Hydrogen and FCEVs discussion thread

[epirali]

Fair enough, Guy.

Just a couple of nits:

4. I take long trips in winter, so need heat/defrost without losing range.

While I understand exactly where you are coming from, I will point out that this is equivalent to saying "I don't want my range to increase in the summertime."

Beyond about 4 hours of freeway range, everything's gravy. Hell, my dad had a 25 gal. reserve tank added to the trunk of his '76 Peugeot diesel, which with the 15 gal. standard tank meant that we had a freeway range of 1200 miles. We could just about have done Oakland-Portland-Oakland non-stop when visiting relatives, but we always made at least one stop for food during the 640 mile leg each way.

My current car can go 5 or 6 hours at freeway speeds year round (furthest I ever went before the low fuel light [2.4 gal remaining] went on was 468 miles), but as long as I can go 4 hours with a reserve on the freeway year-round, my car range needs are satisfied.

Case-in-point: Airlines have been purchasing ever-more-efficient airplanes from Airbus and Boeing even though it means the range of those new planes are becoming more and more affected by the environment in which they operate.

12. Energy efficiency is nice, but for me and most people, capability is more important.

Energy efficiency is a nice-to-have when you can easily pump fuel out of the ground or there are only a few people wasting it. When you need to produce 2X as much energy using renewable techniques on a worldwide scale, it becomes a must-have. This point will become abundantly clear as we move forward with this transition.

Seeing as how H2 provides storage and dispatchability that we're going to need in any case to transition to variable renewables, much of the output of which is now being curtailed owing to lack of load or storage, I don't see this as a problem. Sure, AOTBE I'll opt for the most energy-efficient solution, but at the moment, and for some time to come, AOT aren't equal.

The average consumer is non-ideological, and all they care about in an AFV is that it gives them about the same capabilities as an ICE for the same or lower price while requiring no major changes in their lifestyle, plus something extra that they value. Neither BEVs or FCEVs provide that at the moment, except at prices relatively few can afford, but FCVs are a lot closer given their general characteristics. The U.S. hasn't been the tail wagging the world auto industry's dog since 2010, when China became the largest auto market, and China's and most of the developing urban world's car needs at the moment are better met by FCVs, given that both electric charging and H2 infrastructure are lacking in these places. Furthermore, we know that the for-profit gas station business model works, but as yet no one has demonstrated that for-profit, universally available EV charging does. We also know exactly where to put H2 stations, and the real estate, at least in developed countries, is already in use for re-fueling purposes and can often have H2 added on in many cases, as studies referenced upthread have shown. What remains to be done before H2 can go mainstream is to get H2 re-fueling down to the price of gas or less, and reduce the cars' price ditto.

BEVs are unquestionably more energy-efficient, and likely to stay that way even given improvements in the energy efficiency of FCVs; most agree that where convenient electric charging stations are available, they make sense for multi-car households for local use, or in car-sharing type situations. But they are not capable of being full ICE replacements at the moment, and barring a huge improvement in either charging time (with all the infrastructure implications that implies), battery swapping (ditto) or on-board range for the price, _will not be_ for many years yet, although they can be suitable for many shorter-range trips in the next generation (assuming that all the claims for range @ price don't prove to be too optimistic; at the moment, all we have is vaporware).

FCEVs _can be_ full ICE replacements in the not too distant future, provided that the costs can be got down to gas-equivalent or less. Nothing guarantees that this will happen, but then nothing guarantees that batteries will see the improvements they need either. ISTM no more than prudent to proceed with developing any tech which has a reasonable chance of getting us to a fossil-fuel free future, until such time as we know one can do the whole job, or that we need two or more to do so; I'm a big fan of PHFCEVs for those who can benefit from them, as a follow on to PHEVs.

That's probably the fourth, fifth or sixth time I've made these points in the course of this thread, but since this whole thread is one long argument cycle I suppose it was my turn again.

Thank you for doing it again. I joined late, started going back, but got stopped by the repeating loop-noise posts that don't illuminate, they just shout. This is a great and succinct statement of what I also believe to be the case. But you say it much much better!

 

[ydnas7]

ydnas - care to show your sources for this 'near unity' lithium formerly-known-as-ION-until-MNL cell?!

Is there a physicist in the house please?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxP0Cu00sZs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the video. Thanks for the nudge, Reg, to finish watching it.

It didn't appear to confirm that these aren't actually chemical cells, or support the thoughts on near unity.

The ability to perform accelerated testing is fantastic and it looks like it's already allowing much, much more rapid cell development - great news!

'As shown in Table 6, the Panasonic cells delivered 225 Wh/kg at C/10 and room temperature, while delivering close to 91 percent of that energy at a C/2 rate. When returned to C/10, the cells recovered to within about 1 Wh/kg of the original C/10 capacity and remained 99.8 to 99.9 percent efficient (coulombic) throughout testing. '
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110003627.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Moli cells ' delivered an average of 190 Wh/kg at room temperature and a C/10 discharge rate. Figure 5 shows specific energy trends at different discharge rates. Figure 5 illustrates the discharge curves of the four cells tested. The cells exhibited roughly a 4.5 percent decrease in capacity at a C/2 discharge rate. The cells also maintained coulombic efficiencies of 99.6 to 99.8 percent throughout testing'

when the coulombic efficiency is over 99.5 % there is very little headroom for further capacity gains, practically it is near unity. going to triple 9s would provide great longevity improvement, but trivial energy consumption or round cycle efficiency improvement.

is that clear enough?

 

[GRA]

<snip>
That's probably the fourth, fifth or sixth time I've made these points in the course of this thread, but since this whole thread is one long argument cycle I suppose it was my turn again.

Thank you for doing it again. I joined late, started going back, but got stopped by the repeating loop-noise posts that don't illuminate, they just shout. This is a great and succinct statement of what I also believe to be the case. But you say it much much better!

What, the thought of reading through 2,200+ often repetitive posts was too daunting for you? Is that the sort of discipline that made this country what it is? Wimp!

Glad you found it useful. I'm sure you'll soon be able to read the latest round of rebuttals, thus avoiding the need to read all the previous rounds.

 

[AndyH]

Fair enough, Guy.

Just a couple of nits:

4. I take long trips in winter, so need heat/defrost without losing range.

While I understand exactly where you are coming from, I will point out that this is equivalent to saying "I don't want my range to increase in the summertime."

I do appreciate seeing a bit of mental flexibility being displayed here - kudos for flipping to the other side of the problem. I do understand what you're suggesting, especially when one starts from a BEV with limited range and has to chop ~20% in the winter to account for heat. From that perspective (starting from the possibly worst-case range) yes, one could say that they 'gain' range in the summer. That's not universal though as AC eats energy as well. I do hope you can also see, however, the benefit of a propulsion system that has consistent capabilities regardless of the season. A FCEV doesn't require that the operator prepare a 'flight plan' before departure so they can balance heat, range, and stop time for recharging. A pilot or nerd/geek might enjoy that, but aside from this community, I don't know another human that would even consider that. I was told again today that I should dump my car and get a real one - you know, one with at least 300 miles of range - so that I don't have to rent a car to visit friends in the next state. (No, a Tesla will never be in my future, so don't tell me about the SC network )

Case-in-point: Airlines have been purchasing ever-more-efficient airplanes from Airbus and Boeing even though it means the range of those new planes are becoming more and more affected by the environment in which they operate.

12. Energy efficiency is nice, but for me and most people, capability is more important.

Energy efficiency is a nice-to-have when you can easily pump fuel out of the ground or there are only a few people wasting it. When you need to produce 2X as much energy using renewable techniques on a worldwide scale, it becomes a must-have. This point will become abundantly clear as we move forward with this transition.

I recognize the wisdom here as well - and if we were on an evolutionary timeline for transportation in the 1970s then what you suggest would be a logical step. We're in a place where we've already outstripped the supply of fossil fuel - just using it more efficiently isn't enough any longer. Today we can either use the remaining fossil fuels to which we have access to make twice as many solar panels and wind turbines that we need, or we can continue with business as usual and crash and burn. Those are the only real choices we have. Comparing energy content of diesel fuel is a waste of time at this point. We're wasting our time quibbling about overall efficiency. We cannot build enough batteries for a 100% BEV system, and if we could make enough batteries we cannot haul 80,000 lb trailers of food with a BEV.

CA can provide all the electric the state needs with PV on roofs and over parking lots. We're not short of places to generate electricity - but we are short of ways to use it to provide ALL the total energy we need. That's the reason for the whole TIR thing...

Again - we'll tune later if we survive. Today, we can either build a transportation and energy system that will be 100% capable with no fossil fuel at any price and any efficiency, or we choose to lose most of our ability to move long distances when the oil runs out.

 

[epirali]

'As shown in Table 6, the Panasonic cells delivered 225 Wh/kg at C/10 and room temperature, while delivering close to 91 percent of that energy at a C/2 rate. When returned to C/10, the cells recovered to within about 1 Wh/kg of the original C/10 capacity and remained 99.8 to 99.9 percent efficient (coulombic) throughout testing. '
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110003627.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Moli cells ' delivered an average of 190 Wh/kg at room temperature and a C/10 discharge rate. Figure 5 shows specific energy trends at different discharge rates. Figure 5 illustrates the discharge curves of the four cells tested. The cells exhibited roughly a 4.5 percent decrease in capacity at a C/2 discharge rate. The cells also maintained coulombic efficiencies of 99.6 to 99.8 percent throughout testing'

when the coulombic efficiency is over 99.5 % there is very little headroom for further capacity gains, practically it is near unity. going to triple 9s would provide great longevity improvement, but trivial energy consumption or round cycle efficiency improvement.

is that clear enough?

Ain't data grand? ) thanks for that. This makes much more sense than repeating. I guess if we were willing to only run a sub range of the batteries and only certain charge rates we COULD have 98% efficiency. But the current Leaf charging scheme makes it more like 84% which still is very very good.

 

[AndyH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxP0Cu00sZs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the video. Thanks for the nudge, Reg, to finish watching it.

It didn't appear to confirm that these aren't actually chemical cells, or support the thoughts on near unity.

The ability to perform accelerated testing is fantastic and it looks like it's already allowing much, much more rapid cell development - great news!

<snip>

is that clear enough?

It's as clear as it always was. I've got charts and cells and test equipment here. Yes, lithium is generally more efficient than, say, lead acid...

A brand new cell at C/10 (a 10 hour discharge) can do a nice job. A brand new cell at C/2 does almost as good. Assembling them into a battery, though, cuts efficiency before the pack gets its first cycle. And no battery operated device on the PLANET gets a new battery every morning. That means that in the real world the battery will degrade and efficiency will decrease every day until they die.

This nit is just as useful as the rest of the '97%' thing in the real world.

 

[RegGuheert]

A FCEV doesn't require that the operator prepare a 'flight plan' before departure so they can balance heat, range, and stop time for recharging. A pilot or nerd/geek might enjoy that, but aside from this community, I don't know another human that would even consider that.

I agree, and today that is a real benefit of FCVs. But there is a great cost to the environment each time one of these vehicles is deployed, as is reflected in the manufacturing cost and the additional energy to operate it as well as all of the expense and resources to build infrastructure.

But BEVs are not going to stay where they are. The fiddly aspects which appeal to people like me will be addressed as batteries improve.

The real question is charging time. The ability to build batteries that can be filled in a few minutes is not really an issue, as there are already several, including the Ryden Dual-Carbon battery that I have been following, that certainly can be. Then the question is the systems to deliver that energy safely enough within about 10 minutes to allow long-range travel. I expect this is a solvable problem for an automobile. I really cannot see a solution for an 18-wheeler or an airplane. Flow batteries, perhaps.

I was told again today that I should dump my car and get a real one - you know, one with at least 300 miles of range - so that I don't have to rent a car to visit friends in the next state.

It's funny: No one has ever said that to me, perhaps because I have a hybrid I can hop in and drive to Canada if I want.

When people talk to me about my car, they typically are wondering if it will make their commute. Unfortunately, the answer is almost always "Not, yet," because we are a bit far out from town.

(No, a Tesla will never be in my future, so don't tell me about the SC network )

Nor in mine.

I recognize the wisdom here as well - and if we were on an evolutionary timeline for transportation in the 1970s then what you suggest would be a logical step. We're in a place where we've already outstripped the supply of fossil fuel - just using it more efficiently isn't enough any longer.

And we are in full agreement here.

Today we can either use the remaining fossil fuels to which we have access to make twice as many solar panels and wind turbines that we need, or we can continue with business as usual and crash and burn.

First of all, assuming fuel cells settle at around 2X the energy input requirement of batteries, that does not imply we will need 2X as many solar panels and wind turbines. The real number should be significantly below 2X. I'll guess 1.3X (since I know of no great way to make a calculation).

My reasoning is this: We only need to store enough energy to address transportation and grid loads above what the renewable generators can generate at any given instant.

I expect BEVs to almost completely dominate personal transportation, for the many reasons I have spelled out in this thread. Batteries may also win out for rail transportation, since extra mass is an asset in an engine and there are easy workarounds for charging-time related issues. Rail travel also will benefit from the ability to absorb massive amounts of regeneration energy.

That leaves shipping, trucking (and some other fleet applications) as well as air travel. For those applications, we have the choice of creating liquid fuels or hydrogen. Hydrogen may end up being the more efficient of the two, but I suspect air travel will require liquid fuels simply to address fuel volume issues, and perhaps for safety. The use of metal hydrides for hydrogen storage may result in H2 winning out over liquid fuels.

In all, I expect hydrogen and synthetic liquid fuels to take no more than 50% of the transportation storage market.

You have provided a lot of interesting information on using H2 for grid storage. Here I also expect to see a split between batteries, H2 and, perhaps, synthetic liquid fuels. H2 and synthetic liquids offer the one thing that I don't think batteries ever will: the ability to store energy across seasons. Where I live, that is the major failing of renewable generation: Way too little generation in the wintertime.

For shifting energy from day to night, I fully expect batteries to dominate that market, with BEVs playing a significant role. We also need to change many of our loads to use less energy and to use it when it is available.

Those are the only real choices we have. Comparing energy content of diesel fuel is a waste of time at this point.

Perhaps, but keep in mind H2 production will be dominated by fossil fuels for some time to come. IMO, we are better off burning fossil fuels directly in a a hybrid vehicle than building a very expensive FCV to do it.

We're wasting our time quibbling about overall efficiency.

Efficiency is THE dominant issue which will allow us to make this transition.

We cannot build enough batteries for a 100% BEV system,...

I do agree with this when we look at seasonal grid energy shifting. It makes no sense to store energy in a battery for a very long time. For that application H2 or synthetic liquids are likely MUCH more resource efficient. But I also think batteries take FEWER OVERALL resources than fuel cells for all other storage (short term) applications, mainly because of the impact on electricity-generation facilities.

I will counter that even for the applications for which they make sense, fuel cell manufacturing and development will not be rapid enough to make a significant impact for the next decade or two.

...and if we could make enough batteries we cannot haul 80,000 lb trailers of food with a BEV.

Agreed. I can't quite fit them into the long-haul trucking application. I do think trains will use batteries. Local delivery trucks and vans will likely also use batteries.

Again - we'll tune later if we survive. Today, we can either build a transportation and energy system that will be 100% capable with no fossil fuel at any price and any efficiency, or we choose to lose most of our ability to move long distances when the oil runs out.

If we ignore efficiency, we will not succeed, as we will not be able to build sufficient generation. It will be extremely difficult to succeed even if we had ideal storage technologies in our grasp today. The backlash against windmills is already in full swing. That will get worse. Wind generators have their place, but they also have the severe problem of poor durability. As a result, they will require a massive expenditure of energy and resources just to keep them running. PV generation needs to take over the bulk of our generation as soon as possible if we are going to succeed. But the current backlash by the utilities threatens to slow the growth of PV dramatically. Batteries will definitely help here. So will H2 fuel cells and other technologies as they mature.

 

[WetEV]

I do think trains will use batteries.

And not overhead electric lines?

 

[lorenfb]

So will H2 fuel cells and other technologies as they mature.

Maybe some agreement in this thread? Then let's not easily dismiss other technologies based on one's bias.

 

[RegGuheert]

I do think trains will use batteries.

And not overhead electric lines?

Most likely some will do that. I suppose there must be a trade-off somewhere given that most trains in the U.S. do not already do that.

 

[mbender]

I do think trains will use batteries.

And not overhead electric lines?

Most likely some will do that. I suppose there must be a trade-off somewhere given that most trains in the U.S. do not already do that.

No mention of "Musk's" hyperloop (fully-electric and largely 'self-solar-powered') in all of this? I truly hope to see it built, succeed and take over a significant chuck of long-haul trucking and train transport. Within the next decade (or two), perhaps? For those who haven't been following developments on the HL-front, a test track is due to be built in Texas, and a small-scale version is due break ground in central California next year.

Alas, to be done on a nationwide scale, a major shift of "attitude" toward infrastructure is going to have to occur in the 'political class'. As 60 Minutes reiterated last weekend, even our current one is failing and there is little will, let alone urgency, to provide adequate funding for its maintenance and repair.

 

[mbender]

Of possible interest (and long-term consequence), especially to sustainable H2 advocates:

• Scientists Have Developed A New Composite Photocathode For Generating Hydrogen Using Sunlight (pvbuzz)

 

[TonyWilliams]

So will H2 fuel cells and other technologies as they mature.

Maybe some agreement in this thread? Then let's not easily dismiss other technologies based on one's bias.

The thread is full of agreement.

I suspect I agree with much of what Reg has stated:

1) batteries for personal transport. Yes, those Tesla Superchargers will become more acessable with lower priced cars... thinking with a "today" price metric for tomorrow's world is doomed to failure.

2) batteries for inner city to suburban delivery vans / trucks / bus

3) batteries in trains, but primary power lines (overhead or under rail) to power most rail (hybrid). The battery's primary job would be to decrease surge loads on power, with enough reserve to move the train through areas of broken power service, and boost on hills, REGEN on braking and downhill. For mountainous terrain, whole rail cars can be filled with batteries.

4) Grid storage - lots of options, because weight / size / relative danger doesn't matter. Efficency most certainly does, but ultimate cost will win out over efficiency (obviously, cost is grossly manipulated with oil, so the same could be true of any other storage method). I see many of the same combinations used today... water pumping, dam storage, plus H2 and increasingly batteries as price decreases.

5) Airplanes - hybrid - batteries used like trains, to boost climb power, and store descent energy (very little, if the plane is flown right, far different than a train). The primary source of power, however, will be some synthetic Jet-A fuel for a long time.

6) Long haul trucking - hybrid batteries and perhaps h2. The balance will be the relative high ongoing cost of hydrogen and the relatively high cost of batteries. This assumes that the actual equipment for H2 to electricity onboard the truck can be much, much cheaper.

But, I see long haul trucking withering with far lower cost rail.

7) Shipping - nuclear?

 

[GRA]

So will H2 fuel cells and other technologies as they mature.

Maybe some agreement in this thread? Then let's not easily dismiss other technologies based on one's bias.

The thread is full of agreement.

I suspect I agree with much of what Reg has stated:

1) batteries for personal transport. Yes, those Tesla Superchargers will become more accessible with lower priced cars... thinking with a "today" price metric for tomorrow's world is doomed to failure.

2) batteries for inner city to suburban delivery vans / trucks / bus

Yes, definitely, possibly with fuel-cell range-extenders as are being trialled now in France, for the longer, colder routes.

3) batteries in trains, but primary power lines (overhead or under rail) to power most rail (hybrid). The battery's primary job would be to decrease surge loads on power, with enough reserve to move the train through areas of broken power service, and boost on hills, REGEN on braking and downhill. For mountainous terrain, whole rail cars can be filled with batteries.

There have been significant electrified rail lines in this country in the past, long before the NE corridor. I believe the CMSTP&P aka 'Milwaukee Road' was the longest, a couple of legs totaling around 600 miles over the Rockies and Cascades electrified back in the early part of the 20th century. It operated up until 1974, but steam/diesels had long also been used on the route (there was a gap between the two legs), and the company was so weak financially that they couldn't afford to repair/replace the equipment/infrastructure in the '70s. Europe has managed just fine through the Alps without on-board batteries, and the extra cost of them is substantial if you're going to electrify the lines anyway. There would seem to be little justification for putting batteries on trains, except for rescue locomotives, and they might be better served by FCHVs. Switching locomotives in marshalling/classification yards might work, but 24/7 operation poses a problem: rapid charging and/or battery swapping would be necessary.

<snip>

5) Airplanes - hybrid - batteries used like trains, to boost climb power, and store descent energy (very little, if the plane is flown right, far different than a train). The primary source of power, however, will be some synthetic Jet-A fuel for a long time.

Yes, this is definitely the place for drop-in biofuels. Metal-hydride storage is good for volume, but it's also relatively heavy (as well as not yet being commercialized); IIRR, I've read 60 kg per 1 kg H2 storage, but that number may be a decade old. That's at least twice as good as current Tesla battery packs, but still way too much for a commercial a/c. Nano-tube storage might be considerably better, but aircraft need fuels with the highest power/energy density, and that's almost certain to be liquid.

6) Long haul trucking - hybrid batteries and perhaps h2. The balance will be the relative high ongoing cost of hydrogen and the relatively high cost of batteries. This assumes that the actual equipment for H2 to electricity onboard the truck can be much, much cheaper.

But, I see long haul trucking withering with far lower cost rail.

Although much freight has moved back from trucks to trains over the past 30 years owing to containerization and especially double-stacking, trucking retains its advantages of speed, flexibility and door to door service. So, while the cost differential may well decrease its role, I doubt that we'll see it disappear regardless of how it's powered.

7) Shipping - nuclear?

Bio-fuels or fuel cells, I expect. LNG may well be used in the interim as fuel, latterly as feedstock for H2: http://toteinc.com/about/lng/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Thanks for the comments, guys.

I'm still trying to understand the short- and long-term stresses on critical systems, see if there are any plans that address at least some of those (or even consider them in their calculus), and then see if I can find any indications that any of the plans are being executed. I figure there are two important zones of time: From now to the essentially oil-free transition (energy, transportation, et al) and the post-transition period.

A huge problem I'm having is that while there are tons of papers, studies, etc. most seem to be based on a 'business as usual/standard evolution' set of starting assumptions. That gives folks plenty of fodder for wandering multi-page threads but doesn't seem to address any cliffs/speed bumps/brick walls that are looking to be higher probability parts of our near future.

So... Has anyone seen projections or studies that try to answer questions like "how many solar panels can we build with the silver we have?" or "how much energy will it take to build enough wind, wave, and solar generation for a post-oil world?" or "why commodities experts are buying land in Idaho?"

I keep finding reports, papers, and essays from folks knowledgeable in at least some of the important and on-topic areas (like the mining engineer's perspective or the Crash Course from a scientist/commodities analyst perspective) that suggest that we're in the midst of an energy and materials descent and that if we don't take advantage of the remaining energy stored in our usable fossil fuel 'battery' fairly soon we'll be in a world of hurt later. Other authors strongly suggest that we're already too late - that since there's nothing sustainable about the way the west consumes, that there's not a chance that we can replace oil with anything and keep our current habits (much less grow, or allow the rest of the world to grow to consume the way we do).

I'm not asking anyone to be a Google slave. But if any of this is in your area of expertise and/or if you're tapped into fields (mining? long-range planning?) and information sources you care to share, that would be great. Thanks!

edit... gah...things like this from Dr. Dennis Meadows, the leader of the '70 limits to growth modeling:

At this point, you no longer think that sustainable development is feasible. How do you define that term?
When I use the term sustainable development—which I consider to be an oxymoron actually—I am trying to capture the meaning that most people seem to have. In so far as I can tell, people who use the term mean, essentially, that this would be a phase of development where they get to keep what they have but all the poor people can catch up. Or, they get to keep doing what they’ve been doing, but through the magic of technology they are going to cause less damage to the environment and use fewer resources. Either way you use the term, it is just a fantasy. Neither of those is possible—anymore. It probably was possible back in the ’70s, but not now. We’re at 150 percent of the global carrying capacity.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/is-it-too-late-for-sustainable-development-125411410/

This from 2004:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35098.pdf

In brief, our conclusion is this: Producing 20 GW/year of PV
in the United States by 2050 would not create problems
with materials availability. Issues surrounding the availability
of PV materials at this level simply do not exist. Only indium
and tellurium remotely approach becoming bottlenecks at
this annual production rate, and simple strategies exist that
would solve these problems, including extracting them
from ores that are currently mined but unused, or that are
used for other products. However, if production moved to
20 GW/year at a much faster pace—or if world PV production
were to exceed 100 GW/year—either indium or tellurium
could be serious bottlenecks (for CuInSe2 or CdTe cells)
unless such cells were made much thinner or substitutes
were found. However, as we discuss below, both of these
research strategies seem to provide plausible solutions.

 

[AndyH]

Too bad they're burning the gas and not reforming it with a fuel cell. They'd get twice the electricity and 'free' heat. Oh well - this stuff will never work - I hear it's not efficient.

http://nationswell.com/blue-spruce-farm-cow-manure-electricity/

The Blue Spruce Farm in Bridport, Vt., is famed for the 3.6 million gallons of milk that its cows have produced annually since 1958. Its cattle are less well known, however, for another bovine byproduct — one you wouldn’t want to consume, let alone smell. One cow produces 30 gallons of manure, and this dairy producer is the first to call it “cow power.” By harnessing methane gas from the manure and burning it in a 600-kilowatt generator, Blue Spruce Farm can produce enough electricity to power 400 homes.

 

[mbender]

It sounds like they do make good use of the excess heat:

Another interesting fringe benefit of our renewable energy project comes from harnessing the excess heat from the methane-powered generator. Excess heat is captured through a heat exchanger, and used to keep the digester at 100 degrees, along with providing hot water to the farm for the daily cleaning of the milking system, and for radiant floor heat in the office and milking parlor in the winter. Intelligently utilizing the excess heat saves us an expense while further reducing our carbon footprint by reducing use of fossil fuels.

And because we simply just can't stand to throw anything away, the used oil from the generator is utilized to run a waste oil furnace that heats our farm equipment repair shop.

Audet's Cow Power ( http://www.bluesprucefarmvt.com/page.php?pid=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

So I imagine the cogen efficiency is quite high, and it's probably cheaper and easier to do it this way than by buying a fuel cell, etc.

Still not crazy about huge, automated dairy (slash, ahem, veal) operations, however, in spite of the fact that "some of my best friends" are Cheeseheads. ;-) But that's getting way off topic!

 

[AndyH]

Good that they're using the heat. That's the primary output from their system due to the inefficiency of the diesel engine. The oil changes cost them about 11 gallons of oil each time - and burning that isn't so great.

If they went with something like a Bloom Box, they would have more electricity to sell (more cash flow), would cut two pollution streams (burning ICE and burning drain oil), and would reduce the amount of oil they import to the farm.

I'm not a fan of veal or CAFO either but as CAFO is only profitable with oil, their days are numbered hopefully.

For the power and heat system, though, cows aren't necessary.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz3PYyrnp38[/youtube]

 

[edatoakrun]

Two videos posted below from an interview with Michael Liebreich (Bloomberg).

Interesting that he is probably one of very few people who has a fuel cell in his home, but does not own a car, which will probably be a quite common situation for people living in urban areas in the near future.

Grid connected stationary fuel cells utilizing the existing Natural gas infrastructure are the future, for homes and businesses, and for DC Charge stations used by BEVs, in particular.

However, for the reasons explained at the start of the second video, the FCV "Doesn't solve a problem we don't have".

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/25/michael-liebreichs-hydrogen-fuel-cell-michael-liebreich-interview-series/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

In the first video he recognizes the stacked efficiency of fuel cell combined heat and power and declares "it works!"

In the second, after talking about limitations in BEVs, he hits on something important: "...it's the added utility that makes it [hydrogen] work..."

The conversation appears to be "all about today" with no regard for changing vehicle ownership/access patterns or fuel changes that are already in progress.

As Mr. Liebreich is already on the record recognizing and promoting the major transition happening in most of the 'developed world' - including the EU's TIR - I suspect his position on FCEV might not be as bearish as the piece suggests.

http://climatecrocks.com/2015/03/09/utility-futility-americas-coal-burners-fighting-the-future/
(This includes earlier parts of Zachary Shahan's CleanTechnica work and info from other authors.)

edit..typos