Seriously, I just have to ask–are the CNG vehicle and hydrogen fuel cell people having a contest to see which group can drive me insane first? Just when I think one of them (most recently the CNG camp) has pegged the absurdity needle with their claims about how vastly cleaner CNG is for use in vehicles and now lawn equipment(!?), all the while ignoring CO2 emissions, the hydrogen people leap back into the lead with something like the following, as reported by Green Car Congress.
Automakers Still Targeting Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles for Long Term Sustainable Mobility:
Despite the current enthusiasm for electric vehicles (EVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) will be an important component of the vehicle mix in 2050, according to panelists from Nissan, Toyota and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in a conference session at the SAE 2009 World Congress in Detroit.
Dr. Kev Adjemian, Senior Principal Engineer/Senior Manager – Fuel Cell Laboratory, Nissan; Justin Ward, Advanced Powertrain Program Manager, Toyota; and Keith Wipke, Senior Engineer, NREL all agreed that the future would see a mix of the different types of vehicles out of necessity. Tailpipe GHG emissions need to be reduced by 70% by 2050 to maintain a 550 ppm concentration according to Nissan’s calculations, Adjemian said. (Nissan bases its assessment on the AR3 analysis from the UN IPCCC.) Adjemian also noted that neither EVs or FCVs would be able to contribute to that required reduction unless the electricity or the hydrogen was sourced from renewables.
Adjemian said that Nissan’s powertrain roadmap in the short term is focused on the expansion of highly efficient internal combustion engines, with the mid- and long-term bringing expansion of its EV efforts and maintaining the competitive advantage of its core electric power trains. By 2050, Adjemian sees an approximately equal mix of ICE, HEV/PHEVs, and fuel cell vehicles.
Justin Ward said that Toyota sees market opportunity for small EVs, but that according to Toyota’s latest calculations, the fuel cell hybrid vehicle has the advantage in well-to-wheel efficiency even now.
With natural gas as the feedstock for hydrogen and power generation, Toyota currently calculates 40% WTW efficiency for a fuel cell vehicle; 33% for an EV; 34% for a hybrid (Prius); and 19% for an internal combustion engine.
Before I flip into full-bore Exorcist mode, let me start by saying there’s one part of this vision that I definitely agree with: We’re looking at a future where personal transportation is fueled by a mix of technologies and sources. Right now, we essentially have a monoculture, with almost all transportation fueled by petroleum (or petroleum substitutes, like ethanol and biodiesel). You can argue whether the split here in the US–gasoline in cars and diesel in large trucks–means it’s not truly a monoculture, but in any case it’s very close.
I fully expect to see something like a mix of EVs with increasingly longer effective ranges[1] and PHEVs/HEVs running on biofuels (most likely algae-derived biodiesel).
Why no CNG or hydrogen vehicles?
CNG vehicles reduce CO2 emissions by a negligible percent, far less than we’ll need as we respond to climate chaos. Many of us constantly highlight the problems caused by things like coal plants historically not having to pay a price for the CO2 they emit, and that’s a valid point. But it applies just as well to CNG vehicles: They’re popular now because CNG is cheaper per mile than gasoline, and the car companies and other interests pushing them are doing a brilliant job of bragging about how much “cleaner” they are than gasoline powered vehicles in terms of NOx emissions, particulate matter, etc., while never mentioning the monster under the bed, CO2 emissions.
And in this respect, I have to wonder what our friends from the car companies are thinking. 550ppm of CO2 is the goal and not 450 or even 350, which is increasingly looking like the “right” answer? Tailpipe emissions have to be reduced, and not total life cycle emissions? Talk about two examples of playing tennis without a net. They’re basing their efficiency assumptions on hydrogen reformed from natural gas? And tying us to dependency for a critical service (transportation) to yet another fossil fuel, and then having to deal with yet another CO2 source, is a good idea why, exactly?
If you assume that climate chaos is a real and serious problem, which our friends claim to believe, even if they’re making some insanely convenient assumptions, then we will need all the green electricity for end use by consumers we can find. We will continue to build out wind and solar (and possibly geothermal, wave, and tidal) at a fast clip, but we’ll still be very hard pressed to replace any significant portion of our coal and natural gas generation in just a few decades. As a result, we’ll need to use the green electricity we do have as efficiently as possible. That means either you find a way to do CCS with the emissions from hydrogen reforming from natural gas (which would minimize the electricity input to the process, albeit at a hefty energy and money cost to do the CCS), or you make the hydrogen via electrolysis and consume three times as much per mile driven as you would in fueling an EV.
Surely you must be wondering if I’m getting to the point in this post where I recommend, for perhaps the 9 millionth time, that you read Ulf Bossel’s “E21″ paper, Does a Hydrogen Economy Make Sense? [PDF]? Yes, I am, and yes, you should read it, if only to see how he arrives at a much higher efficiency for EVs (69%) than the 33% reported above by our friends.
CNG and hydrogen as motor vehicle fuels are both dangerous wastes of money and time and intellectual capital. I’m confident they will be abandoned eventually, but nowhere near soon enough.
[1] By “effective ranges” I mean that the localized rise of things like battery swap and quick charge filling stations will let drivers in some areas make much more use of EVs than the average driver. These islands of support would likely grow over time and even merge in places like the US Northeast or anywhere else population centers are relatively close to each other. If there happens to be a good EV support infrastructure in the Rochester area, for example, then I would not only be able to drive my Electron 5000 farther, but I would be able to buy one with a smaller battery pack, possibly knocking thousands of dollars off the initial purchase price.
Slightly OT…
Is there a vehicle weight index? I believe in the you can’t control what you don’t measure maxim.
For every possible future energy scenario I can think of, it makes sense to reduce average vehicle weight a little each year (a few percent?).
I would love to know what the total average vehicle weight (in the US), and the average vehicle weight by model year, average vehicle weight by class etc. Based on such an index I would hope that vehicle manufactures would soon realize that no matter what energy source we use in the future…a lighter vehicle gets you further down the road.
This principle seems obvious to me, but somehow I never hear car companies talk about (okay maybe a decade or so ago there was some buzz about aluminum frame vehicles–but?) their plan to put their vehicles on a diet.
As far as I know, all the car companies are very aware of this factor, but cost and safety factors limit what they can do. You can find things like suspension parts made from much lighter, exotic metals, but they normally only show up on really expensive cars (well over $50K).
“but cost and safety factors limit what they can do”
What a copout. Anyone can say that about anything.
Sure, but there times when people and companies use this as an excuse, and then there are times when it’s accurate. In the case of car companies, they’ve had such a huge incentive for many years now to knock down the weight of vehicles that I’m convinced cost and safety issues are real.
You are telling me that every pound single pound in a 4,000+ lb vehicle is life cycle cost optimized from the driver’s perspective? LOL
It became obvious to me several years ago that the US car companies don’t actually know what they are doing.