Fuel cells and hydrogen for cars, a dead end

ILLUSTRATION - Comparison between the chain of energy processing and distribution for vehicles with hydrogen-FC, right, and the chain for battery electric vehicles to the left. FC-hydrogen vehicles use 3 times more electricity than battery electric vehicles or plug-in hybrid vehicles in electric mode. (Drawing from my latest book «Rouler sans pétrole»)

Hydrogen and fuel cells (FC) have been presented since the mid-1990s as a panacea to the problems of pollution caused by motor vehicles, as only water vapor comes out the exhaust pipe. Furthermore, knowing that 96% of hydrogen is currently produced from fossil fuels, oil and gas industries see the arrival of a hydrogen economy as a good thing for their businesses.

The main advantages of hydrogen put forward are the ability to tank in less than 10 minutes and offer a range of 500 km, unlike batteries, which took several hours to recharge and limited the range of an electric car at about 200 km. However, since 2007 the new lithium titanate batteries, such as those of Altairnano or Toshiba, can also be recharged in less than 10 minutes. In addition, with a plug-in hybrid car we can also fill up with gazoline in less than 10 minutes for a range of 700 km, while driving the vast majority of our mileage with electricity from the grid.

Let us not forget that hydrogen does not occur naturally on Earth. It is associated, among others, with oxygen to form water and carbon to form hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) or coal. To obtain the hydrogen, we must first separate it from the molecules where it is found. This separation process consumes energy, and produces CO2 when using fossil fuels as a source of hydrogen.

Although some automobile manufacturers have built great FC-hydrogen cars without emissions when we drive them, hydrogen is not as good as they say. Several experts, including Ulf Bossel, demonstrated that the hydrogen economy was not really viable, and that we go away from sustainable development by taking this path. The main reasons are (details and demonstrations in my book «Rouler sans pétrole»):

* When the hydrogen is produced by reforming natural gas and electricity is produced with a natural gas power plant, a FC-hydrogen car emits 50% more CO2 than a battery electric car or a plug-in hybrid in electric mode.
* When the hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water using renewables (no CO2) FC-hydrogen vehicles use three times more electricity than battery electric vehicles or plug-in hybrid vehicles in electric mode.
* We would have to invest hundreds of billions of dollars to set up a distribution infrastructure for hydrogen.
* Filling up with hydrogen would be at least five times more expensive than with electricity. It is about 15 times more expensive today.
* The explosive aspect of hydrogen brings security problems with its distribution on a large scale to the common people. In addition, to supply a service station, we need 15 trucks of compressed hydrogen to replace one gasoline truck, adding to the dangers on the roads.
* The development of FC-hydrogen vehicles is ten years late with respect to plug-in hybrids. Thus, FC-hydrogen vehicles offering no particular advantage, on the contrary, makes a penetration of the market very unlikely.

It is time to turn the page of the "hydrogen expenditure" to quickly develop a real "electron economy".

Natural Gas or Electricity for Vehicles?

Illustration - Natural gas power plant at Currant Creek, Utah, photo by David Jolley, 2007, Wikipedia, Creative Commons

Since 2008, T. Boone Pickens, a multibillionaire of the oil and natural gas industry, made a name for himself with his plan, Pickens Plan, to reduce oil imports from the United-States using natural gas in motor vehicles specially adapted, such as Honda Civic GX. These cars emit about 20% less CO2 than equivalent petrol car. However, the range of cars using compressed natural gas is only 300 km on a single tank.

The Pickens Plan is simple, it is to close the majority of natural gas power plants in the United-States within 10 years and use the gas to run internal combustion engines of road vehicles instead. In his plan, the natural gas power plants are replaced by wind turbines, which can provide up to 20% of the electricity the United-States, according to experts, while the natural gas power plants currently provide 22%. The Pickens Plan would save up to 38% of oil imports from the United States, according to its author.

At first glance it seems interesting, because it does not consume more natural gas, reduces oil consumption and increase renewables, while powering the United-States' economy, and strengthening energy security!

I have nothing against the building of wind turbines. But, it is much better to consume natural gas in power plants and produce electricity with up to 60% efficiency. Indeed, a vehicle with a good electric motorization is 85% efficient in converting electricity into motive power. Thus, about 50% of the natural gas energy would propel such vehicles, instead of less than 25% for internal combustion engines using directly natural gas.

So, vehicles with electric motorization could reduce U.S. oil imports about twice as much as natural gas vehicles of the Pickens Plan! Moreover, to distribute natural gas to vehicles we would have to implement a new infrastructure, while electric grid and service stations for petrol fuels are already in place, today, for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

Consequently, it is much better for vehicles to use electricity as an energy carrier rather than natural gas. This last gaseous fuel is better used in power plants.

All-electric or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?

Illustration - Powertrain of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with 4 wheel-motors, as conceived by Pierre Couture at the Hydro-Quebec Research Institute and announced in 1994. (drawing: Pierre Langlois)

We are currently at a turning point in the history of the automobile, where we will have to invest considerable sums to reduce our dependence on oil. The rapid depletion of oil, the geopolitical conditions that are attached, the problems of air pollution and global warming are strong incentives to drive more and more with electricity. In this regard, it is important to identify the best technologies to implement by 2030 to avoid investments that lead nowhere, like hydrogen cars. Should we invest in all-electric vehicles or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV)?

The company Project Better Place is campaigning for all-electric cars, by offering to install expensive infrastructure of recharging points and battery exchange stations to «fill up» with electricity in less than 5 minutes. With PHEV, no need to install new infrastructure since you can go to fuel stations across the existing infrastucture, while passing through 80% of our mileage in electric mode, and recharging a smaller battery each day, at home or at work. In addition, PHEV enjoy full range (electric and fuel) of more than 700 km, in contrast to 150 km to 200 km for all-electric cars.

Some defenders of Project Better Place concept say that it is cheaper to install recharging and exchange of batteries infrastructure than installing two engines (one electric and thermal) in PHEV, on a large scale. But to reach such a conclusion, they must certainly exclude the cost of batteries. Because the cost of performing and long life lithium batteries is about $ 20,000 to give a range of 100 km (60 miles) to a midsize car. Assuming that the price decreases by half with a mass production, we will still have to pay for the battery about $ 20,000 for a fully electric car with a range of 200 km (120 miles).

But you must know that 2 in 3 drivers drive less than 50 km (30 miles) per day United-States, and less daily mileage in Europe, on average. However, a battery capable of a range of 50 km (30 miles) would cost $ 5000 to equip a PHEV instead of $ 20,000 for a fully electric car that can travel 200 km (120 miles). For the PHEV, just add about $ 3,000 to include a gas motor-generator to recharge the battery while driving during long journeys. Therefore, the high cost of batteries means that PHEV cost $ 12,000 less than fully electric cars of same size and performances.

Also, why one would install a battery offering 200 km (120 miles) of range when a battery allowing 50 km (30 miles) of range would be sufficient for daily needs? This is a real waste of resources. Let us not forget that the global lithium reserves are estimated at 11 million tonnes, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, and that one expects that over 1 billion vehicles will be on the roads in 2030.

Now it must be said, a range of 200 km (120 miles) for a fully electric car is not sufficient to meet all the needs of a driver, especially that this 200 km (120 miles) falls rapidly to less than 150 km when using the heating or air conditioning. Increasing the battery range is too expensive and makes the car too heavy, since it takes about 200 kg per 100 km of range for high performance lithium-ion batteries. Thus, for a range of 400 km one would require a battery of 800 kg, which increases the energy consumption of the car and decreases its performances inevitably.

Finally, fully electric cars are facing the another problem of an increased vulnerability to a major power outage. Quebecers who have experienced the ice storm of 1998 and were without power for 3 weeks in winter know something about it. All electric cars could not move in such a situation, whereas PHEV could have powered houses from their on board gas generator. The energy redundancy offered with liquid fuels is thus very important. How to escape from a big hurricane with an all-electric car when power is down?

It is possible that in 25 or 30 years all-electric cars take over. But before this could happen, it would be necessary to have batteries that are capable of storing 5 times more electricity for the same weight as the Li-ion batteries today, that their price be ten times less, and that our electricity networks are decentralized to reduce their vulnerability. Until then, all-electric cars could may be reach 20% of the market, as a second family car for comuting. But for that we do not need an infrastructure to exchange batteries or removable batteries. It is sufficient to add gradually recharge points at strategic locations, accessible to all electric cars, not only those of Project Better Place. In fact, most people will simply recharge their urban electric car home at night, when rates are lower.

Our analysis shows that the vast majority of cars of the next quarter century should be PHEV able to travel up to 100 km in electric mode. By 2010, PHEV could consume 10 times less fuel than conventional cars, since 80% of their mileage could be done in electric mode and that these cars use about half the fuel used by conventional cars, when operating mode fuel. In 15 years from now, advanced PHEV will be able to consume 20 times less fuel than petrol cars of today. It will then be possible to drive without oil and use only second-generation biofuels (made from waste and non-food plants).