Polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells—also called proton exchange membrane fuel cells—deliver high power density and offer the advantages of low weight and volume, compared to other fuel cells. PEM fuel cells use a solid polymer as an electrolyte and porous carbon electrodes containing a platinum catalyst. They need only hydrogen, oxygen from the air, and water to operate and do not require corrosive fluids like some fuel cells. They are typically fueled with pure hydrogen supplied from storage tanks or on board reformers.
PEM fuel cells are the leading type of fuel cell being developed for transportation applications. Their development time table is critical for timely deployment of fuel cell vehicles to enable the major element of the hydrogen economy.
Due to their fast startup time, low sensitivity to orientation, and favorable power-to-weight ratio, PEM fuel cells would be particularly suited for use in passenger vehicles.
However the cost of these fuel cells is currently prohibitive for vehicular use. Additionally their lifetime, especially of the membranes has not been demonstrated to a satisfactory degree. The membranes, catalysts and bipolar plates in particular need significant improvement before PEMFC are economically viable for light vehicle use. One bright spot appears to be the fuel cells developed by Honda. Competitors could emulate and even improve on this technology, if it is as good as I interpret it. In addition to the fuel cell, economical hydrogen storage systems capable of storing enough hydrogen to give a range comparable to that of typical gasoline fueled cars have yet to be developed.
PEM fuel cells operate at relatively low temperatures, around 80°C (176°F). This low temperature operation allows them to start quickly (less warm-up time) and results in less wear on system components, resulting in better durability. However, it requires that a noble-metal catalyst (typically platinum) be used to separate the hydrogen's electrons and protons, adding to system cost. The platinum catalyst is also extremely sensitive to CO poisoning, making it necessary to employ an additional reactor to reduce CO in the fuel gas if the hydrogen is derived from an alcohol or hydrocarbon fuel. This also adds cost.
Some additional advantages of the cell are that it may be operated at high current densities resulting in a cell that has a fast start capability, it has a compact and light weight design, and there is no corrosive fluid spillage hazard because the only liquid present in the cell is water. Thus, a PEMFC is well suited for use in vehicles.
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
PEM fuel cells use a extremely thin solid polymer layer as a membrane (electrolyte). This membrane is sandwiched between two electrodes; the hydrogen electrode (anode) and the oxygen electrode (cathode). A very thin layer of catalyst is bonded to either side of the membrane or to the electrodes. This membrane electrode assembly (MEA) is sandwiched between separators to compose one cell. Two bipolar plates are positioned against the electrodes, one on each side of the MEA. The bipolar plates have two primary functions: transmission of electric current through the elementary cells and release of heat to the external environment. The reaction in a fuel cell produces only about 0.7 volts, so several fuel cells are connected in a series to attain a useful output. Fuel cells connected together are called a fuel cell stack. To obtain a fuel cell stack, multiple fuel cells and bipolar plates are sequentially assembled in series in a modular configuration.
The input fuel passes over the anode (and oxygen over the cathode) where it splits into ions and electrons. The electrons pass through an external circuit to serve an electric load while the ions move through the electrolyte toward the oppositely charged electrode. At the electrode, ions combine to create by-products, primarily water and carbon dioxide.
PEMFCs are capable of operation at pressures from 0.10 to 1.0 MPa (10 to 100 psig) and with suitable current collectors and supporting structure, these fuel cells may be capable of operating at pressures as high as 3000 psi.
COMPONENTS
Membrane or Electrolyte
The electrolyte is a proton conducting membrane, such as a perfluorosulphonic acid polymer, which has good proton conducting properties. This is a plastic (polymer) which is specially treated to be able to conduct positively charged ions (protons). Proton exchange membranes used in fuel cells are a specially treated material that looks a lot like plastic wrap. It allows protons to pass through it virtually unimpeded, while electrons are blocked. See membrane research below for more information.
Catalyst
All electrochemical reactions in a fuel cell consist of two separate reactions: an oxidation half-reaction at the anode and a reduction half-reaction at the cathode. Normally, the two half-reactions would occur very slowly at the low operating temperature of the PEM fuel cell. So each of the electrodes is coated on one side with a catalyst layer that speeds up the reaction of oxygen and hydrogen. The catalyst is a material which makes the reactions at the electrodes occur more rapidly, but which in itself does not participate in the reactions. The most common catalyst is platinum. Platinum is pulverized and evenly distributed around small carbon particles and applied to either the electrodes or the membrane . See catalyst research below for more information.
Electrodes
Two porous electrodes that may be impregnated with catalyst are located on either side of the electrolyte forming a cell. Within the cell, H2 at the anode provides protons and releases electrons which pass through the external circuit (the load) to reach the cathode. The cathode is the positively charged electrode. In the cathode, electrons are conducted from the external electrical circuit to the catalyst where they react with oxygen and hydrogen ions, turning into water.
Bipolar Plates
The bipolar plate is the most bulky component in the PEMFC stack (in both weight and volume) and one of the most expensive to manufacture. It not only serves as the electrical junction between serially connected cells, but also performs several other key functions in the device:
- Distributes the fuel and oxidant uniformly over the active areas of the cells.
- Facilitates water management of the membrane to keep it humidified, yet mitigate flooding.
- Acts as an impermeable barrier between the fuel and oxidant streams.
- Provides some measure of structural support for the stack.
- Removes heat from the active areas of the cells.
The side of the bipolar plates facing the membrane MEA is provided with ribs or other types of channels that allow for the distribution of the gas (hydrogen and air) and the discharge of the resultant product water.
Bipolar plates traditionally have been made of graphite because of its desirable physical properties and its resistance to corrosion in PEMFC environments. The use of metal-based bipolar plates in PEMFC stacks, as is being used by Honda, offers a number of advantages, particularly for transportation applications, including low-cost mass-production via stamping or embossing of sheet product; fabrication in very thin form (<200 μm) to reduce weight and volume in the overall stack; impermeability to fuel, oxidant and water vapor; and in general, excellent thermal conduction properties and good mechanical robustness, even as a thin stamped foil. DOE has a an ongoing program to develop metal bipolar plates. The primary challenge with metal bipolar plates is surface corrosion.
RESEARCH
All components of the PEMFC continue to be the subject of active research. Research on the membrane, catalyst and the related area of hydrogen storage are discussed below. Bipolar plates are more of a developmental program as described above. All of these areas of research are so critical, that failure to find acceptable solutions in any one area will prevent economical deployment of fuel cells in vehicles.
Catalysts
One of the most active areas of research is to develop lower cost catalysts.
Much of the research in this area is to develop means of incorporating nanoparticles of platinum or other noble metals into a porous material that is either coated on the surface of the membrane or the surface of the electrodes.
One of the approaches being taken is to uses aerogels. Aerogels are solid-state substances similar to gels but where the liquid phase is replaced with gas. Aerogels have a highly dendritic tree-like structure and rank among the world's lowest density solids. They have a remarkably high surface area and are very porous and light. Aerogel Composites is developing carbon aerogels that achieve equivalent catalytic performance at one half to one tenth the precious metal loading commonly achieved by current technology. Their platinum loaded carbon aerogel reduces the platinum requirements of hydrogen powered proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells by over 90% from recently prevailing levels.
QuantumSphere makes products such as nano-nickel/cobalt alloy nanopowder that behaves like platinum but is 80 percent cheaper. Their product has huge surface area and greater surface energy which when combined equals orders of magnitude Increase in reactive performance. Their process can produce spheres of metal that are incredibly small. For certain applications particles have been made that are only two nanometers across, consisting of just a few hundred atoms. For a cost comparison, finely divided platinum (currently $75.00/gram in bulk) costs approximately 5 times as much as QuantumSphere’s nano-Ni/Co alloy catalyst (currently $15.00/gram).
Membranes
Most current membranes cost too much, operate at too low a temperature, depend on water in the membrane to maintain conductivity, and do not perform well at low temperatures. See my post PEM Fuel Cell Membranes for more information about membranes.
The best-known and most widely used membrane material today is Nafion, a perflorosulfonic acid (PFSA) product, in the same chemical family as DuPont's Teflon, that is cast into film and supplied by DuPont. The ionic conductivity of Nafion increases with the water content. It is necessary to maintain a high enough water content in the electrolyte to avoid membrane dehydration and maintain proper ion conductivity without flooding the electrodes. To control the hydration of the membrane, some of the water, generated at the oxygen electrode is used for humidification. The balance between the water used for humidification and the water that is discarded is controlled by a water management system, usually a fan. Nafion also suffered from a short lifetime, but recent improvements may have corrected that fault. The upper and lower temperature limits of this material are not the most desirable for use in transportation applications and its strength could be improved. It is also expensive, higher conductivity could help reduce the cost by reducing the amount of material required.
Commercial hydrocarbon membranes, made by PolyFuel, alleviate most problems of Nafion, but although they have a better temperature range, the temperature range is still not as good as is desired. The University of North Carolina (UNC) and the University of Wisconsin (UW) are researching membranes with enhanced surfaces that increase the conductivity by an order of magnitude and have the temperature range that is suitable for use in vehicles. UNC is using a polymer based on the Teflon family of materials. The UW material is inexpensive, but in very early stage of development. Several other membrane materials are undergoing research, but none have advanced far enough for commercial consideration.
Researchers at Georgia Tech have discovered that adding the chemical triazole to membranes increases the conductivity and reduces the moisture dependence of membranes. In addition to improving the conductivity, replacing the water in membranes with triazole increases the operating temperature from the usual 80 C to 120 C, above the boiling point of water, thus permitting the elimination of the water management system. The higher operating temperature also permits a slightly less pure hydrogen fuel to be used because it is less sensitive to CO poisoning.
Hydrogen Storage
A significant barrier to using these fuel cells in vehicles is hydrogen storage. Most fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) powered by pure hydrogen must store the hydrogen onboard as a compressed gas in pressurized tanks. Due to the low energy density of hydrogen, it is difficult to store enough hydrogen onboard to allow vehicles to travel the same distance as gasoline-powered vehicles before refueling, typically 300-400 miles. Higher-density liquid fuels such as methanol, ethanol, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and gasoline could be used for fuel, but the vehicles must have an onboard fuel processor to reform the fuel to hydrogen. Methanol is quite easily reformed and the use of direct methanol fuel cells is favored by some, because methanol is claimed to be easier to produce and distribute than hydrogen. This use of a reformer increases costs and maintenance requirements. The reformer also releases carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas), though much less than that emitted from current gasoline-powered engines.
Honda has now developed a new approach to expanding storage capacity, a newly developed hydrogen absorption material in the tank doubles capacity to 5 kg of hydrogen at 5000 PSI, extending cruising range to 350 miles, equivalent to that of a gasoline-engine car. The high pressure is regarded as a disadvantage by some, but it can be argued that the hydrogen has to be stored at highpressures in the fueling facility.
My earlier post Hydrogen Storage Systems has more information on the various types of hydrogen storage systems.
MANUFACTURERS
PEMFCs are being supplied as commercial products in specialty markets such as forklifts and uninteruptable power supplies. Because of their quiet operation and lack of any polluting emissions they are, unlike ICE engines, suitable for both indoor and outdoor operation.
The following is a list (in alphabetical order) of some of the companies that are making or developing PEMFCs and a brief synopsis of the companies status and products.
Ballard Power Systems, Vancover, BC Canada is recognized as the world leader in the design, development and manufacture of zero-emission proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells.
It has supplied fuel cells for a fleet of 33 Mercedes-Benz Citro buses operating in Europe, Iceland and Australia which as of October 2005 had surpassed one million kilometers of service. Another project is a demonstration fleet of five Ballard-powered Ford Focus fuel cell vehicles in 'real world' conditions in British Columbia's lower mainland.
Ballard fuel cell stacks are used in the General Hydrogen Corporation's power systems for electric forklifts that are used as a drop-in replacement for lead-acid batteries to maintain the zero emission characteristics that are necessary for indoor operation.
In 2001 they introduced a 1.2 kW power module (shown above), the world's first volume-produced proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell module designed for integration into a wide variety of stationary and portable power generation applications such as UPS systems, emergency power generators and recreational and portable products.
The 1.0 kW portable fuel cell generator is the worlds first for indoor operation. It is complete with the electronics and connections that allow you to plug in your appliances or electronics directly into the system to provide power. As a UPS it automatically starts during a power outage, but unlike a battery system it keeps running as long as fuel is supplied.
Honda has developed an aromatic electrolytic membrane, which offers very high hydrogen ion permeability (ion conductivity), and a stamped metal separator, with very high electrical and thermal conductivity—a 
world’s first in an automotive application. By improving electrical generating efficiency and through efforts to reduce stack size, the new stack has double the output and is half the size of its predecessor, achieving output density that ranks among the best in the world. Additionally it enables operation in temperatures from –20°C to +95°C, and enhances durability. Production and recycling are also easier. These claims represent breakthroughs and a new generation in fuel cell performance if proven valid.
The aromatic electrolytic membrane contains main chains employing a strong, durable aromatic structure that does not soften or deform even at high temperatures. This permits a major increase in ion-conducting substrate over that of a conventional fluorine electrolytic membrane, while exhibiting lower depletion. The stack employs stamped metal separators to obtain significant advances in both electrical and thermal conductivity. Metal separators are also just half the thickness of their carbon counterparts, resulting in a fivefold increase in thermal conductivity. As a result the entire stack can be heated quickly and evenly, for significant time savings from when power generation begins to when the stack is warmed up. This allows the aromatic electrolytic membrane’s sub-zero generating capabilities to be used to their full potential. The stack length is reduced about 50% compared to previous stacks.
Hydra Fuel Cell Corporation, Beaverton, Oregon, USA is a development stage company that was planning on shipping beta its in January. Hydra is noteworthy because of a breakthrough in the cost of making its fuel cells. The company has said that in volume production a 6 kW system, consisting of six 1 kW modules would sell in the $4000 to $5000 range which would result in a cost/kW of roughly $650/kW. This cost is expected to come down to the $400/kW range in with mass production efficiencies.
It is intended to be the first modular, mass producible, fuel cell. The unit is housed in a computer-like housing or HVAC unit, which will support 10 individual fuel cells, each generating 1KW. The fuel cell is designed to be completely interchangeable and each module will be hot-swappable. Included in the package will be bi-directional, remote monitoring, command and control software and a comprehensive set of monitors which will be supervised by the software.
I would speculate that they have achieved a breakthroughs in catalyst and membrane technologies, although their published information does not comment on this area. If they have been able to raise the operating temperature above 100oC they could also eliminate the water management system and its associated costs.
Hydrogenics Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario Canada makes PEM fuel cell power modules and integrated power package for mobility and backup power applications. They make commercial power modules, DC power solutions and fuel cell power packs ranging in output from 8-65 kW configured for both mobility and stationary applications. They have a peak power efficiency of 55%. The power modules are available in 8, 12, 16, and 65 kW modularity. Standard DC voltage output options are 24, 36, 48 and 72V. They have a simplified and standardized mechanical and electrical interfaces for ease of integration.
Hydrogenics’ is actively engaged in the development, commercialization, marketing and distribution of Fuel Cell Power Packs (FCPPs) for the material handling market through material handling OEMs and direct to end-users. Hydrogenics hydrogen-fueled FCPPs are able to replace the batteries and associated recharging infrastructure used with electric forklift trucks. FCPPs consist of all the components necessary to replace a forklift battery pack including a Hydrogenics HyPM Fuel Cell Power Modules, hydrogen storage, ultra capacitors, power electronics, controls and thermal management. The design of Hydrogenics' FCPP has been proven through real world deployments at GM of Canada's Car Assembly plant and FedEx's logistics hub at the Pearson International Airport, where fuel cell powered forklifts were used in day to day operations.
A GEM 'mini-car' has been refitted with a fuel cell hybrid powertrain comprised of an integrated power package including a 5 kW fuel cell power module and a 93 Farad bank of ultracapacitors. The ultracapacitors deliver instantaneous full power for peaks in a vehicles duty cycle and have excellent regenerative properties to capture the energy lost by braking. The fuel cell provides the power for normal driving.
A 22 passenger Midibus, with a top speed of 33 kM/h was equipped with a fuel cell battery hybrid systems consisting of 12kW power module and alkaline batteries, for a total power of 25kW for electrical storage with a range of 200 kM. The bus was commissioned for operation at the beginning of July 2005.
Nuvera Fuel Cells, Cambridge, MA, USA is develops multi-fuel processing and PEM fuel cell technology. Nuvera's fuel cell stacks use metal bipolar plates, and metallic open flowfield architecture, which allows for durable, efficient operation, and low-cost, high-volume manufacturing. Power modules convert fuel to electricity. If hydrogen is the fuel, the power module consists of a fuel cell stack and the balance of plant and control system to operate it. When running on hydrocarbon or alcohol fuel, a fuel processor is also included.
The Fiat Panda Hydrogen is the first vehicle that features Nuvera’s new Andromeda II stack, which has high power density, cold start capability and extreme durability. At full power, the Fuel Cell engine on the Panda Hydrogen delivers 60 kW. 2006 will see the beginning of the demonstration stage of small Panda Hydrogen fleets,The new stack, which is capable of generating 125 kW of power (168 horsepower) and is currently available for delivery to qualified customers developing fuel cell vehicles, exceeded key product milestones for power density, cold-start capability, system efficiency, durability, and high-volume production cost. 1.6 kWe/liter power density at high pressure, 1.3 kWe/liter at low pressure. They have demonstrated repeatable freeze start from -30oC reaching 50% power in 30 seconds
They will begin accepting orders for its new 5 kW PowerFlowTM hydrogen fuel cell system in 2006. PowerFlow was designed as a complete, fully automated fuel cell system to be installed into industrial vehicles and equipment for a variety of applications, such as material handling, ground support equipment, powered access, turf care, construction, mining, forestry, and utility vehicles. It is a compact, flexible system that features proven direct water injection technology, resulting in operational simplicity, fewer balance-of-plant components than standard fuel cell systems, and high reliability
Forza, represents Nuvera's product family of large-scale hydrogen power systems. It is a scalable, base-load system that converts excess hydrogen disbursed from manufacturing facilities, such as membrane chlor-alkali plants, into DC electricity. The DC power output of a single module is 120 kW. This modular, multi-megawatt system works in parallel to the existing electric DC circuit of the facility's cell room and is 100-percent pollution-free.
Due for commercial launch in 2006, Forza is also suitable for use in diaphragm and mercury plants as well as other electrochemical facilities. In addition, Forza systems are suitable for heavy-duty applications like trains, trams, mining vehicles, and ships and wherever air quality and pollution reduction are important parameters.
Plug Power Inc. produces 0 to 5 kW GenCore® fuel cells for backup power and 2.5-5 kW GenSys® systems for off-grid prime power. The GenCore systems are fueled by gaseous hydrogen and the GenSys systems fueled by LPG or natural gas. During 2005 the company tripled the number of orders received for its GenCore® backup power product family to more than 300. Plug Power also began field-testing its next generation continuous run fuel cell system at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia and secured and executed against contracts with Honda R&D for Phase III of the Home Energy Station and more general research topics. In 2005 Plug Power commissions field testing of 10 next-generation GenSys® fuel cell systems to characterize reliability and enhance the product in preparation for its commercial introduction. It has had contracts with Englehard for development of catalysts and Pemeas GmbH (formerly Celanese Ventures) for development of membranes. It is now working with Permeas on the development of a high temperature fuel cell system.
UTC Fuel Cells Develops fuel cells and related fuel processing technologies for the transportation,
stationary and portable markets. UTC Fuel Cells is partnering with major automobile manufacturers Nissan, Hyundai and BMW, as well as with the U.S. Department of Energy, in developing fuel cell technology for cars. The PureMotion™ 120 system generates up to 120 kW of power. The modular design is intended to maximize uptime and simplify routine maintenance. They have furnished fuel cells for demonstration buses built by Thor Industries, the largest maker of midsize buses in the United States, and Irisbus, one of the largest European makers of buses. UTC Fuel Cells is currently under contract to deliver four next-generation, 120kW fuel cell power plants to California to power four hybrid buses. Its partners in this venture are ISE Research, VanHool, AC Transit and Sunline Transit.
Resources:
Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cells, EERE Fuel Cell website
Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell, Wikipedia
Technorati tags: fuel cells, PEMFC, energy, technology
I honestly think fuels cells and hydrogen are a politically expedient dead end. The technical hurtles are just too high on practically any level.
I've just discovered butanol. And I think it's the future.
Posted by: Cervus | April 06, 2006 at 02:26 AM
I'm a chemical engineer leaving IBM to go back to school for my Ph.D. I have some opportunities to do Li-ion battery research or PEM fuel cell research. Jim feels that that PEHEVs are more likely to replace ICE a majority of vehicles in the next 5 to 10 years. Plus batteries are needed for all the portable devices we use to make ourselves more productive. And the electrical demand that H production would create will be unlikely to be satisfied in the next decade. Any thoughts?
Posted by: Andrew | April 06, 2006 at 09:42 AM
Andrew:
I recently finished my M.A.Sc. at the University of Victoria, which is a centre of PEM research. My impression was of research going no where. They have definitely given up aiming for automobile applications are are now aiming for laptops and other portable power needs. There was an enormous dearth of comprehension regarding the fundemental barriers to the hydrogen economy in the faculty. I would highly recommend reading Ulf Bossel's white papers on the thermodynamic limits of the hydrogen economy:
http://www.efcf.com/reports/
I have since moved on to do electron microscopy for nanotechnology applications. My impression now is that some nanotechnology solutions are not so pie-in-the-sky any more.
Batteries are a good example of an area benefiting from nanotechnology applications. Advances in the area of nanoparticles are moving along at a good clip. The high surface area to volume ratios of such particles has led to major improvements in battery charge rates and power output. Developing extremely small particles is much less sexy than say carbon nanotubes but it is producing significant results.
I did actually order some Ni-catalyst from QuantumSphere but they haven't delivered yet.
Posted by: Robert McLeod | April 06, 2006 at 10:53 AM
Hydrogen as a source of energy for cars and light trucks seems (to me) to be one to many step together with too many unsolved distribution network and storage problems. Why not use electricity directly to power automobiles and light trucks. The storage devices required (baterries and ultra-capacitors) are here now and mass production could bring the price down quickly enough. Recent quick charge storage devices make very long trips possible. Every existing fuel station could easily become a quick recharge station. All the extra electicity required could very easily be generated locally from Hydro, Wind, Solar, Waves, 'Nuclear', 'Clean Coal', Alternative fuel etc. Driving an electric car requires about 12 KWh/day for 40 miles/days. That would add about 25% to our present electricity home consumption. The existing electric grid network can absorb +25%, specially at night when it is underused. It could be adapted as required. It is a well known technology. Do we really need hydrogen for light vehicles? Does it really make sense? Why not spend all that research money for better electricity storage devices? It could be the quickest way to arrive to Oil independence.
Posted by: Harvey D. | April 06, 2006 at 12:04 PM
"The existing electric grid network can absorb +25%, specially at night when it is underused. It could be adapted as required."
Good point Harvey!
And if the 5 minute charge to 90% nano tech lithium ion batteries work as promised, they can also work as a distributed energy storage system. 100s of millions of cars plugged in while not driving. Plus 100s of millions more batteries for back up power in every home and business that has solar PV installations or wind systems.
To paraphrase the old Woody Guthrie tune: "There'll be pie in the sky, when you die, by and by..hydrogen fuel cell pie"
Posted by: amazingdrx | April 06, 2006 at 12:26 PM
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/6/5/910904.html
The Bilderbergers dissing the hydrogen economy.
Posted by: amazingdrx | April 06, 2006 at 12:33 PM
I just heard a couple of NOAA scientists on the radio discussing the impact of CO2 on the oceans. Very bad. Coral and other species die off is accelerating.
Fun fact: the average American puts 118 lbs of CO2 in the air every day.
How? From cars? No. From burning NG? No.
The correct answer is from using electricity. We get most of our electricity from burning coal. So to run our lights, tv's, computers and other gadgets we're killing the oceans.
I'm all for running cars on electricity but the coal plants need to be shut down and replaced with something better. And the sooner the better.
Posted by: John | April 06, 2006 at 01:45 PM
Yep John, it takes a comprehensive plan that provides all electric power without CO 2...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2005/5/31/898585.html
...especially in light of the danger of methane release from melting permafrost. Triggered by human CO 2 from combustion, it is 400 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO 2, and huge amounts are now trapped under that ice layer across the northern continents.
Posted by: amazingdrx | April 06, 2006 at 03:22 PM
For the first time in the comments on this blog I have seen, to my great pleasure, numerous echos of my own thoughts on hydrogen vs batteries. I was very pleased to see someone else refer to the work of Ulf Bossel. You might be interested in reading the paper by Swiss politician, Rudolph Rechsteiner, Ten Steps to a Sustainable Energy Future. I'm not so fond of his ten steps, but everything leading up to them is quite good:
http://www.rechsteiner-basel.ch/publikationen.cfm
The real link is too wide to display here. The article is in the right column, number 17 from the top.
Ulf Bossel and Rudolph Rechsteiner have inspired me to formulate my own strategy. Integrating very large fractions of renewable energy in our electricity grid is very complex, but after thinking long and hard about this issue, my plan has three major legs to stand on:
1) Flexible consumption:
Using smart technology to use electricity when it's available (e.g. freezers, fridges, air conditioners running mostly at times of excess
2) Distribution of energy:
Since most forms of renewable energy (wind and solar) are weather dependent, security of supply can be increased dramatically by sharing power over distances greater than the scale of weather systems, such as a nation-wide power super highway in the US or Europe. The sun always shines somewhere. The wind always blows somewhere.
3) Storage of electricity:
The peaks and troughs of electricity production and consumption that cannot be smoothed by the two above mentioned methods can be stored, preferably by plug-in hybrids/EV's, thus killing two birds with one stone. The beauty of plug-in hybrids is that in a pich, you can direct all the battery power back onto the grid and fire up the gasoline engine for driving.
There are hundreds of other minor ways to work toward the same end, but for the sake of simplicity, the three point above are the most important. By implementing these in a slow and economic fashion, we could probably achieve 80% renewable energy by 2030, which would be a major step.
I'd be glad to receive constructive critique.
-Thomas
Posted by: Thomas | April 06, 2006 at 05:10 PM
Not radical enough for me Thomas, hehey. But I can support those same steps.
I just want to go to all electric cars (why waste scarce capital building internal combustion engines anymore, 17% efficient?!)and all renewable electric power sooner. On a real emergency production schedule to match the urgency of global climate disaster.
Make no mistake this situation is just as dire, if not more so than the one faced in WW 2. It takes a similar scale of industrial production to deal with.
The destruction from global climate change and oil wars/terrorism is every bit as terrifying. The axis powers did not have access to nuclear weapons, jihadists do.
Hurricanes and drought on a massive scale have far beyond the destructive capability of even the fire bombing in WW 2.
Posted by: amazingdrx | April 07, 2006 at 03:44 AM
Well, amazingdrx, as I have said, and we have discussed before, I'd rather set the bar a little lower and actually achieve something.
Trying to coerce politicians to enforce stricter rules may achieve something, but convincing investors that they can make money achieves a whole lot more!
I still maintain that alienating 90% of the population is a poor strategy in changing things. Instead you risk being labeled as a crack pot, at which point any sound arguments you may have are dismissed altogether.
The strategy I outlined in my previous comment is not a playbook, but a direction (path) to follow. Once we break the 50% renewable barrier, we will know a lot more about balancing supply and demand.
Personally, I would not mind paying twice as much for electricity if it were all-renewable. (Actually, I am sure it will be much cheaper than that once manufacture of hardware really kicks in on industrial scale). For me, the difference is on the scale of whether I can afford to buy a new cell phone every 6 or 10 months. I am willing to keep my 6 months old, horribly outdated, mobile 4 months longer, if it means clear skies and a clear conscience!
I realize that some pay a lot more for electricity. To that I can only say that if you have built a home without insulation and consequently have a very high electricity bill for air conditioning, then I will cry no tears for you. If your house has poor insulation, then get cracking and do something about it!
In my heart I agree with much of what you are saying, but not all. I believe, as I have said before, that plug-in hybrids are an important step towards all-out electrical vehicles. They provide an extra cushion in the transition from a fossil energy economy to an electrical energy economy.
I used to be in favor of “unbiased, independent experts” making decisions on which technology to pursue (such as EVs rather than plug-ins). I have now realized that such experts simply do not exist, and cherry-picking solutions is rarely the most efficient approach. I now believe in politicians laying the foundations (e.g. via various energy taxes) and letting free markets come up with the most efficient solutions. Therefore, we don’t really have to discuss whether plug-ins or EVs will win the game, time will tell.
Since you keep comparing global warming to WW2, I’ll keep commenting it. If you think Katrina was more destructive than fire bombing, I suggest you tell that to the people of Dresden, Bremen, Hamburg and Berlin…
I think it’s wrong that implementing sustainable energy requires a massive effort, as the one carried out by American women in factories in the 40’s! Just replacing every coal fired power plant scheduled for scrapping with renewable will do the job in a matter of 25 years. And don’t forget, we’ll start using less fossil fuel from day one! Just don’t build any new fossil fired power plants.
-Thomas
Posted by: Thomas | April 07, 2006 at 10:14 AM
We mainly disagree on urgency Thomas.
I believe the sort of government action used in WW 2 wat production is warranted, you don't.
Consider this: When Henry Kaiser had a production problem posed by a government agency or another industrial mogul, he would call FDR. Then FDR called the relevant people, the Liberty shops got built and saved the UK and thus the world.
This is what I believe that the current situation needs, real leasdership. Not total government fiat, but action matching the emergency situation we face.
By all means use market forces by subsidizing consumers directly for the anount of clean, renewable power their vehicle or home uses. Match the incentive to the resulting shift away from fossil fuel combustion, then let the market pick the winning companies.
But simply letting the market choose either hybrids or plugins? Not the right course. Match the incentive to the amount of oil/greenhouse gas saved. Electric plugins charged with renewable power would get the most tax break, and hybrids that save very little fuel would get the least.
The urgency comes from the prospect of events like super hurricans that scour the planet of ALL structures, plants, and animals. 300+ mph winds leave little undisturbed in their wake.
Lest you doubt the probability of storms like this, consider the melting permafrost and the resultant release of trapped methane with 400 times the greenhouse effect per volume as CO 2.
Posted by: amazingdrx | April 07, 2006 at 11:51 AM
Come to think of it Thomas, a firestorm IS a natural phenomenon, whether unleashed by human fire bombing or natural events like drought brought on by human caused greenhouse gas.
As with nuclear weapons, used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, or nuclear disaters like Chernobyl, humans are merely the catalyst that unleash terrible natural forces, like the nuclear chain reaction or the fiery hurricane like force of a firestorm.
Posted by: amazingdrx | April 07, 2006 at 12:06 PM
Thomas, I fully agree with you that wider (protected) power grids would improve Wind and Solar power collection and availability to users. In our case, since about 98% of the electricity we use (about 40 000 MW peak and 22 000 MW average) is from Hydro and that source could be doubled to (80 000/44 000) and the local Wind power potential, within 25 Km of existing high voltage power lines, is estimated at 95 000 MW, we could use the huge water reservoirs to store energy when wind is not there, i.e. use Hydro plants as back up to insure availability.
In other words, the combination of easily regulated Hydro power + Wind (or/and Solar) represents an ideal situation for sustainable clean power for centuries to come.
Our James Bay CREE natives have offered to build 2 000+ large wind mills, on their land, and export the surlus power to Ontario and USA. Quebec Hydro would supply the power lines (already there) and back-up power generated by new 5 000 MW hydro-power plants close by.
The above initiative could be multiplied by 10 in the next 20 to 30 years and could produce enough clean electricity for one or two PHEV or EV in each Canadian home.
The Labrador Coast, with some of the best wind and hydro potential in North America could supply similar clean power to Atlantic Canada and the US North Eastern States.
Exporting massive amount of clean electricity to USA would definately be more recommendable than exporting 2 000 000+ barrels/day of NOT so clean OIL extracted from Alberta tar sands.
The capital investments required are about of the same order ($ 100 to 150 billions) but the Wind/Hydro solution would be much more sustainable in the long run and would reduce OIL useage and pollution instead of increasing it.
Posted by: Harvey D. | April 07, 2006 at 12:26 PM
amazindrx,
It's true that the Prius does not save a lot of fuel. In Denmark, at lot of small Suzuki cars with 1.0 litre engines are sold, and they get around 50 mpg using old, simple technology.
Plug-ins with battery capacity in the range of 50-100 miles would rarely start the ICE, thereby reducing gasoline consumption by as much as 80-90% (numbers guestimated from post about AFS Trinity from 8 Feb).
If battery technology suddently become much cheaper as a result of industrial scale production, I think we will see all electrical vehicles pick up quite fast. After all, a hybrid is much more complex. And I assume gasoline engine, clutch, gearbox, etc. associated with the ICE weigh 250-400 lbs. With that weight you could install 17-25 kWh extra of Li-Ion battery capacity, thus increasing your EV range by something in the order of 100 miles. If all the nano news about being able to charge batteries to 80-90% capacity in just 5-6 minutes comes true, then who needs the gas engine. That's not a lot more than filling your car with gas. Btw, I assume all car parks will become electricity filling stations.
I agree with you on letting government incentives match the fossil fuel load of vehicle technology.
To answer your question about urgency. No I don't think WW2-like government action is required. I do, however, think clear signals from the government about its energy policy (in favor of sustainable energy, of course) is required. A couple of years ago in UK, a number of CEOs of the largest companies sent an open letter to the government, basically saying that they would welcome stricter environmental rules (including CO2 emission), provided it was part of a sustained long term policy with equal opportunity for everyone. (It's not hard to see why they sent it. Harscher legislation would help keep out cheap, lo-tech competition from Eastern Europe and China).
Investors are anxious about renewable energy because they fear that oil will become cheap again and render their investments uncompetitive. If this uncertainty could be removed by political measures, investment risk would be reduced dramatically.
Anyway, that's what I think...
-Thomas
Posted by: Thomas | April 07, 2006 at 01:16 PM
Harvey D,
Your comment spurs me to mention one of the many suggestions to make "80% renewable by 2030" work. I believe as much hydro power as possible should be diverted to load balancing, i.e. running the hydro plant at 2-4 times mean load at times of renewable power deficiency, and slow down to a minimun at times of excess. Of course, capacity and requirement of the downstream rivers should be observed and respected. Hydro power is perhaps the only source of electricity that can be adjusted with little to no consequence, at least to the reservoir. I think this is a better solution than pumping water up into reservoirs. There's always a loss of energy associated.
It would be a shame to use hydro power as base load power in a scheme with lots of renewable energy.
Great idea to sell renewable power to USA. Better to make money from clean energy than dirty!
Speaking of dirty. Why don't they use renewable energy to extract and process the tar sand? What they need is heat and hydrogen - why not get that from wind turbines rather than natural gas, which is the best fossil fuel, something we ought to save for the future instead of burning it to produce the lowest possible quality of heat, namely: lukewarm heat (for domestic heating).
Well, for one thing, natural gas sells for 2-3 cents/kWh, whereas wind power costs 5-6 cents/kWh...
-Thomas
Posted by: Thomas | April 07, 2006 at 01:31 PM
Thomas:.. I think that you gave the correct answer i.e. $/KWh. Wind power will only be used for tar sand activities when Natural Gas runs out or becomes more expensive than other sources of eenrgy regarless of all the pollution created. Free market 'democratic' economy dictates that approach......
Posted by: Harvey D. | April 07, 2006 at 10:32 PM
Very hopeful comments Harvey. I hope that Canada and the US will build a power grid corridor for wind power from the high wind speed areas of the northern great plains to meet the power needs of both countries and abandon fossil and nuclear power.
Market forces are already impelling wind power investment to such an extent that there is a shortage of wind manufacturing capacity.
I believe there is a great future in 50 mw (equivalent kwh production to a continuously operating 50 mw source) wind machines on the plains, and 100 mw floating wave/wind platforms offshore.
These machines would be huge and harvest wind power from much greater heights where wind is steadier and has a much greater average speed (power in the wind varies with the cube of wind speed).
By locating them in deserted remote areas and offshore out of site the NIMBY problem could be solved. the scale would lower the cost of power produced to levels that would more than compernsate for more costly power transmission lines.
As far as storage to even out supply and demand the upgraded grid will even that out considerably and the storage capacity of batteries in 100s of millions of electric cars and homes will do the rest.
Also energy intensive industries like glass and metal recycling sand foundries are already being used to buffer demand/supply variables. They are operated when surplus power is available and shut down during high demand and low supply conditions.
Super conducting energy storage rings are a utility scale storage technology that deserves research and development also.
As far as tar sands, oil shale, liquid fuel from coal, agribizz biofuel, nuclear power, I think all these sources are far to garmfiul and expensive to condsider practical alternatives to pursue in the future. They ought to be abandoned as soon as possible.
We should go all renewable electric for all power needs especially trabsportation. Air travel can still be supplied with liquid fuel from the waste stream using algae-to-fuel technology. This is what the best possible outcome looks like to me.
I also have a different take on hydropower to make it more enviro friendly. Gates that ipen up beside a river then let excess water into wetlands, when the river flow is low the water from wetlands would flow the other wat, into the river.
Power would be produced by underwater wind mill type devices mounted in the gate structure,that would not harm fish or wildlife.
This would control flooding, save water in wetlands that would replenish aquifers, allow fish populations to thrive where normal dams destroy them, and still provide a lot of hydropower.
This plan would actually provide far more hydropower than is now produced because it would allow far more installations than conventional dams, that are nor being built and some actually removed because of damage to fish and aquatic ecosystems.
Imagine the Mississippi with these installations all along problem flooding areas. It would produce huge new sources of power and restore drying up and contaminated aqifers depleted by disastrous agribizz farming techniques and desert city (like Pheonix, Las Vegas, LA..)water use.
Thomas I don't think we can agree on the urgency factor involved in conversion to renewables. Have you seen the artcles on melting permafrost release of methane?
Unless more people heed this warning the political will to reform energy policy on a global emergency scale may not exist in time to save life as we know it on spaceship earth.
Posted by: amazingdrx | April 08, 2006 at 05:58 AM
Well, amazing, about the urgency, let's just agree to disagree. Otherwise, I think we're pretty much on the same page.
I like your idea about under water wind mills in rivers instead of conventional hydro power damns. Except perhaps that hydro damns are possible the best sources of energy storage on a massive scale.
I just had a new idea. Maybe it's far fetched, but I'll give it a go anyway. Imagine that a nation-wide (in the US) electrical super highway were built, based on superconductors. If there were a ring structure (Imagine drawing a giant ring inside the boundaries of the basically rectangular USA), maybe it could be used as a gigantic super conducting energy storage ring..? I don't know if it's even possible, but why not. Sure there would be losses of energy incurred, but that's true for any storage technology. Such a ring would kill two birds with one stone (even out regional differences and electrical energy storage).
Just to be sure, I'm not suggesting that any one president (or any other political or private entity) attempts to build such a quadrillion dollar structure in one go. I'm merely suggesting that individual strings of profitable power super highways may eventually be connected to form a ring.
-Thomas
Posted by: Thomas | April 08, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Well Thomas once superconductors reach higher temps and lower costs I think they will be used in long distance power distribution.
Using the space over hihgways for solar power then installing induction strips under the rtoad surface to recharge elecxtric vehicles while they are traveling is a possibility.
Meanwhile utility scale superconducting enerfy storage could reduce the need for vackup power for renewables. Methane generated from the waste stream consumed in diect fuel cells coupled with microturbines could also be used for backup power.
75% efficiency nakes it a cost effective solution. Any CO 2 can be recycled back through the algae/waste treatment system to make more liquid fuel and methane.
Posted by: amazingdrx | April 08, 2006 at 11:40 AM
This is nice?
can save alot.
But where can i have it?
Posted by: Raymond Ng | May 30, 2008 at 11:50 PM
This is what its all about people! ideas and then moving forward
Posted by: tony | May 28, 2009 at 04:06 PM