By William Mitchell, Vice President of Sales and Marketing
During a recent business trip, I had the chance to catch up on a little reading, and was very interested to dive into a special report published in the June 21st 2008 issue of the Economist on the Future of Energy. Aside from the fact that the title of the article is a registered trademark of Nuvera, Geoffrey Carr gave an almost completely unbiased overview of the clean energy space and its developments around the world. In the article, Mr. Carr talks even handedly about the rise of wind, solar, carbon capture, geothermal energy, biofuels, and nuclear power and I agree with both the tenor of the report and his assertions of the status of each of the technologies. I view petroleum as nothing more than renewable energy that has been concentrated over millions of years, and believe that we will need to use all the available renewable resources at our disposal to replace its use.
Unfortunately, the report on the future transportation technologies missed the opportunity to fairly represent the current and options for the automobile powertrain of the future. In the section titled “The end of the petrolhead”, Mr. Carr represents fuel cell technology as something that is now out of fashion and on the way out compared to advanced battery technology. In the article, he poses a question: “But why bother? Why not cut out the middleman and plug your car directly into the electricity mains instead?” Hopefully, I can shed some light on the status of fuel cell technology and answer this question for Mr. Carr, as I believe he is really missing out on the real Future of Energy, at least in the transportation sector.
My first response to this question is that fuel cell vehicles (at least in the United States), when operating on hydrogen derived from natural gas, offer a greenhouse gas emissions reduction of 33% compared to battery electric vehicles that are charged from electricity from the U.S. electric grid according to an Argonne National Labs report from April 2008. In the report, which compares battery powered forklifts to fuel cell powered forklifts, they conclude that “In many parts of the US, significant benefits could be obtained immediately by replacement of battery-powered forklifts with those powered by fuel cells using hydrogen from steam-reforming of natural gas.” This same savings holds true when comparing battery electric vehicles to fuel cell vehicles. To be clear, a 33% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions means that on a “well to wheels” basis, fuel cell vehicles are 33% more efficient than battery electric vehicles.
My second answer to this question is that fuel cell vehicles are currently the only foreseeable option for zero emission vehicles that meet both the consumer requirements for fast refilling/recharging and autonomy. Mr Carr references the advances in lithium ion technology and of the Tesla vehicle in particular. This vehicle, which is an engineering marvel, features a range of approximately 350 kilometers (220 miles) and a recharge time of 3.5 hours nicely packed into a 2 seat, 1,200 kilogram (2,600 pound) package. If the same system were placed into a sedan or small SUV meant for typical family use, the recharge time would stay the same, but the autonomy would fall into the range of 170 km (110 miles), which although good enough for many people to use for commuting or as a second car, would fall short on their expectations as a primary vehicle. On the contrary, today’s fuel cell vehicles are demonstrating autonomies equivalent to internal combustion engine vehicles. In fact, earlier this year, Toyota unveiled a fuel cell vehicle with a range of over 800 km (500 miles). For this reason, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to triple the amount of zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs) that staff had proposed for automakers to produce from 2012 through 2014. Staff had proposed to require 2,500 pure zero emission vehicles, which the Board increased to 7,500. Automakers can produce fewer ZEVs, 5,357, if they are long-range fuel cell vehicles or they can opt to satisfy the requirement by manufacturing 12,500 battery electric vehicles with a range of 100 miles. Clearly, CARB sees the potential of fuel cells for transportation, as they carry a much higher zero emission vehicle ZEV credits as compared to the lower range battery electric vehicles.
Now I am the first to admit that many companies in the fuel cell world have made a lot of promises in the past – promises that were not kept, which has caused a “fuel cell hangover” in the minds of investors and the public alike, but the technology is now ready to go, and all major automotive companies in the world are actively engaged in bringing this technology to the market. Mr. Carr indicates in his report that “only Honda and Mercedes seem to be sticking enthusiastically to fuel cells”. This is simply not true. In a recent report from the National Hydrogen Association meeting that I attended in California in March of this year, GM, Honda, and Toyota gave talks to reaffirm their commitment to commercializing fuel cell vehicles starting with the California ZEV requirements in 2012-2014, and Catherine Dunwoody of the California Fuel cell partnership reported on the status of the other OEM’s developing fuel cell vehicles, including Ford, Nissan, Mercedes, Hyundai, and Volkswagen. According to Larry Burns, the V.P. of R&D at GM, the potential societal and consumer benefits of fuel cell technology are clear and compelling, and that no other technology offers this exciting potential. In fact, he stated that GM has not uncovered a single issue yet to suggest that mass volume of fuel cell vehicles cannot ultimately be attained.
In the end, it is not a matter of fuel cells versus batteries for the future automotive powertrain. The two will work together to make hybrid fuel cell vehicles. Mr. Carr should not view these technologies as competitors for the market. The real competition is the status quo and internal combustion engines. We all need to work together to achieve The Future of Energy and get us moving away from our dependence on petroleum.
