Why choose a fuel cell or an internal combustion engine when using hydrogen?

Over the past decade, most of the world's major automakers have expended a lot research dollars and engineering resources on developing vehicles that burn hydrogen. While advocates like the idea of using hydrogen as an energy carrier because it's the most abundant element in the known universe and it can be used without emitting toxic or greenhouse gas emissions (disregarding, for the moment, any emissions from producing the hydrogen), not everyone agrees on how to use it. There are two basic approaches to using hydrogen in vehicles: the proton exchange membrane (PEM, also called polymer electrolyte membrane) fuel cell and the classic internal combustion engine (ICE).While some automakers, notably Ford, have experimented with both approaches, most OEMs have chosen one direction or the other. Aside from Ford, the only other automakers making any significant effort with hydrogen ICEs are BMW and Mazda. Pretty much everyone else working with hydrogen has gone fuel cell. Why go one direction or the other? Read on after the jump to find out.
Hydrogen ICEs
The primary reason for using hydrogen in internal combustion engines is that they already exist and are comparatively inexpensive. Since hydrogen combusts fairly readily, it doesn't take much in the way of modifications, mainly new fuel injectors and a storage system, to make hydrogen work in an ICE. This is, of course, a bit of an oversimplification. While the basics are the same, the combustion properties of hydrogen are very different from gasoline or diesel. It burns much faster than those fuels, so getting the most out of hydrogen in an ICE requires optimizing the shape of the combustion chamber and calibrating the timing of the spark in order to avoid damaging knock.

Ford and BMW have both pursued hydrogen ICEs using traditional piston engines. BMW has gone further and actually uses liquid hydrogen as a fuel while virtually every other automaker has focused on compressed gaseous hydrogen. BMW has also built a run of 100 7-series sedans (above) that are actually dual fueled with the ability to run on either hydrogen or gasoline. Mazda, as it so often does, has followed a different path, choosing to use it's Wankel rotary engines as the basis for its hydrogen ICE work. The Wankel is better suited to running on hydrogen for a number of reasons having to do with the lack of valves that can create hot-spots for spontaneous combustion and the ability to use ceramic seals to avoid lubrication issues. We'll tackle those issues in another article.

There are some downsides to using hydrogen in ICEs. While hydrogen burning in oxygen yields nothing but water, air is only 20 percent oxygen. Most of the rest is nitrogen. Burning hydrogen in air produces trace amounts of nitrogen oxides (a tiny fraction of what is produced when burning gasoline or diesel). The other problem is power output. While hydrogen has higher mass energy density than gasoline (143MJ/kg vs. 46.4) its volumetric density tends to be very low. As a result, while gasoline has an energy density of 34.2 MJ/L, liquid hydrogen is only 10.1 MJ/L and compressed gaseous hydrogen (700 BAR) is only 5.6 MJ/L. That means ICEs tend to produce a lot less power on hydrogen than they do on gas. Ford combated this on its hydrogen V10 engine by supercharging it, making up some of the deficit.
On to the H2 fuel cell
The preferred approach to using hydrogen long term is the fuel cell. Fuel cells use a process that is essentially the reverse of electrolysis to combine hydrogen and oxygen in the presence of a catalyst to generate electricity. The only by-product of the process is water. Fuel cells are much more efficient than ICEs often topping 70 percent. The main problem with fuel cells is the cost. Until now, fuel cells have been largely hand made one at a time which greatly increases the cost of manufacturing. Now that the basic technology premise of fuel cells has been proven out, automakers are working to design fuel cell stacks that integrate ancillary systems such as cooling, water drainage and fuel delivery. These units, such as GM's latest fifth generation stack, are designed to be mass produced on automated equipment at much lower cost.
The other cost factor for fuel cells is the catalyst. The plates that make up the working part of a fuel cell stack are coated with platinum, which is of course very expensive. Most automakers are reluctant to give details of the internals of their stacks but GM recently revealed that its fourth generation fuel cell stack used in the Chevy Equinox for Project Driveway contained 80 grams of platinum. Its next-generation stack contains only 30 grams and the upcoming iteration is expected to need less than 10 grams, putting it on a par with catalytic converters.

Besides cost, the other primary issue with fuel cells is durability. Early stack designs had short lifespans caused in part by "poisoning" of the catalyst from impurities in the hydrogen and air supplies. Newer designs have overcome some of this and made the plates more resistant to reacting with those impurities. Because water is the by-product of the reaction, drainage is critical, and early stack designs had issues with cold weather operation. Newer designs have addressed many of these problems and the latest stacks can now start and operate at temperatures down to -30 F. GM's Project Driveway fuel cells are now approaching 80,000 miles of durability and could go much higher before the program ends.
Hydrogen continues to hold promise as a future transportation fuel, especially if it can be produced from renewable sources. However, before either hydrogen ICEs or H2 fuel cells can make any significant in-roads, a publicly-accessible distribution network needs to be in place – and that is happening at an exceedingly slow pace.
Thanks to AutoblogGreen reader ShaunneyCakes for this question! If you have your a topic you'd like us to cover in a future Greenlings column, leave a comment on this post or send us a note.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
wincros 12:28PM (8/20/2009)
Interesting and informative. Thanks.
Reply
Serge 12:48PM (8/20/2009)
Good overview, Sam.
1. An additional point needs to be made about storage. Due to poor volumetric density of hydrogen on board storage requires either compressing the gas to super-high pressures (up to 10K psi) or chilling it to super-low temperatures (to store as liquid). Both approaches are technologically challenging (requiring complex and expensive systems) and come with a number of restrictions.
2. "Hydrogen continues to hold promise as a future transportation fuel, especially if it can be produced from renewable sources."
As you correctly noted in the opening paragraph, hydrogen is really an energy carrier, not "fuel" in the traditional sense. With that said, the question is not so much "if it can be produced from renewable [energy] sources" (the answer is yes), but "can it be produced in a cost-effective (and competitive with other approaches) manner." Others (including a physicist who earned a Nobel Prize) answered that question better than me http://www.grist.org/article/hydrogen-car-r.i.p.-secretary-chu-agrees-with-climate-progress-and-slashes-/
Reply
UberSil 3:53PM (8/21/2009)
Actually any fuel is an energy carrier. Since energy can neither be created or destroyed.
Cwhite 1:08PM (8/20/2009)
A great comparison, Sam. Thanks!
Establishing hydrogen quality is an important factor in durability. It's easier to build a fuel cell membrane (or combustion engine) that lasts when you know what to expect in the fuel...just as the engines in the cars we drive today are built to withstand the impurities in gasoline and diesel.
Reply
jjpro 1:23PM (8/20/2009)
The fuel cell has come a long way in such a short time. Imagine where it is headed. Thoroughly enjoyed the article.
Reply
bgay82 6:06PM (8/20/2009)
I cant agree with you about fuel cells coming a long way in a short amount of time. In 1961 the space program used fuel cells to generate electricity in their space capsules They also used the water (as a byproduct) to drink. So i cant say after 50 years this is a new technology..
jjpro 6:25PM (8/20/2009)
I should have specified "fuel cells for transportation", PEM fuel cells in specific.
polo 10:08PM (8/24/2009)
The fuel cell is headed nowhere. It doesn't exist outside a few random prototypes and grant ponies. There are no hydrogen cars you can buy ANYWHERE. They are a gimmick. And even if they did exist they could not survive on a free market where consumers choose. Assuming they were able to bring down the price of hydrogen cars by a factor of 10, who would choose hydrogen over a regular car (same maintenance costs, at least $5 a gallon, few filling stations)? NOBODY. At least with an EV you get significant savings in maintenace costs and electricity is at least 50% cheaper than gas at today's rates. The only draw back is range but that will be a non-issue in 5 to 7 years (and I'd be shocked if a fuel cell car under $200K became available by then). When EVs average at least 250 miles a charge fuel cells will be wiped out the market simply by the fact it takes 3xs the energy to drive fuel cell as it does an EV. Who would willing triple their transportation costs?? NOBODY.
Chris 1:34PM (8/20/2009)
They can't start using fuel cell cars outside of a few test markets since there isn't a hydrogen infrastructure yet. Has there been any progress in making small, cheap hydrogen refueling kits that could be installed in the home? Considering that most people end up going home everyday, I don't see it being that difficult for them to be able to refuel overnight like an electric car would. It would be pretty safe since the rig would only producing "fuel" when it's plugged into the car. Obviously it wouldn't help if you are driving around and run out of power, but its pretty rare for most people to use an entire tank of gas in a single day. (Obviously there would be times when someone needs to make a long trip, but those are fairly infrequent.)
Reply
Serge 2:20PM (8/20/2009)
Chris, you might as well go with an EV. You can already buy one and more affordable models are coming soon. You charge an EV right at home (no special stations required). For long trips, electric charging stations in California are going up faster than hydrogen ones (they cost much less), plus you have a lot of existing infrastructure, like RV parks. Many municipalities are looking into plans to roll out citywide charging networks and it's a matter of time before they start showing up on Interstate rest stops.
bgay82 6:07PM (8/20/2009)
Hi Chris, thats what i've been thinking. Since natural gas is one of the ways to manufacture hydrogen and alot of homes have it already how hard is it to build a kit to manufacture h2 i the home.
Cwhite 12:31PM (8/21/2009)
The short answer is yes. Because hydrogen can be made at the point of dispensing (the station), home fueling is possible. A small reformer can use natural gas to make electricity for your home, hot water from your home and fuel for the vehicle. Or, you can electrolyze water to make hydrogen from solar or wind. In the farther future, you may be able to make H2 at home from waste. A cool labratory project at a univeristy in PA is making hydrogen from grape pressings (the mess left over after squeezing out the grape juice.)
One of the benefits of hydrogen is the ability to make fuel from local resources at dispenser, whether that is at a station, at a business or school, or at a retail station. Visit http://www.cafcp.org/progress/stations
Chris at CaFCP
Chris M 5:49PM (8/23/2009)
Honda designed what they called a "Home fuel station" that would take natural gas and reform it with steam to produce H2 fuel, with the waste heat going to help provide hot water. The cost was $50,000, which is waaay outside the budget of most homeowners, but then, most homeowners can't afford a half million dollar H2FC car, either.
Makes the Phil natural gas compressor for CNG vehicles look like a bargain in comparison, at about 1/10 the price.
motorcafe 3:37PM (8/20/2009)
i dont believe that hydrogen can be the future of the transportation. in both case need to be keeped in liquid state for have enough energy density and for do that need to waste other energy. why nobody talk anymore about the fuel cell of methanol (or ethanol) direct? seems to me one good alternative to both. ok is a little less efficient than a hidrogen fuel cell but strongly more efficient than a thermical engine alimented with hidrogen and produce a risible pollution. methanol can be produced with a lot of system and can be refuelled with ermetic cartridge for fix the tocicity trouble. can be produced in 1000 manner and is not expansive to build.
Reply
Tim 2:05PM (8/20/2009)
"Over the past decade, most of the world's major automakers have expended a lot research dollars and engineering resources on developing vehicles that burn hydrogen"... AND TAX DOLLARS!
H2 IS ABOUT STEALING YOUR TAX DOLLARS... PERIOD!
$&*#@ IDOTS!!!!!
Reply
Tim 2:11PM (8/20/2009)
(I make spelling errors when I type fast and angry)
Why do we even talk about H2 here?
IT'S NOT GREEN!!!!!! (unless we talking about redistributed taxpayer money)
Is "Green" the NEW "Red"? As in... the "GREEN" army complete with hammer & sickle.
(damn, this H2 crap makes me angry. then again so does theft via forced charity)
Reality Hurts 2:38PM (8/20/2009)
LOL... Tim, you do realize that Hydrogen can be produced through renewable resources, it may not be now, but it can. You can stick with your 75 mile EV that gets 15 miles in 10 degree weather. The future will be made of both EV's and Hydrogen despite what anti-government idiots like you may claim.
Keep posting though Tim, you are always good for a chunkle in the middle of the work day.
meme 3:59PM (8/20/2009)
"You can stick with your 75 mile EV that gets 15 miles in 10 degree weather"
And you can stick with your straw men.
Dave 6:05PM (8/20/2009)
"And you can stick with your straw men."
You clearly have no idea what a straw man argument is.
meme 6:18PM (8/20/2009)
"You clearly have no idea what a straw man argument is."
A straw man argument is an argument against a position your opponent isn't taking. For example, if the EV proponents on this thread were arguing for 75 mile EVs where the range goes down to 15 miles in bad weather, that wouldn't be a straw man. The EV proponents aren't, and RH *knows* they aren't, but he made the argument anyway
He can keep his straw men.