Zero Emissions Fuel Cell Hybrid Taxi Unveiled at London's City Hall

Market Watch ^ | 6/9/10 | Market Watch

[Flavius]

LONDON, Jun 07, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Intelligent Energy, Lotus Engineering, LTI Vehicles and TRW Conekt, with funding from the UK Government's Technology Strategy Board, today unveiled a full performance, zero-emissions Fuel Cell Hybrid London taxi.

While the taxi looks and drives like an iconic London black cab, the Fuel Cell Black Cab is powered by an Intelligent Energy hydrogen fuel cell system hybridised with lithium polymer batteries; allowing the vehicle to operate for a full day without the need for refuelling. Capable of achieving a top speed of over 80 mph, it has a range of more than 250 miles on a full tank of hydrogen, refuels in about 5 minutes and produces no emissions other than water vapour.

London's Deputy Mayor for Policing and Chair of the London Hydrogen Partnership, Kit Malthouse, who unveiled the zero emissions fuel cell hybrid taxi at London's City Hall, said, "The black cab is a much loved London icon, but it is also a significant source of pollution especially in the centre of the city. This prototype Fuel Cell Black Cab, which emits only water from its tailpipe, is an exciting glimpse of how hydrogen technology could soon play a vital role in cleaning up air quality for urban dwellers."

Later this year, Transport for London will start operating five hydrogen-fuel cell buses, and the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has committed to working with manufacturers to make all taxis operating in London zero tail-pipe emissions by 2020.

[Flavius]

five hydrogen-fuel cell buses

Synthetic Diesel Synthetic Diesel is a method of producing diesel fuel from natural gas. ... Converting natural gas to a liquid through a Fischer-Tropsch technology provides ... www.cogeneration.net/synthetic_diesel

Natural-Gas Diesel May Cut Smog May 15, 2005 ... By 2011, Qatar hopes three ventures will convert natural gas into more than 300000 barrels per day of liquids, most of that diesel fuel, ... www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/05/67534 - Cached - Similar

maybe we should preted like someone cares about the "green " Cash

As far as carbon emissions go, green diesel appears to offer only a modest dent, partly because natural gas contains less carbon than oil-based diesel to begin with. The big difference is in sulfur. Sulfur emissions from diesel engines cause as many as 10,000 deaths a year among Americans with heart and lung ailments, said William Becker, who represents state and local air pollution control agencies in the United States.

"It's a matter of life and death," Becker said. "And the solution depends on removing the sulfur."

Emissions can be cut further by adding better filters that remove up to 90 percent of remaining particulates, said Richard Kassel, a fuels expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York. Sulfur-laden diesel gums up these finer filters, he said.

"Clean fuels open the door to the most advanced emission controls," Kassel said.

Tests of GTL fuel are under way in several countries. Shell is already selling the fuel in Thailand, The Netherlands, Greece and Germany, charging slightly more than its oil-based diesel. In Europe, Shell calls the fuel V-Power Diesel.

Read More http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/05/67534#ixzz0qGDkPPh8

[agere_contra]

Sulfur emissions from diesel engines cause as many as 10,000 deaths a year among Americans with heart and lung ailments, said William Becker, who represents state and local air pollution control agencies in the United States.

How amazingly precise. Good to know none of those deaths were from any other toxic cause, but have been forensically traced back to diesel Sulphur as the lethal agent.

[muir_redwoods]

Any word yet on the emissions related to the production of this car and the production and servicing of the fuel cell?

[Wonder Warthog]

"Capable of achieving a top speed of over 80 mph, it has a range of more than 250 miles on a full tank of hydrogen, refuels in about 5 minutes and produces no emissions other than water vapour."

Those specs sound pretty good. Moves an EV into a practical speed/distance range for typical American use. Of course, it'll probably cost two arms and a leg.

[politicianslie]

it'll probably cost two arms and a leg

You forgot a leg. GREEN will destroy everything it touches, with one leg left you aren't totally immmobile.

[fretzer]

Ummmmmmm...

Where do you get the hydrogen from?

[Hoodat]

Zero emissions? Think again. Hydrogen fuel cell emissions are comprised of 100% greenhouse gas.

[libertylover]

Capable of achieving a top speed of over 80 mph, it has a range of more than 250 miles on a full tank of hydrogen, refuels in about 5 minutes and produces no emissions other than water vapour.

Great, but a few questions: -How much does a full tank of hydrogen cost for my 250 miles. -How much does a new lithium battery for the car cost? -What about emissions at the fuel cell plant? -What about emissions at the battery factory? -Most importantly, how much does this quaint little taxi cost?

[NHResident]

Water vapor is the most common and most climate impacting ‘greenhouse gas’ - sheesh - these reporters are such ignorant hacks. Water vapor aka fog, humidity, etc. much more directly and immediately impacts climate than CO2. In no way can it be considered a benign pollutant.

[dennisw]

This article is another example of how modern journalism is devoid of science common sense. I read the entire text twice and can find not one reference about where this magical “hydrogen” will come from to power these lovely zero-emissions fuel cells.

Of course evil polluting electricity will generate this hydrogen, that allows devoid of science greenies to natter on so proudly about their shiny new zero-emissions vehicle

[dennisw]

Ummmmmmm...Where do you get the hydrogen from?

Since when does a greenie or liberal think that far back?

[RayChuang88]

I still think until the hydrogen refueling infrastructure is built out using hydrogen fuel cells is a terrible idea.

A better solution is to use compressed natural gas (CNG), which has a widely-available refueling infrastructure and burns very cleanly. Also, CNG can be made from many different sources, including biomass (no worries about running out of oil!). Sure, it doesn't go as far as gasoline or diesel fuel per fillup, but improving CNG fuel tank technology is overcoming this obstacle.

[thackney]

Zero emissions? Do they have a hydrogen tree they collect the fuel from?

Or is it hidden emissions where you blame the other guy for polluting while he supplies your fuel?

[CPOSharky]

Water vapor is the most common and most climate impacting ‘greenhouse gas’ - sheesh - these reporters are such ignorant hacks. Water vapor aka fog, humidity, etc. much more directly and immediately impacts climate than CO2. In no way can it be considered a benign pollutant.

The envirowhackos can't demonize water because everybody uses it every day and knows what it is. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand is a "chemical" and not an obvious part of every day life. Calling it "carbon" removes it even farther from everyday experience. So carbon dioxide is bad and carbon is worse.

Try dihydrogen monoxide on them and see what happens.

[catnipman]

Hydrogen is primarily produced by treatment of methane with steam. The energy inputs to obtain methane from natural gas and the cost to heat water to make the steam results in almost an 80% energy loss, which translates roughly into an 80% increased amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced over simply burning the natural gas directly to begin with.

Not to mention the exorbitant costs of transportation and storage.

Fuel cells are essentially a form of battery, and not an actual primary energy source, so of course they have a zero emissions footprint if you don’t take into account their original energy inputs. Almost all batteries have a zero emissions footprint when they discharge. Now the emissions from charging a battery, that’s a whole different animal! If battery discharging is the Unicorn, then battery charging is the Bogyman. Of course, uneducated libs (yeah, yeah, I know, that’s an oxymoron) think they can have just the Unicorns.

[Wonder Warthog]

"A better solution is to use compressed natural gas (CNG), which has a widely-available refueling infrastructure and burns very cleanly. Also, CNG can be made from many different sources, including biomass (no worries about running out of oil!). Sure, it doesn't go as far as gasoline or diesel fuel per fillup, but improving CNG fuel tank technology is overcoming this obstacle."

I pretty much agree with all you've said "except" for "which has a widely-available refueling infrastructure". There may indeed be more CNG fuelling stations available than for hydrogen, but they are FAR from ubiquitous.

[RayChuang88]

The reason why I mention "widely available infrastructure" is the tremendous expansion of the number of taxis, delivery vans and even buses using CNG as its primary source of fuel. As such, they've installed a LOT of CNG refueling stations in recent years, mostly connected to the natural gas delivery infrastructure already in place.

[PA Engineer]

How amazingly precise.

Yes. Big round numbers are always believable. ;-)

[Wonder Warthog]

"As such, they've installed a LOT of CNG refueling stations in recent years, mostly connected to the natural gas delivery infrastructure already in place."

This may be true of metropolitan areas, but I can promise you that outside those places, there is pretty much zero CNG infrastructure. Until it is truly country-wide, CNG automobiles ain't gonna fly.

I think CNG is the perfect lead-in as a transition to a solar/hydrogen economy.

[RayChuang88]

In fact, CNG-fueled vehicles are primarily used in metropolitan areas where the refueling structure is plentiful: taxis, delivery vehicles, and public transport of various sizes. Because London taxicabs operate mostly within 25 miles of the center of London, they are perfect candidates for a complete switchover to CNG-fueled operation.

Japan converted their taxicab fleet to CNG fuels since the early 1980's and in Hong Kong taxicabs are all CNG-fueled since 2003. As such, street-level air pollution in Hong Kong are much lower, especially with the elimination of thousands of diesel-powered taxicabs spewing out NOx gases and diesel particulates.

[Wonder Warthog]

"In fact, CNG-fueled vehicles are primarily used in metropolitan areas where the refueling structure is plentiful: taxis, delivery vehicles, and public transport of various sizes. Because London taxicabs operate mostly within 25 miles of the center of London, they are perfect candidates for a complete switchover to CNG-fueled operation. Japan converted their taxicab fleet to CNG fuels since the early 1980's and in Hong Kong taxicabs are all CNG-fueled since 2003. As such, street-level air pollution in Hong Kong are much lower, especially with the elimination of thousands of diesel-powered taxicabs spewing out NOx gases and diesel particulates."

I'm well aware of the urban applications and advantages of CNG, but that's not my point. We need a general replacement for oil for transportation. Natural gas can be a BIG part of that, but it won't be until the infrastructure is greatly expanded over what exists today.

For instance, I live on Fox Island in Puget Sound. Google maps finds that the two nearest CNG stations are 20 and 30 miles away, and to reach the closest of them, I'd have to drive across the Tacoma Narrows Bridge(s) (and pay a $4.00 toll) to "gas up". The nearest normal "gas station", on the other hand, is 2 miles away, with a large number more 8 miles away in the nearest town.

IMO, until the spacing gets down to 10 miles or less, CNG will not be accepted by the general public.