Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

View Readers Comments about Fuel Cells

There is nothing simple about fuel cells.

Oh, the concept is simple. A fuel cell is a battery that you can refuel. Period. End of story. They make electric current. They should have been called Fuel Batteries.

Fuel cells are batteries that can be fueled by gasoline, methane, ethanol, or hydrogen, to name some. Charge producing electrons are chemically extracted from the fuel by the elements inside the fuel cell, which from an electro-chemical standpoint are identical to the elements inside the common battery, a continuous electric current, with energy derived from this fuel input. They last anywhere from one to six years before they wear out or need an overhaul.

They come in all sizes, and will be used for everything from micro-appliances to tools and appliances, to home power units, to car power units, to building power units, to utility power plants. Fuel cells will power ships at sea and colonies in space.

Fuel cells today are expensive to manufacture and depend on ongoing technological innovations to ensure their eventual economic viability. For example, unless you want to run a fuel cell on hydrogen fuel, you will have to process your fuel through a “reformer.” This device reformulates non-hydrogen fuels such as gasoline, methane, etc., to turn them into hydrogen.

This problem is being overcome but progress is slow. Reformers are still very expensive. Some of the higher temperature fuel cells can actually directly process non-hydrogen fuels, methane, gasoline and ethanol, without using the reformer. This can degrade and destroy lower temperature fuel cells, as well as high-temperature fuel cells using earlier technologies. And high temperature fuel cells that can directly process non-hydrogen fuels are still expensive, too. Nothing simple here.

None-the-less, if technology stocks are overvalued, some fuel cell companies may be undervalued. Imagine when the next wave of consumer electronics hits. The next wave of portables will need something easier than batteries. Think of fuel cells vs. batteries the way you might think of digital stills vs. film stills. No reloading. No film container. Just add energy. The fuel cell subsystem lasts for the same lifetime as the whole unit. In the future, the fuel-cell powered VR headset or heads-up-display sunglasses will recharge by plugging a small fuel ampoule into a port on the unit. A pill of ethanol, for example. Standard size ampoules for all kinds. That’s pretty easy and pretty cheap electric power maintenance. Beats batteries. Gets my vote.

Cars using fuel cells still take a long time to start their engines, and since most car drivers take a quick start for granted, this is a problem. Energy density is also still a factor limiting automotive fuel cells, since a moderate size car on acceleration needs at least 100KW per kilogram. Fuel cells for cars that are economical to produce today are only getting about half that efficiency.

Nissan Fuel Cell Car

One of the biggest remaining questions with car fuel cells is what fuel will they use? The chief advantages of methanol is that it is for all practical purposes limitless in supply, insofar as methanol can be derived from natural gas, whose proven reserves worldwide are easily quintuple that of oil. Also advantageous is that methanol is distributed in liquid form, which means that methanol can use the existing distribution network in place for gasoline. Even underground tanks that held gasoline can be easily converted to hold methane.

Hindenburg Airship

Hydrogen as a fuel is championed because, theoretically, it can be derived from totally renewable sources, such as solar energy. Hydrogen, moreover, creates absolutely no air pollution when it burns. Finally, hydrogen fuel is the optimal fuel to use in a fuel cell since it will cause the slowest degradation of the elements of the fuel cell. The disadvantages of hydrogen are that it must be transported and stored under extreme pressure, up to 2,000 PSI. Two somewhat related consequences of this are an entire new distribution and storage infrastructure must be built, an undertaking of massive, nearly incalculable expense, and since hydrogen is highly flammable, an explosive hazard is created and an infrastructure must be created to counter and prepare against.

In reality fuel cell powered cars will eventually be built using all fuels. Some will be hybrids using combustion engines. Some will use fuel cells that tolerate various fuels. Some will use hydrogen generated and stored by the personal home fuel cell power units of the car owners. What fuel will prevail for cars using fuel cells? Don’t bet against gasoline. Don’t be surprised if several fuels occupy niches in the car market, either.

For homes and buildings fuel cells are already here. Check out the General Electric “HomeGen 7000″ fuel cell home powerplant (www.gepower.com/microgen/homegen_prod_desc.html). About the size of a refrigerator, less expensive per month than your utility bill, runs on propane! For buildings and for utilities, fuel cell powerplants are beginning to make economic sense. The potential for home and commercial building power systems using fuel cells, particularly in the United States as utility deregulation rolls out through the states, is probably much higher in the short run than that for automobiles. The heat produced by fuel cells, which is a liability in an automobile, is used for thermal co-generation in home power systems and is an asset. In the automotive market fuel cells are in competition with smart new hybrid vehicles and combustion engines that are themselves undergoing massive increases in efficiencies. By contrast in the utilities market fuel cells are competing with an under powered energy infrastructure and imminent percentage energy price increases in the triple-digits.

Fuel cells have been around a long time, over 100 years, but the materials cost along with the complex manufacturing process has limited development. New concerns about air quality as well as the availability of petroleum-based fuels has spurred their recent development. Their adoption around the world is inevitable, because of the convenience and independence they will give power consumers, as well as their ecological benefits, and, at last, their technological and economic viability. But they will not proliferate overnight, and where they show up first will surprise a lot of people.

It would be ironic if the first place we see fuel cells
widely used is to power consumer electronic portables and micro-devices, where their convenience outweighs any cost considerations, and the global energy and ecological impact of their adoption is negligible.

The next place fuel cells are likely to be widely adopted will not be in cars, but in home power systems. The ongoing cost of fuel and maintenance for a home power unit that uses a fuel cell is about the same as the average utility bill. This is going to change dramatically in the wake of utility deregulation and home power units using fuel cells will become a compelling investment overnight. Don’t forget their purchase may be subsidized for the homeowner or commercial building owner in the form of tax incentives, to boot.

Further irony might be found in the likely fact that the last place we’ll see widespread adoption of fuel cells will be onboard automobiles, since it is regarding tomorrow’s cars that we’ve all heard about fuel cells. Or in the likely fact that when and if these fuel cell powered (and hybridized with an internal combustion engine) electric autos do hit the road, most of them will run on ordinary gasoline.

EMAIL TO THE EDITOR

—–Original Message—–

From: ALAN DIKA

Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:13 AM

To: ed@ecoworld.com

Subject: fuel cells

Emailer: How much energy does it take to make a fuel cell?

Editor: We don’t know, but what you refer to is embodied energy, i.e., the total BTU’s (or equivalents) necessary to manufacture a fuel cell. “Renewable” energy, or any type of energy, cannot be evaluated solely on the energy output vs. energy input ratio during its useful life. The ultimate positive relationship between energy input and energy output with an energy device must take into account not only net BTU’s produced during the device’s useful life, but also the quantity of BTU’s expended to make the device. Also remember that a fuel cell doesn’t “make” anything, it is a conversion device; in the case of a fuel cell, hydrogen is converted to electricity.

Emailer: How much energy does it take to reform products to become useable hydrogen?

Editor’s reply: Again you are talking about devices that have some amount of “embodied” energy, which must be included in the efficiency calculation of any energy conversion or energy generating device. Fuel cells depend on hydrogen, which either must be reformed (refined) from fossil fuels, or extracted from water using electricity.

Emailer: Do we really reduce pollution, or do we move the source from the tail pipe to the coal burning power plant and natural gas burning manufacturing facility?

Editor’s reply: In the case of electric motor vehicles that use hydrogen fuel cells (or batteries or hybrids that use fossil fuel driven electric generators, for that matter), they are only moving the source of the pollution, not necessarily reducing pollution. Even vehicles powered solely by on-board photovoltaic cells to produce electricity would only be moving the source of their pollution, since photovoltaics must themselves be manufactured, and hence have embodied energy that requires its own generation. The idea of totally pollution-free energy is a myth.

Emailer: I’m all for fuel cells if they ultimately do less harm to the environment than the alternatives. I just haven’t heard any arguments about the issue, so I’m hoping you can point me to a source.

Editor’s reply: It is our goal with EcoWorld is to post credible quantitative information as to the ultimate efficiency of energy alternatives. We are hopeful you might point us to a source.

Emailer: It really seems that reducing consumption is the best way to save our planet- unlikely as that might be.

Editor’s reply: EcoWorld would posit that improving efficiency, via whatever method of energy production, in a pollution-free process is enough. Improving efficiency is better than reducing consumption, and equally feasible, we would say.

To visit ESRI you fly into Ontario International Airport, in the heart of Southern California’s great “Inland Empire,” that endless stretch of huge cities that follow the Santa Monica Freeway into the desert. Once on the ground, I rented a Geo Metro and navigated East on the 10 Freeway, driving cautiously amidst the SUVs and 18 wheelers that thundered down the road over the great desert turned oasis now called greater Los Angeles.

Driving from Ontario, Redlands is the biggest town before the desert really begins to open up. The downtown lies just south of Interstate 10 and is framed by red mountains that have steep rock strewn faces and peaks that rise to startling heights. Art Deco, Adobe, Victorian, and southwestern heritage architectural styles were all apparent in the buildings of the old downtown. ESRI is located on an extensive campus a couple of miles west of downtown Redlands. ESRI, or “Environmental Systems Research Institute,” is the world’s leading manufacturer of mapping software. They manufacture Global Information Systems software used by virtually every major corporation and government organization worldwide.

The ability to store map data on a computer has increased productivity in many industries including transportation, communications, energy and resource extraction. The ability to overlay and edit map data quickly has also revolutionized our potential knowledge of the world’s ecosystems. ESRI has become a $340 million company (ref. www.esri.com) with 2,600 employees worldwide (1,600 of them in Redlands), by marketing its software to the above named industries, among others. But behind the scenes ESRI quietly gives away its software to organizations that are working to preserve and restore species and ecosystems.

Jack and Laura Dangermond founded ESRI in 1969, initially building a consulting business. But their own software for geographic database management continued to develop until eventually, in 1981 they launched the ARC Info software, followed by the ARC View IMS software. This advanced software allows information from any map projection to be converted to a common spherical standard. This means, very simply stated, that any scanned map image can now be scaled and projected to overlay with any other scanned map image.

The logical extension of this sort of software was the topic of an article by Adam Gopnik in a fall 2000 issue of the New Yorker Magazine called “Street Furniture.” Apparently the City of New York has commissioned, and largely completed, “The Map,” a GIS database that has collected every bit of map detail for the entire city, down to some of the street furniture. This level of detail can be integrated with other data sets at greater scales, yielding marketing data along with information useful for construction, resource extraction, and restoration.

Charles Convis, ESRI’s Coordinator for the Conservation program, has worked with thousands of conservation groups around the world, providing them with free GIS software and support. Convis is well suited to the task of identifying and supplying conservation groups with computer services; before joining ESRI he spent ten years traveling internationally, mostly in Africa, working through various agencies to give computers and computer skills to local conservation groups. In Botswana, in late ’86, the government was not able to identify poachers who were repeat offenders, which crippled their attempts to effectively stop the poaching. Convis helped the Kalahari Conservation Society with anti-poaching databases, in the Okavango Delta area. How’s that for adventures in programming?

Using databases in the ’80s and ’90s, especially after the spread of cheap and powerful PCs, was a boon to efforts to preserve the environment and species. Along with helping enforcement efforts, they were invaluable in providing a means to track and manage populations of wildlife and domestic stock.

The new tool that has only made it to PCs in the last few years is GIS. Having not just a database engine, but a spatial database engine is of obvious use to environmentalists, who are concerned with the geographic dynamics of ecosystems. GIS software, invariably manufactured by ESRI, is now integral to the mapping and cataloging of environmental data and is heavily used by the United Nations, the World Resources Institute, the World Bank, the World Wildlife Fund, U.S. Geological Survey, the EPA, CIA, FAO, EcoWorld and the list goes on.

Smaller organizations also use GIS software from ESRI, such as the Arizona based Wildlands Project, which researches and maps the most feasible wildlife corridors. Until GIS software came along, it was very hard to integrate preservation efforts. Since only a finite amount of land can be preserved each year, having GIS software has made land acquisition
for wildlife corridors much better targeted. In the far reaches of Namibia, Laurie Marker and her small organization, Cheetah Conservation Fund, struggle to preserve habitat for the cheetah, using GIS software to track the movement patterns of the big cats. The Society for Ecological Restoration, lead by Steve Gatewood, supports restoration efforts in over 2,000 locations around the world. Again, this work is greatly assisted through the use of GIS software. But surprising challenges still remain.

“We still don’t have a good baseline data,” said Convis, “we have global scale biome maps with margins for error of hundreds of miles.” While some biomes do not have clearly defined borders, such as those between the Sahara desert and the Sahel, others are fairly precise, such as in areas where the elevation changes rapidly from mile to mile. A distinct mountain ecosystem can fully emerge in one or two horizontal miles, meaning that biome maps that scale to the hundreds of miles have no value in managing ecosystems. “Global warming may include subtle changes such as a climate zone moving a few miles up a mountainside, but in the process extinguishing whole ecosystems.”

Not only are biomes still poorly charted, but there still are diverse classification systems. “There are international classification systems for plant and animal taxonomy, but there aren’t any single international standards yet for taxonomic databases,” said Convis. Using GIS to overlay the various classification systems could greatly assist efforts towards a single international standard. As you can see, if the GIS database of the world’s ecosystems was The Map of NYC, we’d still be trying to figure out when a street becomes an avenue, and whether or not a big statue should be called street furniture or have its own category. Long ways to go, folks.

Both Charles Convis, and President Jack Dangermond, who I’d met earlier in the day, seemed nonchalant about their company’s premier role both in GIS software and their laudable policy of giving the software away to people who are working for environmental and conservation organizations. As Charles said about ESRI’s conservation philanthropy, “Our environmental
services group does billable work too. But we often give away software because we feel it’s the right thing to do.”

Nonprofit groups often have a difficult time getting access to state-of-the-art computer tools. Having GIS software allows nonprofit groups to also compile spatial geographic data for use in policy analysis and dialogue, and allows non-profits to join forces and pool their information using another great force for democracy, the internet. ESRI has sponsored the Geography Network, where hundreds of participants, including the World Wildlife Fund and the National Geographic have contributed online map data. This “spatially enabled html” said Convis, “matches GIS tools with the capability of the internet to reach people worldwide.”

There is a lot more to report on ESRI, but suffice it to say we are lucky that the programmers who invented and sell the global standard for geographic information software also decided to give it away when in support of conservation efforts.

After a pleasant afternoon as a guest at ESRI, I got back into my Geo Metro and drove up Interstate 10 back towards Ontario, through the sprawling watered desert cities of the Inland Empire. To the distant west, the urban center of Los Angeles pulsed with energy that poured across the roiling November skies and washed away into the Mojave Desert. The energy gleamed over the western horizon and its luminosity competed with, then overpowered the setting sun. I got onto an absolutely full Southwest flight and blew off into the night.

Toyota Prius

Much excitement has been generated by the latest generation of Hybrid cars. The Toyota Prius, for example, is a hybrid four-seater that gets 50 MPG and costs only $20,450. We’ve been waiting for hybrids for a long time, and the Prius, with that kind of cost-performance, is a car to be taken seriously. The green generation of automobiles has arrived, and within 20 years, if not much sooner, cars that aren’t green will be collector’s items.

Hybrids, which use a combination of combustion and electric power plants, seem to be the most viable green cars available today. They emit almost no pollution, have high mileage, and use proven, already scaled technologies. In the near future, green cars are expected to be available using fuel cell technology, and over the next twenty years a host of other emerging technologies will compete to create the ultimate green car through advanced hydrogen and methane combustion engines, new hybrid combinations, flywheel systems, etc.

But there is another green car already here, although virtually unheard of in the United States. That car is the Lupo, a small four passenger car produced by Volkswagon that uses a high-technology ultra-clean burning diesel engine and gets 90 MPG. This car was launched throughout Europe in the fall of 1998. Volkswagen pioneered green diesel engines beginning in the early ’90s when they introduced “direct injection” technology, in which fuel and air are pumped directly into cylinders. This innovation decreased fuel consumption of the already fuel-efficient diesels by 15%. Volkswagen engineered not only eye-opening fuel economy into their diesels, but also dramatically lowered emissions.

Volkswagon Lupo

The black soot coming from old generation diesel engines is caused mostly when excess fuel is pumped into the engine. Direct injection technology controls the air and fuel mixture to the engine, eliminating almost all smoke. Nearly all smoke and invisible pollutants that remain are captured by fitting the diesel engine with a catalyst, making Volkswagen’s engines the cleanest burning diesels in the world. The Lupo complies with all of the European Community’s auto-emissions regulations, some of which are quite strict.

Green diesels are not going to go away. The diesel powered car represents 25% of the European car market, and is expected to get to 33% of that market by 2003. With such a big market at stake, competition is fierce to make diesels even greener. Fiat has developed their own direct injection system called “common rail” that is much cheaper to manufacture. In this system the air and fuel pass down a pressurized center pipe allowing minimal distance to every valve off the main pipe. Fiat is licensing this technology to other car manufacturers even as they build it into their own diesels and work on further advances.

Volkswagen is not standing still, however. They remain the world leader in diesel technology and have announced that they expect to produce a four-seat diesel powered car that can get 190 MPG! Moreover, new filter designs introduced at the Frankfurt Motor Show earlier this year will reduce particle emissions by another 60%, putting diesel engine vehicles within striking distance of complying with ultra-low emissions standards.
With so much good press on diesels, why aren’t they available in the U.S.? Finding U.S. press coverage of the Lupo is difficult because there isn’t much press coverage, period. A skeptical article in USA today did lend some insight into the difficulties Lupo might encounter with a launch in the U.S. According to USA Today Columnist James R. Healey, “the lasting impressions are a beastly backache from the cheap seats and maddening frustration from the mechanical compromises necessary to achieve the car’s remarkable fuel economy.” To be fair, Healey acknowledged that he tested a pre-production model and things may have improved.

If the Lupo isn’t a car suited for the American road or the American consumer, that doesn’t mean green diesels aren’t. Their practicality is compelling. They use diesel fuel, which costs less and is cheaper to produce. Diesel is a fuel that requires less investment at the refining end than gasoline, less additives, and hence a fuel with less earth-impact to produce. Diesel power plants are simpler than gasoline power plants and require less maintenance. Has anyone analyzed the maintenance challenges the new hybrid engines may present as these cars age? Compare this to diesel engines, which run for years with almost no maintenance. And mileage at nearly 100 MPG, with the prospect of mileage at twice that level, is an impressive factor even in America, the land of cheap fossil fuel.

Diesels will compete for market share as the four billion (or more) inhabitants of the developing world start to buy more cars. American and Japanese auto-makers who are expecting to introduce hybrids into the Chinese market, for example, should be prepared to answer, point for point, the pros and cons of hybrid cars vs. diesel cars. Volkswagen and partner Bosch have already made arrangements with Chinese authorities to begin manufacturing the Lupo in Shanghai.

Modern diesel engines have come of age. It was the diesel powered Lupo, not a hybrid car, that won the “100 Kilometers on 3 Litres of Fuel” competition. That a diesel was the first vehicle (clean burning to boot) to fulfill this challenge from European environmentalists, and not a hybrid, says it all.

EMAIL TO THE EDITOR

—–Original Message—–

From: grecokraut@anon[mailto:grecokraut@anon]

Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 8:05 AM

To: ed@ecoworld.com

Subject: 2004 VW Passat Diesel?

Ecoworld,

Is it true that VW will reintroduce a Passat with a diesel engine in 2004?

If so, do you know which engine and what level of performance can be expected?

In my opinion, the diesel would be a more logical transition to hydrogen than
the hybrids for a number of reasons. What do you think about this?

Andrew Bavas

–
NOTHING IS MORE DESTRUCTIVE OF
LIFE ON EARTH THAN
THE TOTALLY ANTHROPOCENTRIC
ARROGANCE OF MAN.

—–Original Message—–

From: Justin Kemp [mailto:anon@anon.com]

Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:32 PM

To: ed@ecoworld.com

Subject: Diesels in the USA

I have an old mercedes diesel car… its an ’84 and has 579K mi on it..
runs like new. gets 40mpg.
The reason (partly) why diesels are much less common in the US is
environmental laws. You see the US regulates emmissions by the
particulate emmission… how many particles are emmited per capita of
air mass. The sad truth is that diesels emit “more” than gas cars do.
What you have to look at is -what- is emmited. A diesel emits mostly
water (harmless) and carbon (basic building block of life.. more
harmless) The invisable toxins from a gas engine are far more harmful
than diesel.

Our country has been banboozled by “environmentalist” lobbies that dont
really understand the laws theyre fighting for.

VW is the perdominant proveyor of diesel cars in the us.. Mercedes
Benz has a diesel scheduled for release in the US next year.. But it
will cost 50K +

diesel enthusiest

Justin Kemp

—–Original Message—–

From: Bob Hemmerlin

Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 7:39 PM

To: ed@ecoworld.com

Subject: VW Lupo TDI

Briefly: My name is Bob Hemmerlin, I live near Seattle, Washington. I am frustrated that the US promotes huge gas guzzling cars and is fighting for foriegn oil. I would love to own a Lupo TDI, but there are loopholes to jump thru. I imported a Velorex 435, an 800 pound 350cc car from Czech Republic. Because it was over 30 years old, there was no problem and it is now licensed and I drive it almost daily. It is however, not a “safe or clean” car . The engine is 2 stroke. I find it interesting that the Velorex can be brought in without a blink, but to bring in a VW Lupo TDI presents some problems. Can you direct me to someone; a conversion company….a loophole company…anyone who can help import a Lupo? Thanks, Bob
EDITOR’S REPLY

Bob,

It’s interesting how many emails we get from people in the U.S. who want a car like the Lupo. Why aren’t there more non-polluting, ultra high mileage diesel cars available in the U.S.? What about a diesel hybrid; a car with a diesel powered generator running in-wheel electric motors, that would require no transmission? What about a diesel hybrid with a flywheel peaking system? Fuel cell technology seems to be getting all the attention in the U.S., when clean burning high tech diesels could cut U.S. oil consumption just as well, especially considering the hydrogen for fuel cells has to come from somewhere. We are keeping our eyes open and hope to find more stories of innovation involving diesels in the U.S.

Ed Ring

Editor

EcoWorld