PH Origins: Fuel cell-powered vehicles
Fuel cells seem a sound solution to zero local-emissions motoring - but they've been a long time coming...
Battery-powered vehicles, despite their many qualities, aren't ideal for all drivers. Range limitations, issues in colder climates and charging-related tribulations are often problematic for many potential buyers.
These issues have existed since the first EVs began quietly humming their way around roads in the 1800s. As the internal combustion engine came on song, however, the market's focus shifted to this far more flexible source of motive power. Consequently, development of electrical vehicles slowed to a crawl.
In the 1960s electric power and alternative fuels suddenly popped back onto manufacturers' radars. The rapidly expanding number of cars on the road was causing terrific increases in urban pollution, resulting in pressure from both government bodies and environmental groups.
For example, in the United States, the Clean Air Act of 1963 was expanded upon with the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965. Harmful emissions were in the spotlight and, as the years rolled by, the number of tests and requirements increased exponentially.
Consequently, manufacturers began investigating alternative forms of power to pave the way for cars that could meet the presumably far tighter regulations of the future. Battery power, hybrid technology - and cutting-edge fuel cells - became key topics of discussion and development.
It was the clean fuel cell option which proved of considerable interest to some, for a reason that's still cited today - a fuel cell would produce power for as long as you supplied it with the required fuel. Unlike a battery-powered vehicle, which would require time-consuming charging, a fuel cell-equipped car's tanks could simply be refilled and it could then continue on its merry way.
The basic concept of a fuel cell had been around for a considerable amount of time by this point. In essence, a fuel cell converts chemical energy into electricity that can then be used to run a motor. An electrochemical reaction between the fuel, usually hydrogen, takes place with oxygen in the cell, producing electricity, heat and - if it is a hydrogen fuel cell - water. This means there are no harmful local emissions and that the fuel cell can provide power as long as it's supplied with oxygen, usually sourced from ambient air, and fuel.
Welsh scientist Sir William Grove, and German-Swiss physicist Christian Friedrich Schönbein, separately developed what would later be recognised as fuel cells in 1839. As material and chemical understanding improved in the first half of the 1900s, fuel cell technology advanced rapidly - with the first effective set-up being demonstrated by English engineer Francis Bacon in 1932, followed by a far more powerful arrangement in 1959.
Fuel cells promptly became the hot new thing - and companies, including General Electric and Pratt & Whitney, scientific institutes and other government bodies ploughed seemingly endless resources into rapid development.
In the end, it wasn't a car that first demonstrated a practical wheeled application of fuel cells - but a tractor. The US-based manufacture Allis-Chalmers had also been studying fuel cells, in an effort to develop them for commercial applications. Its propane-fuelled cells and an electric motor were installed in a reworked prototype tractor, developed by engineer Harry Ihrig, in October 1959.
General Motors wasn't far behind, though. It, too, had been experimenting with fuel cells as it explored ways of reducing emissions and cutting fossil fuel usage. Drawing on the technology developed for space-going fuel cells, it built a hydrogen fuel cell concept called the Electrovan in 1966.
It was based on a GMC Handi-Van but, instead of a four- or six-cylinder engine, it featured a 120hp electric motor and a fuel cell developed and built in conjunction with experts Union Carbide. The fuel cell was bulky and complicated, however; it almost entirely occupied the Electrovan's load space and used cryogenically stored liquid hydrogen and oxygen.
GM was a little concerned about driving the oxygen and hydrogen-laden Electrovan on public roads, understandably, so trials were restricted to its property. While the project delivered much useful information, it was simply too complicated and expensive to pursue further - with GM stating that the platinum elements used in the fuel cells alone cost enough to 'buy a whole fleet of vans'.
Dr Karl Kordesch, an Austrian chemist from Union Carbide, led the team responsible for the basic design of the fuel cell - and he went on to further demonstrate the system's potential regardless, building a fuel cell-equipped motorcycle in 1967 that could travel 200 miles on a US gallon of hydrazine.
Low-volume, lease-only prototype series slowly evolved into the likes of today's Toyota Mirai, Honda Clarity and Hyundai Tucson FCEV, production cars which offer quiet and zero local-emissions motoring.
The development of hydrogen fuel cells continues apace, too - with GM alone having sunk more than $2.5 billion into fuel cells since it originally decided to invest in the technology. It's not all dependent on big brands, though; you also have the likes of the endearing fuel cell-equipped Rasa prototype from start-up Riversimple.
Similarly, more hydrogen refuelling points are slowly starting to materialise - and ongoing developments continue to drive the cost of the hardware down. For those that find batteries too restrictive it could, given time and further investment, prove a viable alternative.
That results in a really light powertrain that still has the power to get you to traffic speeds safely, and because it's light the car doesn't need to be built to withstand the forces that it'd experience with a heavier powertrain (aka. an ICE that cruises along at 70 without needing more than 30hp but needs to produce 200hp for a very short time and still survive). So everything is lighter, improving the power/weight ratio and demanding less of the tyres... it's a vicious cycle of quite good things.
Then you build the structure from carbon fibre (it's mostly a concept still, a "trickle into production" type thing) and give it a slippery shape... 580kg and a lifetime CO2 (it's flawed but it's a comparison) output of ~40g/km which is apparently better than any other manufacturer achieves...
Hydrogen, would be interesting to see who is behind hydrogen, I wonder. You would need to have hydrogen production facilities, then hydrogen transportation then hydrogen stations, A whole business involved with that and then well it kinda looks like what we have already, so maybe someone is thinking fossil fuels are going to be history soon so we better be looking at a plan B to maintain our own jobs and infrastructure. We need to be getting away from this, starting to look at simple ways to manage our energy footprint - not having to rely on having to make deliver and fuel vehicles from a liquid / gas under pressure. That is so past that is.
Concentrate on electricity and making batteries with more capacity per footprint. Start by understanding the energy and finding ways to make that electricity clean and with little or zero impact on the environment. We need to be smarter and think the larger picture - how do we make hydrogen store it transport it and then utilise it, what is the energy density utilised in production before it is actually used in the vehicle.
It seems a waste if you ask me, You even have someone have to drive to a fuel station when it could be filled up at home. simples over night charge for the day. much better than going to a refilling station and much better on the waist line as no ginsters to buy....
The issue with Hydrogen as a fuel is that it's not a fuel, it's an energy transport medium and a very inefficient one at that.
The fundamental problem is not making the H2, but storing and transporting it. It needs to be compressed and cooled which is where all the energy goes, this is the same if it's produce via oil/gas extraction or electrolysis from water.
With current systems this is roughly 35x in to out, ~2.86% efficient, I think the earliest steam engines did better than this!
But there are potentially other options, the interesting one atm is Formic Acid.
You can get ~590L of Hydrogen from 1 L of Formic Acid, relatively low toxic and relatively easy to store.
It can also be produced from Bio-fuel sources, so is theoretically renewable.
You do get some CO2 so it's not as 'Clean' as pure hydrogen and I've not seen any numbers on making the 'Fuel' in the first place, but it would appear more practical than Hydrogen.
But, TODAY, i already drive a carbon fibre EV, bought it from a main dealer, it seats 5, has a decent boot, has lots of NCAP stars, has loads of convince features like SATNAV and driver assistance thingies, comes with a warranty, is cheap to insure, and yes it's "Lossy" compared to the RiverStupid (note i said "lossy", not "in-efficient" as they are two very different things indeed!), but with normal use it returns the equivalent of about 150 mpg.
If we really want to reduce our transport energy consumption then we need to drastically reduce how far and how often we drive. Just making a noddy car that only seats two people isn't the answer (in the general case)
(imagine an EV fast charge station, with a field of solar panels and the odd wind turbine out the back. If generation exceeds demand, that station could produce clean (but in-efficient) hydrogen to make the most of it's generation assets, and then that hydrogen could be used to power a large fuel cell to balance the peak load requirements (when the station is full of charging cars each pulling 300 kW or whatever) As a fixed facility acting as a "load leveler" then that does make sense.
(also, there is a massive risk. iI you say invested £500M in a hydrogen solution, and then there was a break through, either in terms of specific energy density or in terms of specific cost, in battery storage (which seems inevitable at some point given the money being thrown at that development), your system could be rendered obsolete pretty much overnight...... )
It's like a very high tech composting toilet. Huge points for "eco", low points for "what people want", and there are some lessons in there that might be applied to more conventional toilets at some point when manufacturing catches up...
Battery tech is improving at pace, and it seems to be a viable alternative for many right now, range anxiety notwithstanding. I believe Elon Musk has stated efficiency is improving at > 5% a year. I'd say that is pretty conservative. Look at the Powerwall 1.0 vs 2.0 and how quickly they doubled.
For me, I'd like to see a solar solution in every home (latitude allowing) with battery storage, which then powers an EV as well. Queue the heavy metals scarcity discussions, followed by alternative materials discussion, add a few years, and hey presto. I dont personally see the point in hydrogen powered fuel cells because for now because it costs more energy than what is unlocked, for a net loss.
Not to mention the crazy price of hydrogen! It is vastly more expensive than petrol and that's without any tax.
I can see why Shell wants this to take off, but I can't really see why the man in the street would.
Compressed hydrogen stores about 150MJ/kg
Diesel about 50MJ/kg
A Tesla model 3 battery (ie the most dense yet) 0.5MJ/KG
Hydrogen is an incredible fuel, it’s also minutes to fill up and not hours.
I think as someone above pointed out if anyone things pure electric is anywhere near mainstream they are misguided.
I can certainly see a breakthrough in hydrogen production and storage happening with just as much likelihood of a battery density breakthrough.
Not as efficient as a fuel cell but a very simple, easy technology.
Not sure about comments above talking about converting electricity into something else; batteries store chemical energy that is converted into electrical energy, you don't have lightning bolts flying around inside your phone battery Fuel cells are simply a battery that allows replenishment on the fly, rather than having a fixed quantity of electrolyte (is that the right word with a Li-ion cell?) so you are essentially decoupling the discharge and recharge processes.
At least... That's my experience on IP addresses in the V8-huggin', burnout lovin', Five Guys munchin' side of the Atlantic.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff