Are fuel cells environmentally friendly? Not always!

Fuel crucial for life cycle assessment

From the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (EMPA)

fuel_cell_still[1]
Image from fueleconomy.gov
Fuel cells are regarded as the technology of the future for both cars and household heating systems. As a result, they have a key role to play in the switch to renewable energies. But are fuel cells always more environmentally friendly? An international team of scientists headed by Empa performed a series of calculations and reached a conclusion: it depends on the fuel.

In the future, we might be driving fuel-cell cars that burn solar-generated hydrogen. This would make the “zero emissions car” a reality. At the same time, small combined heat and power units – also based on fuel cell technology – could be placed in our cellars at home. They convert natural gas and biogas into electricity while generating heat as an added “bonus” to warm the building.

Although this is technically possible, does it also make sense for the environment? Empa researcher Dominic Notter teamed up with colleagues from Greece and Brazil to analyze the life cycle assessments for the use of fuel cells: From their production, throughout their entire service life, all the way to their eventual recycling.

How the electricity is generated the key

The result was conclusive: Fuel cells for cars are only ecologically sound if they are able to run on hydrogen from renewable energy sources. It doesn’t make any sense to draw electricity from the European power grid, use it to produce hydrogen via hydro-electrolysis and fuel cars with it; the CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour of electricity would be far too high using this method. At present, industrial hydrogen is predominantly obtained directly from natural gas. However, the fuel cell does not really have any environmental advantages with this kind of fuel, either. A car with a combustion engine currently has the edge: The production of conventional cars is less harmful for the environment.

Nor does the fuel cell stand a chance in the eco-comparison with electric cars for now: First of all, electricity is needed to generate hydrogen, which the car tanks up on. Electricity is then produced from hydrogen again in the car. This double conversion significantly reduces the efficiency level. People who use the same electricity to charge the battery in their electric cars directly travel more economically and thus in a more environmentally friendly way.

It could be different story in future, however, says Notter. A fuel cell car will become competitive as soon as a company chiefly produces its electricity from solar, wind and hydro power – because the vehicle will guzzle fewer resources during production than a battery-operated electric car, have a far greater range and can be refueled more rapidly.

Combined heat and power units: world champions of energy efficiency

When it came to comparing combined heat and power units, the research team pitted a fuel cell based on state-of-the-art carbon nanotubes against a Stirling engine. This zero-emission machine, which was invented and patented by the Scottish clergyman Robert Stirling in 1816, converts heat into kinetic energy. Both types of combined heat and power unit can be operated with natural gas. The result of the calculation: a slight advantage for the fuel cell as it converts a higher proportion of natural gas into valuable electricity. Anyone who uses it to produce heat and electricity simultaneously exploits 90 percent of the energy contained in the natural gas – a huge proportion. Combined heat and power units – regardless of the type – are therefore masterpieces of energy efficiency. The drawback, however: A fuel cell contains rare metals such as platinum, which are becoming increasingly more expensive and might be difficult to obtain in the future; the Stirling engine, on the other hand, can simply be constructed from steel.

Electric cars with EU electricity not more environmentally friendly than gas-powered cars

For their calculations, Notter and his team used the life cycle assessment instrument, which enables the environmental impact of goods and services to be calculated and compared. The researchers calculated the components of the fuel cells from scratch themselves: For the combined heat and power unit, the fuel cell has an output of 1 kW (kilowatts) and is comparable to a Stirling engine, which generates the same amount of electricity. The fuel-cell vehicle in the study has an output of 55 kW and is comparable to a 55-kW, strong electric car and a small, 55-kW, gasoline-powered car.

The result: Taking the current EU power mix as a comparison, with an assumed consumption of 6.1 l/100 km after 150,000 km of mileage, the gasoline-powered compact car is ahead by a nose. The electric car charged with EU electricity produces slightly more environmental pollution – comparable to 6.4 l/100 km of gasoline consumption. Today, a small fuel-cell car that uses EU electricity to generate hydrogen would easily be the worst option. The car would have the same environmental impact as a luxury sports car with a gasoline consumption of 12.1 l /100 km.

However, the fuel cell could be a key future technology – especially when surplus electricity from wind power and solar energy is stored temporarily in the form of hydrogen and thus becomes accessible for household heating or mobility. Currently, wind farms are simply switched off when there is too much electricity on the market and the eco-energy goes to waste.

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

157 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 16, 2015 6:54 am

Seems like every limited “niche” technology gets breathlessly but thoughtlessly promoted to center stage — pinwheels, solar energy, fuel-cells, hydrogen, electric vehicles (batteries) — on & on & on.

Rod
July 16, 2015 7:45 am

A few thoughts on markets:
1. Peak oil is not when demand exceeds supply as someone asserted in the comments. Demand and supply are always in balance because of the price mechanism. Too much demand drives prices up, as does too little supply, etc. Peak oil is defined as that time when oil production, i.e., supply, has peaked and begins falling. Implicit in that definition is that production falls because new supplies can’t be found fast enough to replace the amount being used. It doesn’t apply to a technological shift where suddenly the demand for oil plummets for other reasons, e.g., a massive switch to nuclear energy as a power source.
2. Those who want to tax “carbon” (really carbon dioxide, but carbon sounds so much dirtier, no?) fail to realize that such a move would bias market prices of alternative fuels in the future in totally unpredictable ways. For example, if a means was found to more efficiently utilize, say, coal in some sort of power storage system, the previously-applied carbon tax might be sufficiently high to keep that means off of the market, whereas, without the tax, market prices would dictate the use of coal. The effect of the tax would be to waste resources.
3. Discussions of “finite” resources tend to ignore market pricing. Perhaps, someday, we will be unable to find enough oil to power our cars. So what? Pricing of gasoline will drive gas-powered cars from the market under that scenario so that oil could continue to be used for purposes of higher value. Rather than have a committee decide who should get that scarce supply, let the market price decide. Some billionaires would still drive a gas guzzler from their youth with gas at $2,000 a gallon, but again, so what? Let prices dictate usage, stop meddling with markets via taxation and regulation, and all this tends to sort itself out in the end.
4. I was surprised to learn how quickly the earth becomes uncomfortably hot as miners dig deep. It strikes me that we not only have the sun, but we’re all sitting upon a massive furnace called Earth. Market prices for energy today are so low that only immediate sources of the heat from that furnace are utilized, i.e., from geothermal sources near the surface. But if energy prices ever rise because of dreaded peak oil, peak gas, peak coal, etc., eventually someone will utilize the inexhaustible heat in furnace Earth.
Let market pricing settle these arguments. Everything else is as big a waste of effort as counting grains of sand on a beach, while damaging our economic prospects in the bargain.

Rod
Reply to  Rod
July 16, 2015 7:57 am

An added thought on market pricing, and windmills and solar: Car batteries in hybrid cars seem to me to be the perfect storage mechanism for intermittent wind- and solar-generated electricity. Cars sit idle for most of the day, and most aren’t driven in one day far enough to discharge a fully-charged battery. So install smart chargers (I assume this is trivial, but don’t know) all over the place, including homes, that kick in and start charging whenever electricity prices drop below a consumer-chosen price.
When windmills are now shut off, just drop the price of electricity instead, thereby activating hundreds of thousands of charging stations already connected to cars. If the sun comes out full force, drop it another penny, thereby activating hundreds of thousands more chargers that consumers have preset to charge at that price. As the next drive time approaches, the preset price could be automatically increased at the charger, ensuring that a full charge (at a price) is available the next day. If too high to recharge, the gas in the tank would become the prime fuel source for the day.
This solution to wind and solar storage probably awaits better, less-expensive, battery packs in hybrids, but charging hundreds of millions of cars (billions worldwide) when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining would seem to be a good way to address the storage issue with wind and solar, provided the price mechanism is employed, and not 10,000 bureaucrats.

Reply to  Rod
July 16, 2015 8:07 am

An added thought on market pricing, and windmills and solar: Car batteries in hybrid cars seem to me to be the perfect storage mechanism for intermittent wind- and solar-generated electricity.

I think Tesla already has some of this functionality available now.

Reply to  Rod
July 16, 2015 8:04 am

4. I was surprised to learn how quickly the earth becomes uncomfortably hot as miners dig deep. It strikes me that we not only have the sun, but we’re all sitting upon a massive furnace called Earth. Market prices for energy today are so low that only immediate sources of the heat from that furnace are utilized, i.e., from geothermal sources near the surface. But if energy prices ever rise because of dreaded peak oil, peak gas, peak coal, etc., eventually someone will utilize the inexhaustible heat in furnace Earth.

I figured it’d cost $10-$12,000 (plus the cost of repaving the driveway) to have enough geothermal to never have to shovel the driveway again.

July 16, 2015 8:05 am

Whatever happened to the Fuel Cells that run on natural gas and are used to heat your domestic hot water and make electricity on the side. These could even be used to heat the home and make electricity. What happened to all of these ideas.

Reply to  usurbrain
July 16, 2015 8:10 am

Whatever happened to the Fuel Cells that run on natural gas and are used to heat your domestic hot water and make electricity on the side. These could even be used to heat the home and make electricity. What happened to all of these ideas.

I don’t think they’re gone, but I do think they’ve problems with long term reliability using Nat Gas, the membrane get’s fouled (iirc) and they stop working.

Juice
July 17, 2015 12:16 pm

Hydrogen fuel cells are a dead end. I worked on that for my PhD 14 years ago and I was convinced that the obstacles are just too much to overcome. Unless a revolutionary new way to produce cheap compressed H2 gas without producing CO2 is developed it will go nowhere. Not to mention that they are notoriously delicate and unreliable. The catalyst is expensive and easily poisoned over time. There are just too many ways for these things to fail and they are in no way economical.

Reply to  Juice
July 17, 2015 12:40 pm

Hydrogen fuel cells are a dead end. I worked on that for my PhD 14 years ago and I was convinced that the obstacles are just too much to overcome. Unless a revolutionary new way to produce cheap compressed H2 gas without producing CO2 is developed it will go nowhere. Not to mention that they are notoriously delicate and unreliable. The catalyst is expensive and easily poisoned over time. There are just too many ways for these things to fail and they are in no way economical.

As you note, we’d need new material for catalyst, and a new catalyst to reduce the energy required to split water before it might scale up to something useful and non-carbon emitting.
And I think I noted somewhere in this thread, if I lived way off grid, (or after the apocalypse), I’d use solar to split water and collect it for fuel, but you can’t operate a steel mill on renewables.

Reply to  micro6500
July 17, 2015 12:47 pm

You can make steel from iron ore and charcoal.

Charcoal is a renewable isn’t it?

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 17, 2015 12:54 pm

You can make steel from iron ore and charcoal.

Charcoal is a renewable isn’t it?

Sure, but if you want to build something big, you require a lot of energy.

Reply to  micro6500
July 17, 2015 12:58 pm

Sure

Thank you for admitting that you can run a steel mill on renewables.

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 17, 2015 1:32 pm

Thank you for admitting that you can run a steel mill on renewables.

Nice job parsing.
You can’t make enough steel to operate a modern society with renewables.
This report http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/11/f4/steel_energy_use.pdf
says 770 kWh/shipped ton steel.
China generates 160G kwhr/year wind, 28G kwhr/year solar
US generates 140 G kwhr/year wind, 4.3 G kwhr/year solar
China in 2014 made 822Million tons steel, US 88 M tons.
Renewables if entirely went to steel can make 236M tons in China, the US could make 187M tons.
But world wide production is 1,674 M tons, so China could make about 1/4 their steel, we could double our steel, but would not have power for anything else, and even doubling production would not supply just what China’s making let alone the rest of the world.

Reply to  micro6500
July 17, 2015 1:38 pm

“You can’t make enough”

That is not the issue. You have changed the subject. The simple fact is that you can run a steel mill on renewables.
..
Maybe we can’t make enough today, but that doesn’t mean we can’t run a steel mill on renewables. If the supply of renewable energy continues it’s upward growth, we may be able to make enough steel in the future with renewables.

Reply to  micro6500
July 17, 2015 1:45 pm

PS…
..
“You can’t make enough steel to operate a modern society”

Have you seen what Ford has done lately with it’s F150 with regards to steel?

Reply to  Joel D. Jackson
July 17, 2015 2:02 pm

It takes more power to make aluminum than it does steel.

Reply to  micro6500
July 17, 2015 2:08 pm

Once made, the aluminum doesn’t corrode like steel.

Makes recycling easier.

Reply to  micro6500
July 17, 2015 3:43 pm

Joel D. Jackson
You replied to micro6500 by saying

“You can’t make enough”

That is not the issue. You have changed the subject. The simple fact is that you can run a steel mill on renewables.

NO! You have changed the subject!
micro6500 was NOT talking about a toy steel mill nor a smelter from the Iron Age. He was talking about a commercial-sized toy steel mill capable of supplying an industrial society.
People following the discussion are not impressed by your semantic tricks.
Richard

Reply to  micro6500
July 17, 2015 3:57 pm

richardscourtney

I find your mind reading abilities impressive !!!!!!

Nowhere in his original post did micro6500 mention size. He stated: “you can’t operate a steel mill on renewables.” ( reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/15/are-fuel-cells-environmentally-friendly-not-always/#comment-1987102 )

micro6500 even acknowledged that you can make steel with charcoal (which is renewable.)

If the quantity of renewable energy was sufficient, you could easily run an industrial society.

Reply to  micro6500
July 17, 2015 4:04 pm

richardscourtney

Please point out to me where in micro6500’s original post was there any mention of “industrial society. ???” (reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/15/are-fuel-cells-environmentally-friendly-not-always/#comment-1987102 )

The original statement made was “you can’t operate a steel mill on renewables.”

I have shown that you can operate a steel mill on charcoal which is in fact a renewable.
..
micro6500 even acknowledge as much by saying “Sure” (reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/15/are-fuel-cells-environmentally-friendly-not-always/#comment-1987108 )

Reply to  micro6500
July 17, 2015 6:59 pm

Please point out to me where in micro6500’s original post was there any mention of “industrial society. ???”

The original statement made was “you can’t operate a steel mill on renewables.”

I have shown that you can operate a steel mill on charcoal which is in fact a renewable.

You did show anything.

Sure, but if you want to build something big, you require a lot of energy.

Nice job parsing.
You can’t make enough steel to operate a modern society with renewables.

I have shown that you can operate a steel mill on charcoal which is in fact a renewable.

Again You did show anything, and I wasn’t referring to using charcoal for power, I was referring to charcoal to carbonize iron into steel. That was what I said “sure” to.
Like wise I noted that all you really did was parse the words up.
And I did show there wasn’t enough renewable to make the steel currently in production.

Reply to  micro6500
July 17, 2015 7:00 pm

You did show anything.

didn’t

Reply to  micro6500
July 17, 2015 11:30 pm

Joel D. Jackson:
In reply to my pointing out to you

People following the discussion are not impressed by your semantic tricks.

you have said

The original statement made was “you can’t operate a steel mill on renewables.”

I have shown that you can operate a steel mill on charcoal which is in fact a renewable.

No!
You acknowledged that micro6500 was talking about a modern commercial-scale steel mill when you wrote.

If the supply of renewable energy continues it’s upward growth, we may be able to make enough steel in the future with renewables.

That is admission by you that “you can’t operate a steel mill on renewables.”
People following the discussion are not impressed by your semantic tricks.
If you had any sense you would stop.
Richard