Hydrogen fuel cells move closer to reality

The Globe and Mail ^ | Mar. 11, 2004 | Canadian Press

[calcowgirl]

VANCOUVER — It's the most abundant element in the universe. It promises limitless supplies of pollution-free energy.

Hydrogen is the holy grail for anyone determined to free the world eventually from its dependence on oil and natural gas.

Cars and homes will run on electricity made without combustion by combining hydrogen and air, the only byproducts being heat and water.

But after years of promotion by its advocates, sometimes bordering on hype, many people have become jaded and even skeptical that a brave, clean new world is just around the corner.

The message from industry insiders, though, is hang in there.

You won't be able to drive a fuel-cell car off a dealer's lot soon or live off the grid in a hydrogen fuel-cell home. But you might riding a fuel-cell bus or using a backup generator utilizing a small fuel cell before the end of this decade.

And if you're the kind of person who bought the first clunky VCR in the 1970s or struggled with the first pea-brained desktop computer, you could be plunking down cash — maybe a lot — for a first-generation fuel-cell automobile by the end of the decade.

Former oilman George W. Bush now talks about the hydrogen economy and has committed $1.7-billion (U.S.) to research.

Even California's Hummer-driving new governor is on board, endorsing a "hydrogen highway" refuelling network for the state.

Next month, the Globe 2004 environmental conference in Vancouver will hear plans to extend the project to British Columbia in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

Coincidentally, Firoz Rasul, chairman of Ballard Power Systems Ltd., the Vancouver fuel-cell pioneer, this year took over the rotating chairmanship of the California Fuel Cell Partnership, the small but influential business-government coalition that helps set the development agenda globally.

Mr. Rasul says he expects to meet with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger next month about beginning the $200-million project, a key piece of infrastructure needed to make fuel cell-powered vehicles practical.

"I think the present governor is not only verbally committed to continuing to protect the environment but he's already started to take action that we feel bodes well for this initiative to continue," says Mr. Rasul.

Momentum is finally building towards commercializing hydrogen energy, says Jarrett Carson, who analyses energy technology for RBC Capital Markets.

"We used to have the rolling 10 years on the transportation side," says Mr. Carson, based in Austin, Tex. "It was 10 years away every year. It never shortened up.

"Incrementally, I do believe maybe we've tightened the range now and that 2010 to 2012 is a reasonable time frame to see some substantive production on the transportation side."

Fuel-cell products without wheels may be even closer, he says, with portable backup power applications filtering into the market perhaps this year.

Commercial versions of larger scale stationary fuel-cell units should follow, says Mr. Carson, adding lots of work is also being done at the micro-power level. Computer chipmaker Intel, for instance, wants a hybrid fuel-cell for laptops by 2007.

"I think between '05 and '07 we're going to see some really interesting things in the small-scale arena," says Mr. Carson.

There are no hard estimates about how much government and industry is spending on hydrogen energy development.

Ron Britton, president of Fuel Cells Canada, does a back-of-the-matchbox calculation and comes up with about $3-billion, but some think its much more.

There's little argument, though, about the global effort to achieve the hydrogen economy, with countries and companies simultaneously competing and working together on a scale seldom seen outside wartime.

"I don't want to use the word unprecedented," says Mr. Carson. "But it certainly is very rare to see this type of an effort where everyone is generally targeting the same direction."

But for all the blue-skying, hydrogen energy development is still in early infancy, with small-scale demonstration projects aimed at proving the technology.

After soaring in the late 1990s, interest in shares of companies like Ballard declined when it became clear they'd be burning cash for some time and profitable products were a long way off.

Investor interest has returned, says Mr. Carson, though new equity offerings are smaller and aimed at fuelling specific lines of development.

The added funding propels development, he says, which in turn builds investor confidence — a virtuous cycle.

Some companies are looking for ways to cash in now on their technology. Ballard, for instance, touts the compatibility of its electric components, downstream of the fuel cell itself, with hybrid cars now in vogue among automakers.

Toronto-based Stuart Energy Systems Ltd, which completed a $21-million share offering last month, is a leader in developing hydrogen refuelling stations and part of the hydrogen highway project.

Meanwhile, it's working on a hybrid bus that burns hydrogen in an internal combustion engine instead of a petro fuel.

"You achieve essentially about 99 per cent of the impact that you would achieve with a fuel cell," says Stuart vice-president Rob Campbell. "So it's a major pollution reduction in terms of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and other pollution."

While the private sector is doing the lion's share of work, government support will be important for some time, industry experts agree.

Governments will help in standardization and safety protocols for a fuel many people still equate with the airship Hindenberg. Some degree of financial help also will be required as the technology matures.

For hidebound neo-cons, Mr. Carson points out the two-century-old coal industry still gets money for research into things like clean coal and coalbed methane production.

One crucial reservation about hydrogen is whether it's even economical when the full-cycle cost of producing and distributing it are factored in.

Initially, hydrogen supplies will come from petroleum sources, one reason why some oil companies are deeply involved in the technology.

But eventually it's hoped hydrogen will be made from water through electrolysis, which currently takes more energy than it produces.

The problem of safe, on-board hydrogen storage also needs to be licked, although Mr. Campbell says Calgary-based Dynatec Industries is regarded as a leader in that field.

"Properly designed and properly implemented, hydrogen is safe," he says.

Public awareness of hydrogen fuel-cell technology is growing, says Catherine Dunwoody, executive director of the California Fuel Cell Partnership.

The partnership, founded in 1999, polls Californians every year and found awareness last year doubled to four out of 10. As for when people expect to drive a fuel-cell car, the responses are all over the board.

Such information is critical to help manage public expectations, says Joe Irvin, the partnership's communications manager.

"It clearly is important to keep everything in perspective," he says. "Don't oversell, don't underpromise."

But the eventual impact, likely over decades, will be seismic, advocates like Rasul believe, especially in the automotive sector.

"Here's an interesting statistic: If you take all of the power that's in the engines of the 50 million cars made a year, that's equal to the entire global installed electricity generating base," he says.

"You're making enough power every year in cars to power the whole world."

[calcowgirl]

Mr. Rasul says he expects to meet with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger next month about beginning the $200-million project, a key piece of infrastructure needed to make fuel cell-powered vehicles practical.

Another State priority, no doubt.

[Threepwood]

Christ speed the day! No need for Middle eastern oil would make the work a lot more secure. Even if we could reduce the need for it, this technology would be worth developing.

[Restorer]

I get so tired of this.

Hydrogen is not a fuel source. It is a potentially attractive non-polluting way of storing energy.

Think of it as a highly efficient battery.

[bolobaby]

Screw OPEC BUMP

[bolobaby]

Fine. Hydrogen is a battery. Put a nuclear reactor on an offshore rig and pump the stuff out a massive rate by electrolyzing the seawater. Whatever it takes to make OPEC cry.

[Jacquerie]

I guess I'll keep my '98 Ranger a few more years.

[SierraWasp]

"...to make fuel cell-powered vehicles practical."

He just wants ta blow one fifth of a billion dollars worth of smoke up the musclebound Governor's A$$!!!

Now we can't get anymore bondage for the nuke plants needed to make the danged hydrogen!!!

I ass-u-me you posted this for laughs, right?

[zoyd]

One crucial reservation about hydrogen is whether it's even economical when the full-cycle cost of producing and distributing it are factored in.

But eventually it's hoped hydrogen will be made from water through electrolysis, which currently takes more energy than it produces.

Keep this in mind.

[SierraWasp]

"Put a nuclear reactor on an offshore rig and pump the stuff out a massive rate by electrolyzing the seawater."

We CAN'T, NOW!!! We just maxed out the CA credit card and can't borrow the money to build the stupid nuke that the NIMBY's and EnvironMentalCases won't let us build anaways... Get it? WASS=We Are So Screwed!!!

[JmyBryan]

A question for all the demolition folks.

I know this is speculative. But generally speaking, how hard would it be for a terrorist to ignite an H powered vehicle? How big a boom will one get?

Thanks in advance.

[RayChuang88]

If you explode hydrogen, the only problem is that the force of the explosion will go only one way: straight up. And remember, hydrogen fuel cells is NOT liquid hydrogen, so if there is a fire it really won't last that long. Compare this against gasoline and natural gas--if it explodes it will explode in every direction with terrifying results.

[Restorer]

But eventually it's hoped hydrogen will be made from water through electrolysis, which currently takes more energy than it produces.

Uhh, given the laws of nature, it will always take more energy than is produced, as long as you're dealing with chemical processes.

To get more energy from water than you put in would require a Mr. Fusion, which may be a few years down the road.

[JmyBryan]

Thanks - did not know any of that.

[RayChuang88]

You're welcome.

By the way, one of the very scariest things around is the potential for someone to hijack a ship loaded with liquified natural gas and detonate it at a city port. The force of the explosion from that much LNG would equal that of a 5 kT atomic bomb. (eek!)

[FastCoyote]

"But eventually it's hoped hydrogen will be made from water through electrolysis, which currently takes more energy than it produces. "

Yup, I plan on inventing an electrolysis process that TAKES LESS energy than it produces. That's called 'thinking outside the box'. You just take a little starter flogiston and then like yeast, pretty soon you have more hydrogen than you know what to do with!

Please invest in my company, NOW!

[Voltage]

I would prefer to put the nuclear reactor in my Excersion, then I would have sufficient power to plow my driveway.

If I generate hydrogen in the process it would be a side benefit.

[djreece]

marking

[B.O. Plenty]

WASS???....no we aren't....we are temporarily stymied that's all. Right now there is plenty of gas...and it is still relatively cheap. When we start running out of gas, we the people will suffer first. The corporate and government people will still have enough gas to do what they want to do. Bill Gates, other billionaires and government don't really give a rat's ass what gas costs...but when gas starts to run out and the muckety-mucks can't get gas for their G-5's is when things will change fast. Environmentalists will be swept aside like ants. ANWAR and Santa Barbra will have so many oil wells they will look like pin cushions......and hydrogen power will take off like a shot. Everyone will be amazed at how fast hydrogen becomes a viable source of power.

It is one thing for us varlets to suffer, muckety muck suffering is something else.

[EEDUDE]

"But eventually it's hoped hydrogen will be made from water through electrolysis, which currently takes more energy than it produces."

It may be a clean fuel, but somewhere there has to be a reactor, a coal or oil fueled plant or some other energy source to produce it. Those are all unacceptable to most environmentalists. They just move the pollution somewhere else.

Liquid hydrogen is a very explosive fuel, unless it is stored in some type of matrix.

It is also not a high energy density fuel. It will take a lot of it to replace petroleum based fuels.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this technology to be commercially available for the masses.

I've spent a lot of time designing control systems for natural gas engines, and they are extremely clean, but suffer from low energy density fuel, and a lack of natural gas "filling station".

They are primarily purchased for UPS, airport shuttles, and city buses.

I really don't think hydrogen is a realistic option, but I sure would like to present my middle finger to the Arab oil cartel!

[doug9732]

This reminds me of the articles we used to see about fusion power. Any day they would have the problems worked out; any day!
Yawn.

[JmyBryan]

I recently read an article by Daniel Yergin ("The Prize") promoting intercontinental shipmt of LNG as the energy of the future. Your scenario suggest the insurance costs make this even more expensive. Yergin did say it would require govt backing.

[Steve_Seattle]

No need for Middle eastern oil would make the work a lot more secure.

Maybe, maybe not. If we suddenly lose our need for Mid East oil, the bottom drops out of those economies, further destabilizing the region, creating even more unemployment and more reason for the Islamic fanatics to search for scapegoats, i.e., us.

[XBob]

13 - "Uhh, given the laws of nature, it will always take more energy than is produced, as long as you're dealing with chemical processes."

Great observation. So simple, and yet so many people don't seem to understand it. To produce 'free' (unattached) hydrogen, we need to release the chemical bonds, which will always take more energy in than the energy it puts out.

Wow - I just got a revolutionary idea, why don't we store the hydrogen in something where the energy is more easily released, and yet it is still concentrated, and storable and relatively safe. How about we add some carbon to the mix, and we could have a hydro-carbon fuel - yeah,that's it. And since it is made from hydrogen gas, we could call it what? Why how about 'gas' or 'gasoline'?

[Doodle]

Hydrogen fuel cells move closer to reality

What a joke.

[Steve_Seattle]

Maybe the passenger car of the future will be a much lighter, much slower vehicle requiring considerably less power than fossil fuels can provide. If cars shed 1,000 pounds and have a max speed of 35-40 mph, alternate lighter fuels might be good enough. I bet about 80-90% of most people's driving is done at less than 40 m.p.h.

[Restorer]

I really don't think hydrogen is a realistic option, but I sure would like to present my middle finger to the Arab oil cartel!

Using existing fission nuclear power technology to produce electricity and hudrogen, we could do this within a relatively short period of time, probably less than 10 years.

That we do not do so is due to political/legal/PR issues, not technical ones.

[XBob]

22-"intercontinental shipmt of LNG"

This has been done for many years now. Giant 'gas' tankers with huge ball tanks routinely ship gas around the world. I helped build a plant in Indonesia in 1980 to ship gas to Japan.

We are currently building a terminal off the Texas/Lousiana coast to offload such tankers for importing gas into the US. Should be finished next year.

[Voltage]

The University of Iowa is working on a new process whereby you can put corn cobs directly in your fuel tank, completely avoiding Saudi Arabia.

Amazingly its being funded entirely by the farmers themselves, who have sworn off any government money!

It seems too good to be true!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

"Here's an interesting statistic: If you take all of the power that's in the engines of the 50 million cars made a year, that's equal to the entire global installed electricity generating base," he says.

"You're making enough power every year in cars to power the whole world."

Now what does that really have to do with anything related to this article?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Ballard Power Systems Ltd.,

These guys use to be located in Kansas City.

Wonder why they moved to Vancouver?

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[EEDUDE]

"Maybe the passenger car of the future will be a much lighter, much slower vehicle requiring considerably less power than fossil fuels can provide."

The first car I ever owned was a 1961 Studebaker Lark. (No I'm not THAT old! I bought it from my grandmother when she bought a new car.)

It had a 230 Cu.In. V8, a three speed manual transmission with overdrive, and an aftermarket air-conditioner. It was made of HEAVY steel.

I consistently got 28 MPG on the highway at 70 MPH with the AC on! If you've ever seen one you know they are not exactly aerodynamic.

What many don't realize about modern vehicle emissions technology is that lower emissions ALWAYS comes at the expense of fuel mileage. It is a compromise.

Most systems rely on EGR to reduce the optimal Air/Fuel ratio to prevent the formation of oxides of nitrogen by keeping flame front temperatures below the point at which they form. This COSTS extra fuel. A restrictive catalytic converter also costs fuel.

The best deal going today for both emissions and fuel economy is European Diesel passenger cars. The technology has advanced to the point where amount of polution per mile is excellent.

But don't try to sell a Diesel here! They're "dirty"!

[Dan Evans]

how hard would it be for a terrorist to ignite an H powered vehicle? How big a boom will one get?

Hydrogen as a fuel is no more dangerous than gasoline. It's just a stupid and wasteful idea to convert cars to hydrogen when we don't need to.

If we didn't have the EPA and a bunch of enviro-luddite agencies in government we would not have any energy problems.

[Amerigomag]

Funny how these articles always ignore the problems with the other byproduct of the electrolysis of sea water: Oxygen.

Lots of oxygen. Tons of oxygen and no where to put it. An acute poison in the quantities that we are proposing to produce.

[Boot Hill]

"If you explode hydrogen...the force of the explosion will go only one way: straight up. Compare this against gasoline and natural gas--if it explodes it will explode in every direction..."

LOL, hey Einstein, I wouldn't quit your day job just yet, if I were you!

--Boot Hill

[calcowgirl]

These guys use to be located in Kansas City.

They used to have a division in Poway, CA. (they still may, don't know.)
Where did you find Kansas?

Wonder why they moved to Vancouver?

Maybe so they could get listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange with all the other great 'development stage' companies?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Where did you find Kansas?

You mean in the article? It wan't, I just remember reading about them with occasional writups in the KC Star. They were over in Eastern Jackson County somewhere as I recall. Never had occasion to visit them though.

[BurbankKarl]

The state is MAXED OUT? $700 billion!

[BurbankKarl]

the SMART cars are coming.....by summer 51/mpg

[rmmcdaniell]

To get more energy from water than you put in would require a Mr. Fusion, which may be a few years down the road.

Ughh, you obviously don’t understand the laws of thermodynamics.

[EEDUDE]

"the SMART cars are coming.....by summer 51/mpg"

This mileage is about what the Diesel passenger cars are getting. VW Pasat w/Diesel does this.

In addition, the Diesels are much more durable, but ANYTHING that we can do to get better mileage is good.

I personally try to minimize fuel consumption by better planning of my trips. I live about 25 miles from anywhere and don't just hop in my truck and frivolously go to town.

I go maybe twice a week and try to combine errands.

This is not because I'm worried about pollution, but because it's expensive!

A combination of conservation and better efficiency is the ticket.

Looking forward to seeing the SMART cars.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[Restorer]

Ughh, you obviously don’t understand the laws of thermodynamics.

The laws of thermodynamics apply to chemical reactions not nuclear reactions.

I am quite well aware that efficient fusion, especially cold fusion, may never be achieved.

It was a joke.

[JmyBryan]

Yergin was promoting the idea that LNG is/will be the "energy of the future". But to spur the industry, it would need a great deal of capital and coordination to make it feasible.

Here's the link:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101faessay82610/daniel-yergin-michael-stoppard/the-next-prize.html

[rmmcdaniell]

The laws of thermodynamics apply to chemical reactions not nuclear reactions.

Tell that to a physicist or engineer. Your only further proving my point.

[cinFLA]

If you've ever seen one you know they are not exactly aerodynamic.

For the younger crowd, here is proof.

[cinFLA]

The laws of thermodynamics apply to chemical reactions not nuclear reactions.

Which ones?

[EEDUDE]

Hey dude! That's my car! Looks like a 61 model too.

It really was a fine piece of machinery. My old Lark ran like a sewing machine!

Thanks for the picture.