http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/20/fuel-cell-vehicle-ghg-emissions/
Severe Issues with Fuel Cell Vehicle GHG Emissions Claims and Hydrogen
Refueling Infrastructure Grants
[2014/05/20]
Editor’s Note: one of our readers sent the following letter on May 19, 2014
to the person and office noted below. However, we thought it deserved as
much attention as possible and are thus publishing here on CleanTechnica as
well. We advise you to share widely.
Severe Issues with Fuel Cell Vehicle GHG Emissions Claims, Detailed Analysis
in Open Letter to California Energy Commission Proposing Urgent De-Funding
of Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure Grants to FirstElement Fuel Inc. and
Others
F.A.O. And for circulation.
[To:] Rachel Grant Kiley
Grants and Loans Officer, California Energy Commission, 1516 Ninth Street,
MS-1 Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: PON-13-607 Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure / Severe Issues with Fuel
Cell Vehicle GHG Emissions Claims.
Dear Rachel,
This is Julian Cox, thank you for taking a moment by telephone and,
crucially, for your assurances that funds have not as yet been awarded to
Hydrogen Refueling contractors per PON-13-607.
Thank you also for your kind attention and assistance in escalating the
matters summarized hereunder to parties responsible for determining on
PON-13-607.
Contrary to the impression given in numerous reports in the media, I
understand that it remains the case that ‘Funding of proposed projects
resulting from this solicitation [including the $27.6 million funding
proposed for FirstElement Fuel Inc.] is contingent upon the approval of
these projects at a publicly noticed Energy Commission Business Meeting and
execution of a grant agreement.’ – and that this meeting has not yet
occurred.
I would like to remark that this is out of the ordinary — that an applicant
hopeful of receiving significant grant funding should declare the foregone
conclusion of a publicly noticed Energy Commission Business Meeting by press
release in advance of receiving approval. This looks like a cross between
deeply questionable overconfidence and a worrying attempt to de-advertise
the availability of due process.
I would like to make a contribution to that process herewith.
I am writing to you as a result of what I am confident the Commission will
agree are material and severe discrepancies between the rationale for
awarding any funds to Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure and the
independently verifiable facts that are brought to light in this document.
Background and Introduction.
Consistent with a career-long vocation focussed on the positive convergence
of economics, energy, transportation and care for the environment I have
taken a keen interest in developments and challenges of all kinds facing the
electrification of transport in California.
More recently I have observed some troubling conduct surrounding the auto
and fossil fuel industry promotion of Fuel Cell Vehicles. Primarily that of
a singular preoccupation with targeting aggressive comparative marketing
statements at the initially tiny market opportunity to displace other ZEVs
(Electric Vehicles) posing the least of the problems that ZEVs could
reasonably be expected to solve for consumers in terms of contributions to
vehicle emissions. This aggressive stance against Electric Vehicles seemed
to be accompanied by evasion of public transparency with respect to the
intrinsic link between hydrogen and its almost invariably natural gas
feedstock and the GHG emissions resulting from its conversion to hydrogen.
Accordingly I was moved to produce some basic research into like-for-like
energy and emissions equivalences to look into the issue more closely and
the closer I looked the more the facade unravelled.
One thing that was swiftly discovered besides very evidently bad science
gives probable cause as to why. That is to say that by far the most
influential scientific advisor in seemingly all matters leading to the
appearance of PON-13-607 would appear to have worn a variety of hats and
filled a chain of key roles surrounding this process. These roles include
academic advisor to the CEC on Hydrogen policy, the role of lead author of
the California Fuel Cell Partnership’s Hydrogen Roadmap and culminating in
the role of Co-President of the principal awardee. I refer of course to Dr
Tim Brown currently Co-President of FirstElement Fuel Inc.
Simply put, while the fact is incontrovertible that FirstElement Fuel Inc.,
stands to gain $27.6 million from public funds, under the most basic
forensic examination the academic advice received by the CEC to support that
outcome does not hold up.
Real-world well to wheel emissions calculations for Fuel Cell Vehicles
produce figures that are so entirely at odds with assumptions at the heart
of both public policy and broad consumer awareness that I am compelled to
bring this matter to attention.
This is a long document. Thank you sincerely in advance for your most
valuable time and attention, and for those who can, your decisive action in
defense of the public interest as good judgement and conscience dictates.
Details.
The following bedrock statement at the heart of public policy concerning
Fuel Cell Vehicles as published here by the California Fuel Cell
Partnership, is a pivotal mischaracterization of core research conducted by
NREL. If taken on its face value, this statement of comparison on behalf of
Fuel Cell technology vehicle versus Gasoline technology vehicle is
categorically and unequivocally false:
‘When making the hydrogen from natural gas, as most hydrogen is made today,
the GHG emissions are cut in half compared to a conventional vehicle using
gasoline’.
This statement is false by omission of the contextually absurd specification
given by NREL to the term ‘conventional vehicle using gasoline’. This is a
21 mpg gasoline vehicle that in the modern era generates more than twice the
power output of any 122hp to a maximum of 134hp FCV either tested by NREL,
presently available or proposed for market introduction. To give an example,
a 310hp Porsche Panamera 4 3.6 Liter V6 is a modern 21mpg vehicle. It should
come therefore as no surprise that any modern 122-134hp fossil fuel powered
vehicle of any kind is bound to produce at least approximately half of the
emissions per mile no matter if those emissions come out of the tailpipe or
elsewhere. Far more surprising is that such a revelation of the completely
ordinary could reach the verge of triggering a rethink of public energy
policy costing $100s millions if not many $billions before someone
eventually points to this most obvious fact.
In plain English and for the avoidance of any doubt. In accordance with the
facts and figures brought to light in this document, Fuel Cell Vehicles
currently on the roads of California cannot be relied upon to require the
production of any less GHG emissions per standard EPA combined mile in the
making of hydrogen from natural gas than would be produced from a directly
equivalent gasoline vehicle. There can be no ambiguity when the direct
equivalence in question is the same make and model of vehicle substituting
only a Fuel Cell system with a Gasoline or Diesel Internal Combustion Engine
of the same or similar power output.
Transparency.
One of the key figures missing from public debate on this topic, and the one
that must be well understood for transparency is the CO2 per Kg figure for
Hydrogen production from natural gas.
For those unfamiliar with hydrogen production, here is a highly recommended
brief and accessible click-through animation presented (in English) by
French-held Air Liquide, a member of H2USA and the lead hydrogen contractor
for Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest global-scale exporter of hydrogen. For
those concerned about foreign fuel dependency, yes, Saudi Arabia has figured
out how to export Hydrogen aboard oil tankers in a liquid petroleum-based H2
carrier called Methylcyclohexane. A perfect illustration of the fact that
energy independence and measures to maintain fossil fuel dependency are
competing objectives. Air Liquide is also a proposed awardee under
PON-13-607.
These are the step by step well to tank calculations for steam methane
reforming: Wellhead emissions: (2.450Kg) SMR furnace: (3.704Kg) SMR process:
(5.072) Grid emission for compression: (1.175Kg). Subtotal 12.401 Kg CO2 per
Kg of Hydrogen, prior to transportation.
This is cross checked with total Natural Gas inputs of 3.629 Kg CH4 per Kg
Hydrogen representing a 66% rate of well to product energy efficiency (using
a standard 50MJ/Kg figure for NG and a standard 120 MJ/Kg figure for H2,
both LHV numbers). To complete the picture requires an acceptable estimated
figure for transport. Figures originating at Argonne National Laboratory and
republished in graphical form by hydrogen fuel cell lobby group Californian
Fuel Cell Partnership arrive at 62% efficiency inclusive of transportation.
Hence a final tally of 0.66/0.62 * 12.4 = 13.2Kg CO2 / Kg Hydrogen.
Key number: Hydrogen consumed well-to-wheel produces 13.2Kg CO2 per Kg.
Note, this is a best case figure from industrial-scale centralized
production.
With reference to distributed and mobile steam reforming contemplated by
some of the PON-13-607 proposed awardees, the NREL long term fuel cell
study indicates an emissions intensity factor of 356:237 or 150% when
producing hydrogen on-site from natural gas at refueling stations. That
raises real-world CO2 emissions per Kg of Hydrogen from 13.2Kg CO2 to 19.8
Kg CO2. In order to highlight difficulties with the claims made for Fuel
Cell Vehicles, I will proceed with the most generous case at 13.2Kg CO2/Kg
H2, not the worst case or even the average case suggested by NREL.
This 13.2 Kg CO2 / for 1Kg Hydrogen lends public transparency to gasoline
equivalent emissions simply by putting this figure alongside published
numbers for Gasoline.
The EPA standard figure for CO2 tailpipe emissions per gallon of gasoline is
8.887Kg CO2. Standard well to tank efficiency for gasoline is 86%. Hence
10.36Kg CO2 per gallon of gasoline is a figure that may be used for Gasoline
emissions equivalence well to wheel.
To set 10.36 Kg CO2 / Gal for Gasoline against the 13.2Kg CO2 / Kg for
Hydrogen is a like for like comparison.
The LHV energy equivalence of 1gal to 1Kg is close enough 1:1.
(LHV = Lower Heating Value, just means useful energy not counting exhaust
heat).
Now at last we can understand what we are looking at.
The first thing that becomes obvious is that Hydrogen generates more CO2
emissions than gasoline for the same amount of energy. 13.2/10.36 = 1.274
(27.4% more). The same calculation in reverse 10.36/13.2 = 0.785 determines
that it takes 0.785 of one Kg of Hydrogen to produce the same CO2 emissions
as one gallon of gasoline well to wheel. In other words a gasoline pollution
equivalent mile is 0.785 of the distance of a 1Kg hydrogen mile.
To also include diesel vehicles in comparison with gasoline, a simple route
to approximating fair equivalence for Diesel/gal is 11.584 Kg CO2 at the
well. 10.36/11.5843 = 89.43%. Hence it takes 89.43% of a gallon of diesel to
produce the same CO2 emissions as gallon of Gasoline, well to wheel.
To illustrate this issue with the most accessible clarity I propose the use
of a unit of emissions performance that I will call MPGp defined as miles
per gasoline gallon equivalent well to wheel CO2 pollution. (Note the term
pollution is used here interchangeably with emissions and is not intended to
be inflammatory, simply that the ideal choice of MPGe which might have stood
for MPG-emissions is occupied by MPG-energy. A term used by the EPA and
others for Gasoline Gallon energy equivalence).
MPGp simply allows for a full 10.36Kg well to wheel emissions per mile for a
gasoline gallon instead of the 8.887Kg EPA tailpipe-only figure. Familiar
mpg figures for gasoline-only or gasoline hybrid vehicles remain the same
figure for MPGp, other fuel and energy sources such as Diesel, Hydrogen and
Electricity require to be divided into quantities that also produce 10.36Kg
of CO2. Examples used: 0.8943 of a Gal Diesel and 0.785 of a Kg Hydrogen. Of
course Gasoline mpg is multiplied by 1 (unchanged).
So now all we need to know in order to arrive at a Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Vehicle pollution equivalence to gasoline vehicles is the number of miles
any given Hydrogen vehicle can go on a Kg of Hydrogen – and multiply that
number by 0.785 as follows (diesel mpg also converted as discussed):
Hyundai ix35 Tucson FCV 134hp 47 miles per Kg H2 = 36.89 MPGp
Hyundai ix35 Tucson 1.6 135hp 35mpg = 35.00 MPGp
Hyundai ix35 Tucson 2.0 CRDi 148hp Diesel 40mpg = 35.77 MPGp
Hyundai ix35 Tucson 1.7 CRDi 114hp Diesel 48.7mpg = 43.55 MPGp
Mercedes B Class 134hp F-Cell FCV 48.4 miles per Kg H2= 37.99 MPGp
Mercedes B Class 120hp B180 1.6 gasoline 47.9mpg = 47.90 MPGp
Mercedes B Class 136hp B-200 Diesel 64.2mpg = 57.41 MPGp
Honda FCX Clarity 134hp FCV 60 miles per Kg H2 = 47.10 MPGp
Honda Accord Gasoline Hybrid 196hp 47mpg = 47.00 MPGp
Honda Civic 1.6-litre i-DTEC Diesel 118hp63mpg = 56.3 MPGp
Toyota 2015 90KW/122hp FCV 68.3 miles per Kg H2 = 53.61 MPGp
Toyota Prius gasoline Hybrid 1.8L 134hp 50mpg = 50.00 MPGp
Toyota Avensis Tourer 2.0 D-4D 124hp Diesel 61mpg = 54.55 MPGp
51% Emissions Reductions? No, not even close.
The most egregious example above is the Mercedes B Class F-Cell marketed as
“invisible to the environment”. The Fuel Cell Vehicle version of the
Mercedes B Class is actually 29.8% worse than the gasoline version and 33.8%
worse than the diesel version of the same power output with undeniable
equivalence i.e. same aerodynamics, same car. The Hyundai Tucson, again same
aerodynamics, the same power, same car, is 5.4% better which is more than an
order of magnitude adrift from the 55%-65% claims made by CAFCP. All of
these manufacturers can evidently exceed the emissions performance of their
own FCV offerings with Diesel machines which begs the question of need, let
alone the public benefit in paying handsomely on environmental grounds for a
wholly inferior environmental technology.
Naturally I am already fully aware of the fact that the imperative for FCVs
for its promoters has no connection to constraining GHG emissions or any
connection to global climate change (unless the climate in question is
economic). That is except for a perceived need to overcome resistance to
natural gas adoption from an increasingly concerned public by means of
deception. I have zero sympathy for this approach and will look at the
economics later on in this document to illustrate why – both critically and
constructively.
According to the lobby group California Fuel Cell Partnership: “The
well-to-wheels reports show that hydrogen made from natural gas and used in
a fuel cell vehicle reduces greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 55%-65% compared to
gasoline used in a conventional vehicle, and by about 40% compared to
gasoline in a hybrid engine.”
Statements like this are clearly at odds with reality irrespective of the
credentials of the source. As demonstrated. These claims made by the CAFCP
and repeated by marketers of FCVs are simply not true. They are not a bit on
the hopeful side or wrong by an acceptable margin of error. These statements
are categorically false and blatantly misleading.
As previously mentioned, the marketing of Fuel Cell Vehicles is targeted
squarely at Electric Vehicles on grounds of greater convenience to access
lower total green house gas emissions. With zero actual merit versus
gasoline and diesel the real world numbers for Electric Vehicles and Plug In
Hybrid vehicles naturally obliterate the real world numbers for Fuel Cell
Vehicles.
We can again use MPGp (miles per gasoline gallon equivalent well to wheel
pollution). For this we will need some conversions to discover how many KWh
is required to amount to 10.36Kg of CO2 during production to be equivalent
to one gallon of gasoline as follows:
US Average Grid (IPCC) is 0.610 Kg CO2 per KWh. 10.36/0.610 = 16.98KWh.
PG&E in California is 0.524lb = 0.238 Kg CO2 per KWh. 10.36/0.238 = 43.53
KWh.
A 2014 primer of the kind of performance that now possible in the real
world:
Norway’s National Grid (IPCC): 0.003Kg CO2/KWh. 10.36/0.003 = 3453.33KWh.
These figures are ‘well to socket’. To be as accurate as possible we need to
introduce a charging efficiency loss between the socket and the battery of
an EV, typically 8% is fair.
Then all we need to know is how far an electric vehicle travels on a KWh of
electricity.
Tesla Model S P85+ 416hp 330Wh/mile* (0.359 KWh/mile after charging loss).
*Some references are suggestive that this is total usage as measured at the
wall inclusive of charging loss but to ensure that this exercise errs on the
unimpeachable I will leave in 8% charging losses for EVs throughout.
US Grid Average16.98 / 0.359 = 47.29 MPGp
California PG&E43.53 / 0.359 = 126.18 MPGp
Norway Grid3453.33 / 0.359 = 9,619.30 MPGp
Chevrolet Spark EV 280Wh/mile (0.304 KWh/mile after charging loss), This is
a 100KW (134hp) EV, which makes it a useful direct comparison with FCVs.
US Grid Average16.98 / 0.304 = 55.86 MPGp
California PG&E43.53 / 0.304 = 149.77 MPGp
Norway Grid3453.33 / 0.304 = *11,358.55 MPGp
*This is what is at stake as a society upon the outcome of PON-13-607.
PHEVs are too complex to dismantle into MPGp in a way that readily verified
without special knowledge due to unknown interactions between wall charging,
engine charging and charging by regenerative braking. This is not the case
for HEVs and FCVs because these are closed systems with chemical fuel as the
only input.
One example of a gasoline PHEV: The 2014 Honda Accord Plug In Hybrid.
While some contribution to CO2 emissions at the rate of 138MPGp should be
considered for wall charging its 290Wh/mile electric performance, suffice to
say that its 115 MPGe EPA combined milage will be a very close approximation
to 115 MPGp. As such the Honda Accord Plug In Hybrid is unassailably better
in terms of emissions than a 53.61 MPGp Toyota 2015 FCV, at least twice as
good. It is at least three times as good as the 36.89MPGp Hyundai Tucson
FCV. There is not one FCV that comes even close despite the fact that
neither PHEVs or EVs require any public investment in infrastructure.
To conclude the subject of emissions in relation to EVs. According to Dr.
Shane Stephens-Romero, the other Co-President of FirstElement Fuel Inc while
representing the National Fuel Cell Research Centre / UCI (a hat according
to the website that he still wears in the capacity of ‘communications and
outreach’). There is 12,500 GWh of ‘Curtailed’ energy in California annually
of which 40% is wind power (curtailed = going to waste). Instead of which,
as Dr Romero proposed, at $7.5cts per KWh it would be sufficient to power
1.2 Million FCV’s via hydrolysis without adding to existing emissions.
Perhaps that would be interesting if natural gas ever became three times
more expensive, however, it seems reasonable to suppose that night time EV
charging is a zero net emissions event that is already impinging to a small
degree on curtailed night time wind energy. Most importantly, if true,
12,500 GWh would support 2,321,262 Tesla Model S P85+ vehicles at 15,000
miles per year, of which 40% is 928,505 vehicles with zero net contribution
to emissions and zero absolute emissions respectively. More on energy
efficiency below in the discussion regarding economics.
Drilling down to the sources of the enormous disparity between what we are
being told, and what is.
This (dangerously false and misleading) marketing quote from Hyundai is the
beginning of an illuminating quest for answers:
“According to UCI’s Advanced Power and Energy Program’s 2013 study, the
hydrogen fuel cell provides lower total well-to-wheel emissions than a
battery electric vehicle. For the Tucson Fuel Cell driver, this social
benefit is achieved with greater utility, versatility and without
compromises.”
Firstly excepting that it is a statement of fact (that the study implies
what is claimed), the intended message of this statement is 100% false. As
demonstrated, FCVs have far higher total well-to-wheel emissions, especially
in California. On average similar to gasoline, terrible compared with
diesel, and abysmal compared with PHEVs and EVs – despite being identical in
concept to any other Fossil Fuel / EV hybrid.
What is more remarkable is the UCI Study itself. Aside from the academically
irresponsible comparison with very dissimilar gasoline vehicles, the study
is one of a number of similar pieces that illustrate a variety of
theoretical but uneconomical methods of Hydrogen production depicted
alongside elevated numbers for Grid-powered BEVs and no mention or depiction
at all of BEV’s (Battery Electric Vehicles) powered directly from mature and
rapidly maturing technologies of solar, wind and hydro electricity in
current use on the grid. For a supposedly academic document the level of
bias is astounding. This is a sales-support document and it precisely
mirrors the same bias seen in materials from the California Fuel Cell
Partnership. No mention at all of renewable powered EVs and specious
comparisons to modern gasoline vehicles of more than twice the performance
of FCVs.
The dots appear to connect in one Dr Tim Brown. Former employee of General
Motors Inc., Consultant to the CEC on Hydrogen Policy, lead author of the
California Fuel Cell Partnerships’ Roadmap document, Senior Scientist at
UCI’s Advanced Power and Energy Program and finally co-President of
FirstElement Fuels Inc, primary proposed awardee of $27.6 million in
hydrogen infrastructure grants – and sure enough of it to claim a victory
over due public due process by press release prior to those funds being
approved.
Drilling still further down towards the original source of false policy
advice publicity surrounding Fuel Cell Vehicles.
The original source of the disparity between real world numbers, and the
policy-defining key assumption of 51% emissions reduction versus gasoline
for Fuel Cell Vehicles appears to be this highly authoritative DOE NREL
Study (note though that its participants are auto makers and big oil, a most
improbable duet of inspiration for fossil fuel replacement).
In section ‘2.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions’ there are two numbers as
follows:
“Conventional gasoline mid-sized passenger vehicles emit 484 g CO2-eq/mile
(grams CO2 equivalent per mile) on a well-to-wheels (WTW) basis”.
Note the similar language to ‘mid-sized vehicles’ picked up upon by UCI.
Secondly.
“The average WTW greenhouse gas emissions estimate for the Learning
Demonstration fleet operating on hydrogen produced from on-site natural gas
reformation was 356 g CO2-eq/mile, and the lowest WTW GHG emissions estimate
for [off]-site natural gas reformation was 237 g CO2-eq/mile.”
51% is arrived as as follows: 237/484 = 49% hence 51% less emissions than
100%.
100% of what exactly?
Simply applying an MPGp test to the 484g/mile figure immediately reveals
that this is a 21.4mpg vehicle that is being cited in comparisons. (10.36 Kg
CO2 / 0.484Kg = 21.4 MPGp which just means 21.4mpg for a gasoline vehicle).
Applying MPGp to the other two numbers is illuminating also:
237g = 43.71 MPGp not exactly stunning for any 134hp HEV vehicle in 2014
or beyond.
356g = 29.10 MPGp this ought to have been the reason to halt FCVs there and
then:
Toyota 2015 FCV has advanced since to 35.74 MPGp by this measure.
Hyundai Tucson FCV lags at 24.59MPGp.
This is the result of producing hydrogen at the refueling station thereby
losing efficiencies of industrial scale production.
As previously mentioned, an example of a modern 21mpg EPA-rated vehicle is a
310hp 2014 Porsche Panamera 4, 3.6 Litre V6. An example of a 21mpg gasoline
vehicle producing 134hp would be a 1994 Ford Taurus 3.0 Liter. These
vehicles are either more than twice as powerful or twenty years older than
the 100KW FCVs of 2014 / 2015 and bear no comparison to modern low-emissions
alternatives facing either policy decision makers or prospective consumers.
As a reminder: EPA figures for the current model Honda Accord PHEV out
performs the 122hp 2015 Toyota FCV 2:1 in terms of emissions, while at 195hp
offering considerably higher driving performance.
Energy Economics 101. Where does the hydrogen highway lead?
It is perhaps fair at this juncture to conclude that the California Energy
Commission, and the public interest is at gross risk of being taken for
fools.
Essentially unless environmental policy calls for public investment from the
State of California to hasten to the aid of principally Japanese, Korean and
German controlled auto makers to eliminate the competitive threat posed by
Californian industry to the unchained proliferation of hydraulic fracturing,
there can be no rational justification for public funds to be applied to
un-sequestered steam reforming. Neither to relieving the fossil fuel
industry of the capital cost associated with releasing CO2 emissions from
natural gas in California in the name of green energy. Unfortunately that is
exactly what the hydrogen lobby stands for.
It is impossible to concur with the advice on record to the California
Energy Commission from First Element Fuel Inc, that essentially 90% of the
commission’s funding for hydrogen should be applied to steam reforming of
natural gas on the promise of jam tomorrow in terms of emissions. From the
same letter:
‘100% renewable fuel is a goal that the industry must strive for. But, the
realities of the developing hydrogen refueling industry necessitate
pragmatic near-term solutions.’
On the contrary as demonstrated below, the entirely inevitable economic
outcome of funding natural gas based hydrogen infrastructure will be to
create a Trojan Horse. That is to invite freely-polluting and super-funded
competition to fossil fuel replacement at the heart of the renewable energy
and sustainable transportation sectors from where it may best defend
shareholder value from the risk of being replaced. Fossil fuel derivatives
publicly endorsed as “green energy” is already precipitating a travesty of
both public and private sector resource-misdirection as well as media
confusion resulting from the blurring of boundaries between investing for
emissions and for emissions-reduction simultaneously under the banner of
“green”.
Why it is inevitable that the ‘hydrogen highway’ is a one-way street to a
heavily polluting fossil fuel future.
Direct compatibility with renewable electricity strongly favors a continuing
trend towards an emissions-free transportation future (i.e. real well to
wheel) in the case of Electric Vehicles owing in particular to the cascading
price of solar electricity.
Despite much misleading references in marketing materials (and sadly a rash
of economically-disconnected idealism in well-meaning scientific circles
that is readily seized upon by lobbyists to divert attention from natural
gas), there are no such parallels to an economically realistic pathway
towards primarily emissions free transportation based on Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Vehicles. The price of hydrogen feedstock in the form of natural gas is
extremely low averaging around $5 per mmBtu = (293KWh or 1055MJ heating
energy). That translates to about 3.4 US Cents as electricity or about 91 US
Cents per Kg Hydrogen in energy costs alone (not counting operational
expenses, return on capital to bring it to market).
Thanks to prolific hydraulic fracturing the universal abundance not of
hydrogen but of natural gas is overwhelming. If it were not for the unwanted
emissions of CO2 and CH4 (as well as mercury vapor, hydrogen sulfide, radon
etc) and groundwater pollution with anything from barium to benzine
primarily related to associated gas drilling and a blight on the natural
landscape, natural gas could be an energy panacea. Hence the strong
incentive to deal with voter and consumer concern for the environment as an
economic nuisance.
Chemical energy for transportation, hydrogen included, inevitably favors the
economics of chemical feedstocks. Abundant natural gas feedstock from the
hydraulic fracturing of shales contains the energy potential for
self-disassembly into Hydrogen and CO2 via the process of steam methane
reforming and as a result it is the simplest, cheapest and most economically
unassailable source of hydrogen, best equipped to see off meaningful
competition from hydrolysis, biofuels and waste-stream reformation – so long
as vehicles are chemically and not electrically powered.
Some calculations to get at the specifics:
Renewable energy offers 2.57 miles for every 1 KWh of renewable energy even
in a powerful (300KW) EV after grid and charging losses, and 3.03 miles for
an FCV-equivalent (100KW) EV.
The same 1KW of renewable energy (at 54.65 KWh/Kg) after 39% conversion
losses via hydrogen would carry a modestly performing 100KW (134hp) FCV only
0.86 miles (47mpKg Tucson) or 1.24 miles (68mpKg Toyota).
In reverse, the disparity is significant but far less marked.
1KWh of natural gas heating energy (1/13.1KWh/Kg LHV energy/3.629 Kg Ch4 per
Kg Hydrogen) producing 0.021Kg of Hydrogen will take a hydrogen FCV between
0.987 miles (Hyundai) and 1.428 miles (Toyota).
The same 1KWh of natural gas heating energy after a typical 50% conversion
loss in natural gas electricity generation and distribution will take an EV,
counting an additional 8% charging loss, between 1.39 miles (300KW Tesla
Model S EV @330Wh/mile) and 1.63 miles (100KW Chevy Spark EV @280Wh/mile).
From these figures it is possible to calculate fundamental cost per mile
economic break-even in either direction in three different hypothetical
scenarios comparing a 100KW Chevy Spark EV to a 90KW 2015 Toyota FCV.
If EVs entirely dominate FCVs. Renewable energy hits break even per
mile vs Natural Gas electricity generation at 3.03/1.24 = 244% of the cost
of natural gas. For example if natural gas costs $5 per 293 KWh (true on
average) Solar can compete in terms of cost per mile at $12.20 per 293KWh or
4.16 US Cents / KWh.
If EVs and FCVs co-exist. Renewable energy his break even vs fossil fuel
powered FCVs at 3.03/1.428 = 212% of the cost of natural gas. (3.61 US Cents
/ KWh).
If FCVs entirely dominate EVs as a result of publicly funded
anti-competitive practices. Renewable energy converted to hydrogen hits
break even with fossil fuel powered FCVs at 1.24/1.428 = 86% of the cost of
natural gas.This is the intended disaster for renewable energy for
transportation and the environment that PON-13-607 and initiatives like it
aims to bring about at the public expense. The answer is 1.47 US Cents per
KWh to be competitive with natural gas.
These numbers represent the economic life and death of our generation’s bid
for emissions free and renewable powered transportation.
We are within three to six years of it being cheaper to run an EV fleet on
utility scale solar than it is to power an EV fleet via natural gas. But
with an artificially imposed societal choice of FCVs based upon false
promises of emissions reduction that very goal is pushed out by
approximately 12 years of additional entrenchment in a fossil fuel
transportation economy with corresponding emissions and loss of investment
in useful progress on the subject of emissions reduction.
There are two economic conditions for these cost comparison scenarios to
remain true and these are as of this moment both in the hands of the
California Energy Commission to determine the outcome and to set the
precedent:
The cost of hydrogen infrastructure must be free of charge to the fossil
fuel industry (paid for by public funds). Amortizing that cost and risk of
consumer rejection of FCV technology is never accounted for in the cost of
Hydrogen.
There must be no accounting for the cost of CO2 sequestration during the
production of hydrogen – instead there must be a carte blanche license to
pollute. At an incremental $3.50 per Kg H2, 90% clean hydrogen as a result
of sequestering the CO2 outputs of SMR cost between 50% and 100% more than
the $7.00 to $3.50 figures typically cited.
While it may well be the case that neither the national energy budget nor
the US economic budget in the broader appears possible to balance without
efforts to displace foreign oil imports with domestic natural gas, it
clearly does not follow that a massive public private partnership convened
to starve out innovation in US generated renewable energy and tremendous
advances made in California in the Electric Vehicle business serves any
purpose that is supportable in the broad light of day
It is not as though there is no easier solution for the Auto and Natural Gas
industries either:
While it is true that renewable electricity cannot compete to fuel FCVs,
natural gas is currently highly competitive 14 – 65% better off supplying
electricity to EVs than Hydrogen to FCVs. Meanwhile:
Turbocharged CNG vehicles are a far superior technological answer to the use
of natural gas in transportation and far closer to the native skills of the
auto industry to produce at an attractive product at an attractive price.
This (Hyboost) technology is the perfect technological solution for a
mild-hybrid, low emissions, high performance CNG vehicle with regenerative
breaking that will certainly exceed the performance of Fuel Cell Vehicles in
every regard, including emissions, without having to lie to consumers about
emissions credentials. It is beyond reprehensible that this technology has
been overlooked. Even without Hyboost:
“With a dedicated solution, you get much better performance and efficiency,”
says Wach. He points to the attributes of a Volkswagen Passat with a 1.4L
engine using both a supercharger and turbocharger, rated at 150 hp and
emitting [190.4] g/[mile] of CO2, the equivalent of 51 mpg”
Best case NREL performance? 237g/mile for a 134hp (probably the 122hp) FCV.
Fact, natural gas is an economically important fossil fuel (we know) that
includes the equally fossil hydrogen ions. How does that excuse missing a
trick like this?
A very straight forward example of an approach to natural gas emissions
reduction with public funds:
It is very hard to ignore the fact that $200 Million of emissions reduction
budget could provide the taxpayer with the guarantee of millions of tones of
CO2 reduction at precisely $193Kg CO2 per tax payer dollar just by going to
where the pollution can best be found. Were that budget to be applied to
sequestering the emissions of a single 500 MW combined cycle gas generator
running at 85% max load, this would be enough to power 640,055 high
performance 300KW EVs or 754,350 100KW EVs on natural gas 90% emissions free
with nothing to spend on refueling infrastructure. Alternatively the same
natural gas would deliver hydrogen power for 698,301 modest performance
Toyota 90KW FCVs while releasing 38,846,462 Metric tones of CO2 into the
air over California during a 20 year period with no budget to spare after
paying for 100 hydrogen refueling stations as an enabler – if $200 million
is enough (average 1995 refueling per station per day). All vehicles 15,000
miles per year.
These choices are of course within the remit of the California Energy
Commission at this moment. Whether or not to defray the cost of entry for a
polluting cuckoo in the nest in green energy sector, and whether or not to
impose or to waive the mandatory sequestration of CO2 during SMR as a
gatekeeper to entry.
Ultimately, the defining advantage for hydrogen produced by natural gas for
Fuel Cell Vehicles is the ability to pollute while claiming to be green. It
is not good enough that images of celebrities drinking distilled exhaust
emissions sets the standard of public education on such a pivotal societal
choice.
Naturally it does not help matters that the jurisdiction of the CARB Zero
Emissions Vehicle program is simply a dividing line that defines where to
pollute and not whether or not to do so.
In summary
Fact. There is no inherent emissions advantage in Fuel Cell Vehicle
technology.
EVs are inherently a more efficient and economical per mile usage of
natural gas than FCVs.
There are far better and easier ways to make natural gas powered
vehicles than FCVs.
There are far more effective ways for $200M USD to deliver emissions
reductions.
There are deep concerns to be addressed in the area of false marketing
surrounding FCVs.
The economic course-correction from renewables to fossil fuels implicit
in the public funding of hydrogen refuelling infrastructure holds
unparalleled dangers to efforts to tackle GHG emissions.
Inviting fossil fuels to participate in the green energy economy without
mandating full sequestration of emissions from the outset is a violation of
the contract of public trust entered into by FCV marketing slogans heavily
suggestive of well to wheel emissions free transportation with additional
complications for ethical investing.
Facilitating FCV entry to market evidently before commercial maturity
appears to conflict excessively with the interests of the Californian
taxpayer — Unwarranted and artificial competition to a significant employer
in the Californian tax base (Tesla Motors Inc.), harassment of the same
ahead of a significant ZEV launch, likely $100K per vehicle tax deductible
losses in State (Hyundai & Toyota), ZEV Credits claimed with questionable
merit, cannibalization of low-budget-impact ZEV market with high
budget-impact ZEV infrastructure expenses, taxpayer accepting unnecessary
burden of risk with no emissions reduction rewards and no visible guarantee
of economic reward.
Accordingly there are two serious ethical issues beyond the pressing
requirement to review whether it is in any way justifiable or appropriate to
allocate public funds to fossil fuel interests in the green energy sector.
Especially at the juncture of utility-scale Solar Photovoltaic Energy
production rapidly approaching grid parity in California and on the eve of
the anticipated 2015 unveiling of a Californian designed and built EV that
is slated to achieve unsubsidized range, cost and performance parity with
the average new vehicle purchased in the State. The latter reasonably likely
to be the primary driver of the current auto industry fervor to rush FCVs to
market long before they are commercially viable to produce. Behavior that is
uncomfortably reminiscent of a similar moves to play the hydrogen card
before officers of CARB in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
These concerns are as follows:
Probable cause to investigate material conflict of interest between the
advice given to the CEC directly from Dr Tim Brown while overtly
representing UCI and also indirectly via the CAFCP prior to applying for,
and subsequently securing the potential award of $27.6 million in public
funds in the capacity of Co-President of FirstElement Fuel Inc. The advice
given and publicised rests in particular on comparative models of well to
wheel emissions data according to type and source that includes economically
questionable cases of renewable sourced hydrogen, but the inexplicable
exclusion of the 78-85% well to wheel efficient use of renewable power in
the case of Electric Vehicles as well as likely initiating, perpetuating and
allowing to be repeated when known to be false, evidently misleading generic
claims of emissions benefits that are nonexistent more than to claim an
ordinary feature of ICE vehicles such that any 42mpg gasoline vehicle has
half of the emissions per mile produced by any 21mpg gasoline vehicle owing
to its smaller engine size and more limited driving performance.
Probable cause to contemplate an antitrust type scheme to starve out
competition from renewable and EVs in the transport sector prior to raising
the cost of hydrogen from $0.00 to market value as the most likely economic
motivation and intended use to which parties including for example Hyundai
Motor America, Toyota Motor North America and others expect to leverage from
California’s proposed investment in hydrogen fueling infrastructure, as
evidenced in the marketing materials from these entities, Hyundai in
particular to be the first to declare pricing, including Hydrogen at $0.00.
Materials explicitly target the displacement of Electric Vehicles, not
gasoline or diesel vehicles accompanied by sales policies that appear
designed to rush vehicles to the market considerably below the cost of
manufacture (cited at $145,000 and at more than $100,000 respectively)
serving as tax deductibles in the State at likely $100,000 per unit and
including unlimited free hydrogen refueling in the case of Hyundai (Toyota
pricing and consumer incentive policy as yet unknown). Policies that
together with misdirection on the subject of emissions and environmental
impact appear aimed at artificially distorting the market in California.
In closing.
Thank you for your time and attention. I would be gratified to learn that
this work has been of service to the Commission, to the people of California
and to the far broader constituency that looks to the California Energy
Commission for leadership in what I am confident is a defining moment of
truth regarding the challenges and responsibilities facing this generation.
Please choose wisely.
Yours truly,
Julian Cox
[© 2014 Sustainable Enterprises Media]
For all EVLN posts use:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=search_page&node=413529&query=evln&sort=date
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/05/17/when-it-comes-to-electric-plug-in-cars-men-and-women-are-two-different-sides-of-the-same-coin/
Men and women are on two different sides of the plugin coin
http://gas2.org/2014/05/24/hydra-gator-60k-amphibious-hybrid-golf-cart/
$60K Hydra Gator Amphibious 4WD Hybrid Golf Cart
http://www.carnewschina.com/2014/05/24/patent-applied-brilliance-jinbei-ms3-suv-for-the-china-car-market/
Brilliance Jinbei MS3 SUV for China market> looks like the Acura MDX
http://www.treehugger.com/cars/2015-chevy-spark-ev-gets-brand-new-battery-keeps-same-driving-range.html
~$20k 2015 Spark EV, lighter pack yet same range r:85mi
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/25541623/electric-vehicle-owners-seeking-more-stations
HI condo plugin owners seek more public EVSE
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/10767178/Electric-cars-at-Taiwans-EV-show.html
Pihsiang A100 art-deco cocktail-cabinet shaped 2seat EV @Taiwan EV show
http://www.traveldailymedia.com/206296/kowloon-shangri-la-offers-electric-car-charging/
Kowloon Shangri-La-Hotel.hk offers electric car charging
+
EVLN: Kangoo & Zoe EVs powered by Barfoots' farm-biomass-energy
{brucedp.150m.com}
--
View this message in context:
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/EVLN-Severe-Issues-w-fcv-Claims-h2-Refueling-Infrastructure-Grant-tp4669651.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
