to a "top Ford Motor Co. official." Apparently the hydrogen combustion cool-aid has been fed up the corporate food chain and subsequently has been served to AP's stringer with very little comment on the actual production of hydrogen. Ford has about 30 E-450 Hydrogen shuttle buses working across the U.S. and Canada with engineers monitoring them electronically in real time and find that they have near zero emissions and get up to 13 percent better fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts. While we're all for zero emissions et al., these vehicles rely on a 6.8 liter modified gasoline combustion engine that runs on hydrogen. While it may be easy to convert a gas engine to hydrogen and get it to market in five years, it's not so with regard to effectively generating the amounts of hydrogen necessary to make said vehicles more mobile than expensive paperweights. Granted, that's short of a breakthrough in hydrogen production which perhaps Ford is truly gunning for given the company's lackluster commitment to developing plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).
Forget for a moment that said answer to foreign (or otherwise) oil dependence circling Orlando parking lots costs $250,000. Hydrogen fuel must be extracted from somewhere, fossil fuels or water, which are both energy-consuming processes. There's some talk about getting hydrogen from woody biomass with the bump that carbon in the resulting char can be sequestered in the ground providing a further benefit of richer soil for farming. Once produced, hydrogen gas must be compressed or liquefied for distribution, and this process and the distribution itself take yet more energy. If you're talking about a fuel-cell vehicle, that's even more energy input and loss. According to MIT's Technology Review:
Along the way, you've thrown away nearly three-quarters of the electricity. No one in their right mind would do that--if your alternative is to just string a power line from zero-carbon electricity and charge a battery onboard a car...Hydrogen is the last thing you would do, only if everything else has failed.Some call using nuclear as a bridge to create needed quantities of hydrogen a failure, and consider it essentially the turning of automobiles into proxy nuclear reactors. As for the coal burned in plants powering PHEVs, some studies have suggested that even if every car in California were to go PHEV, the result would still be a 50% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. A recent study says 25%. For the moment, using hydrogen to run those Ford buses is in indeed that, driving in circles. Time to make the electric-fueled donuts... via:: Huffingtonpost
Flawed logic. It is technically incorrect to presume that compression for storage is a prerequisite. There are at least two low pressure alternatives that hold promise.
Also, line transmission losses range from 3 to 7 percent. "Who in their right mind" making these spin statements has a jail house lawyer approach to life cycle thinking.
Frankly, I'm just tired of these type of posts: A company (who is bad, and definitely not green) markets Bvehicle burning C alternative fuel. C alternative fuel cannot possibly be a global replacement for fossil fuels for D, E, and F reasons. Therefore, we brand this effort by company A as greenwashing and a distraction from real efforts at greening represented by adoption of favored technologies G or H.
Just fill in A-H and you have a post suitable for mass consumption!
Seriously, though why does every potential fossil-fuel replacement have to be judged on the basis of its suitability for replacing ALL of the fossil fuels we use?
Why can't fleet buses, cars, and other vehicles use hydrogen. First off, they are generally fueled overnight in a central location, reducing transportation and infrastructure modification demands. Second, they are maintained by a knowledgeable staff that can specialize in the perhaps trickier maintenance needed for such vehicles. Third, fleet vehicles make up a significant portion of those on the road (I don't know the numbers) but likely a small enough one to manageably affect a transition to hydrogen production on a larger scale.
This type of effort, and ones we've seen with H2 powered buses (either fuel cell or combustion) in other areas, should be applauded as it will encourage the innovation needed to produce H2 on an industrial scale (with or without nuclear energy, but I don't want to get into that debate).
==== author's response follows ===
Yes, Ford should be applauded for their effort and the company is definitely green in a number of regards. Statements about such changes being “quick and easy" when (as you accurately point out) multiple solutions can be or (I would say) should have been implemented yesterday, breed a certain scrutiny of, if not automakers, then certainly the statements of automakers. It might be helpful were the folks at Ford to apprise us of their hydrogen production/acquisition schemes while making announcements about what is, as you say, truly moving the ball forward to a "life by a thousand cuts" approach to replacing fossil fuels. I don't consider less-than-considered statements to be greenwashing either, just perhaps another ineffective component of a project we all hope succeeds.
It's is unfortunate that hydrogen keeps getting bashed as it is
a great solution to our dependence on fossil fuels. All you have to do is look to nature for the solution! Idealism, egotism and greed seem to be fouling up human thought process, shame.
Hydrogen on demand through electrolysis! Do your home work!
It's real.
Hydrogen isn't that particularly great in any application. Especially in the way some people seem to think of it. It is not an energy source in any sense of the word. It is an energy carrier. In other words, some other source of energy would first have to be implemented before hydrogen would do anything other than increase the problem.
The storage issue is an enormous problem. Two solutions exist to my knowledge, one involves compression which has large potential downsides, the other involves using rare metals to store the hydrogen in a matrix. JL said they knew of two low pressure methods of storing hydrogen, and it would be nice to know what the second method was.
Before hydrogen should even be viewed as some sort of solution two things NEED to happen. One, the energy grid, in the US at least, would need to be revamped to allow the transmission of the needed power. Secondly, a source of fuel that is not fossil fuel based would need to be implemented. Before either of these happen hydrogen is a slight improvement at best.
As one final note I thought it would be informational in case it wasn't already known to people reading this. Electrolysis has an inherent inefficiency of ~7.7%. This only includes the chemical reaction of 2H2O 2H2 + 02.
Electrolysis is real. So is conservation of energy. So are dogs. So is menapause... puberty... parking tickets. It just isn't a REAL alternative that sustains our current system as is. Maybe with a chunk of the deserts of the world the size of a small country set up for solar power it would work. That seems to be (in my mind (without doing any calculations of my own)) some way off.
Knowing that it isn't a feasable solution for sustaining our system as is it would be nice if this was told to us. Instead they give us green propaganda.
"Hydrogen fuel must be extracted from somewhere, fossil fuels or water, which are both energy-consuming processes."
Helloooooooo SOLAR POWER!!!
Why is it so bad to use nuclear energy to power hydrogen conversion plants? It's basically free energy. There are some issues, including storage of waste, but with things like pebble bed reactors there are mitigated. Once again, nuclear energy is basically free, it's absolutely nuts that it's not being considered. Hydrogen is a very lossy process. I think peeps should look into putting more nuke power on the grid and having cars that plug into the grid.
As you mention, hydrogen is just a energy storage mechanism (so is gasoline, btw- it's just that the oil that we're using now is stored solar energy from tens of millions of years ago, and thus we tend to forget that fact).
On the other hand, give me electricity and water, and I'll give you hydrogen. And here's the important part- it doesn't matter how we generate the electricity. Be it by burning oil or coal or natural gas or uranium, or by solar collectors or wind turbines. Hydrogen is a way to turn wall-plug-electricity into a transportation viable fuel.
with things like pebble bed reactors there are mitigated. Once again, nuclear energy is basically free
Nukes - free and safe! Have we somehow traveled in time back to the 1950s?
Um what about geothermal energy like the resort in Alaska is going to use to make hydrogen? I really hate all this bitching about solutions not being good enough.
You cannot expect to replace an energy source that has been giving 30 to 1 returns on energy investment (oil) with even something that yields 3 to 1 (bio-diesel (and that is not considering the entire process)). Conventional solar panels hover around 20% efficiency because the theoretical efficiency of just under 40% is achieved at a light intensity 1000 times that of the sun at earth's surface. There is no viable alternative to fossil fuels dependency that can maintain our current energy use per capita in the western world. If you expect to be able to afford to drive a car in 15 to 20 years (even a hydrogen or bio-fuel one), do like Bush and Cheney, take all of your money out of oil and gas and dependent industry and tech, and invest in gold, and becoming locally self sufficient. You don't mean you never heard that Bush is off the grid and greener than just about anyone?
Nukes - free and safe! ? - well hang on.
I would suggest that no form of power is either free, or safe.
But I would also suggest that one take a dispassionate look at the comparitive numbers of people killed by fossil energy vs Nuclear energy.
Chernobyl killed between 56 and 4000 people depending on who you believe.
Over 6000 coal miners were killing in 2004 alone.
Thousands more get Black Lung every year. And we have been mining for hundreds of years. 100's of thousands have died over time.
In addidtion, surface mining scars huge tracts of land making it unuseable for the forseeable future.
I would argue that given nuclear enery's safer record, and the fact that it's only polution tends to be water vapor) that it is a perfect fuel to generate electricity.
As Liberal as France is, they realized this a long time ago and now gets 80% of it's electricity from nuke plants.
Nukes - free and safe! ? - well hang on.
Adding to my previous point about fossil fuel dangers.
Not only should you consider how many people (miners) that have died, or become ill, or the people around the power plants, or the carbon emmisions they put into the air,
Consider how many wars have been fought over oil.
All that death and mayhem starts to make Nuke Power Plants look very attractive.
But I would also suggest that one take a dispassionate look at the comparitive numbers of people killed by fossil energy vs Nuclear energy.
That's a false tradeoff. There are solutions which are neither fossil fuels, nor nuclear.
That's a false tradeoff. There are solutions which are neither fossil fuels, nor nuclear.
I would challenge you to name a proven technology that exists today that can realistically provide the power that fossil or nuclear fuels do currently.
All of the technologies that are out there,
solar, biomass, wind, and tide just do not scale up to the requirements of todays electrical grids.
Did I forget something?
I would challenge you to name a proven technology that exists today that can realistically provide the power that fossil or nuclear fuels do currently. All of the technologies that are out there, solar, biomass, wind, and tide just do not scale up to the requirements of todays electrical grids.
The old strawman.
The power plant infrastructure isn't going to change overnight, and renewables could easily scale to meet our needs, combined with end-use efficiency gains and storage to even out the mismatches between demand and the intermittent nature of most renewables.
When you start tossing around terms like "realistically", then you're getting into the realm of belief and opinion about possibilities with regard to technology, policy, and economic dynamics -- none of which can be answered in a snippy little response.
The old strawman.
The power plant infrastructure isn't going to change overnight, and renewables could easily scale to meet our needs, combined with end-use efficiency gains and storage to even out the mismatches between demand and the intermittent nature of most renewables.
The word "Easily" is relative.
There are lots of current problems with Biofuels.
(Which is why it is not currenlty in wide-spread use)
Economy: It will raise world food costs. As demand for corn increases, so do it's cost.
Efficiency: The pollution associated with the buring of biofuels rival existing fuels.
There is a high cost associated with cultivation and trasportation of the biomass, making it less economical.
Environmental: Puts pressure on existing ecosystems, especially the tropical ones where high efficiency crops can grow.
So I ask again, name for me a replacement technology.
So I ask again, name for me a replacement technology.
Oh, now you're talking about fuels for mobile application? Nice try at digression and nice avoidance of what I said.
Your strawman is tired. Try using your imagination for something other than how to be a clever naysayer.
That's what i thought.
You have nothing really to bring to the discussion.
Facts are tha nukes can and do deliver clean power today using existing technology.
The Tokyo earthquake proves it.
Even though there were multiple 6.8 earthquakes. There was no detected radiation.
And the 40 spillled barrels amounts to one billionth the legal limit.
That sounds like a success story.
Facts are tha nukes can and do deliver clean power today using existing technology.
"Clean"? If it's clean, then you wouldn't mind keeping the byproducts in your living room, right?
The Tokyo earthquake proves it.
Which Tokyo earthquake? They have several hundred per year.
Even though there were multiple 6.8 earthquakes. There was no detected radiation.
Oh, you're talking about the recent earthquake in Niigata, hundres of miles from Tokyo on the other side of the country. Radiation definitely escaped.
And the 40 spillled barrels amounts to one billionth the legal limit. That sounds like a success story.
You must believe those AEI commercials that say "CO2 is life."
That's what i thought.
You have nothing really to bring to the discussion.
Translation: Uncle
>That's what i thought.
>You have nothing really to bring to the discussion.
>Translation: Uncle
That does not even make sense.
>"Clean"? If it's clean, then you wouldn't mind keeping the byproducts in your living room, right?
no, but would you want coal ash/dust, or BioDiesal fumes in your living room either, proabaly not.
The fact is, assuming no failures, nuclear energy is completely green. IT produces only steam.
And the tokyo earthquake is a great example. Yes some radioactivity escaped. But it was minute. Very Minute. You get more radiation exposure from an X-ray.
I call that a success story.
no, but would you want coal ash/dust, or BioDiesal fumes in your living room either, proabaly not.
False choice. I'll take the byproducts of solar and wind, which are power sources which are actually clean.
The fact is, assuming no failures, nuclear energy is completely green. IT produces only steam.
Assuming no failures? That's not reality.
It also produces more than steam, it produces highly radioactive waste products.
And the tokyo earthquake is a great example. Yes some radioactivity escaped. But it was minute. Very Minute. You get more radiation exposure from an X-ray.
You said in your prior comment that nothing happened. Now you're backtracking. This is the old nuclear playbook - deny, minimize, backtrack, digress.
False choice. I'll take the byproducts of solar and wind, which are power sources which are actually clean.
Solar and Wind cannot scale and are not viable technologies. This is why they are not in large scale use.
Assuming no failures? That's not reality
Agreed, but look back at coal related accidents, and lets compare numbers of deaths and injuries.
Interesting how we seem to tolorate thousands of deaths as long as they are related to non-nuclear technology.
You fail to show me a viable replacement power technology from coal or nuclear energy, and you fail to show how nuclear energy is all that bad.
All you do is throw rocks. I find that typical of your ilk.
Think outside the liberal mindset once in a while.
Solar and Wind cannot scale and are not viable technologies.
Why are you here?
All you do is throw rocks. I find that typical of your ilk.
Think outside the liberal mindset once in a while.
Question answered.
Why am I hear? Why not? I have an opinion.
And my opinion is just as valid as anyone's.
Why would you want to read a site that only ever tells you what you want to hear?
I wouldn't, and obviously don't.
Like many on the left say, "Celibrate diversity" which should include diversity of thought.
And borrowing from your previous post. If ever there was a translation:
"Why are you here"
Translation: Uncle
Like many on the left say, "Celibrate diversity" which should include diversity of thought.
Tell it to someone who buys your BS.
"Tell it to someone who buys your BS."
translation:
"I got nothin left, Uncle Uncle"
Hydrogen issue is very important indeed, no matter that some of you seem to be so aggressive about this talk. Everything concerning the health of people and Earth on the whole should always be discissed at least. As to the hydrogen itself, it's pity that it isn't source of energy by itself. Much of the problem of emissions would be solved forever.
Well you two can argue all day, but let me give you a fresh perspective from somone who's truly neutral. Can alternative fuels meet the worlds energy demand. NO WAY! Does that mean we shouldnt try???? Right now the world consumes 40000 gigawatts a year. My favorite energy solution is solar. The sun without a doubt provides us with enough energy for all of our needs. But last year we only produced 300 megawatts of solar panels worldwide, do the math people....thats only a drop in the bucket! But now nanosolar with its printing press style solar sheets is producing 300 megawatts a year on its own! If the time and money were invested into these alternative fuels they would have a chance. But to compare an emerging technology with one that is established is unfair. Do you think that coal couldve produced 30000 gigawatts of power per year when it was first introduced? No it takes time to build up the infrastructure. So strawhead dont be so negative, of course these alternative fuels dont compare, but with time to grow and all of them combined maybe we can one day be a lot greener. Btw, Solar power to produce hydrogen....its not far away!