DOE asking for help finding hydrogen fuel cell market
Does DOE stand for hydrogen fuel cell in some language I don't understand? I know that the Department of energy finds the funds for cellulosic biofuels and plug-ins, but it also spends more than one might expect on hydrogen fuel cell technology - e.g., $130 million here and $100 million there - especially when the DOE's own projections don't make hydrogen vehicles look that hot.
Nonetheless, the DOE has put out another call for hydrogen help. Specifically, a "Request for Information (RFI) seeking stakeholder and public input on potential early markets and deployment opportunities for hydrogen and fuel cells." The DOE wants to find places where fuel cells can make an impact on the market, whether in vehicles or as on-site power generation. More details, including how to submit responses, here.
[Source: DOE]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
jharlan 7:58PM (2/11/2009)
It's clean, but at this point I would not even consider H2 fuel cell technology unless I could produce the H2 myself. I am not going to anything that will leave me just as vulnerable to market speculation as we already are. You know the oil companies have the infrastructure to produce hydrogen as needed now and it will be the same thing all over again. I'll bet they are already lobbying to influence legislators to give preferential treatment to H2. I have nothing against H2 if it is competitive, but i don't see it as being competitive in my lifetime.
Reply
noz 8:59PM (2/11/2009)
Still, there are many applications and areas where H2 can be used instead of dirty fuels today. Producing H2 through clean sources can be done today for large scale use.
It's a real shame that we are 100 years behind in where we should be thanks to greed, lobbying, and money.
Chris M 9:46PM (2/11/2009)
Of course the oil companies are lobbying heavily for H2 fuel, as they have the cheapest source and plan to be the biggest H2 suppliers.
While H2 can be produced by electrolysis from renewable electricity, that would cost a lot more than H2 from fossil fuels - so who would choose the more expensive "clean H2" option? Not anyone who valued their money. Moreover, just using the electricity directly would be much cheaper and more efficient, and electricity would be a better choice to replace most of the "dirty fuels" used today.
harlanx6 11:08PM (2/11/2009)
If you can split water using free electricity, H2 makes sense. If you are going to use H2 to produce electricity (like using a fuel cell to run an electric motor in a vehicle) maybe not.
noz 2:06AM (2/12/2009)
Oil companies are in the business of oil..and not much else. Hydrogen progress will not come from oil companies. They will try and stop if it anything at all. Cheaper is not always better. If anything cheaper has been the reason why we have polluted our planet beyond repair...because we're too cheap to do the right thing from saving ourselves. Money has trumped common sense.
There are many ways to produce hydrogen...hydraulic sources for creating it are free after initial costs. And there's plenty of potential for that to happen. Other ways as well.
JHARLAN:
Actually the process either way is makes sense...since the process is truly reversible and sustainable. The key is that hydrogen is clean. And can be used in many areas that are now destroying our environment.
Chris M 1:53AM (2/13/2009)
Yes, Noz, cheaper is not always better, but more expensive is not always better either. Quality doesn't always correlate to cost. Of course, for automotive use, electricity is both cheaper and better than H2 fuels.
Yes, there are many ways to produce H2, but none are "free after initial cost", not even electrolysis using solar power. There is always maintenance costs, and amortized financing costs to be paid back, too.
"Not much else?" Hardly. The oil companies have been diversifying and getting into all sorts of businesses, including Hydrogen research. After all, they are the worlds biggest producers of H2.
British Petroleum is involved in H2:
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021766&contentId=7041149
BP is partnered in H2 project with Rio Tinto
The National Hydrogen Association website lists its members, which includes
Chevron http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/hydrogen/
and Shell Oil http://www.shell.com/hydrogen
So please don't pretend that the oil companies "will try to stop it", not when they hope to profit from that expensive new fuel.
The oil company involvement is not bad for the hydrogen hype, with record profits the oil companies have money to burn on questionable long shots like H2 fuels. After all, government subsidized research grants can only go so far.
harlanx6 3:43PM (2/14/2009)
We as yet have no way of knowing what will actually be cheaper after all the unintended consequences are considered, but generally our economy works well, but not perfectly by letting the market instead of the government decide. The government has a long track record of taking inexpensive concepts and turning them into unworkable, astronomically expensive, uncorrectable permanent boondockles,
gorr 8:27PM (2/11/2009)
Officials from GM and toyota asked last year to put an hydrogen refueling infrastructure in place to begin commercialisation of hydrogen cars. They can start to cover california then spread everywhere. They can begin to save billions in invesment to use the technology from japanese H.A.W compagny that just need a different tank then the gasoline tank, then all the rerst of the car remain the same , except power is increased by 50% and pollution is eliminated. So 100x less invesment then hydrogen fuelcell cars that are completely different then actual cars.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/17/toyota-chimes-in-to-support-larry-burns-call-for-hydrogen-inves/#comments
http://www.haw-system.jp/English/indexE.html
Reply
Chris M 9:09PM (2/11/2009)
"different tank" is right, a 10,000 psi carbon fiber wound H2 fuel tank doesn't come cheap. But even with a very large high pressure tank, the range of the HAW (hydrogen and water) car is very short and the fuel cost very high, as it is using a standard IC engine running on H2, and a little water is injected for cooling.
gorr 1:07PM (2/12/2009)
You are a liar working for giving a pet role to your downsized 'friends'.
The water mist is there to increase power and reduce hydrogen cost. The water mist give expansion in the cylinder like a steam engine do. This cost absolutelly nothing and don't pollute.
You are clearly just a trader and no buyer bidder as you always propose added cost of ownership like actual gasoline technology is. This ice from h.a.w. cost nothing to run without pollution and is ready now. Just, toyota, shell, cia, barack, opec, banks, japan goverment, malaysia goverment, canada, u.s.a, onu, gm, tesla, mexico, bp, texaco, general electric, boieng, epa, doa, afs-trinity, verasun, coskata, brazil, mitchubishi, panasonic, honda, daihashu, jay leno, the car rock band, exxon, wall streets, us army, nascar, formula one, speed channel, ny transit authorities, world trade center widows and victims, hollywood studios, ford, chrsler, nissan, tata, iran, quatar, etc and many others have rejected water in their past and actually too. It doesn't mean that this ice cannot be run for free without pollution and replace actual gasoline and diesel for few investment.
Chris M 2:40AM (2/13/2009)
You accuse me of lying? Who do you think people are going to believe, when I present a reasonable argument that can be backed up with facts, and you present off-the-wall irrational rants with parts that make no sense whatsoever.
As I told you before, you didn't listen closely enough to the HAW video. It runs on H2 stored in a high pressure tank, the water is injected for cooling. Of course, that injected water turns to steam in the hot engine, and it improves the fuel economy slightly, but it still has a short driving range because hydrogen is such a bulky fuel.
AJ 8:56PM (2/11/2009)
I'm still not holding my breath on hydrogen powered automobiles. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4541
Reply
killroy 10:14AM (2/12/2009)
I would bet on the battery as a energy storage solution even with all of its issues long before inefficient H2.
Reply
BoneHeadOtto 10:42PM (2/11/2009)
Hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles are just plain dumb. Yes the fuel cell is a great invention but put that aside and realize that these vehicles are just electric vehicles that use hydrogen as a method for transporting electricity. Nothing could be more inefficient. We do not need to spend money developing better ways to create, store, and transport hydrogen. We already have wires and batteries problem solved. :)
What we really need is not support for hydrogen but support for electric vehicles and for providing that electricity in an environmentally friendly way. Fossil fuels are problematic for a number of reasons but economically they are vital because there are not other immediate alternatives. Get a transportation system that works soley on electricity and the method of creating that electricity can vary as needed over time.
Reply
Chris M 10:30PM (2/11/2009)
Lets see what the DOE "request for information" is asking about:
1. Early Fuel Cell Market Applications with High Volume Potential
The only "high volume" fuel cell applications are for solid oxide fuel cell powerplants running on natural gas, and tiny methanol fuel cells for portable applications. Neither of those require H2 or reformers. Automotive H2 fuel cells are too expensive and likely to remain too expensive for the forseeable future.
2. Integrated Renewable Hydrogen Systems and Public-Private Community-Based Partnerships
It would be better to use electricity from renewable sources directly, rather than waste 2/3 of that energy in making H2. That is true whether the renewable sources are public or private, community or nationwide.
3. Using Biogas and Fuel Cells for Co-Production of On-Site Power and Hydrogen
Much better to use biogas for heat and power co-generation with high efficiency combined cycle gas turbines or purified and compressed for a CNG IC engine vehicle. Why waste energy reforming it to H2 and using an extravagantly expensive fuel cell when a high efficiency combined cycle gas turbine can hit 60% efficiency? (twice the efficiency of reformer and fuel cell combined!)
4. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Fuel Cell Systems
More conventional CHP systems using IC engines or gas turbines would be more cost effective. To maximize efficiency, it would be better to use solid oxide fuel cells burning natural gas directly, rather than using natural gas reforming then purifying the H3 for a fuel cell.
5. Using Combined Heat, Hydrogen, and Power (CHHP) Systems to Co-Produce and Deploy Hydrogen to Early Market Customers
A very expensive way to convert natural gas into heat and power, and to fuel a half-million dollar car. There just aren't very many people with that kind of money willing to waste it.
6. Analysis of Excess and/or Waste Hydrogen Sources
Not many "excess and/or waste hydrogen" sources left, so, no, we're not going to get cheap "throwaway" H2. Bleach producers used to waste H2 when they'd electrolyze salt water to produce sodium hypochlorite bleach, but then they realized that was both wasteful and dangerous, and put that H2 to better use.
Reply
hal emalfarb 8:22AM (2/12/2009)
Will there better efficiencies if Ammonia is used as the fuel stock for hydrogen? Ammonia has an exisiting infrastructure in place with pipelines serving many agricultural states and the Mid West already.
jharlan 11:22PM (2/11/2009)
Bonehead Otto, you make sense to me. We are going to be in a transitional situation as technology advances and somewhere way down the road the IC engine will be a thing of the past and we will have solved the problems of atmospheric pollution one step at a time. We are in a time of rapid advancement, but I see the ICE being the main propulsion system for the next decade, until EVs attain enough practicality to make an imperative economic case. Advancements in electrical storage capacity will have to come first. Now is the time for EVs if you can get by with a golf cart with lights. The rest of us will have to wait.
Reply
Doug 4:55AM (2/12/2009)
Perhaps the DOE has trouble with the concept of sunk cost.
Reply
andrichrose 9:41AM (2/12/2009)
$100,000 for a 100kwh stack , even if the price is reduced by
a factor of 5 in the next ten years thats still $20000 !
fuel cells still only last for around 40000 miles if you are lucky,
who on earth is going to fork out that sort of money when
their 3 year old car needs a replacement stack ?
How on earth are you going to move compressed hydrogen
around the country efficiently ?
Fuel Cells dislike extreme cold and tend to fall over , does this
mean that only people in warmer climes will be able to use
them ?
Fuel Cells do not respond well with high levels of atmospheric
pollution , which shortens the life of the cell considerably .
The list of problems goes on and on and on !
All the above observations where dictated to me by a scientist
working on advanced road fuels for the EU , however the EU
still decided to award the industry 90 million euros for furthering
their aims , I suppose just on the off chance it might work !
Totally corrupt !
Reply
Chris M 2:10AM (2/14/2009)
It's a bit worse than that. PEM fuel cells cost about $5 per watt, making a 100 Kw version a cool half million. Cutting cost by 1/5, it would still cost $100,000