Hydrogen-fuel cell plug in hybrid is car of the future
In The Economist edition of September 6th the hydrogen-fuel cell car is dismissed as The Car of the Perpetual Future, having received too much government funding. All-electric cars or plug-in hybrids are much more promising, concludes The Economist. Frank de Bruijn, manager of the ECN-unit Hydrogen & Clean Fossil Fuels, disagrees strongly. “Most likely batteries and fuel cells will not compete, but work together.”
In his letter to the editors of The Economist De Bruijn writes: “It is obvious that we do not need zealotry and taboos in fighting climate change. But we don’t need a lack of endurance either. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions in 2050 by 50%, necessary to keep temperature rise and its effects within manageable limits, poses a huge challenge. The necessary energy transitions will have to take place in the coming decades; they tend to imply such big shifts in the energy system that no one expects them to succeed in the coming years.”
“In its recent 2008 Energy Technology Perspectives, the IEA estimates that cutting carbon dioxide emissions by half will cost around 45 trillion dollars in the years to 2050. Besides the money, consistent policies are needed to create a stable business environment that enables the necessary investments.
For transport, we will need to find a long term alternative for oil, as the global growth in transport will be heavily constrained by the limited oil supplies, as even the most recent Shell scenarios foresee. It is the long term challenge of reducing CO2 emissions by 50% combined with these expected oil shortages that will reveal the limits of improvements in internal combustion engines and their hybridization. These improvements will certainly help in the short term, but will prove to have its limits when cutting deeper.”
Winner
While most energy specialists realize that there is no single solution that will solve our problems, the Economist has identified found one new winner: the electric car. De Bruijn: “Unfortunately life isn’t as simple as that. Batteries are unlikely to offer a driving range of 400 miles and a recharge within 5 minutes, a combination that consumers are used to with gasoline. Hydrogen fuelled fuel cell cars, such as the state-of-the-art Toyota fuel cell car, have exactly proven this combination.”
In the Economists rather flimsy well-to-wheel calculation standard natural gas reforming (e.g. hydrogen production) is combined with the efficiency of two of today’s available fuel cell vehicles. “Not taken into account is the fact that hydrogen production from natural gas can be combined with Carbon Capture and Storage, yielding climate neutral hydrogen. Furthermore, the fuel cell vehicle efficiency can be improved considerably, as has been proven by the same Toyota FCHV. This will lead to well-to-wheel CO2 emissions far below that of the Toyota Prius.”
45 trillion dollars
The other reason The Economist concludes fuel cell cars won’t work is the fact that the one billion dollar provided so far by the US government hasn’t yielded a commercially viable fuel cell car. According to the Econiomist another 10 billion dollars would be needed to bring the first 2 million vehicles on the road. De Bruijn: “The Economist should have compared these numbers to the 45 trillion dollars that the IEA estimates to be necessary between now and 2050 for cutting CO2 emissions, transport being responsible for roughly 20% of global CO2 emissions. It should also be compared to the billions that car manufacturers spend for the improvement of the internal combustion engine that is already more than 100 years on the road.”
“The chicken-and-egg metaphor for the lacking hydrogen infrastructure is beginning to wear out. In most implementation schemes, such as that of the EU Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, cautious build-up of infrastructure with local introduction of fuel cell vehicles must prevent uneconomical investments in infrastructure, although this can never be avoided completely. The idea that electric cars can be introduced without huge investments in the electricity infrastructure neglects the fact that we use more energy in our car than electricity in our home, and that most people will like to recharge their vehicles in less than 12 hours.”
Combination
Most likely, batteries and fuel cells will not compete, but work together, writes De Bruijn. “The fuel cell will extend the range of the battery car, while the battery will extend the lifetime of the fuel cell. This combination will reduce the size of both the battery and the fuel cell and therefore the demand for platinum. Both technologies offer the advantage of separating energy sources from end-use, so that we can use the whole range of energy sources to meet the huge demand for energy by transport that no single renewable energy source will be able to cover.
And yes, driving these clean vehicles will be more expensive than driving our cars today, for which the external costs of using fossil fuels are not taken into account.”
This publication is based on a reaction to the article The Car of the Perpetual Future, which was published in The Economist Technology Quarterly p27, September 6th 2008. The text has been included in a letter to the editor.
