"If I was designing a space ship- I'd look into fuel cells."

Actually, you're not far off. On this blog, we are very narrowly focused on automobiles - a specific segment of the transportation sector.

Fuel cells have benefits that include great range and relatively light weight compared to batteries. Fuel cells are being tested in many other forms of transport - heavy trucks/buses, aircraft, ships, trains, warehouse gear (forklifts, etc.), as well as the well-developed stationary/mobile fuel cells that provide electric power in areas not connected to the grid.

If all these other devices will use fuel cells, the infrastructure will be built to support them. That infrastructure - and the hydrogen fuel - would then also be available for passenger automobiles.

BEVs will certainly play a role in the coming years, but most planners expect ER-EVs to dominate, and that fuel cells will eventually replace the ICE in those ER-EVs.

↓↑report

I agree that it would be awesome if fuel cells eventually replaced not just the ICE, but combustion in general (e.g. from cars to large power plants) as a way to extract usable energy from hydrocarbons. It's just the part about having to cart around hydrogen that doesn't make any sense.

For transportation applications, the fuel cell industry should focus on being able to use STP (standard temperature and pressure) liquid fuels. If you're going through the trouble of carrying around compressed gas, you might as well use CNG.

↓↑report

When it comes to industrial uses though, it's still highly debateable whether fuel cell or BEV is preferable. The trouble with fuel cells is that while they have the advantage of relatively inexpensive scalability in terms of energy capacity since you just need more/bigger/higher pressure H2 tanks, the (very high) price of a fuel cell stack scales with its power output. So if you wanted a powerful FC to drive a truck or a lift, you'd require something significantly heavier-duty and proportionally vastly more expensive than something fit for general automotive applications.

With batteries, the extra energy capacity is the expensive part, but you can drive whatever you want with it. There are already short range, heavy-duty BEV trucks in service for a variety of applications, but as far as I know, there aren't really any fuel-cell vehicles in service for those purposes; partly, it's because the infrastructure hurdle hasn't been gapped, but also because the economics don't work out. There may be a sweet spot for a FCEV that requires relatively low power and very long endurance, but it's still tricky for me to see the major virtues.

Does anyone know what the current best achieved energy density is for the entire fuel-cell system (stack + storage + fuel weight) in Wh/kg? I'm curious to see what the pace of development is, and whether it actually does make sense in some of the more cost-no-object scenarios such as aerospace.

↓↑report

"Does anyone know what the current best achieved energy density is for the entire fuel-cell system (stack + storage + fuel weight) in Wh/kg? I'm curious to see what the pace of development is, and whether it actually does make sense in some of the more cost-no-object scenarios such as aerospace."

Just off the top of my head, I'd say the Ion Tiger likely has the best power-weight ratio (could certainly be wrong).

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/04/21/video-u-s-navy-experimenting-with-fuel-cell-uav/

"The 550-Watt (0.75 horsepower) fuel cell onboard the Ion Tiger has about 4 times the efficiency of a comparable internal combustion engine and the system provides 7 times the energy in the equivalent weight of batteries. The Ion Tiger weighs approximately 37 pounds and carries a 4 to 5 pound payload."

http://www.physorg.com/news174662741.html

The benefits on large passenger and cargo ships is enormous. Large ships are currently the prime method of moving anything across the oceans - and they are also responsible for the greatest amount of sulfur pollution owing to their less-refined fuel. Using fuel cells to reduce or replace the need to burn "bunker-fuel" would save huge amounts of money for the ship industry as well as contribute more towards reducing GHGs and other pollution.

“The FCS Alsterwasser is a prime example of innovation and we are very proud of it,” says Anno Mertens, Zemships Project Manager at Proton Motor, when asked about the ZemShip, which is nearly twice as efficient as a standard diesel ship. “It proves that even today we can make use of future technology in everyday applications. Thanks to our further development of fuel cell technology, a non-polluting and virtually silent drive can now be used on a passenger ship.

http://www.proton-motor.de/zem-ship-zero-emission-ship.html

↓↑report

Turbofrog:
Personally, I see long haul trucking as one area where fuel cells can excel. Electric motors would be great for trucks with their massive low end torque, and is a space where batteries can't compete. Really the only other option for zero-carbon (I know that's going to take flack but whatever) is ICE with biofuels. Personally I think it's plausable that fuel cells could win out in that department.

Also locomotives--they're already hybrid electric, all you'd really be doing would be to get rid of the diesel gensets and replace them with fuel cells. Not exactly a radical reworking.

↓↑report

For some uses fuel cells are already beyond the cost no object stage:
http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2009/11/hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered-forklifts/

Here is some info on energy densities at the cutting edge, as it is for the military where cost is less important:
https://www.dlafuelcells.org/links/Documents/Fuel%20Cells%20and%20Hydrogen%20Pathways%20Workshop,%20June%202009/04_090624_-_Richard_Carlin_FC_H2_Keynote_Final.ppt

There is specific info on one type of fuel cell, the zinc-air here:
http://salamanderian.com/our_car/index.html
At the cell level you are talking 244wh/kg
The cost of the zinc is a lot higher than electric though.
The cost of the fuel cell unit is supposed to be far cheaper than any other type.

↓↑report

"Using fuel cells to reduce or replace the need to burn "bunker-fuel" would save huge amounts of money (...)."

Hows that now? Bunker oil is used in giant diesel engines because it is the absolute cheapest liquid energy source on the planet, and big diesels can burn it.

↓↑report

"How's that now?"

"Det Norske Veritas and Eidesvik Offshore are developing a vessel based on fuel
cell technology, which means zero emissions of NOx and halved emissions of CO2, as well as a 50 per cent cut in fuel costs. These are encouraging examples that demonstrate the technological possibilities."

-- Sylvia Brustad, Minister of Trade and Industry, Norway

http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIX/2009sep00152.html

Don't forget, that the maritime industry is participating in carbon-credits. The less carbon they emit, the more money they save.

↓↑report

"Also locomotives--they're already hybrid electric, all you'd really be doing would be to get rid of the diesel gensets and replace them with fuel cells. Not exactly a radical reworking."

Building thousands of fuel cells and associated infrastructure makes absolutely zero sense compared to just electrifying the railway. Electric locomotives last decades. Fuel cells last... not very long. Electric railways powered by hydroelectric or other non-fossil-fuel-burning power sources are non-polluting, and vastly more energy efficient than any system involving fuel cells.

↓↑report

...and by 2020 she predicts that FCVs will be in the $20,000 range.

↓↑report

That report showed several scenarios, including one in which where FCVs dominate, and one where plug-in hybrids dominate, one where improved efficiency IC engines dominate, and a "mixed bag" approach.

It is interesting to note that their FCV scenario doesn't expect significant H2FC sales until after 2020, and H2FC sales won't exceed gasser sales until after 2045. Both the high efficiency IC scenario and the Plug-in scenario predicts much faster adoption, probably due to lower costs and already existing infrastructure.

EVs were only briefly mentioned on a few charts, and of course they didn't make any predictions on how much battery costs will have dropped by 2020. The report was basically another attempt to keep the H2 hype going.

I'm betting that BEVs and PHEVs will still be cheaper than equivalent H2FCV in 2020, and even in 2050.

↓↑report

So why does GM need to sell Volts and not H2FCVs? Because the Volt will be ready for sale long before any H2FCV, and the electrical and gasoline infrastructure is already in place, but the H2 infrastructure won't be ready for decades, if ever.

Will there come a time when GM starts a heavy push to sell H2FCVs? Possibly, but not if BEV and PHEV sales become dominant and H2 infrastructure lags badly.

↓↑report

"Will there come a time when GM starts a heavy push to sell H2FCVs? Possibly, but not if BEV and PHEV sales become dominant and H2 infrastructure lags badly. "

GM doesnt want to sell BEVs or PHEVs or FCVs. None of them are profitable.

BEVs and PHEVs are incapable of replacing large ICE powered vehicles. The battery size and weight leaves no room for passengers or payload. And the battery price is astronomical. FCVs are the only option.

California is forcing manufacturers to develop ZEVs. And so are the countries who signed the Kyoto treaty.

↓↑report

Dave, I think that GM is putting a lot of time and effort into developing PHEVs as they really do expect them to be profitable, and Nissan, Renault, Ford, Mitsubishi, etc. are busy developing BEVs as they also expect them to be profitable.

BEVs and PHEVs can handle very large loads and replace large ICE powered vehicles for many applications, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f1AlrG8gVU
http://www.smithelectricvehicles.com/

↓↑report

Nearly all of the R&D on BEVs and PHEVs carries over to FCVs. (A/C motors, motor controllers, regen brakes, heat pump HVAC, electric power steering, electric power brakes)

In the short term, the Ampera and other European BEVs will be profitable because gas and diesel are taxed at obscenely high rates in the EU. But that is artificial and unsustainable.

In the long term, BEVs serve as development mules for FCVs.

↓↑report

I always thought it was the other way around.... FCVs development help BEVs.

After all, as both technology advances and gets cheaper, battery range will become sufficient for full public acceptance while FCVs will always be the slave to a fossil fuel (natural gas), slaves to a filling station infrastructure (requires profit and maintenance) and less efficient overall than pure electric.

The only safe haven for HFCs is where batteries cannot dominate, the Heavy-Duty industries like long haul trucking.

↓↑report