STEP AWAY FROM THE KOOL AID!
Hydrogen production by electrolysis is a -50% proposition. That takes the fuel cell from it’s possible 70% to 20 %. The transportation and storage inefficiencies will take it to zero.
Hydrogen is not and will never be a practical fuel.
“Hydrogen is not and will never be a practical fuel.” Agreed. It will never be a fuel at all. But copper is no longer such a bargain as an energy carrier either:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/copper-thefts-rise-to-an-alltime-high-2226773.html
TDM, Is there a car builder (other than Bently and Studebaker) that agrees with your assessment ? A lot of R&D money has gone into H2 vehicles, both fuel cells and H2ICE* (not to mention trains , planes and boats). There must be a reason.
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=23844
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-mercedes-benz-f-cell-instrumented-test-review
http://www.chrysler.com/en/autoshow/concept_vehicles/ecovoyager/
http://www.hydrogen-motors.com/fiat.html
http://fuelcellsworks.com/news/2009/05/26/made-in-china-volks
Stan,
The copper in the contact wire is around $50,000/mile, the messenger wire and supporting structures, substations and what-not probably add quadruple to sextuple that. There’s also some cost for signaling changes and new locomotives. The really expensive part is improving clearances for the catenary, which includes highway and pedestrian overpasses, tunnels, etc.
I’d go with batteries for storage of intermittent power sources, Li-ion batteries have better than 80% energy storage efficiency (can be better than 90%).
Erik,
The big number I mentioned is based on Charlotte’s experience with the Blue Line. It’s loaded to include some grade separation expense, the engineering needed to preempt galvanic interaction with subterranean utilities and a lot of other ancillary costs. Outside cities, where a lot of this doesn’t apply, it could well be lower, as you suggest. And I’ve heard the actual contact wire can be an aluminum alloy, avoiding that much copper.
When CATS planned the Blue Line south segment, Charlotte’s first (and very successful) light rail circa 2002, the planned electrification cost was $1.75 million per mile. Completion came in at between $6 and $7 million about five years ago. Since then, copper costs have risen sharply and—though the recession has held inflation to a minimum—material and labor costs have risen too. At the International Hydrail Conferences I’ve heard numbers higher than $10 M mentioned.
The amount and geographical distribution of hydrail R&D today suggests that a point will come when the 130-year-old complexity of external power will just not be worth it. If hydrail continues to be developed as a means of reducing diesel consumption and pollution, it seems likely to be tapped for electric train line extension to low-traffic routes as well.
A GE has shown, battery tech is advancing fast. But even with their new locomotive battery plant in Albany online, they are still looking at fuel cell hybridization.
Watch the movie “Who killed the electric car”, one of the arguments made is that the H2 programs by the various manufacturers so far largely are PR efforts designed to impress the public and (more importantly) the government(s) without any real ability to bring such vehicles to market on a large scale.
I wonder if by the time the technical hurdles of storing H2 onboard vehicles have been solved, electrical energy storage systems (supercapacitators, advanced batteries) may be able to match hydrogen’s energy density and capacity (in the sense of permitting vehicle range comparable to current fuels).
Both technologies are still a ways down the road(pun intended)…
From “Who Killed the Electric Car,” take away the thought that GM’s want of an attention span was the proximate cause of death.
If Apple had run away from the personal digital assistant market (instead of paying intense attention to the biopsy, as they did) we wouldn’t be talking to Siri on iPhone 5s, or using Droids and Blackberries for that matter.
GM did the same with the Corvair instead rethinking and refining it toward a US version of the Porsche 914.
Prediction: Despite a cool reception, Japan will sprout even more Leafs and GM will not stay the course with the Volt…though they’ll have to re-enter the P-IH market eventually.
Similarly, the US has been far too slow following-up on the 2009 DoD-funded South Africa to seize the initiative.
If GM gets involved… will they name their Hydrogen Powered Effort " The Hindenburg TOO" ? [4:-)]
Hydrogen ( gas or liquid) involved in any rail accident(incident) will create apoplexy in the Railroad Risk Offices… (my Prediction) [:-,]
Actually, the fact that hydrogen rises rapidly away from away from accidents (as it did in the Hindenburg, allowing 2/3 of those on board to walk away) is one of the primary attractions for railroad applications.
A few thousand gallons of diesel pooling and flaming from under a train wreck is not a pretty sight, as the propulsion engine diesel burning in the famous Hindenburg film illustrates.
Re that film, burning hydrogen makes no visible light. H2 easily ignites but doesn’t explode unless confined and mixed with oxygen, re the other hoax.
"
Smart, smart, smart: Germany has a huge excess of wind turbine electricity during late night hours and converting it to hydrogen via electrolysis has proved an ideal way to store it. The main idea of hydrogen is to decouple realtime generation and consumption of electric energy. Without hydrogen technology, intermittent renewable sources such as wind, tide, hydro, PV, solar concentration, etc., would be much harder to integrate into energy systems such as the power grid.
There is so much off-peak excess wind energy in Germany that they are looking to use it for cryogenic removal of carbon dioxide from the air and then combining the carbon obtained with electrolysis hydrogen to make methane for distribution via natural gas mains. Efficiency is made important by scarcity. When the problem is excess…not so much.
Why would only fossil hydrogen be used when there are so many clean ways to produce it?"
The only reason that Germany and other European countries have all this wind and solar garbage is huge subsidies. If you have ever been there or have any knowledge of their climate you would know that Germany is one of the worst places in the world for solar energy. Face it , wind energy is a dead loser. It is only able to produce 35% of the time max, and the rest of the time it is a parasite, using energy to maintain the blade pitch controls, wind speed detection system, gearbox oil heater, and in the winter, blade deicers.
If you knew anything at all about the energy business you would know that any time you convert from one form to another there are huge losses. The electrolysis of water is a 50% loser. To then try to convert it to methane would be another loser. Then you have to store and transport it. All this crap with a world wide glut of natural gas.
I might point out that there is no such thing as fossil hydrogen.
Might “fossil hydrogen” be a t
Natural gas reformate is what I mean by “fossil” hydrogen. Thanks, carnej1
“Natural gas reformate” is another energy loser. If you have natural gas, why waste energy to get hydrogen? It doesn’t just “reform” to make you feel good, you know. This is ridiculous. You want to expend energy ( carbon based, I might add) to get a lesser amount of energy from hydrogen. This is like borrowing your way out of debt. It is a losing spiral.
Reformate hydrogen is used in petroleum refining and produced nearby for that purpose. Excess from that industry is used in steel production, fertilizer manufacture and a few thousand other ways.
Methane isn’t a chemical substitute for hydrogen. “Reform” is a chemical term, not a feel-good neologism.
Do a little research , Stan. Hydrogen in steel production? Search hydrogen stress cracking. Fertilizer? Natural gas is converted to ammonia. It is NEVER done to produce a fuel. It is done to produce hydrogen for applications that require hydrogen, not as fuel. For instance, in the electrical generation industry, most generators are hydrogen cooled. It is not a viable fuel. Hydrogen is produced for those applications where, chemically or physically, nothing else will do. It is not done for fuel, except for such rare applications as rocket fuel . Not sure why it is done there since carbon based fuels have WAY more BTUs per unit of mass.
Re H2 never used as fuel:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/hydrogen/hydrogen.htm
http://www.h2journal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=391
BNSF is one of the biggest railroads in the US. Loco HH 1205 runs on hydrogen.
South Africa has begun using hydrogen locomotives in mining operations.
“Never” is a bit strong, TDM.
H2 was a viable fuel (energy carrier) for the electrical service on the Apollo flights. When did it cease to be?
How do you explain the existence of Ballard, Hydrogenics, GE’s fuel cell division, Nedstack and all the other companies that have been making hydrogen fuel cells for years? And China’s 2010 announcement?
Re never used in steel making:
http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/doc/low_carbon_tec_plan/ref_roadmap2.pdf
You’re right in saying that hydrogen is used “…where, chemically or physically, nothing else will do.” But isn’t that also true of the other 91 elements?
as some other poster put ---- Hydrogen is an energy storage item not a source of energy. It takes energy to produce elemental hydrogen. much better would be natural gas which is an energy source./.
Blue streak 1,
Natural gas is a great fuel but it can’t be used for transportation without releasing the “C” in CH4 as “CO2”.
Last year was the hottest on record in the US by a full degree. Katrina and Sandy and the drought and fires in the South and the West and Australia are real—and they’re just for openers.
Unless one’s a “solacaust denier,” carbon consequences have to be taken into account when capital resources are allocated among future railway technology options.
stan – there is alot more carbon atoms in any source to make elemental hydrogen. that is excluding hydro that is maxed out or nuclear that is iffy.
I should have said that hydrogen is not a practical fuel. Practical fuels do not include those used by spacecraft unless you are going into space. Say that hydrogen is used in steel production because it might be used for emission control is like saying you car is powered by platinum because it has a catalytic converter.
A practical fuel cannot result in a loss of energy due to it’s production.