Uncommonly Discussed Eco-Myths: Vehicle Design In The Climate Century
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 09.27.07
Who cares about fuel cell vehicles (FCVs)? How many more hybrid/fuel configurations will there be before we get models we want? Good questions; but, the survival of US car companies seems now to hang more on controlling health care costs than product design. It gets worse. With the notable exception of the Toyota Prius, ICE-based hybrids are commercial oddities. In other words, the ICE/Battery Hybrid is a 'one-hit wonder.' With several prototypes of Plug-In Hybrids ("plug ins") tempting customers to dream of that next-best thing, a new race to the show room may be on (though research and development dollars are limited).
These design and fuel choices will shape the future of the earth. What really is the best "next level" design? Under what conditions might a straight FCV surpass the plug-in hybrid? What other odd propulsion design configs might creep up from behind (as pictured?); and, how will fuel choices affect climate, food prices, land use?
To get at these questions objectively, -- US politicians can be counted on to do the exact opposite -- we'll need to simultaneously analyze propulsion and energy choices, 'well to wheels' as they say.
Let it be known that, while hydrogen opponents can quite properly make us hopeful about plug-in hybrids, (see Joe Romm's comment below), fuel cell dreamers certainly haven't given up. It is after all, the both the Climate Century and the Peak Oil Century. Change can be driven by unexpected resource shortages as much as by invention or industrial engineering.
First we'll hear from the Hydrogen Discoveries blog on the posting entitled:
The Hype Against Hydrogen: Setting the Record Straight on Six Hydrogen Myths Perpetuated by Joseph Romm
Myth #2 - Hybrid vehicles are as efficient as fuel cell vehicles
Reality #2 - Fuel cells are twice as efficient as internal combustion engines
Myth #3 - Plug-in hybrids are better than hydrogen fuel cell cars (for whatever reason)
Reality #3- Plug-in hybrid technology can be used in hydrogen fuel cell cars, so any benefits of plug-in hybrids will also be realized by hydrogen cars.
Check out the link (above) for several more H2 myths/realities from HD.
Mr Romm politely responded to the Hydrogen Discoveries post with this statement:- "I fear that the marketplace has already rendered its judgment on hydrogen fuel cell cars, especially vs. plug ins."
Going on, Mr Romm corrected a commonly cited myth:- "Your statement "Reality - Plug-in hybrid technology can be used in hydrogen fuel cell cars, so any benefits of plug-in hybrids will also be realized by hydrogen cars" is factually quite incorrect. Direct use of electricity allows one to travel 3 to 4 times farther than converting the electricity to hydrogen and then back again. Doesn't matter if the FCV is a PHEV. You can't save hydrogen from its inherent inefficiency."
To which this writer replied:- "There is also the possibility of a fuel cell hybrid, integrating a battery bank with fuel cell and/or small ICE engine. Obviously a affordable hybrid with two new technologies would be contingent on the next generation of batteries reaching commodity status..."
To which Watthead (Jesse Jenkins - no relation to James Watt,) responded:- "...you may be interested in the well-to-wheels analysis I performed on a variety of alternative transportation pathways, including fuel cells running on natural gas (both domestic and non-North American LNG) and grid electricity (via electrolysis), plug-ins and plug-in fuel cell vehicles as well. Abstract and Exec Summary as well as the full report here."
"My analysis found that fuel cell vehicles running on grid electricity are worse than conventional gasoline and a terrible idea;#1:- Fuel cells running on imported LNG compare favorably to plug-ins using the US average electricity mix (FCVs are better on a weighted composite index which weights petroleum use and GHGs evenly and other fossil energy at half the value of petroleum and GHGs; that index weighting is not in the WtW report but in later analysis I've performed);
#2:- FCVs running on LNG compare about the same as plug-ins running on corn-based E85 and electricity from the average US mix;
#3:- But, the winner is plug-ins using cellulosic ethanol and electricity from a "high renewables" US mix (comparable to a mix with 20% renewables).
I [Jesse] ultimately believe that [item #3] should be our target for a more sustainable transportation future in the mid-term (15-25 years), as plug-ins running on cellulosic ethanol can cut oil use by ~90% and cut GHG emissions by ~75% comparable to conventional gas spark-ignition vehicles. "
TreeHugger comment:: Imagine a room full of US Congress Critters having a discussion on these system configurationis. They're going to need more help than "K-Street" can provide. For the Climate Century.
Next posts up on this topic: "Dude: Where's My Sexy Hybrid, Plug-In FCV." Followed by: "Real TreeHuggers Support LNG Port Expansions"
Via:: various emails. Image credit: Stolen Gas In Bag, Knox News Sentinel Blogs
I wanted to include my e-mail response to what Joseph Romm said. It was not listed above.
He is trying to compare the efficiency of fuel cells and plug-in batteries. But PLUG-IN HYBRID TECHNOLOGY CAN BE USED IN FUEL CELL CARS (e.g. the Chevy Volt).
Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to compare plug-in hybrids to fuel cells (see below). They have no advantage over fuel cells, because they can be used in fuel cell vehicles. This is so obvious.
Joe,
Imagine you have two cars. One has a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine and the other has a hydrogen fuel cell. Both cars have plug-in hybrid technology that has a 30 mile range. Let’s say that both cars are going to make the same 100 mile trip.
For the first 30 miles, both cars will be powered by the battery. For the next 70 miles, the first car will be powered by an internal combustion engine and the second will be powered by a fuel cell.
The key point is that the fuel cell in the second car is never competing against the battery in the first car. The battery powers both cars for the first 30 miles.
Therefore, comparing the efficiency of batteries and hydrogen fuel cells is meaningless (unless, of course, plug-in hybrid technology could not be
put in fuel cell vehicles and this is not the case).
Best regards,
Greg
===Reality #2 - Fuel cells are twice as efficient as internal combustion engines===
Bullshit.
Thats comparing it to a conventional gasoline car.
And hell they aren't even comparing the same fuel type, just the engine efficiency.
===Reality #3- Plug-in hybrid technology can be used in hydrogen fuel cell cars, so any benefits of plug-in hybrids will also be realized by hydrogen cars.===
Also bullshit.
Going from Electricity to Water to Electricity
Will never be anywhere as efficient as going from Electricity to Electricity.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
===#1:- Fuel cells running on imported LNG compare favorably to plug-ins using the US average electricity mix (FCVs are better on a weighted composite index which weights petroleum use and GHGs evenly and other fossil energy at half the value of petroleum and GHGs; that index weighting is not in the WtW report but in later analysis I've performed);===
Once again, bullshit.
DOMESTIC CNG is equivalent to a diesel
Diesel is slightly worse than a hybrid.
AND a domestic NG fuel cell car is worse than a conventional hybrid
A gasoline hybrid is equivalent to a plugin hybrid running on 80% coal.
Plugins are better than Domestic NG Fuel Cells.
If we're talking imported LNG, which uses tons more energy, then theres no competition.
Then again, why are we comparing Natural Gas versus Coal. Thats a pretty huge handicap for the plugins.
Why not compare plugins running on NG electricity, versus NG fuel cells. Why? Because Fuel Cells would get their ass kicked.
===#2:- FCVs running on LNG compare about the same as plug-ins running on corn-based E85 and electricity from the average US mix===
This is only true is you agree with the gross assumptions made by the USDA.
More than likely, corn ethanol is much worse than gasoline.
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/lcarough7.png
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
===#3:- But, the winner is plug-ins using cellulosic ethanol and electricity from a "high renewables" US mix (comparable to a mix with 20% renewables).===
Cellulosic Ethanol wouldn't be sustainable though.
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png
http://ips-dc.org/reports/070915_biofuels_report.pdf
http://greyfalcon.net/peaksoil
Better solution is to merely use the oil while we got it, and shift to entirely electric, quick charging infrastructure.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
Existing Altairnano batteries can charge up for 100 mile drive in 1 minute. (i.e. 80% of total charge)
http://www.altairnano.com/documents/NanoSafeBackgrounder060920.pdf
________
Who the hell wrote these feeder articles anyways?
This is about as biased as a Patrick Moore pro-nuke article.
===My analysis found that fuel cell vehicles running on grid electricity are worse than conventional gasoline and a terrible idea;===
Now something I can agree with.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
Alternative fuels don't fit our lifestyle. Gasoline combustion engines do.
Perhaps we should argue the validity of traveling so fast in such heavy vehicles rather before we try to power them. Similar to energy needs at home, efficiency comes first when switching to alternative energy sources. Slow down and lighten up. Then take a look at fuels.
Congress is better at restricting our movement than facilitating it. Let's start with 55 mph, which was originally established to save fuel. Traveling slower requires fewer "safety features' which saves a lot of weight. If we can cut our weight and speed in half, won't we need less potent propulsion systems? Perhaps one alternative technology will prove superior if we re-address what we are driving.
Why do you assume that hydrogen has to be produced from electricity generated from fossil fuels? Why can't it be made with clean electricity like wind power?
Just because we use fossil fuels now for electricity doesn't automatically mean we have to use them in the future.
GreyFlcn,
Thanks for quickly throwing out calls of "bullshit." That's always a great way to start a civil conversation.
Putting that aside, you took issue with my analysis that found that FCVs running on LNG compare favorably to plug-ins running on an average US grid mix. What analysis are you basing that on? (Note: I'm speaking in well-to-wheels terms, so perhaps that's where the issue arises; if we're just talking about vehicle operation, that might be different). These results are based on some pretty extensive analysis (as presented in the full report here)
I agree there are sustainability issues with cellulsoic ethanol by the way (see my post here) and I of course am no corn ethanol fan. These issues will likely limit our supply, but I believe some celluosic feedstocks can be harvested in a sustainable manner and on a decent scale and we won't need much liquid fuel if we transition to plug-ins. Perhaps just 20-30% of what we're using now. Thanks for the link on "peak soil" though. I'll take a look when I can.
I also agree that a transition to an all-electric transport system is the desired end result, but I see plug-ins as the incremental step to getting there. Note that I am not a hydrogen fan.
Cheers,
Jesse Jenkins
Myth #2- Fuel cells are twice as efficient as internal combustion engines
Reality #2- Hydrogen cars are about half as efficient as hybrids.
At the power plant, 1/2 the energy put in is wasted. So, just to get hydrogen you are down to 50% efficiency. Then, including transportation, compression/liquification, and fuel cell efficiency (itself only 35-45%, nowhere near twice the 30% the Prius engine alone gets ) you get a total efficiency of about 20%.
So, for a little math. 0.5X0.2=0.1
So, 10% efficiency.