Re: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas

["Hauserman" <hauserman@corpcomm.net>]

To:  Peter Singfield - and anybody who's interested.

 

    I'm reluctant to clutter this forum with oppinions and generalities, but the conventional-fuel-efficiency  VS H2-fuel-cell-vehicles argument can lead to some serious boondogles if politically mishandled.  Being peripherally involved in the fuel cell side of this, I'd like to submit some - hopefully - constructive inputs.

 

    The use of  H2-fuel-cell powered cars offers the advantages that (1) It can be highly efficient. (2) Hydrogen can be made from a huge variety of  primary raw materials, including biomass and garbage, as well as coal and "surplus" natural gas. (3) Oh, and as an afterthought, it's complete "clean."   The fuel-cell-electric propulsion systems are probably of near-commercial, technical availability -- pending a big enough market to spur a mass production infrastructure to reduce costs.  Hydrogen can be stored on-board the vehicle, or it can be produced  as needed, by various on-board means of reforming  of ethanol, methanol or various still-undefined low grade (compared with gasoline) hydrocarbons - which in turn may be made from the primary raw materials. These small scale, fuel-to-hydrogen concepts still neeed some pre-prototype development.  These technologies appear intimidatingly complex, but no more so than state-of-the-art automotive technology would have appeared back when the first "flivvers" were just hiting the market. The disadvantages of  such vehicles are: (1) Limited range, due to low energy density (HP-hours per pound or per cubic foot) of the on-board fuel system. (2) Safety. (3) High cost and limited access to specialized maintenance, for the first couple of decades.  In my oppinion, hydrogen-powered vehicles will never replace more than some minority of vehicles, probably for short range urban commuting or delivery.

 

    Both increased conventional engine efficiency and the fuel-cell approach are thoroughly essential to a future in which the world's petroleum reserves WILL run out. More than increasing conventional efficiency - which the automotive industry and a better-educated public can acieve immediately - the fuel cell approach should receive government support, simply because of the tremendous developmental costs and investment risks before anyone can squeeze a profit out of hydrogen-powered vehicles. A major benefit of their development, again in my oppinion, will be a spin-off effect on the development of an incredible array of practical, small-scale fuel-cell-based energy systems. (Imagine  a 2-5 kW intigrated package, consisting on an automated biomass gasifier, gas processing by micro-channel components and a PEM fuel cell, supplying all the electricity and most of the heat for a household, at an overall fuel efficiency of 50-80%. Possible? Probably so - with enough market demand and a couple of decades of tinkering.)

 

    So - government has a responsibility to encourage and enable the development BOTH these approaches to our automotive future - but definitely should not make political decisions to predict this future, based on one approach over the other  There is, in my oppinion, one thoroughly neutral and effective approach, that would let the market demand drive the rate of development in both areas - that will be effective but equally repugnant to all political constituencies: Phase in an extra $1.00/gallon gasoline tax - or more. Government can allways use such "revenue enhancement" to compensate for ill-advised tax cuts and pay for inevitable "social" and environmental boondogles.  And it would very rapidly educate the driving public to appreciate any and all alternatives that developers can get to the market.

 

   

 

   

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Peter Singfield <snkm@btl.net>

To: <gasification@crest.org>

Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:01 AM

Subject: GAS-L: Fuel Cells -- ethanol -- reforming natural gas

> 
> A question -- 
Gentlemen and Ladies;
> 
> During my perusal of "reforming" 
technology I came across so many
> references to reforming natural gas 
into many various products -- including
> "ethanol".
> 
> 
Being as their are humongous deposits of natural gas in Alaska and the
> 
North West territories of Canada that are presently no commercially 
viable
> due to the extreme costs of pipe-lining said product to 
market:
> 
> Would it not be viable to "reform" natural gas to 
ethanol for tanker
> shipment to market??
> 
> If such a 
market was to develop --
> 
> How is that you might say??
> 
> Well, read below ---
> 
> [Note: ethanol is an ideal fuel 
cell propellent]
> 
> Peter Singfield/Belize
> 
> 
*************************
> 
> January 9, 2002
> 
> U.S. 
Ends Car Plan on Gas Efficiency; Looks to Fuel Cells
> By NEELA BANERJEE 
with DANNY HAKIM
> 
> he Bush administration is walking away from a 
$1.5 billion eight- year
> government-subsidized project to develop 
high-mileage gasoline- fueled
> vehicles. Instead it is throwing its 
support behind a plan that the Energy
> Department and the auto industry 
have devised to develop hydrogen-based
> fuel cells to power the cars of 
the future, administration and industry
> officials said yesterday. 
> 
> The new effort, to be announced in Detroit today by Energy 
Secretary
> Spencer Abraham, aims at the eventual replacement of the 
internal
> combustion engine. Fuel cells use stored hydrogen and oxygen 
from the air
> to create electricity, and the only emission from engines 
they power is
> water vapor.
> 
> Environmentalists and some 
energy experts favor the research. But critics
> said that the new program 
would let Washington and Detroit focus on vague,
> long-term aims while 
avoiding the more difficult task of improving the
> mileage of existing 
cars and sport utility vehicles in the short term.
> Experts say that 
commercial production of cars with fuel- cell engines is
> 10 to 20 years 
away.
> 
> With hearings scheduled in the Senate next month on a 
Democratic
> alternative to President Bush's energy program, it has been 
unclear how
> either party will address fuel economy standards, which are 
equally
> unpopular with carmakers and organized labor. 
> 
> 
Yesterday, an administration official speaking on the condition of
> 
anonymity said that the Transportation Department would offer a proposal
> 
later this year on tightening those standards. But he added that since 
any
> changes would be years in the making, the fuel-cell project could 
make them
> "a nonissue."
> 
> The original program, begun in 
1993, aimed to develop affordable cars that
> got 80 miles to a gallon of 
gasoline. Vice President Al Gore, its most
> vocal backer in the Clinton 
administration, likened the project, known as
> the Partnership for a New 
Generation of Vehicles, to the Apollo space
> program in its technological 
complexity. In addition to about $1.5 billion
> in government subsidies, 
the Big Three automakers - General Motors
> (news/quote), Ford Motor 
(news/quote) and DaimlerChrysler (news/quote) -
> together spent about $1 
billion a year on related technologies. 
> 
> The carmakers all 
developed prototype vehicles that got at least 70 miles a
> gallon, and 
the project nurtured advances in aerodynamics and lighter
> composite 
materials now used in auto manufacturing. 
> 
> But none of the Big 
Three came close to commercial production of an
> 80-mile-a-gallon car. 
The average fuel economy of cars and trucks for sale
> in the United 
States has, meanwhile, steadily dropped, so that this year's
> fleet - 
with its growing proportion of sport utility vehicles - gets the
> worst 
gas mileage in 21 years, according to the government. 
> 
> The new 
program, called Freedom Car, will not require the automakers to
> produce 
a fuel-cell powered vehicle, according to the Energy Department.
> Energy 
experts expressed concern yesterday that without such clear targets,
> it 
too would do little to alleviate the country's growing dependence on 
oil.
> 
> "I think fuel cells are a useful long- term goal," said 
Steven Nadel,
> executive director of the American Council for an Energy 
Efficient Economy,
> a research and advocacy group in Washington. "But the 
big problem I have is
> that the Bush administration proposal doesn't seem 
to address anything for
> the next 10 years. There's a lot of technology 
that can go into cars in
> 2006 or 2007."
> 
> The new 
initiative was disclosed yesterday by The Detroit News. The
> 
administration said it would not discuss its proposed spending on the
> 
project until President Bush's 2003 budget proposal was released in
> 
February, but the program it replaces was to receive $127 million in
> 
federal funds this year.
> 
> Although gasoline prices are now low, 
the conflict in Afghanistan has
> thrown a spotlight once more on 
America's enormous appetite for fuel and
> has renewed calls for reducing 
American dependence on foreign oil. The
> United States, with only 5 
percent of the world's population, consumes 25
> percent of its oil, 
mostly in the form of gasoline. 
> 
> Mr. Abraham, in remarks 
prepared for delivery today at the North American
> International Auto 
Show in Detroit, said the new project was "rooted in
> President Bush's 
call, issued last May in our National Energy Plan, to
> reduce American 
reliance on foreign oil." He added, "The eventual goal of
> this research 
are technologies that aim to solve many of the problems
> associated with 
our nation's reliance on petroleum to power our cars and
> 
trucks."
> 
> While the Clinton administration program focused on 
developing high-
> mileage family sedans - vehicles that fell out of favor 
with consumers as
> the research progressed - Mr. Abraham said the new 
project would give
> automakers the flexibility to use the fuel-cell 
engines in a range of
> vehicles.
> 
> "We should be 
developing energy- efficient components that can be adapted
> for use in 
several models throughout our fleet," he said.
> 
> The stocks of 
several companies that are developing fuel cells surged
> yesterday on 
news of the administration initiative. Shares in Ballard Power
> Systems 
(news/quote), probably the best known of these companies, jumped 15
> 
percent, to $34.96. FuelCell Energy (news/quote) rose 22 percent, to
> 
$21.85; Plug Power was up 39 percent, to close at $12.04.
> 
> The 
Big Three automakers are expected to introduce so-called hybrid
> 
vehicles, using gasoline-electric engines, by 2004. Toyota (news/quote) 
and
> Honda - which did not share in the Clinton-era program's subsidies 
-
> already have hybrids getting at least 40 miles a gallon.
> 
> The auto industry has steadily resisted government-mandated increases 
in
> fuel economy, with some carmakers arguing that such requirements 
would
> divert investment from fuel-cell research. Government standards, 
unchanged
> for more than a decade, require each automaker's cars to 
average 27.5 miles
> a gallon and light trucks - including pickups, 
minivans and sport utility
> vehicles - to average 20.7 miles a 
gallon.
> 
> Kara Saul Rinaldi, the deputy policy director for the 
Alliance to Save
> Energy, a bipartisan advocacy group in Washington, said 
that she welcomed
> the investment in fuel cells but hoped the 
administration would explore
> improvements in fuel-economy standards. 
"We're looking at long-term
> technology when we haven't made the first 
step," she said. "Raising
> fuel-economy standards is the first 
step."
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
-
> Gasification List Archives:
> http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/current/
> 
> Gasification List Moderator:
> Tom Reed, Biomass Energy 
Foundation,  Reedtb2@cs.com
> www.webpan.com/BEF
> List-Post: 
<mailto:gasification@crest.org>
> 
List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
> 
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
> 
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
> 
> Sponsor the Gasification List: http://www.crest.org/discuss3.html
> 
-
> Other Gasification Events and Information:
> http://www.bioenergy2002.org
> http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/gasref.shtml
> 
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/biomass-info/