RETECH 2009: hydrogen proponent Sandy Thomas says fuel cells beat the pants off of battery-powered cars
by Sebastian Blanco on Mar 3rd 2009 at 7:53PM 
At the American Council on Renewable Energy's RETECH conference and expo last week, I was able to listen to a few presentations on renewables and transportation. It's always interesting to hear about the auto industry from people on the outside, and the RETECH presentations lived up to expectations. I'll be writing about a few of them this week.
The most full-throated defense of hydrogen vehicles I heard was issued by Sandy Thomas, president of H2Gen Innovations, during the "Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Advanced Engines" panel. H2Gen is mostly interested in stationary hydrogen production stations, but Thomas believes that hydrogen is the one right propulsion system for vehicles, since nothing else will meet America's greenhouse gas emissions, energy independence, and clean air targets. He had the presentation to prove that H2 cars beat battery vehicles, too, and was willing to share his slides with AutoblogGreen readers. You can read them all in the gallery below (there's a reason we try to post items like this at the end of the day, when we think you'll have time to indulge a bit). I've also written up some more of what Thomas said after the jump.
Thomas says that fuel cells win because they are lighter and smaller and can be refueled faster. He also made two claims that it would have been nice to have an EV proponent on hand for to comment on: that fuel cells "cost less" and "reduce greenhouse gasses more." At this point, discussing the actual consumer cost of batteries vs. fuel cells is a bit of an exercise in fantasy. I mean, the Honda FCX isn't cheaper than a Tesla Roadster, is it? And what about the comparative cost of hydrogen refueling and high-speed electrical recharging infrastructures? Thomas had answers, but his claims went unchallenged.
Thomas delved into the possibility of making hydrogen from ethanol sources (see also: this). He estimates that you can go 16.5 miles on a gallon of ethanol in an ICE-powered vehicle, but you can go 28.3 miles on that same gallon if you first convert it to hydrogen and then use it in a fuel cell. The 10 kilograms of biomass that would be used to make the 16.5-mile gallon of ethanol would be even better used for transportation if it's converted into hydrogen in an indirect gasifier. That way, the 10 kg can propel a car 45.4 miles, according to Thomas' calculations.
As for GHG emissions, Thomas believes that only fuel cells will allow the U.S. to meet a goal of reducing pollution levels to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2100. The next best vehicle types in his slide are, in order, hydrogen ICEs, pure electric vehicles, and then plug-in hybrids that also burn ethanol. Thomas' slides on the weight and size of batteries and fuel cells are here and here.
Finally, let's take a look at Thomas' upbeat conclusion. He believes that a hydrogen infrastructure could be put into place with public/private investments of about $15 billion over 14 years, much less than the Iraq War or the federal ethanol subsidy. Whaddya think about that?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
jpm 8:28PM (3/03/2009)
Slide 51:
"Fuel cells & Hydrogen Tanks:
-cost less
"
Cost less than what? Li Batteries? Oh really!?
Reply
Doug 8:31PM (3/03/2009)
Thanks, Sebastian.
I take it this is one of the talks you alluded to in the hydrogen segment of today's EVcast. Is there a pdf or ppt version of the slide available?
"Thomas believes that only fuel cells will allow the U.S. to meet a goal of reducing pollution levels to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2100."
So is 2100 when fuel cells will be ready, then?
"He believes that a hydrogen infrastructure could be put into place with public/private investments of about $15 billion over 14 years,"
Instead of waiting around for another 14 years (like we did for the last decade), how about we just use BEVs now.
Reply
Randy 8:43PM (3/03/2009)
Which slide contains the miricle upon which an abudance of free hydrogen is produced, compressed and placed in the cheap (made in China) tanks inside the bomb with wheels... UhHmm, I mean car?
Reply
Michael 8:55PM (3/03/2009)
The number one negative point with Hydrogen Fuel Cells is that you have to pull over at a service station and fill up on fuel. I can't begin to describe how much I hate having to go out of my way (wasting fuel) so I can fill up on fuel. EVs win hands down here as electricity is available almost anywhere. If we're talking about setting up infrastructure how about charging stations in carparks.
Battery tech/charge times and clean electricity generation can only get better over time so why chain ourselves down to another infrastructure that gives corporations intimate power over the consumer just like we have now?
BEVs FTW!
Reply
alex 9:36PM (3/03/2009)
Since fuelcells and batteries have the same goal in cars (carry energy), I think it would be a good thing focus on BEV's for now. After all the end result is more or less the same, cars that run using electro motors instead of combustion engines.
When the fuelcells are cheap enough (ready to be mass produced) they can replace the Litium batteries or whichever batteries we have then.
Maybe they can better focus on cheaper creation of hydrogen from solar or wind first, so it can be used as backup power instead of using other expensive fuels to create hydrogen. This will not only solve the problem of not having sun or wind around just whenever you need it, but also create a cheaper hydrogen infrasctructure without the goverment or group of big companies investing billions of dollars first. By that time the group of big companies will be referred to as "the companies who used to be called big oil", but now found another way to sell us our fix.
It could be the real solution to everybody's problem, the dependency from energy. This can only be done by creating your own energy (as a consumer), because now it might be the arabs, but after that it will be the big bad electricity companies or T. Boone Pickens. As long as we don't create the energy we use ourselves, those big companies will keep us pay whatever we can spare or more. Another advantage of everybody living "off the grid" would be, that everybody will be more energy efficient because they start to realise how much energy they are actually using.
So lets start making electric cars with the best batteries for now, since everybody already has electricity at home.
Reply
GenWaylaid 1:02AM (3/04/2009)
Hardly a fair analysis, but I never expected one. The "hydrogen is better than batteries" conclusion comes from comparing a hydrogen best-case scenario (continued, exponential development) with a battery worst-case scenario (current technology only). It's interesting to note that one more generational improvement in batteries comparable to the NiMH-to-LiPo transition would make a BEV comparable to this theoretical "future" FCEV on every metric described.
Incidentally, the technology adoption scenarios seem to be using standard curves with the timescales adusted to "look right" on a 100 year analysis. It reeks of CRE, as do the long-term cost projections for fuel cells and hydrogen.
If only hydrogen advocates could design a car that ran on rosy technological projections. Those appear to be an inexhaustible resource.
Reply
Chris M 8:20PM (3/04/2009)
Here is a copy of the report that most of these slides came from:
http://sennovation.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ce-thomas-nha-march-2008-rev-k.pdf
That analysis was highly biased against BEVs. It assumes that all increases in electrical usage will be met by increased coal use, effectively assuming all BEVs will be coal powered, while assuming all H2 fuels will come from clean renewables and natural gas. Sorry, but energy for electricity and H2 come from all the same sources, including coal, H2 is NOT inherently "cleaner" than electricity. But H2 fuel cells are inherently less efficient than batteries, taking about 3x more energy thus 3x more fossil fuels or renewables. Even if all the H2 is made from renewable sources, that still means less renewable energy available to displace fossil fuel usage.
A truly fair analysis would take efficiency into account and would show efficient batteries outperforming less efficient H2.
But the real big lie in that slideshow was when they pretended that H2 FC vehicles would somehow magically become 1/3 the cost of BEVs! Don't see how that could possibly happen, considering that H2 FC vehicles are currently about 20x MORE expensive than BEVs, heck, those high pressure carbon fiber H2 storage tanks alone cost more than a battery pack! Yes, I know that future developments may bring down costs for H2, but batteries can also get improved performance and reduced costs - and batteries start out with a huge head start in the affordability race. Batteries are at the finish line, and H2 hasn't even left the starting gate.
steve 10:34PM (3/03/2009)
A great slide deck, and a good sales pitch from someone with a vested interest in seeing Hydrogen filling stations pop up all over the country.
Unfortunately its glosses over couple of important issues like the cost of Fuel cells. Last time I saw any numbers on this, it was estimated that a FCEV cost somewhere from $1M - $4M each. That makes a $140K Tesla roadster seem like a steal ;)
Then there is were we would get the estimated 85 Billion Gallons of Ethanol from every year. Unless something has changed recently, all the info I have seen on ethanol indicates that it takes a stack of energy to get from crops to ethanol. Its only economically feasible when energy is cheap, fuel costs are high, AND there are massive government subsidies. I havent even mentioned where we would get our food from if all our crops are being converted to ethanol to power our new FCEV's.
While I would love to drive around in a Hydrogen FCEV, realistically these vehicles are a long way from becoming financially viable, and the dream of a hydrogen highway is possibly even further away.
Reply
Carney 10:44AM (3/04/2009)
I agree hydrogen is bunk, but alcohol fuels are a very different matter.
"Then there is were we would get the estimated 85 Billion Gallons of Ethanol from every year."
From the starchy or sugary portions of at least 17 different plants that can be grown on a profitable basis for ethanol sales, and which can be grown the world over. Also, methanol can be made from plentiful and cheap coal and natural gas, and if you want carbon neutrality, from any biomass without exception (today, no waiting as with cellulosic ethanol), including crop residues (the leaves, stems, etc.), weeds like kudzu and water hyacinths that must be cleared anyway, trash, even sewage.
"Unless something has changed recently, all the info I have seen on ethanol indicates that it takes a stack of energy to get from crops to ethanol."
This has been settled by a study published in the January 2006 issue of Science magazine (probably THE most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the world), a comprehensive and sweeping study by Alex Farrell and colleagues at the Berkeley Energy Resources Group went over the calculations of ALL PRIOR LITERATURE and considered the critical question of how much petroleum is expended by making a given amount of ethanol compared to that used to make the same fuel energy's worth of gasoline.
Even using the fatally flawed and now-discredited assumptions from crank insect entomologist and anti-ethanol zealot David Pimentel (for example using long outdated statistics to bias the results against ethanol) they found that the petroleum cost of ethanol fuel was about one FIFTH that of gasoline. Based on the assumptions of nearly all other (non-discredited, non-extremist) analysts, the petroleum cost of ethanol was less than one-TENTH of gasoline. In other words, more than ten times as much ethanol can be produced as gasoline with a given amount of petroleum.
"Its only economically feasible when energy is cheap, fuel costs are high, AND there are massive government subsidies."
Alcohol fuels are cost-competitive with petroleum when the latter costs around $50 a barrel. So we do have to be willing to tariff foreign oil if OPEC tries to crash the price of gasoline to flood the market and drown the alcohol baby in its crib, as it did before to the synfuels industry Jimmy Carter tried to set up.
"I havent even mentioned where we would get our food from if all our crops are being converted to ethanol to power our new FCEV's."
We don't have to use "all our crops" to make ethanol. Right now a hair above 1% of our arable land is being used to provide our ethanol and vast amounts of arable land are unused, even the majority of our farmland is uncultivated. Corn ethanol only uses the starch in the kernel; the vitamins, minerals, protein etc. are then used for animal feed for meat livestock for which corn feed would have to be grown anyway. Overall, ethanol crops alleviate hunger by reducing petroleum costs (cutting into fuel and fertilizer expenses), and by providing cash crop farmers with needed currency to not only feed their families but advance in life.
For more information, see here:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels
Keith 10:02AM (3/05/2009)
Carney, since we can't expect enough alcohol to be available to supplant all petroleum tomorrow, you may be interested in a very cost-effective interim step. Rather than diluting all that good ethanol into E10/E15/E20 mixes, adding a small separate tank for E85 (actually E85+ to M85+) to vehicles, and designing the ICE to inject the E85 only as needed to suppress detonation allows greatly increased turbo pressures without reducing compression ratio, thus facilitates significant engine downsizing for a given performance. The main, larger, tank could then contain anything from E0 to E85 (whatever is most economically available). With this system, the average user would save approximately 3 gallons of gasoline for every gallon of E85 burned. The volume fuel efficiency would be at least on par with the best Diesels; therefore producing lower CO2 than a comparable Diesel. The estimated cost to add this to a DI turbo ICE is only about $400. Ford is working on productionizing this within a few years.
While alcohol is still a smallish percentage of the fuel supply, this would be a MUCH more efficient way to use it than if everybody were burning E20 for their main fuel, and it would stimulate the production and infrastructure, greasing the skids for your preferred all-alcohol economy to occur, if it ever will.
Take a look at http://www.ethanolboost.com/
Dave - Phoenix 11:12PM (3/03/2009)
Here's the bottom line about the cost of Hydrogen.
Hydrogen is not cheap enough to unseat oil.
If Hydrogen were truly cheap to produce, store and transport, we would all be driving Hydrogen cars today.
That is why oil is still king. It is still the cheapest game in town.
As to whether Hydrogen is cheaper than electric. We still don't have enough information yet.
Electric appears to be gaining more ground, and it's cost looks to be coming down faster than Hydrogen.
Only time will tell...
Reply
Chris M 11:10PM (3/06/2009)
The per mile "fuel" cost of EVs (1 to 2 cents) is considerably less than the per mile fuel cost of gassers (5 to 25 cents at current prices). That has been true for decades, and will continue to be true for the forseeable future. The only reason why EVs haven't dominated is the high cost and limited performance of older style batteries - but that is changing, performance is increasing and the price is dropping for newer types of lithium batteries.
The current cost of H2 fuel is $8 to $10 per Kg, with the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. Only with the higher efficiency of fuel cells and electric motors can the per mile fuel cost of H2 vehicles be brought close to competitive with gasoline or diesel. H2 ICE just isn't competitive in terms of operating cost, purchase cost (H2 storage is expensive) or driving range. Of course, that means that electricity is considerably less expensive than H2, and since batteries are more efficient than fuel cells and always will be, that cost advantage will always remain.
As for the cost of the vehicles themselves, EVs are nearing cost competitive levels, but H2 ICE are hobbled by expensive storage and limited range, and H2 FC vehicles are wildly expensive and nowhere near competitive pricing.
The future is electric.
Doug 11:28PM (3/03/2009)
http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/retech-2009-hydrogen-presentation-from-sandy-thomas/1391740/
It's interesting to me that HFCVs (Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles) are being rebranded as FCEVs (Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles), and that the fuel cell vehicle is now just one type of "all-electric vehicle." I mean that's sort of true, but this is clearly a marketing maneuver since EVs are now in vogue. This is similar to how plug-in hybrids have become "extended range electric vehicles," but much more underhanded, in my opinion.
Reply
theboomboomcars 2:14PM (3/04/2009)
Extended range electric vehicles (EREV) are different than a PHEV in that a EREV is an electric vehicle that has an onboard generator to produce more electricity when the batteries run low, also called a series hybrid like the Chevy Volt. A PHEV is a standard parallel or series parallel, like that Prius, that can be pluged in.
A EREV's ICE doesn't directly connect to the wheels where a PHEV's would.
Jeff 11:39PM (3/03/2009)
It just doesn't stop does it?
He just glosses over the issue of a hydrogen infrastructure, which to me is the biggest advantage BEVs have over FCVs. Electricity is already as accessible as running water. The electrical grid as is can support a nascent BEV market. As that market grows, the grid can develop to accommodate, including a gradual introduction of a fast charging network, grid communications for intelligent charging, and cleaner sources of electricity. Non of the chicken and the egg problem you have when you need a network of H2 fueling stations to justify owning a FCEV, and a fleet of FCEVs to justify building a network of H2 fueling stations. Not to mention the cost of both of those components compared to BEVs that are already on the road, being sold by already marginally profitable companies.
Reply
Chris M 6:32PM (3/07/2009)
It doesn't stop because his business sells the equipment that makes, purifies, and compresses H2. If the hydrogen hype fails, his business takes a huge hit, so he has a vested interest in promoting H2 and disparaging anything that might threaten it. If that means making misleading statements and outright lies, so be it.
There is a 2nd "chicken and egg" problem in addition to the "infrastructure and vehicles" delemma. To bring the price of H2FC vehicles down requires mass production (and several technical breakthroughs), but mass production can't begin until the price comes down to mass market levels!
Treehugger 1:25AM (3/04/2009)
There is no way to do any fair prediction of a the cost of H2 infrastructure, we don't even know today what technologies would be used to produce, store and distribute H2, we also don't know what technology would be used to store the H2 on the car. The Fuel Cell is not the main aspect of a H2 economy (a ICE would run on H2 as efficiently and as cleanly as a fuel cell). So in clear these cost projections are pure bullshit. In my view the cost of a transition to an H2 economy is probably in the Trillion $ and certainly not 15 billion $.
But in fact it doesn't matter since the H2 economy won't happen any time soon
Reply
Toni 3:45AM (3/04/2009)
For some time myself I believed that Hydrogen was the future (2 years ago). One year ago, the model of Project Better Place make me think it could be the future (exchanging battery stations), today none of these business models convince me. I want my car with my battery and please hurry up to put some charging stations in parks, parkings, petrol stations, break areas, etc. And also please, make the battery/plugs/charges compatible and update daily the network of charging points in the navigator system. I will normally fill my electrons tank at home, but if I need it from time to time, I will use another point available. I will manage to wait 10-60 min while having a coffee/dinner/shopping/meeting/walk for example. I am not interested at all on renting batteries or in buying hydrogen.
Let's work on battery technology and production at less we do not mind a "made in somewhere else" components invasion.
Reply
John 4:36AM (3/04/2009)
here we go again, while i agree there may be a potential for hydrogen in the general energy economy in the coming years its not in cars. there is no way ever that it could be as efficient as a pure BEV in converting electricity, its never gong to happen, laws of physics says it cant happen, why would i want more electrical power in the grid just to convert everything to hydrogen, we will have to be skimping on power as it is to get everything from renewable why would i want more nuclear power plants or more wind farms or more solar thermals, we will already need state or country sized facilities as it is why would i want more of that, just so i can power a horribly inefficient technology(that can never truly be efficient? yes BEV's need a bit more work but we have come from lead acid to LI in 10 years we are now in advanced LI and there is the possibility of super capacitors and so forth that will always blow the socks of hydrogen. so yes we need H2 technology research but investments must be in BEV tech that is here now and has the range for most applications.
Reply
Stan Wellaway 6:15AM (3/04/2009)
H is for Hydrogen.
H is for Hype.
Coincidence?
I'm amazed the hydrogen hype-sters are still banging on about their wonderfuel world.
I am old enough to recall Ford telling us in 1973 that hydrogen cars would be with us in under 5 years. More than 35 years later, it hasn't happened. It remains (as ever) a mere concept. And that suits the oil barons very nicely, decade after decade after decade.
Every major carmaker worldwide is now investing in battery electric vehicles. Face up to it you hydrogen lovers -- hydrogen has missed the boat. It just ain't gonna happen. Having messed around with various alternatives, the carmakers are now being forced to decide -- and they have plumped for batteries. Even that investment hero Warren Buffett - The Sage Of Omaha - has taken a stake in a battery producer.
Reply