National Hydrogen Association's looks to 2100 for a time when H2 vehicles "dominate"
Automakers from Mercedes to Honda are eager to show off their hydrogen cars and plans for these vehicles in the future. We see it all the time here on AutoblogGreen (BTW, have you noticed our new "landing pages" for the various categories on the site? Try some: Hydrogen, Legislation and Policy and the Automotive X-Prize). How far ahead does the National Hydrogen Association need to look to find a time when hydrogen vehicles "dominate" the auto industry? Here's a hint: the NHA's latest report is titled: "Energy Evolution: An Analysis of Alternative Vehicles and Fuels to 2100" (download the full-report PDF or the synopsis PDF). The report compares the 100-year future of over a dozen alternative fuel types. Hydrogen vehicles allow the U.S. to reach "petroleum quasi-independence by mid-century," the report says. The NHA also found that the hydrogen infrastructure "is more affordable than most people think." Whatever criticism people may levy against the NHA for this report, at the data comes from "existing peer-reviewed, credible transportation research." Get all the details here.
[Source: Renewable Energy World]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
jharlan 1:35PM (5/01/2009)
What would really clean up the place is that only the obscenely rich could afford a car.
Reply
phil 1:57PM (5/01/2009)
H2 dominance...only in their dreams. The BEV will be with us for a very, very long time.
Reply
PatrickS 12:33PM (5/04/2009)
BEVs will help. But BEVs are not the only solution because American consumers want cars that can go more than 100 miles and not be dependent on gasoline to get the extra miles. Hydrogen fuel cell ELECTRIC vehicles use batteries too. Many people forget that. But you're going to need more than a battery, you need an oil-free alternative fuel as well to make the family-sized, long-range car most Americans will buy.
Chris M 6:46PM (5/06/2009)
It's hard to imagine why you'd need a "fuel" if you had 300 mile range batteries that could be charged in an hour or swapped if needed when you're in a real hurry. But if you insist on a fuel powered "range extender", there are plenty of choices better than H2, such as existing gasoline and diesel supplies.
Even if you insisted on "no petroleum" fuels for your range extender, there are still better choices than H2, such as ethanol, butanol, and biodiesel
Even if you insisted on "no carbon" fuels for your range extender, there are still better choices than H2, such as zinc/air fuel cells.
paulwesterberg 2:01PM (5/01/2009)
The report concludes: By 2010 we will have found an abundant new source of creating hydrogen: by grinding up invisible pink unicorns. Since there is an infinite supply of invisible pink unicorns and they are really easy to grind this will solve all of our energy problems.
Reply
GoodCheer 5:33PM (5/01/2009)
Yup, basically. From page 13 (Fuel Source Assumptions):
" •Hydrogen is made initially from natural gas, transitioning to hydrogen from bio-
mass, from coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS), from natural gas with CCS
and eventually from electrolysis of water using renewable and nuclear electricity.
•Electricity to charge PHEVs and BEVs is assumed to be made from the west coast
grid mix (less coal generation and more hydroelectricity than the rest of the nation),
transitioning to more renewable electricity, coal with CCS, and more nuclear power."
So hydrogen is made from electricity made from carbon-free sources, but electricity bound for batteries is still made from a grid mix that is just "more renewables".
PatrickS 1:48PM (5/04/2009)
GoodCheer--you should really read the text of your own comment. Your
conclusion is WRONG about BEVs and Hydrogen Vehicles being
treated differently.
Here's the real progression: Both BEVs and HFCEVs start out with the
status quo in the analysis. BEVs actually get an initial advantage
since the analysis assumes that BEVs will initally use the (more
deisrable) West Coast grid mix of electricity instead of the national
mix (which uses much more coal). For HFCVs you start with natural
gas, biomass and some coal with carbon sequestration (95% of hydrogen
today is made from natural gas).
THEN, you transition both to using more electricity once the grid
gets greener, which will take time, and that electricity comes from
increasingly clean sources in both instances. Read the report.
xoham 2:13PM (5/01/2009)
Their chart appears to be ignoring thermodynamics. All that energy lost in all those extra steps to get basically an electric car. The electric car, is much better. Take it from a fuel cell engineer:
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
Reply
PeterG 2:17PM (5/01/2009)
Based on peer reviewed, must mean, picked out of context information from real reviewed science and summarized it here in our lies.
Not going to bother reading as it is clear from the graph that this is totally biased propaganda nonsense.
The graph show fuel cells producing less C02 than BEVs which means using less energy. Which is completely ridiculous.
BEV well to wheels efficiency is about 3x better than Fuel cells. Game over.
Reply
Dave 2:19PM (5/01/2009)
Their graph showing FCVs with lower GHG than EVs are suspicious since fuel cells are currently way less efficient than batteries and it doesn't appear that they will ever exceed the efficiency of batteries.
Reply
Lou Grinzo 2:41PM (5/01/2009)
Once again, the basic problem becomes clear in two steps:
We will be VERY hard pressed to de-carbonize our electricity generation. All the signs point to climate chaos being worse than we thought, meaning we have to cut emissions deeper and quicker than expected.
We will not have the luxury of fueling HFCVs with H2 from reforming natural gas because of CO2 emissions (unless we want to sign up for the other great mirage of our time, CCS), nor will we have the luxury of spending THREE TIMES as much electricity per mile traveled to fuel an HFCV vs. a BEV.
Translation: HFCVs will never be affordable, in the broadest sense of the word.
By all means, do read the E17 paper xoham linked to, as well as the E21 paper (make the obvious change in the link), to see the cold, hard data about hydrogen. It ain't pretty.
Reply
Derk McRockgroin 2:34PM (5/01/2009)
It is misinformation that powers Fuel cells.
Reply
jake 2:24PM (5/01/2009)
I don't see where they get the claim that hydrogen will be cleaner than EVs. If they are looking at renewables, EVs can use the renewables more efficiently. Electrolysis, the hydrogen car will always be worst. The only situation where hydrogen wins out is natural gas reformation vs older natural gas plants. Change some of those out to combined cycle plants and hydrogen loses that advantage. Coal gasification seems to be a wash also, it gives higher efficiency to both EVs and hydrogen.
And they are making the assumption fuel cells will cost less than BEVs. No way to tell if that is true since they never tell us how much their fuel cell vehicles cost. I'd probably be much more willing to back them if they show some indication that this is true.
Their conclusions on Hydrogen vs BEVs are easily skewed based on what assumptions you make on each, since they are so close to each other according to their model.
All in all, I don't see very good reason to heavily invest in them vs BEVs; since if BEVs can already provide most of their benefits (according to their model) for a price people can actually afford, hydrogen seems less advantageous for the costs.
Reply
Sean Lynch 2:42PM (5/01/2009)
I don't understand how the assumption of using a natural gas reformer to produce Hydrogen somehow reduces green house gas emissions.
The reforming process simply releases all the carbon when the hydrogen is isolated. Whether you burn natural gas, or run it through a reformer to produce hydrogen, the exact same amount of Carbon is released.
And if you count inefficiencies in reforming against the power required to actually run the reformer, the energy going into compressing the hydrogen for storage, and the fact that hydrogen has a substantial rate of leaking from tanks, you can't possibly make the process more wasteful.
As mentioned, the conclusions are highly suspect. Especially considering the report was commissioned by the National Hydrogen Association.
Reply
Chris M 3:45AM (5/02/2009)
It reduces it when compared to cars running on gasoline, because gasoline produces more CO2 when burned. Natural gas is mostly CH4, ratio of 4 hydrogen atoms to each carbon, while gasoline is mostly Octane, C8H18, ratio of 2.25 hydrogen atoms to each carbon.
But it doesn't reduce it much if any, when compared to a car running on compressed natural gas, and actually produces more CO2 than an EV that gets its electricity from the most efficient natural gas fired generators!
PatrickS 2:12PM (5/04/2009)
Sean, the biggest reason you can reduce emissions from using natural gas to make hydrogen is because during the simple production process, half of the hydrogen you make actually comes from water, not natural gas. Here's how:
Hydrogen is made from natural gas using steam to separate the hydrogen out of the natural gas with catalysts. As that's done, much of the water in the steam also gets separated, which makes more hydrogen. Even though the hydrogen industry doesn't anticipate using this process long-term, it works well now, it's cheap, it's efficient and EVEN when you account for the CO2 that does get emitted through this process, overall, when you use hydrogen from natural gas in a fuel cell electric vehicle, you emit half the emissions that would be emitted from a gasoline vehicle. So you can cut emissions by 50% even using natural gas. That a decent place to start. http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/factSheets.asp
About the report coming from the National Hydrogen Association, we know, at first glance, it seems suspect. But check out the numbers. Review the assumptions. I think you'll see the conclusions are backed up by good science and realistic expectations. The experts who independently reviewed it at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and US Dept of Energy thought so. Give it a good luck and see what you think, and then let the NHA know what you think: info@hydrogenassociation.org.
Chris M 8:20PM (5/04/2009)
PatricS, by that logic, they should make the H2 by steam reforming coal, then 100% of the H2 will come from water! Of course, that would also increase CO2 production by 2/3rds.
The figures are considered suspect not only because of the bias inherent to a hydrogen promotion group, but to the fact that somehow they assume that BEVs would cause more CO2 emissions than H2FC vehicles, even in a future when they assume both will use the same mix of renewable energy and fossil fuel sources. The problem is that BEVs are 3x more efficient at using electricity than H2FC vehicles, so if they were both powered by the same ratio of renewables and fossil fuels, the H2FC vehicles must put out 3x more CO2! Instead, they somehow snuck in some fudge factors to make the charts say BEVs put out more CO2! I'm betting they are assuming that any increase in electricity demand from BEVs will be met with increased coal use, but any increase in electricity demand from H2FC vehicles will somehow only come from clean renewable sources!
Oh, but what about steam reformed natural gas as a hydrogen source? As I've already mentioned in a previous post, natural gas emits less CO2 than gasoline due to a higer ratio of H to C, but due to the energy losses in steam reforming and fuel cell efficiency vs. the 60% efficiency of the latest natural gas fired turbogenerators and very high efficiency of BEVs, the H2FC vehicles would still use more natural gas and produce more CO2 than the equivalent BEVs when both are powered by natural gas sources.
PatrickS 10:16AM (5/05/2009)
Sorry ChrisM, your logic doesn't hold water. When you don't steam reform coal and even if you did, 100% of the hydrogen would not come from water. When you use coal, you gasify it (turn it into a synthetic gas--this is NOT burning it like in a pulverized coal power plant), then you separate the hydrogen from that gas (and you do get some extra hydrogen from the water in THIS part of the process), and you get hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Compared to natural gas though, using coal produces more carbon dioxide, so the hydrogen industry ONLY supports using this cheap, domestic resource, when ALSO used with carbon capture.
Regarding your natural gas efficiency numbers and BEV comparison, you can't compare hydrogen from natural gas to electricity from only natural gas--the latter doesn't exist in real life. You'll get your electricity from a mix of resources depending on what your utility uses. It turns out that for the grid mix in about 25 of the 50 states, a BEV charged there would reduce emissions, and for the other 25, it would increase emissions compared to a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle with it's hydrogen produced from natural gas.
So you're only a winner half of the time and the majority of the time, you're actually pretty even. Then it's a matter of do you want a BEV that goes 40-100 miles or a hydrogen vehicle that will carry your whole family, some cargo and go 200, 300, + miles. A choice each person needs to make. Some like a small car with a short range--BEVs could be good for that. But you have to acknowledge that many don't, so we're going to see a mix of vehicles because batteries are great, they just can't do it alone.
PatrickS 10:17AM (5/05/2009)
But let's assume you COULD make all your electricity from natural gas (not realistic) and your hydrogen from natural gas (that part's fine). And let's use real, recent numbers from a manufacturer that's actually making both: Toyota.
TOYOTA:
"With natural gas as the feedstock for hydrogen and power generation, Toyota currently calculates 40% WTW efficiency for a fuel cell vehicle; 33% for an EV; 34% for a hybrid (Prius); and 19% for an internal combustion engine.
"We feel that there is a place for EVs in the future, but what is that place? It’s pretty challenging for a full-range larger vehicle. We do see a market for the smaller, shorter range EVs. The key is to make sure your grid is clean. We don’t talk much about it these days, but we are still working very, very strongly on fuel cell technology. —Justin Ward
This view of the future vehicle technology mix—with EV applications likely targeting shorter-range, smaller vehicles and fuel cell vehicle technology applied to larger, long-range vehicles—was reinforced in a subsequent session moderated by GM (Larry Nitz, Executive Director, GM Powertrain) and including engineering executives from Ford (Sharif Marakby, Chief Engineer, Global Hybrid Core Engineering), Daimler (Neil Armstrong, Director, Hybrid Systems & Components), Honda (Kenji Nakano, Senior Chief Engineer, Honda R&D) and Bosch (Joseph Slenzak, Hybrid-EV Business Development), as well as Ward from Toyota.
The entire world is focused on hydrogen. GM, Ford, Daimler, Honda, Bosch, ect......see the future." This is from the SAE World Congress two weeks ago in Michigan.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/04/h2fcv-20090423.html#more
Chris M 6:37PM (5/05/2009)
PatrickS, you were misinformed on how "steam reforming" works. Steam reforming of natural gas combines high temperature steam and natural gas at high pressures in the following reactions: 1 CH4 + 1 H2O = 3 H2 + 1 CO that is, 1 part methane reacts with 1 part steam to produce 3 parts hydrogen and 1 part carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide can be reacted with additional steam as follows: 1 CO + 1 H20 = 1 H2 + 1 CO2. Overall reaction is 1 CH4 + 2 H20 = 1 CO2 + 4 H2. Since carbon bonds more strongly to oxygen than hydrogen does, this reaction releases considerable heat energy to keep the process going, but it also means the resulting hydrogen has less energy than the natural gas used up to produce it.
Steam reforming of coal works similarly, except the overall reaction is 2 H20 + 1 C =
2 H2 + 1 CO2. This is the process promoted as "clean coal", which isn't quite so clean. By the way, the "Syngas" produced from coal is a mixture of H2, CO and CO2, and yes, steam is used to make it, otherwise there would be no hydrogen to separate out!
Yes, we get our electricity from a mix of sources, but the proposed Hydrogen hiway will also get its H2 from a mix of sources - including coal. You can't assume future H2 will only be from "clean renewables and natural gas", otherwise the plug-in supporters could just as well assume future electricity only from "clean renewables and natural gas" - and win with higher efficiency!
As for that "range" issue, I must point out that the Tesla Roadster EV already gets 244 miles per charge, and the planned Tesla Model S has a 300 mile per charge option - with 1 hour charging and quick swap batteries! That's comparable to the 270 mile range for the Honda FCX Clarity, and the 300 mile range for the GM Sequel prototype. So the remaining question is, would you rather choose a $50K electric, or a half million dollar H2 FC car? Remember, they have the same range, but the EV can use a 5 minute battery swap vs. a 15 minute high pressure H2 refill.
(that last bit comes from someone who drove the FCX Clarity and found it could take up to 15 minutes to refill. When going to the H2 station, remember to bring a good book to read...)
As for those figures from Toyota, I don't know what assumptions they were using, but they must have assumed an older electric powerplant with a 45% efficiency. The newest combined cycle turbogenerator made by GE hits a 60% efficiency, coincidentally matching the efficiency of a PEM fuel cell. My "well to wheel" calculation, using that higher efficiency, comes to 41%, narrowly beating Toyotas "well to wheel" figures for H2FC via steam reformed natural gas.