Iceland taking a serious look at hydrogen
Currently, most hydrogen is made in methods that most would consider rather un-green. Some people have proposed using solar or wind power to produce electricity which could then be used to free hydrogen molecules from water. Then, that hydrogen could be used to power an electric car, thus completing the cycle by sending water back out the tailpipe. You are not alone if you think that this plan has major drawbacks. I won't be touching on that here, though, 'cause that's a story for a different time. What we will be discussing is Iceland and their plans to use geothermal and hydropower to generate the hydrogen. We have covered this before, way back in November of last year.
To show that they are serious about the prospect of using hydrogen, Iceland has recently begun renting a small fleet of Toyota Priuses converted to use hydrogen, provided by Hertz. This is part of the SMART-H2 (Sustainable Marine and Road Transport - Hydrogen in Iceland) plan, which also includes a whale watching ship.
They have also gotten an A Class compact car from Mercedes which was converted to run on hydrogen. Two Icelandic energy utilities will use the car for a year and determine how useful it was. I wonder if they have already tried using straight electric cars...
Related:
[Source: Detroit News and Fuel Cell Today]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Chris M 2:51AM (7/14/2007)
The driving range of H2 ICE vehicles has been uniformly poor, insufficient even for Iceland, unless a truly enormous fuel tank is used.
H2 FC vehicles have better range, but are very expensive, and not at all cost competitive.
H2 fuel itself is pricy, and will always cost much more than "electric fuel".
The real answer would be plug-in hybrids and long range electrics, both from the efficiency and cost standpoint.
But, of course, the oil companies don't want that, they want to sell the high price high profit H2 fuel that they plan to make.
Reply
Tim 8:57AM (7/14/2007)
What a terrible waste of geothermal energy. Electricity stored in batteries is 4X more efficient than even the best Hydrogen fuel cells. H2 in ICEs is even worse. Plus H2 is dangerous. This highly explosive gas burns with an invisible flame, but who cares about efficiency or public safety, right? The “Hydrogen Economy” is really about Money, Power and CONTROL. Kind of reminds me of oil.
Reply
TX CHL Instructor 10:06AM (7/14/2007)
"Currently, most hydrogen is made in methods that most would consider rather un-green."
Using hydrogen as automobile fuel is un-green, period.
Reply
mikeinBuilding7 10:30AM (7/14/2007)
How come AutoBlog gets the COOL comment boxes, and AutoBlogGreen get's the crap ones. They are only drooling about stupid fast cars you get to drive in rush hour traffic, WE are drooling about Saving the World.
There's only two redeeming qualities of H2 cars:
- 1) If the auto industry goes fuel cell, then, they NEVER ever have to hear about air pollution from environmental's. That must be very appealing to them.
- B) What's this about diesel hybrids and diesel sitting in the tank for months without being consumed. Is this a "Real" problem? Will it really gunk up the works? Is there an additive type solution to this?
I still think the Serial Bio-Diesel Hybrid with a Good Battery is the way to go.
Reply
frank78 11:20AM (7/14/2007)
Tim: I hear ya. One of the most appealing things to EV in the not too distant future is being able to generate my own "fuel" for the EV by having some solar panels or a series of small wind turbines at home.
Why the hell is the media and even the auto industry putting ANY effort towards promoting hydrogen as viable or even desirable?? It is completely inefficient, will always be extremely expensive. Using lots of electricity to generate a little hydrogen. WHY THE F bother with the hydrogen and not stick with electricity???
This is so aggravating. The hydrogen economy never will nor should come about.
Reply
mikeinBuilding7 12:00PM (7/14/2007)
What Farmers should do in the "Good Times":
Buy and Build Solar Farms.
Electricity Rates are going to un-cap in PA in two years, how about your state?
Solar Panels are the most efficient way to recover solar energy, as Sam has shown.
If you've got farm land then you've got the perfect "crop" with Solar Panels and putting that power back into the Grid.
Reply
James 12:07PM (7/14/2007)
To the EV people out there - please consider hydrogen more deeply. Both hydrogen and EVs will have a place in our future, as both have the potential to help get climate change under control. It's not one or the other, so please don't attack hydrogen.
I am an ex-EV driver, and I look forward to H2 fuel cell vehicles for many reasons:
1) H2 has the ability to refuel in a short period of time. I have been stuck in a low charge EV when my wife was in the hospital across town, and I had to abandon the EV in an Albertson's parking lot and call a cab. It wasn't fun, knowing that my wife was hurt and I couldn't trust my car to get me there, sitting on the curb waiting for the cab. That day I would have given anything for the ability to recharge in a short time. Don't tell me you can do 10minute battery recharging - even the people at Tesla will tell you this is bogus (unless you want to destroy your battery...). The Aerovironment 10min EV quick charge experiment used a 225kW battery charger. You would need an electrical substation at your house to get that much power.
2) H2 allows a vehicle range over 250 miles. The next Honda FCX will have 270miles, on less than 4kg H2 at 5000psi. GM tested at over 300miles range. Consider the Tesla Roadster with a 450kg battery pack is only rated at 200miles. H2 allows vehicle users the convenience of driving long distances, and infrequent recharging for short trip driving.
3) Not everyone has a garage to install a recharger. In fact, most people do not have an appropriate location to install a private charger, or to install their own PV. Less than 30% of Californians own a place with their own garage. I don't have a garage - I have street parking. I charged my EV at work and at public sites when I could, and when the public sites were operating. And for people who do have a garage, do you have 100A and 480V service for the 1 hour quick charge? It is not an option for me, but fueling at a public station in less than 5 minutes is fine.
4) H2 is made today from natural gas at over 70% efficiency. Compare this to generating electricity from natural gas, which is on average 39% today. Yes, future powerplants will be more efficient. Tesla cites a lab experiment by GE that is 60% efficient. This plant is not used in practice yet. Future hydrogen generation will be more efficient, too. Making hydrogen from natural gas and using it in fuel cell vehicles has the same order of CO2 reduction as using grid electricity in EVs. That is why most world governments and all of the world's automakers are looking at hydrogen as a long term solution.
5) H2 allows generation from stranded renewables, because the electricty can be stored as H2. Utilities need to keep peaking natural gas generators spinning and ready, in case the wind dies down. This is expensive and highly inefficient. H2 allows the storage of energy in a pipeline for distribution when it is needed.
6) Pipeline losses are extremely low as far as transportation of H2 is concerned. Consider your powerline losses for electricity - 8% average on the entire grid, which includes consumption very close to the generation source. Long distance electrical transportation losses are huge! Why do you think there are no powerplants in North Dakota feeding Chicago? Yet natural gas is piped to Chicago and New York from Western Canada? H2 allows the transportation of energy from generation source to end use in a very efficient manner.
7) Hydrogen is easily contained in pipes and tanks. No problem. Look at the properties and I think you will conclude that it is safer than gasoline, propane, natural gas. How many people were electrocuted in the US today? Do a GOOGLE search. Hydrogen is very safe, relative to everything else we are used to.
There are many other reasons why I think hydrogen fuel cells have a very important role to play for transportation, but this post is long enough.
If any of my numbers are off, I welcome the criticism, but look it up in serious publications, not weblogs. Please don't attack me without real facts and thoughts.
Thanks,
James
Reply
OhmExcited 12:48PM (7/14/2007)
I agree with James. I'm so tired of seeing this cultish anti-hydrogen militancy. Hydrogen and EV's are not an either/or. In e-flex they could work together. In heavy cars and trucks, where much of the petroleum use is accounted for, hydrogen as an alternative to mere batteries and gasoline is imperative.
Most of our wind resources are located in areas of the United States where there is not much population to speak of. Hence we can't tap into that because no superconductor grid exists to bring it to cities. Generating hydrogen is a perfect use for that untapped resource, inefficient as it is on paper. The same goes for land that could be used for solar. i.e. lots of sun and cheap real estate do not go hand in hand with large population centers. However, it could be an attractive option to generate hydrogen.
There is also a lot of waste heat from power plants. Instead of sending the heated water from nuclear and fossil power plants to cooling towers or large bodies of water, the excess heat could be used to make hydrogen. Nuclear plants run 24/7 for almost 2 years at a time between refueling. A lot of that existing energy is wasted.
I'm a big proponent of electric vehicles. If people want pure electric, more power to them. In reality a plug-in e-flex type of architecture will be more appealing to the masses. The electric grid and hydrogen could be harmonized in a very attractive way. In addition, it is needed for buses, large vehicles, trucks and semis. I would much rather be walking down the street when a hybrid fuel cell bus accelerates past me, rather a diesel or diesel hybrid that blows black smoke in my face.
Reply
Chris M 3:06AM (7/15/2007)
James, I sympathize with your getting stuck without a charge. But really, is that any worse than getting stranded with an empty petrol tank or an empty H2 tank? Consider that the electric grid goes almost everywhere, an "electric economy" could have millions of recharge locations, but there are few H2 filling stations and even H2 proponents concede it will be nearly a century before the number of H2 filling stations matches the number of petrol stations. Yes, there are people without garages or recharge options now, but we could install hundreds of parking lot recharge spots for the price of just one H2 filling station.
Prototype H2FC cars have reached 270 to 300 miles per tank, but prototype battery electrics have already exceeded 350 miles per charge. Plug-in hybrids can go even farther. Storing sufficient H2 is still a problem, requiring very large heavy expensive high pressure tanks. If powered guideways are built to provide electric power "on the move", (not possible with petrol or H2) the EV range becomes nearly unlimited and the "short EV range long trip" problem disappears. See:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/dualmode.htm
BTW, H2 ICE cars has pitifully short range, the record is a mere 150 miles in a converted Prius with no trunk space left (filled with H2 tanks).
The GE H system combined cycle gas turbine generator that Tesla Motors mentioned is not just a lab curiosity. GE have already installed several at various locales, they are in operation, and they do indeed get 60% efficiency. See:
http://www.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines_cc/en/h_system/index.htm
The only natural gas fueled generators more efficient use natural gas directly in a solid oxide fuel cell, 70% efficiency, and no need to make troublesome H2.
Storing "surplus" electricity via water electrolysis and fuel cells is rather inefficient, 30% or less (depending on degree of compression or cooling). Charger and batteries are 85% efficient, cost less, and take up less space. Transporting power via H2 pipeline versus electric grid may seem comparable, until you take into account the losses in electrolysis and fuel cells. Result, Grid at 92% (per your own worst case scenario) vs. electrolysis/pipeline/fuel cell at 25%. Renewable power from wind and solar is too scarce and expensive to be casually wasted by using H2.
As for safety, let me point out that H2 has the smallest of all molecules, leaks through the tiniest cracks, dissolves right into several materials, and turns steel brittle. It ignites very easily over an incredibly wide range of atmospheric concentrations, burns with an invisible flame, is odorless, and we still don't have any good odorants for it. Rupture of a high pressure 5,000 to 10,000 psi H2 tank would cause an explosion from the pressure release alone, never mind any subsequent ignition. At those pressures even a tiny crack would release a high velocity jet that could cut through flesh.
OhmExcited: Sorry, but the temperature of "waste heat" from a power plant is too low to run a useful heat engine (that's why it is "waste heat"), and far too low for any thermochemical H2 production method. No H2 from that source. It can be used to heat buildings, provide hot water, heat greenhouses, and provide heat for low temp industrial processes such as drying.
Reply
James 1:35PM (7/15/2007)
Chris M,
You must not have read the GE page - none of the H systems are in operation in the US. Read it again. There are no 60% efficient natural gas generators running in the US. The current average natural gas generation efficiency is 39%.
Where do you have an EV with 350miles range? How big would that battery have to be? Tesla Roadster battery is 450kg for 200miles, and they claim to be the paragon of efficiency. Would it be 1000kg, taking into account the energy to move the additional mass? You think carrying a 1000kg battery is an efficient means of transportation?
Heavy, expensive 250 mile range high pressure hydrogen tanks are an order of magnitude less expensive than a 200mile range battery pack. And you don't have to replace the tanks in 5 years.
You are afraid of hydrogen, yet why do you not run in fear of gasoline? Or electricity? Do a GOOGLE search on "Gasoline Fire," "Hydrogen Fire," and "Electrical Fire." Which one has caused the most problems? Not hydrogen.
Hydrogen embrittlement is a known phenomenon that can be easily taken into account in design, just like using the correct wiring in a circuit. No problem. What's your concern? That's like saying "electricity has a nasty way of heating wires and causing fires." It's only true if the designer made an error.
You think putting in a few hydrogen stations is expensive, but rebuilding every road with an electric powered guideway is not?
I understand your desire to push for EVs, but they are not the perfect solution, either. Both fuel cell vehicles and EVs will be necessary to meet our transportation needs at a minimal environmental cost. Attacking one with misinformation does a disservice to both.
Thanks,
James
Reply
Chris M 3:00AM (7/16/2007)
Yes, James I did read it, that's why I quoted it. Whether any are "in operation in the US" is not the point, you said "This plant is not used in practice yet." but wait...
http://www.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines_cc/en/downloads/system_tops8000.pdf
March 23, 2005 - GE Energy's most advanced gas turbine combined cycle technology, the H system, has surpassed 8,000 hours of commercial service at the Baglan Bay Power Station in South Wales.
Yes, they HAVE been in commercial service, since 2005! There is one under construction in Southern California, startup scheduled in 2008. As for other gas turbogenerators...
http://www.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/gas_turbines_cc/en/downloads/gasturbine_cc_products.pdf
Lists several different GE gas turbogenerators, including older models. It mentions the single stage efficiency at 35% and combined cycle at 54.7%. IGCC (integrated gasifier combined cycle) efficiency can reach 46%, running on gasified coal or biomass. I'm not sure where you got your "39% average efficiency" figure from, but it may be outdated, as newer plants are usually the most efficient.
As for prototype EVs exceeding 350 miles on one charge:
http://www.megawattmotorworks.com/display.asp?dismode=article&artid=305
http://becketts.ws/eaa/evinfo.htm
Quote "The documented distance record is 375 miles in a Solectria Sunrise. ZAT recorded 478 miles on a single charge in a delivery van using Zinc Air batteries."
Large carbon fiber high pressure H2 tanks for a 250 mile range might be cheaper than a 200 mile range LiIon battery pack, but so what - an automotive fuel cell costs about 5X more than a "200 mile" LiIon battery. The H2 tank is just an added cost.
The safety of H2 compared to other fuels is debatable, all fuels have some risks. I was pointing out some of the potential hazards you may have overlooked, as you think H2 is "very safe, relative to everything else". Ignoring the risks is not wise, for then we may fail to use proper safeguards and precautions to minimize the risks.
It is not be necessary to "electrify" every road, just run powered guideways connecting major cities, similar to the interstate hiway system. Once complete, few inhabited places would be more than 100 miles from a guideway, and many EVs can handle that on their own power. Come to think of it, a system like that might help those H2 cars travel through places where there are not enough H2 filling stations!
Reply
Owen 8:05AM (7/16/2007)
All I have to say is why is it that so many people on this blog think that batteries are the end-all be all for energy storage, did you guys all invest in 123 systems or something? Batteries are an environmental disaster both to make and to dispose of. Unless a different chemistry or technology comes along, you'll never have my vote for straight up EV. Current hybrids are a waste, but how else are you going to tell the manufacturers that you want new technology other than purchasing what they give you. The tesla is NOT apractical car, it's a very nice car, but try putting the proper amount of batteries needed to move the mass of a minivan or a pickup truck at a resonable acceleration and distance and let me know what you come up with. To the paranoid comment about Hydrogen being all about CONTROL and power, there's nothing saying that you can't create hydrogen on your own, you act as though the electric company doesn't control your electricity, and if you are among the lucky who can power their house completely with solar, then there's nothing say you won't be able to afford to buy a couple more panels and an electrolyzer in the future and make your own hydrogen, hence taking back your "control".
Reply
Tim 10:39AM (7/16/2007)
Owen- There is no way the H2 can be a distributed power carrier with efficiency anywhere near electricity. Are there uses for it, YES... in space and for certain industrial processes like producing biofuels. Will there ever be a "Hydrogen Economy", NO... because the "Electron Economy" can use existing infrastructure and can also be easily distributed and even produced on our roofs at 4X the efficiency of hydrogen. We can't economically produce, compress, store and transfer H2 at home and that's why they are so afraid of the vastly superior "Electron Economy". This face and simple physics show us that the “Hydrogen Economy” is fools gold.
Reply
James 11:02AM (7/16/2007)
Chris M,
OK, you have ONE commercial H system in use today. In Wales. Out of how many generators in use? I think it's extremely disingenuous to claim that if you plug an EV into the grid that you are charging at 60% efficiency. It's not true.
39% comes from real numbers for all natural gas generators in the US today.
Total electricity generated in the US from natural gas:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html
Total natural gas consumed in generating that electricity:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat4p1.html
Divide one by the other with appropriate unit conversions, and you come to 39% efficiency of generating hydrogen from natural gas.
Are there more efficient generators? Yes. But you have to replace the ones that are already in service, and choose the most efficient one each time. This is not actually happening in the electrical generation industry today. Utilities often choose low installed cost over high efficiency, because operating cost is easier to pass on to the consumer than capital cost. If you want a higher efficiency grid, you need to lobby the electrical utility companies, not attack hydrogen proponents, whose end goals are the same as yours.
Thanks,
James
Reply
James 11:37AM (7/16/2007)
Tim,
Agreed - Pure EV is more efficient than FCV using pure renewable electrons. Now the challenge comes in building a pure renewable infrastructure where you can charge anywhere at any time using only renewable electrons.
Can you use your existing infrastructure for that? Last time I looked, the existing infrastructure was attached to a lot of coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants, among other things. How does the existing infrastructure support your claim? It does not. You need a new electrical infrastructure if you want to charge your EV with pure renewables.
So what is your model? What do you propose? I've seen you attack a lot of hydrogen posts, and attacking is easy. But what do you propose for solutions?
Hydrogen enables solutions that the "electron economy" will not be able to provide. On demand grid storage. Surplus capacity use. Off-peak renewable use. Biomass gassification to hydrogen. Efficient long distance mass transport. Several others.
Is a hydrogen economy perfect? No. Far from it. But neither is sitting at the side of the road waiting for the sun to shine in your pure renewable electron economy.
The truth is that we need both. Neither the hydrogen economy nor the electron economy can exist well without the other. Realistically we need to develop both.
Thanks,
James
Reply
Chris M 1:36AM (7/17/2007)
James, there are GE H Cycle turbogenerators operating in Italy and Japan, too. But that is irrelevant to Iceland, which has no gas turbine generators but lots of hydropower and geothermal power. Implementing an electric transportation systems (electric cars, PRT) in Iceland would be much less expensive and far more efficient than setting up a H2 fueled transportation system, Since all the H2 would be made from electricity, (all fossil fuels are imported) H2 will always be more expensive than electricity in Iceland.
Granted, Iceland could try exporting surplus energy via H2, but shipping large volumes of such a bulky leak prone material is a major problem. Instead, it would be better to use that electrical energy for energy intensive industrial processes, such as smelting aluminum, and ship that instead.
Reply
Chris M 2:35AM (7/17/2007)
Sorry, but the "electric economy" can indeed provide: On demand grid storage. Surplus capacity use. Off-peak renewable use. Efficient long distance mass transport. And a much longer list of "others" than H2 ever could.
There are a lot of "efficient long distance mass transports" that are electric, including high speed trains, subways, monorails, maglev, light rail, PRT. None of these run on H2, and it is absurd to think of doing so as it would be far more expensive and much less efficient.
As for storing surplus electrical power, batteries are cheaper, more efficient, take less space and can require less maintenance.
Granted, the electric economy won't convert biomass to H2. It is more efficient to use biomass in an IGCC (integrated gasifier combined cycle) turbogenerator at 46% efficiency, or gasify it and use a SOFC for even higher efficiency - no H2 needed.
Owen: Apparently, you haven't heard of all the new battery chemistry and technology that's been developed over the last decade. LiIon, NiMH, "Zebra", LiPoly, LiS, Zinc-air, Vanadium redox, Aluminum-air, Li-air... These are all types of batteries without any of the lead, mercury, or cadmium that made some older batteries "an enviromental disaster". Oh, and they are all recyclable, too.
Hybrids are hardly a "waste", they are more efficient than non-hybrid ICE cars, and unlike the planned H2 cars, are available and affordable now. "Pluggables" and EVs take that efficiency even higher, and will be available and affordable well before H2 cars.
Reply
Teitur 1:15PM (8/26/2007)
When it comes to fueling the future, there is not only one god, but many. Humanity will likely use all the energy it can get its hands on. Clearly a combination of fossil fuels, electricity, hydrogen, biogas and ethanol will be the case. In fact, it already is, and one country is just about to take the lead in the next few years. Check out Driving Sustainability '07-Fueling the Future of Transport at: www.driving.is
T
Reply