March 17, 2005
This morning, I happened upon two articles regarding the use of fuel cells which got me thinking about the topic.
The first was actually this Dick Morris article regarding the leadership shown by the Governator. Although the focus of the article is on Arnold's leadership, I was impressed by the California Governor's recognition that we need to get away from oil and the actions he has proposed to facilitate that end:
Start with the War on Terror. While President Bush hunts the terrorists down and pressures nation-states to give up their sponsorship of terror gangs, Schwarzenegger is working to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism once and for all — by ending our dependence on foreign oil and stopping the worldwide economic and climatic distortions that global oil usage causes. He's doing it by providing aggressive state leadership to open the way for hydrogen fuel cell cars. While President Bush speaks of the advent of these vehicles in the indefinite future, Gov. Schwarzenegger is bringing them to the here and now by converting gas stations along California's interstate highways to provide hydrogen fuel as well as gasoline. With financing projected to come one-third each from federal, state and private sources, California will offer hydrogen fuel every few miles in urban areas and at least every 20 miles along the highway system by 2010. Eventually, he and the leaders of Washington, Oregon, Baja California and British Columbia will work together to create a "hydrogen highway" that will run from B.C. (British Columbia) to B.C. (Baja California). The Schwarzenegger plan calls for state-subsidized production of hydrogen and for tax incentives for those who purchase hydrogen cars. Replacing gasoline engines with hydrogen-fuel cells would eliminate two-thirds of America's need for oil — a demand that we could meet entirely with domestically produced oil. Since California accounts for 20 percent of U.S. new-car purchases, the tail will wag the dog and a national hydrogen grid will become almost inevitable.The second article concerns a problems with a hydrogen fuel-cell motorcycle developed in Great Britain. It seems the problem is not a technological hurdle but rather one of user expectation:
Environmentally minded British motorcycle engineers have produced a zero-emission bike that ticks all the right boxes except one - it's too quiet. So quiet in fact that its designers are looking to introduce artificial vroom to keep potential customers happy. Powered by a high pressure hydrogen fuel cell, the Emissions Neutral Vehicle (ENV) produces the equivalent noise of a personal computer fan belt. Not only is that distinctly wimpish in the eyes of many bikers, it could also be dangerous. Makers Intelligent Energy are looking at ways to produce an artificial engine noise that will alert people to its presence, making sure the machine is not silent and deadly. "We will consider that," said Nick Talbot, the project leader at Seymourpowell, who were hired by Intelligent Energy to design a bike to their brief. The British designed and built bike, which has no gears, can reach speeds of 50 miles per hour.I'm very intrigued by the development of this particular alternative fuel because I believe it is the best shot for the future of transportation. I am by no means an expert in the field; I'm just a spectator. Still that doesn't stop me from considering what I see as the four biggest hindrances to moving from petroleum to hydrogen fuel-cells:
1. Fuel Cell Technology.
Progress is definitely being made in developing fuel cells that are small enough, powerful enough and can be used at normal temperatures. Like any new item, the first major production line is going to be a typical 1.0 product. It often takes a rollout of a "not quite there" technology to spark the kind of investment that brings the technology to the place it need to be to succeed. (Remember how bad the first generation CD-writers were?) 2. Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen is a great fuel because it is plentiful (the most abundant element in the universe) and the emissions are harmless (water vapor). Seventy percent of the earth is covered with water and two thirds of the water is made up of hydrogen. It is obviously in our best interests to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It is not reasonable to tie our economy to a resource controlled by others plus there will probably come a day (far in the future) when oil is not as plentiful as it is now. I do understand that the estimates of oil reserves regularly increase but even if the time frame is hundreds of years, a post-oil solution will be needed at some point. The biggest issue with hydrogen is how to extract it, because extraction requires energy. If the quantity of oil is burned to extract the alternative fuel exceeds the gasoline the hydrogen is replacing, then hydrogen is much less beneficial than everyone claims. This offsets any gains in foreign oil dependence; it also deflates the highly touted environmental gains. It also makes the fuel expensive because it is inefficient. (I understand that environmentalists insist that the hydrogen will be extracted using renewable fuel sources but the market will ensure that the cheapest fuel available will be used, even if it is oil.) An inefficient energy source is not all bad. After all, electricity is very popular but its production and transmission introduce gross inefficiencies. However, its relative safety and ease of use more than compensate for those issues. It may be very possible to overcome the production inefficiencies with Hydrogen. It is much easier to reduce pollution on a single smokestack than on thousands of individual automobiles. Advances in technology may (will) provide more efficient production methods and hopefully more efficient fuel cells. (The fuel-cell already has one serious advantage in that they can utilize 40 to 60 percent of the energy in the fuel, where the internal combustion engine has a much lower efficiency - roughly 20 percent.) 3. Hydrogen Distribution
Back in the day of Henry Ford, I have no idea how they dealt with the gas station (or lack thereof) issue. It is difficult to get people to open a store to sell fuel for a product that has just been introduced. My guess is that back then they simply added fuel as a product at existing stores. In this day and age, there are already gas stations everywhere. It makes sense to simply add a new line of fuel to existing stations, in the same way that Blockbuster video introduced DVDs but continues to rent video cassettes. There definitely will be additional expenses in making a station hydrogen ready. This is what impressed me the most about Arnold's plan. He is not just considering the development of fuel-cell vehicles and tax breaks for their owners, he is also considering the distribution channel. His plan includes a financing project to help convert a reasonable number of California gas stations to hydrogen stations. There are already several hydrogen fueling stations on line in California with more in the works. (Way cool!) 4. Hydrogen Storage
Whenever someone says hydrogen, I'm immediately confronted with images of the Hindenburg. Gas is a dangerous liquid, but internal combustion engines have proven reasonably safe. The difference with hydrogen is that it is a gas, which means that it must be pressurized in a tank. A tank filled with air under pressure is already itself a potential bomb. Substituting the air for something as volatile as hydrogen is only going to increase the potential yield. The solution is engineering a tank that is difficult to rupture and locating it in a place where it is not going to be compromised in any accident. A safety valve will also be necessary to automatically cut off the flow of hydrogen should the 'gas' lines be severed. I really do not foresee any difficulties in this area since there are all technologies which have been in use for years.
I see each of these as hindrances, not as roadblocks - and every day we are getting closer to moving past them. It is already very encouraging that the British motorcycle is out there and there is already a fueling station for it, albeit just one. The future really is tomorrow.
Progress is definitely being made in developing fuel cells that are small enough, powerful enough and can be used at normal temperatures. Like any new item, the first major production line is going to be a typical 1.0 product. It often takes a rollout of a "not quite there" technology to spark the kind of investment that brings the technology to the place it need to be to succeed. (Remember how bad the first generation CD-writers were?) 2. Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen is a great fuel because it is plentiful (the most abundant element in the universe) and the emissions are harmless (water vapor). Seventy percent of the earth is covered with water and two thirds of the water is made up of hydrogen. It is obviously in our best interests to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It is not reasonable to tie our economy to a resource controlled by others plus there will probably come a day (far in the future) when oil is not as plentiful as it is now. I do understand that the estimates of oil reserves regularly increase but even if the time frame is hundreds of years, a post-oil solution will be needed at some point. The biggest issue with hydrogen is how to extract it, because extraction requires energy. If the quantity of oil is burned to extract the alternative fuel exceeds the gasoline the hydrogen is replacing, then hydrogen is much less beneficial than everyone claims. This offsets any gains in foreign oil dependence; it also deflates the highly touted environmental gains. It also makes the fuel expensive because it is inefficient. (I understand that environmentalists insist that the hydrogen will be extracted using renewable fuel sources but the market will ensure that the cheapest fuel available will be used, even if it is oil.) An inefficient energy source is not all bad. After all, electricity is very popular but its production and transmission introduce gross inefficiencies. However, its relative safety and ease of use more than compensate for those issues. It may be very possible to overcome the production inefficiencies with Hydrogen. It is much easier to reduce pollution on a single smokestack than on thousands of individual automobiles. Advances in technology may (will) provide more efficient production methods and hopefully more efficient fuel cells. (The fuel-cell already has one serious advantage in that they can utilize 40 to 60 percent of the energy in the fuel, where the internal combustion engine has a much lower efficiency - roughly 20 percent.) 3. Hydrogen Distribution
Back in the day of Henry Ford, I have no idea how they dealt with the gas station (or lack thereof) issue. It is difficult to get people to open a store to sell fuel for a product that has just been introduced. My guess is that back then they simply added fuel as a product at existing stores. In this day and age, there are already gas stations everywhere. It makes sense to simply add a new line of fuel to existing stations, in the same way that Blockbuster video introduced DVDs but continues to rent video cassettes. There definitely will be additional expenses in making a station hydrogen ready. This is what impressed me the most about Arnold's plan. He is not just considering the development of fuel-cell vehicles and tax breaks for their owners, he is also considering the distribution channel. His plan includes a financing project to help convert a reasonable number of California gas stations to hydrogen stations. There are already several hydrogen fueling stations on line in California with more in the works. (Way cool!) 4. Hydrogen Storage
Whenever someone says hydrogen, I'm immediately confronted with images of the Hindenburg. Gas is a dangerous liquid, but internal combustion engines have proven reasonably safe. The difference with hydrogen is that it is a gas, which means that it must be pressurized in a tank. A tank filled with air under pressure is already itself a potential bomb. Substituting the air for something as volatile as hydrogen is only going to increase the potential yield. The solution is engineering a tank that is difficult to rupture and locating it in a place where it is not going to be compromised in any accident. A safety valve will also be necessary to automatically cut off the flow of hydrogen should the 'gas' lines be severed. I really do not foresee any difficulties in this area since there are all technologies which have been in use for years.
