Has Tesla Killed the Fuel Cell Vehicle?

What if the fuel station has an small, on-site reformer?
What if it receives the natural gas through the current, standard natural gas pipelines?
Then, it simply produces the hydrogen on site? And perhaps also LNG for semi-trucks and other vehicles?
Such a reformer would be 'capture-ready', producing a pure stream of CO2, so if we ever build a nationwide co2 pipeline network as large as today's natural gas network (something we will probably have to do if we want to continue to burn fossil fuels but don't want GHG's), this would represent true "ZERO-emissions" driving.

 

Let's remember the FCX Clarity is a PEM fuel cell.
I'm curious if anyone knows the price of SOFC fuel cells (such as the Bloom Box) compared to PEM's.
I've read that they are working on reducing the temperature and size of SOFC's to make them more compatible with an automobile's requirements.

Sure, the SOFC takes 10-15 minutes to warm up, so it would need a small battery to handle driving during this time. Similar to the Volt setup, but a SOFC instead of the ICE. Could run on gasoline, butanol, ethanol, methanol, LNG, or hydrogen.

Would be cheaper per mile than FCX Clarity. Would have ZERO initial infrastructure requirements. (Could run on gasoline, and later LNG as these become more common)
AND, when using LNG, would have lower emissions than an EV powered by a grid that's 100% Natural gas /equivalent.
Sound like a winner compared to the FCX, but how well it stacks up to the Tesla is an open question.

 

Tiny reformers are not efficient, but technology may figure out how to do this. The experimental one at UT cost $1M and that is as small as you typically can build now. The really large plants typically located near oil refineries, produce lower priced hydrogen, and if the station is close, as the Toyota/Shell station is in Torrance California, short pipelines can be built. The UT station attached to the reformer also provides cng, for transportation research. Lng would be no problem. It takes electricity to compress the hydrogen and natural gas.

Yes, there are not any technical hurdles for this, it is more of a cost issue, but technology can reduce costs.

 

Yes these are the kinds of nifty ideas being talked about, so when I refer to H2 fuel cells, it could be that the actual feed is nat gas and the H2 is generated on-site. In fact I hope that's what it is otherwise I can't really see building a whole H2 infrastructure. But as long as there are only a few FCV cars, we can just have H2 gas cylinders delivered.

Yikes don't try this at home! Cryogenic processing for LNG and H2 is not really something you could do at home. There is home compressor for nat gas. One thing you can do at home is make biodiesel, but I digress.

 

Haha....... no, what I meant was ........what if some manufacturer makes an appliance -the size of a freezer- that can make liquid natural gas or liquid hydrogen at home, using your natural gas pipeline to get the gas?
In much the same way that someone - I forgot the name - currently makes an appliance that dispenses compressed natural gas to the Honda Civic Natural Gas?
I wonder if it would be legal since it's making liquid fuel instead of gaseous (and cryogenic at that). I think it's definitely against code to store liquid fuel in a home, but I'm not sure if that counts producing it instantaneously, such as attaching the nozzle to 'fill 'er up' overnight.

 

Assuming ammonia won't poison the fuel cell, it should be fairly easy to convert it back to N{2} and H{2} and run the fuel cell from the hydrogen. Compared to some of the alternatives, ammonia has relatively benign properties.

I do remember some product announcements for laptop fuel-cells using methanol. But I never saw them come on the market. They may exist but we hardly hear about them.

My personal preference are the high-temperature fuel cells working at refractory temperatures. Once brought to operating temperature, they should provide exceptionally high energy density . . . enough for flight. <grins>

Bob Wilson

 

Anhydrous ammonia is considered a fairly hazardous industrial material with special safety PPE precautions. But I would think we are talking hydrocarbon or oxygenate. Ammonia nitrogen and sulfur poison or inhibit just about any catalyst in my experience.

 

Not that I know of, but they do already make natural gas fuel cells for the home.
Fuel Cell Residential
So those of us outside southern California can have our own fuel cell powered car. The fuel cell just isn't in the car, but it can power and heat our home when it isn't charging our plug in.

These units don't allow for the potential of CO2 capture like a commercial hydrogen reformer plant could though.

I do now remember a press release or some such from Honda about a home reformer for supplying hydrogen for their FCV from residential NG lines. It was years ago, but the it looked almost as big as the car. Probably because it includes a storage tank and compressor. More recently they had the idea of a home solar powered electrolysis unit for fueling your FCV.

They show the short comings of the FCV. If you are going to reformer NG, and then compress the hydrogen, at home, wouldn't it be a better use of resources to put the fuel cell outside some it can power your entire home, along with a plug. In the case of the solar power electrolysis set up, it's cheaper just putting in home PV and charging an EV. You will get more miles per unit of energy produced also.

Yes the FCV has the refueling advantage, but only if there is the refueling infrastructure near by. These home refueling solutions can work as a stop gap for a sparse infrastructure. Until the infrastructure grows, a home fueled FCV is more limited than a BEV. The FCV is tied to home for fuel. The BEV could recharge off nearly any outlet, if need be.

 

Interesting.....looks like a SOFC, like the Bloom Box. Runs on natural gas directly, so more efficient than trying to get hydrogen first, but as you said results in co2. What pain it would be to run co2 capture pipes to each an every home, but perhaps these can be overlaid side-by-side with existing natural gas pipeline network.

Haha, true. And people in southern CA can as well.
Fuel Cell Residential + Nissan Leaf = SOFC fuel cell car with better range and more re-fueling options than FCX Clarity

Hmmm....I would definitely not want to be sleeping near several thousand psi of compressed hydrogen. And cryogenic liquids are risky to handle. I am doubtful they could have passed many municipal codes, so that is why they probably moved on to PV

Totally agreed here. PV->hydrogen->FCV will never be as efficient as PV->BEV, and the fact that fuel cells cost more than batteries makes it a deal-killer

Agreed. And if/when someone ever develops a hydrogen fueling network, someone else will develop a nationwide battery quick-swap network, as Tesla is hinting it will do.
That will completely negate FCV's refueling advantage.

 

Why not use just the nitrogen and either forget the hydrogen, or use it an FC that acts as a range-extender or turbo for the nitrogen engine? With maybe a small battery for basic hybrid functions?

See:

Nitrogen cycle: Difference Engine: End of the electric car? | The Economist


I'm wondering how often one would need to go to a service station fill up the windshield fluid!
The liquid N2 should be able to be produced with an in-garage unit.

 

Yes ammonia will poison a pem fuel cell, the type they are attempting to use for cars. amonia can be used in an alkaline fuel cell, but these are mainly stationary. Say you make it mobile, you need to crack the amonia, this conventionally done with heat, which means some fairly big batteries at start up. This seems like we are compounding the problem, when we can't get pem hydrogen fuel cells to a low price point.

We could use amonia in a hybrid car though
Toyota&#8217;s CO2-free ammonia car.. to hell with fossil fuels! | Demand CO2-free gasoline..it exists now (NH3).

This uses an ice to burn the ammonia though.

Methanol – Clean Fuel for the Future?

here is a butane system
A Portable Fuel-Cell Charger With Weeks&#039; Worth Of Juice | Popular Science

 

The question is how much electricity does it take to make a gallon of ammonia, and how far will the car travel on said gallon? Even if mpg is inferior to a BEV, the TCO might be better due to not having a large battery.

One thing I have been struck by in reading about all of the alternative fuels out there is that it seems for certain that the days of the ICE being the prime motive force through a mechanical transmission are limited. Just about every technology seems to function better at making electricity for a motor, and this also implies that all future car will also be hybrids, with a small battery capable of regen, whether or not it also takes grid power.

 

Ammonia As An Alternative Fuel? | The Energy Collective

The NH3 GT-86 is dual fuel. Using ammonia up to 2800rpm and then switching to gasoline at higher rpms. This could just be the limitation of the engine. It sounds like a conversion of the existing engine and fuel system. With the lower volumetric energy density of ammonia, the fuel system may simply be unable of supplying enough ammonia for those higher loads. Some E85 flex-fuel engines have larger injectors to compensate for the energy density difference, but it is larger between ammonia and gasoline.

The biggest hurdle is that it is anhydrous ammonia. From austingreen's link.

The need for onboard leak detectors do not inspire confidence.

The liquid nitrogen engine is interesting. A better version of the compressed air car. As a plus, every car will have environmentally safe air conditioning. Just wear multiple layers during the winter.

 

I really don't have any idea. I just know most of the stuff is made with natural gas, but it can be made with electricity or renewably in other processes. The big disadvantages, it needs a pressurized tank to hold it as a gas, or cooled to be liquid. We lack fueling infrastructure. There are some safety issues. All of these are lower than hydrogen though.

The big advantage versus hydrogen or gasoline today is price. We use the stuff to make fertilizers, and bombs, and cleaning supplies, etc, so we have gotten quite good at making it efficiently. Burn it and you should just get nitrogen and water. Its disadvantage versus gasoline is infrastructure. Its disadvantage versus hydrogen is it is best burnt in an ice instead of a fuel cell, and ice is less efficient. There may also be some NOx produced but emissions control systems should keep this low. They have it working in both diesel and gasoline type engines. In compression ignition engines (diesel) some other fuel is also required like diesel.
Just one more fuel to think about when someone tells you we will run out of gasoline and have to abandon our cars. Biofuels, methanol, cng, electricity all are possible alternatives along with ammonia.

 

Should work well with existing pipelines / infrastructure, no?
I don't think there is the embrittlement/corrosion/leaking problems associated with H2.
May require some upgrades, but as you said, nowhere near hydrogen.

I'm not so sure about that. Here's how I figure:
1 gallon of ammonia contains half the energy as 1 gallon of gasoline.
So, a dual-fuel Honda Insight going 40 miles on 1 gallon of gasoline goes 20 miles on 1 gallon ammonia.
1 gallon of liquid hydrogen contains just 1 quarter the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline.
So, take out the ICE in that Insight and replace with a FC. Twice the efficiency as gasoline, so 1 gallon of H2 gets you......the same 20 miles. Add to that the fact that:
$/1 gallon ammonia < $/1 gallon liquid H2
$/ICE < $/FC
So it seems that ammonia probably has the best TCO of any zero-carbon fuel (depending on how we get the H2 to make it)

The more I read about it, the more it seems that ammonia is the ideal fuel for carrying hydrogen. I have a hard time envisioning how liquid H2 could be competitive without a quantum leap in PEM affordability.

 

I went to read more about ammonia compounds and found a reference to an old college stunt involving nitrogen triiodide. I had made a small test tube in the chemistry lab and brought it back to dorm. Great fun, you put a little of the liquid on something and once it dries, the slightest shock sets it off. Then one of my dorm mates dropped the test tube which had to be cleaned up with paper towels . . . and the fun began.

The wadded up paper towel on the floor, kick it, POP, and where it landed POP. This seemed to terrify some of the dorm residents. So I bent a wire coat hanger into tongs and started 'chasing' the inmates down the hall. One got in his room and locked the door . . . so of course the paper towel was pushed under the door . . . much to our amusement.

Didn't everyone play with nitrogen triiodide in high school and college?

Bob Wilson

 

Didn't get the chance, but thought it sounded fun.

We have both been put on a list somewhere.