Fueling Our Transportation: Eventually We Need To Make a Choice
2GreenEnergy super-supporter comments on my post “What Exactly Is the Attraction of Fuel Cell-Based Transportation?” There is work going on to develop low cost robust fuel cells capable of running directly on liquified / compressed natural gas. Vehicles using this technology would be around twice as efficient as using a conventional engine, and there is already a fueling infrastructure.
I have no doubt that any of this is true, though it raises some interesting points:
Obviously, there is a limit as to how many fuel types the market will support simultaneously. For those old enough to remember, VHS video technology beat out Betamax, and audio cassettes won over 8-track. In the more distant past, the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine replaced the electric car in the late 1920s. The point: we will not wind up with a stable combination of petroleum, natural gas, hydrogen, and electric transportation.
So the issue, it seems, is analyzing the fundamental market and economic conditions to produce the eventual winner.
I’m betting on battery electrics, because of the improvements in battery characteristics and cost, the ubiquitous delivery infrastructure, the tie-in to offpeak renewable energy generation, and the potential for vehicle-to-grid technology.
This idea is bolstered by the enormous investments of virtually all the major OEMs, and the increasing costs, both finacially and ecologically, of crude extraction.
As we’ve all seen to our chagrin, the will of the people (in this case, regarding environmental protection and world peace) doesn’t mean much, but it does mean something, and it seems natural that public animus on the scourge of oil can only increase in volume as the years go by. We’ll see.
I think that battery electrics will become common. However, where long range is important, ammonia for fuel may also become common.
My assessment on this topic:
Energy storage technology will be the only power source permissible for new vehicles manufactured by all of the major global vehicle ‘manufacturers’ in China and Japan from 2030, followed progressively by many other countries manufacturers throughout the 30’s decade.
Gasoline powered passenger vehicles will be prohibited by policy from being ‘manufactured’ by nearly every major nation except India probably by 2040.
India will be a stark late adopter of electric powered vehicles in general use, probably about 2070 before a substantial shift becomes the norm.
There is a distinction between policy about gasoline vehicles in use, and gasoline vehicles being manufactured. The global move from gasoline vehicles will start with national vehicle manufacturing policy being implemented not vehicle use policy.
What we currently visualize as a vehicle battery bank though will soon be replaced by Ultra High Density Vehicle Energy Storage technology and in road Contactless Coupling Charging technology.
Lawrence Coomber
What seems to be a common thread among all the suggested options is the use of an electric motor for traction. Powering the motor is really the issue. Without suggesting the merits of each, electricity can be made on the vehicle with solar panels, fuel cells or internal combustion engines plus generators in a hybrid coupling. We can store the electricity in batteries, ultracaps (or even flywheels) or we can transmit the electricity wired or wirelessly.
But there are a few competing technologies in compressed air engines, (particularly for hot environments like India) advanced combustion engines and magnetic levitation (linear motors,) and long term with an external heat engine combined with a thermal storage battery, (particularly for cold environments.)
The point of the article is that there will be a competition among all these potential technologies. But there are also competing perspectives. In theory we would like to see the most efficient. But engineers will be pushed to design the most economical.
There are human factors that are difficult to fit into an equation. We seem to be personally engineered to favor less short term out of pocket expenses over long term economics. This has many implications. A major one is that it is therefore easy to bury the cost of infrastructure away from personal choices. The electric grid already exists but a cash flush fossil fuel company may be willing to outspend any competition to create infrastructure. It would be socially cheaper to transmit electricity (and have cheaper cars with fewer batteries,) build trailers for EV long rang use(again cheaper cars,) but it would take a socially inclined, far seeing government like China to implement such a plan.
We also tend to favor far more range than we on average actually use. The continued development of adapters to “power your home” from your vehicle will favor large-battery vehicles in hazard conscious areas like Japan and may find a market where electrical supply is not assured or constant.
Fossil fuel companies will push for a vehicle that continues to use fossil fuels in some regard. This implies hydrogen and other fuel cell electric vehicles as well as advanced combustion engines. The natural gas fuel cell car is clearly a result of cheap natural gas, but could vaporize if natural gas becomes more expensive or would not be implemented in places where natural gas is costly. But they may also push a red herring to delay an easily anticipated lack of growth or even a decline in fossil fuel usage.
The biggest argument against the fossil fuel interest is that a vehicle that somehow takes power from the grid leverages any cleaner electric power into the transportation sector. It is a compelling argument but who is going to push for it? As long as policy is dictated by fossil fuel interests it could take an equal push from a power industry with an excessive amount of electricity to sell, to advance this perspective. Innovation (like V2G, or changing rate structure) or overbuilding in the power industry will create an additional push for electric vehicles.
Finally no matter what kind of electric vehicle is adopted all will require some form of energy storage. I expect a technological breakthrough in air batteries (directly,) flow batteries (indirectly) or ultracaps to have a huge implication for electric vehicles. (Unless some of the remarkable improvements in solar panels efficiency works to decrease vehicle energy storage requirements significantly.)
The US has a huge potential market but a somewhat dysfunctional national government. It could be that fossil fuel interests will dictate vehicle choices within the US but will be largely ignored as cutting edge transportation implementation appears on a (US) state level or continues outside of the US in countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark or South Korea.
Breath,
In reality, only two new zero emission technologies are envisaged as replacements for the global ICE fleet.
Electric Vehicles powered by ESD charged from and external source, or electric vehicles with Fuel cell ESD technology charged by an external source H2.
With gasoline/diesel still plentiful and relatively cheap, both technologies remain only marginal influences on the vehicle market.
To reach significant numbers both technologies need either government mandates, or a resumption in high oil prices. *EV need a breakthrough in EV capacity).
Attending the World Energy Forum in Davos was the newly formed Global Hydrogen Council with founding members including Air Liquide, Alstom, Anglo American, BMW GROUP, Daimler, ENGIE, Honda, Hyundai Motor, Kawasaki, Royal Dutch Shell, The Linde Group, Total and Toyota.
The founding members represent corporations with revenues exceeding of more than $4 trillion, and 11 million employees.
No U.S. companies are yet represented on the council, although Ford, GM and Chevron announced an intention to join, along with 315 other major corporation globally.
Investment in the development and commercialization of hydrogen and fuel cell technology currently exceeds $3.4 Billion a year rising to $25 billion by 2025.
Meanwhile, EV ESD technology is receiving more $10 billion R&D funding for greater capacity.
South Korea is a major player in HFCV technology, while Norway and Denmark have increased the number of EV’s to nearly 2% of the number of cars in their respective passenger fleets. (although these are very small national fleets).
LPG powered vehicles have gained some market share in nations with access to cheap and plentiful LPG.
No where at Davos could I find mention of compressed air or magnetic levitation !
Marco, I thought I was fairly literal when I said I did not intend to discuss the merits of each technology, only that there were alternatives and then moved on to point out that there were other factors to strictly technological issues that may influence winners and losers. That somewhat embarrassingly long comment was simply a counterpoint to Craig’s technological considerations.
I could review the long and interesting history of compressed air cars or mag lev trains but you could just as easily look it up if you were truly interested. There was recently a break through in compressed air efficiency in the NE US using a separate system to capture and store heat, but compressed air vehicle technology will likely remain marginal just to be imagined now and again with such developments. Mag lev seems to be evolving into hyper-loop.
Your mentioning of all the players supporting hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle technology adds to my point that there are factors in addition to technological issues. The fact that oil companies are supporting hydrogen is because they manufacture hydrogen from fossil fuels, primarily natural gas and would like to see a wider market for their product.
When it comes to hydrogen cars I am not sure we can envision a future both ways. They can’t ultimately be a market for petrochemical fuel and also be “an emission free transportation system.” I know it looks like the same issue with the BEV and fossil fueled power plants. But there seems to be a difference in direction. The BEV seems to be going up the stairs to a cleaner world as power plants improve or as the vehicles charge from solar panels during the day. The HFCEV however seems to be going down the stairs toward a reliance on petrochemical fuel. They just seem to be at the same place on a landing. But I tend to think this distinction will be lost on the general public, particularly with a fossil fueled ad campaign.
When ethanol became a thing, US oil companies quietly demanded that the additive be limited to 10% or they would start to shut down refineries. I would not be surprised as some similar blackmail or control when it comes to hydrogen. Presently about 96% is made from fossil fuels. Should hydrogen from water ever become efficient or economical then the petrochemical companies may rely upon their control of distribution to essentially shut out the cleaner supply industry. Alternatively, they might use their present control of legislators to limit the cleaner source. Either way this leaves us with fossil fuel powered hydrogen cars.
While petrochemicals are presently “plentiful and cheap, these supply side issues may not be the only factors that dictate the market share for alternative fueled vehicles. On the demand side, consumers are increasingly aware of environmental and strategic issues. On an average basis certainly the initial vehicle cost and the cost of fueling are most significant probably in that order. But there are already some locations where consumers have begun to make decisions on other factors and legislators are backing them.
Even on an average basis you can easily find literature that points out that demand for plug in vehicles continues to grow regardless of low petrochemical fuel prices or higher than average electric vehicle prices. There are many comparisons to other historical markets with emerging technologies. They also began with a slow penetration of market share until they reached a tipping point sometimes 10 or 20 years after first being manufactured. I think our expectations are somewhat skewed by the unusual growth in some electronics markets like computers and phones. Tesla’s manufacturing and marketing is probably most like the electronics industry with slightly different results than the balance of the auto industry.
Breath,
Regrettably, the demand for PIEV’s (including hybrid plug-ins) is almost entirely within markets with heavy government subsidies, incentives etc, the moment these are modified or removed, sales decline.
The one exception is Tesla, but again although as a percentage of sales increases overly excited headlines may seem to indicate growth, it’s largely an illusion. (after all, is you are selling one unit per month and next month you sell two, it’s a 100 % increase, but in a million unit market it’s insignificant).
You are correct when you say HFCEV’s aren’t a perfect solution in a strictly purist sense. But that’s not really the point. The average consumer isn’t a purist, as long as he believes his new vehicles badge “zero emission’ meets his requirement, like Tesla owners he doesn’t want to become involved in complex arguments about what constitutes “Zero emission” !
My belief, (based more on hope than fact) is HFCV technology will never become more a niche player due to progress in developing a dramatic increase in EV ESD capacity.
Perhaps the suggestion seems extreme that legislation might be proposed that restricts clean energy. This is the first example I have seen that lawmakers wish to impose a tax restricting alternative energy. They want to restrict renewable energy because the local coal industry is having a difficult time competing against cheaper wind and solar energy. http://inhabitat.com/wyoming-lawmakers-launch-bill-that-would-ban-selling-renewable-energy/ In a classic example of “double-speak” the legislation is proposed to ensure Wyoming residents have the cheapest energy available.
It is not clear whether such a law passed by Wyoming would be legal. The courts might rule that the law would interfere with interstate commerce and that only the federal government has the right to enact laws affecting interstate commerce. That area of the law is somewhat murky. If Wyoming is on a power grid which extends to other states, which is quite likely, Wyoming would be limited in what it could do to control power.
Frank, I agree, but legislators have passed many laws which might ultimately be ruled unconstitutional or a power reserved to the federal government. But the implications are also interesting. If one state can pass a law making renewable energy illegal then another state might pass a law declaring fossil fuels illegal. Somehow I doubt that this was part of the consideration in proposing this bill.