Green Cars Part 3- Hydrogen
Hydrogen is the darling of the media, car manufacturers and oil companies
alike. The general public seems fairly convinced that hydrogen vehicles are going
to be the way of the future and a simple replacement for oil. Just about every
car manufacturer has done at least a fuel cell
concept, if not a ‘production ready
model’ or even consumer
testing. Hydrogen can be filled
up in more or less the same way as conventional cars meaning that consumers
can continue in their established transport patterns. It can be produced from a
variety of different
sources including electricity and has the potential to be created with zero
emissions. Best of all the only thing to come out of the tailpipe of a fuel
cell vehicle is water vapour.But is hydrogen really the miracle cure for
oil dependence and transport environmental damage that everyone thinks it is?
Photo from GreenCarSite
As a preface, the first thing that needs to be noted in answering that question is that hydrogen, unlike petroleum or natural gas, is not actually a fuel source, it is just an energy carrier. We can’t mine, harvest or extract hydrogen from the earth; we have to make it ourselves. That means we need to put energy in to make hydrogen so we can get it back out again in our cars. The problem with that is that it isn’t a very efficient or necessarily green process and that’s not the only obstacle, Popular Mechanics lists 4 major hurdles for hydrogen to become the fuel that powers our transport needs:
Production
At
present the vast majority of hydrogen production uses heat and pressure to extract
hydrogen from natural gas. The process uses fossil fuels, energy for the
heat and pressure and releases CO2. So the hydrogen produced can hardly be
called green. The cheapest alternative method to produce the 150 million tons
of hydrogen required to replace current passenger cars is coal gasification. Costing around US$500 billion, the process would produce 600 million tons of CO2. The cheapest
CO2 free way of doing it would be nuclear at $840 billion and requiring 2000 next
generation reactors compared to the 103 existing nuclear power stations in the
I’m going to try and keep the next two short but you
can read more about them here.
Hydrogen is light, giving it quite a good
energy to weight ratio of 3 times that of natural gas. The problem is that it
is also not very dense, even if cooled to the point where it turns into a
liquid you would still require three times as much space as an equivalent gas
(petrol) tank. If compressed to 10,000 psi, 250 times more pressure than your
average tires, you would need 4-5 times the amount of space for a tank for the
same range as an equivalent petrol car. There are also certain materials which
can absorb and release hydrogen but they are heavy and expensive.
Distribution
Trucking it will take 11% of the energy in each load just for the truck.
Pipelines cost about a $1 000 000 per mile. Small scale on site production via
electrolysis or natural gas is less efficient than large scale but could
potentially be the best of the not very good options. Or in the distant future
in car production may be possible though it would be using up our aluminium
reserves.
Use
You can use hydrogen
in an internal combustion engine and get about a 25% better fuel economy
than traditional ICE’s. Considering ICE cars are only 20-25% efficient anyway we’re
not getting much bang for our buck. Fuel Cells
can bump this to 45% total efficiency with light duty but this drops to 36% under high loads. Not
to mention that Fuel Cells are so expensive that Ballard, a leading fuel cell
researcher for the past 25 years worth 600 million has abandoned
its fuel cell program as prohibitively expensive. The
Wall Street Journal even quoted
Perhaps the biggest thing we can use to
evaluate the effectiveness of fuel is its well to wheel efficiency, if not its availability
or cost viability. Hydrogen vehicles are not the best option on any of these
counts. Their efficiency fails to compete with the other options. When they
would be widely available is anyone’s guess; GM
says a decade , The
EU suggests 2030, but some
have guessed up to 100 years, not to mention the chicken and the egg car and distribution problem. And as we saw in the last paragraph hydrogen cars are prohibitively
expensive with fuel cells and not very efficient as an ICE. I fail to see where
all the enthusiasm stems from for hydrogen cars, people just don’t seem to be
aware of the numbers. When you look at
the facts, H2 cars are too wasteful, too expensive and too far away.


