ITM Power shows off British-engineered, hydrogen-powered Ford Focus
click to enlarge
The ITM/Roush Ford Transit van is not the only hydrogen-powered vehicle to make an appearance before UK government officials in late October. ITM Power showed off its converted Ford Focus to Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg MP and Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable MP last week at ITM's Sheffield factory. The MPs drove the car and visited ITM's home hydrogen demonstration suite "where everything from a cooker to a television runs on power produced cleanly from hydrogen."
Over a year ago, ITM said it had reached a bi-fuel "breakthrough." The idea, as we described at the time is to use an electrolizer to make hydrogen from energy (renewable, when available) and water. The hydrogen is then fed to the appliances, the car and to make electricity in fuel cells. I'm still not sure why one would want to convert electricity to hydrogen just to go back to electricity, but at least the car doesn't emit and CO2. I suppose that's what led the MPs to make their glowing statements pasted after the jump.
[Source: ITM Power]
PRESS RELEASE:
Lib Dem leaders see the hydrogen solution
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg MP drove into the energy future today (Thursday October 23rd) behind the wheel of a British engineered hydrogen-powered car.
Along with the party's Shadow Chancellor, Vince Cable MP, he visited ITM Power, a firm pioneering ways of using hydrogen as a CO2-free fuel for cars, trucks and buses as well as a clean alternative power supply for homes, offices and factories.
At ITM Power's Sheffield factory they drove a Ford Focus converted to run on hydrogen and toured a home demonstration suite where everything from a cooker to a television runs on power produced cleanly from hydrogen.
The MPs also saw ITM's Home Refuelling Station which allows householders to produce hydrogen, which in turn can be used to produce clean electricity, and be self-sufficient and independent of the national grid. Hydrogen produces no harmful emissions when burnt and ITM Power has recently started pilot production of the stations at its factory in Sheffield.
Nick Clegg MP said: "We have seen some remarkable technology today, and it's great that a British company is doing it. ITM Power would appear to have some of the answers to help us address both climate change and our dependence on fossil fuels."
Vince Cable was equally impressed. He added: "What we have seen demonstrated today is a vision of what could become a reality for millions of householders and drivers."
Paul Scriven, Leader of Sheffield City Council, also attended the presentations.
Jim Heathcote, ITM Power's CEO, said: "We are pleased that these very busy politicians took the time to see what we are doing and they showed a genuine interest.
"Only a few days ago the Government announced higher targets to cut greenhouse gases by 2050. What we have developed is a series of practical products that will significantly help to reduce greenhouse emissions and could help the Government realise these tougher targets."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mon 1:52PM (10/28/2008)
Their goal is undoubtedly to not have to use batteries! For a site dedicated to renewable energy you should have picked up on that.
Reply
paulwesterberg 2:29PM (10/28/2008)
electricity->hydrogen->electricity is probably only 40% efficient at best.
electricity->batteries->electricity is 90% efficient.
Their real goal is to make it seem like hydrogen is a viable "fuel" when it is actually a really inefficient fuel storage device. They make the hydrogen from electricity so they can say they are making hydrogen from "renewable" sources.
Most cheap, affordable hydrogen comes from natural gas reformation which keeps oil companies in charge of energy distribution.
Electric vehicles with batteries can actually use renewable energy sources efficiently and they can use the existing electrical grid for efficient distribution of energy.
Reply
Chris M 6:56PM (10/28/2008)
It's worse than that, electrolysis at 60% and PEM fuel cell at 50% combined would equal 30%. Subtract the energy to compress the H2 for storage, and it drops to 24%.
Or you could use an IC engine and get all of 7% efficiency, as ITM is doing. Not mentioned is the ridiculously short driving range per tank, which is less than your average NEV.
gorr 4:06PM (10/28/2008)
It's not directly a question of efficasity. Your numbers are irrelevant, like 40% efficient and so on. It mean nothing at all. Energy is 100% or zero % efficient, you have to judge( appreciate in old latin) the situation which by reading regurlarly here i noticed nobody do. These stupid misunderstandings in the hydrogen gas domain are there because the ' money traders' are unable to produce anything at all and are just blocking any business with forced protection and they call anyone a 'terrorist'. So they just spread terrorism on anything hydrogen related, that's all. Jesus known that, mosus and nostradamus too and me.
If a simple windmill separate the water molecule while you sleep or you sit on the toilet bowl then you got free energy to use later on in your focus. This is the simple situation ITM is trying to say to sinners and sinners are just interrested to talk endlessly about old unresolved crimes and emptiness of the soul called energy in this case. Feel empty buy a water electrolyser. And this car is not a fuelcell it's a regular ice with a compressed tank fill by old water changed to hydrogen gas for a while then it goes back to water when use.
This energetic phenomena water-electrolysis-hydrogen-kaboum is the first thing that happen at the beginning of the universe then algae appeared. No need to argue the basis of the universe. If you want natural energy for cars and any machinery trust jesus the inventor of the universe.
Reply
JamesWB 7:54AM (10/30/2008)
I think gorr may be a troll. No one can be that stupid.
Keith Wakeham 5:30PM (10/28/2008)
"I'm still not sure why one would want to convert electricity to hydrogen just to go back to electricity, but at least the car doesn't emit and CO2"
Wow.... simple... fuel cell is a continuous device that can work for hundreds of thousands of miles without issue so long as it is feed with hydrogen. Batteries die overtime and in varied amounts which decrease pack performance and eventually need very very costly replacement of the entire pack or complex power management systems with spare cells that is intelligent enough to equalize voltage and forget about bad cells. Large scale ramp up is difficult for both but harder for batteries because they have less usable life and therefore more are needed.
Solar power and wind power both require dump loads where unusable energy has to be wasted or in large scale they need to shut them down when demand isn't high enough. Hydrogen can be that dump load and be generated while other loads are not needed while batteries need to be connected and might not be connected when its best to run turbines.
The wasteful process has many benefits to the grid compared to battery and more convince. Smart metering makes home hydrogen production even with losses significantly more cost effective than gasoline. Infact if you crunch the numbers running an ICE on hydrogen with smart metering is still cheaper than gasoline. Just need someone to do it, and live where smart metering is available.
Reply
Chris M 6:48PM (10/28/2008)
H2 is a very low density gas, it is difficult to pack enough onboard to get a sufficient range even with expensive 10,000 psi tanks. As for storing excess renewable energy, it turns out batteries are more efficient, less expensive, and take up much less space.
Moreover, standard PEM fuel cells have a limited lifespan, too, as the membrane slowly deteriorates, requiring replacement after about 100,000 miles (that's the new improved version, early PEM fuel cells died after 8,000 miles). So, how is replacing a half million dollar fuel cell better than replacing a $22K battery pack?
The cheapest source of H2 still has a retail cost of over $8 per Kg, if used in a fuel cell car the fuel cost per mile is comparable to gasoline. Used in an IC engine, the fuel cost per mile is twice that of gasoline. Sorry, but H2 from electrolysis costs even more, especially if powered by expensive renewable sources.
There really isn't any advantage to using H2 fuel, on a technical basis or on an economic basis.
jake 7:13PM (10/28/2008)
Fuel cells DO have a lifespan. The hydrogen tanks that hold the hydrogen also have a lifespan. Li-ions can reliably last longer than 100,000s of miles as long as the pack size is big enough. Sure if you have smaller pack, it won't last as long as a fuel cell, but even a pack good enough for a relatively low 40 miles can last 100k+ miles (ie the Volt). If you bring up the question of cost, fuel cells are every bit costly as batteries (actually more costly). They also have limited power capabilities (thus needing batteries and supercapacitors to supplement their power) and transporting hydrogen is a pain. The positives are fast refilling and lower weight (though in terms of volume they are about the same).
Thus for cars I still say they don't make any sense.
If this kind of system is fairly cheap (in the thousands) then it might make sense. But even then seems like given the current small amount of people with solar/wind generation at home, dumping the electricity back to the grid makes more economic & environmental sense.
Keith Wakeham 9:35PM (10/28/2008)
"The cheapest source of H2 still has a retail cost of over $8 per Kg"
Really? My university lab can make it using night time electricity rates at about 70% efficiency, for about 2/3 the current cost of gasoline for raw energy (1MJ gasoline vs 1MJ hydrogen gas). Compressor efficiency varies though, but if you utilize waste heat to do something like heat a home or building then its not a waste. People heard it is $8/kg but it depends on energy source, purity, transport etc. ITM is suggesting to cut out a lot of that.
Lithium based batteries have been mass manufactured for years and are still having a hard time coming down in price, thermal management is the big engineering aspect along with battery equalization. I can't see more mass manufacturing fixing this and it takes away from the convenience of a car, hydrogen won't.
I'm a hydrogen proponent but not necessarily of fuel cells. I think H2 ICE can work considering at night places shut down wind turbines for lack of demand. Fuel cells still have a long ways to develop but littering the world with used batteries that people will not recycle (due to driving up cost of a battery, cheaper to get new lithium). Fuel cell platnium is easily renewable and just the nafion would need to be replaced.
Chris M 11:06PM (10/29/2008)
You should realize that "cost of energy to produce" isn't the same as "sales price", as it is necessary to figure in profit margin and also amortize the cost of building and installing the facilities, and the cost of maintenance.
That $8 per Kg (actually $8.25 per Kg, but I rounded off) is from an actual quote by a fuel cell car driver buying H2 fuel from a retail H2 fuel outlet.
You University egghead types really do need to get out into the real world more often, or at least take some basic economics courses. Do they teach economics at your University?
Herm 1:12AM (10/29/2008)
Only the H2 used in cars needs to be compressed, the rest can be distributed in pipes at normal pressures and used for heating, cooking and perhaps fuel cells. This is just a way to use the excess wind/nuclear/tides power generation at times of low demand. H2 could also be mixed with NG and fed into the pipes, for when H2 production was low.
I would suspect an ICE generator running on hydrogen would be more practical than a fuel cell. At least with today's high cost of fuel cells.
Reply
Chris M 11:01PM (11/02/2008)
The combination of electrolyzer and ICE powered generator would be about 8% efficient compared to nearly 30% efficiency for electrolyzer and fuel cell, but the fuel cell would be considerably more expensive, too costly to be cost effective.
But using a charger, battery and inverter would be over 80% efficiency, with a cost only slightly more than the electrolyzer/generator combination. There are other power storage options that are also better than the electrolyzer/generator combo, both in efficiency and in cost.
Herm 9:09AM (11/03/2008)
electrolyzer and ICE is 8%?
Perhaps but that is not the point.. the electrolyzer will only run at certain times of excess power production, the H2 made will be used to supplement the gas supply to the city. No need to turn off the windmills or throttle down the nuclear plant (and you cant do that anyways).. build a bigger nuke and perhaps you will not need as many peaking plants during times of high demand. Methane generated from sewage can also be fed into the gas supply.
If it is cheap enough you may have a small ICE at home burning an H2/Methane mix to generate extra power.. or a fuel cell if they get practical... a fuel cell that could handle a mixed gas. The exhaust heat could be used to heat up water and run the air conditioning.. thus increasing the efficiency of the ICE to a very high level. Lets say you need to run the pool pump, the ice automatically starts generating power for the pump.. at the same time it uses the exhaust heat to heat up the hot water tank.. or if the whole family decided to take a hot shower then the ice starts up, the electricity and the exhaust heat are both used to heat up the water.
An ICE running on hydrogen will last a long time, but most likely the H2 will be simply burned in a combined cycle turbine at the power plant, or perhaps fed into existing peaking generators.
TX CHL Instructor 8:02AM (10/29/2008)
"power produced cleanly from hydrogen."
Not even wrong. Hydrogen is not 'green' in any meaningful sense of the word. Most commercial H2 is produced via methane reformation, which produces more CO2 per watt-hour of useful energy than almost any other energy source, including just burning gasoline in an ICE. And H2 is the most potent ozone-depletion agent ever produced by man.
Hydrogen is the perfect fuel for people who can freely spend other people's money while pretending to be 'green'.
Reply