The Sacramento Municipal Utility District is nearing completion of a solar-hydrogen fueling station that will fuel 14 hydrogen, fuel-cell cars. The demonstration project will be completed at the end of the year.
The 80 kilowatt solar system will convert solar produced electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis. This demonstration project settles the point that technology exists for a solar-hydrogen system. The issue is not a technological one. The issue is one of mass production and deployment.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=50438
http://www.smud.org/news/releases/07archive/10_29_07_solarporthydrogen.pdf
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 21
I read in the pdf that this project will allow the Sacramento Municipal Utility to test fuel-cell electric vehicles in a partnership with BP, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler. BP produces 5,000 tons of hydrogen per day and is a key player in hydrogen demonstration projects across the globe. I wonder what Daimler Chrysler vehicles will be used. Perhaps the F600 Hygenius Hydrogen Fuel Cell Car. I saw a video about it at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjiXPUcpyt4
The video says that the car "can also serve as a mobile power station. Its electrical performance would be sufficient to supply electricity to several suburban houses."
I take it that Ford will be testing its HySeries Edge, a hydrogen-electrical car with a 336-volt battery pack that is relatively small. Ford has chosen for this approach, even though the battery will give the car a range of a mere 32 miles. In fact, the car will only drive the first 25 miles on the battery, after which the hydrogen will automatically kick in and run the car in tandem with the power from the battery. It seamlessly switches the fuel cell on when the battery is depleted to 40 percent, which will recharge the battery.
Tests are likely to show that most trips are short, so cars will rarely need not to switch to hydrogen. Yet, the hydrogen is there, so one can keep driving over longer distances without having to stop for a recharge. I understand that, if needed, hydrogen can extend the car's range by 200 miles, but I take it that this range could be extended even further by putting an extra hydrogen tank in the car. Tests will show what will be the most common usage, e.g. whether the solar panels will indeed be mostly used to recharge the car batteries, rather than to top up the hydrogen tanks.
Anyway, all this shows how both technologies go hand in hand, not only because hydrogen extends the range, but also because it allows the car battery to remain relatively small. This is important for a four-seater car. A bigger battery would make the car not only more expensive, it could well make a four-seater car too heavy. Also, it takes less time to fully recharge a small battery. Ford's battery can be fully recharged within eight hours from either a 110 or 220 volt standard outlet.
Here are some links with details about the Ford HySeries Edge:
http://www.ford.com/innovation/environmentally-friendly/hydrogen
http://www.revmods.com/cars/ford/fords-hydrogen-plug-in-hybrid/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4214707.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQxnRn3S4bk
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977166023
Doesn't it also make sense to use compost to heat water rather than burying it and letting it make methane that leaks or gets burned off?
Thanks for the thread.
Nanosolar is building a two manufacturing plants, one in San Jose, CA. California is very fortunate to have the tax rebates, allowing its citizens to install solar energy systems at a greatly reduced price. However, I also read (The Clean Tech Revolution) that a residential solar system is expected to cost around $5K within a decade.
Mary: "Doesn't it also make sense to use compost to heat water rather than burying it and letting it make methane that leaks or gets burned off?
Sam Carana wrote a very interesting article on Agrichar, which I think addresses your concern, and I would highly recommend.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977130412
"I often hear that hydrogen fuel cells, for use in transportation, are decades away, if at all possible. I think this demonstration project, as well as the links you provide, show that this technology is already present and improving."
From the referenced PDF link.
"The photovoltaic (PV) array, just west of the SMUD Headquarters building on S Street, which is visible from Highway 50, was just completed. It delivers 80 kilowatts of power produced by the sun, which is enough power to provide electricity for about 40 single-family homes or provide hydrogen for about 14 fuel-cell vehicles."
This is an important step on the road towards clean alternatives.
But in actuality it would probably make more sense to have these solar panels provide power for the 40 homes rather than the 14 hydrogen vehicles.
a clean safe energy like nuclear could provide the power needed to drive the hydrogen manufacturing process during the day when there is high vehicle traffic and support the homes at night when there is no sun to power the P.V. array.
http://nuclearenergy.gather.com/
It's a demonstration project. It demonstrates, unlike you frequently claim, that the technology is decades away. Obviously, it is not. Your statement that the solar panels would be more useful providing power for 40 homes also demonstrates, as I've been saying, this is a political issue. Hermann Scheer, in his book, Energy Autonomy, states we are in the process of deciding what our energy future will be. Renewables lead to energy autonomy. Nuclear doesn't.
Dan: "a clean safe energy like nuclear could provide the power needed to drive the hydrogen manufacturing process during the day when there is high vehicle traffic and support the homes at night when there is no sun to power the P.V. array."
No thanks.
Hydrogen Economy: Not So Difficult—Without Nuclear Power
At what point do you believe a technology is viable?
The technology to build fuel cells was developed in 1839, just because the technology exists doesn't mean it is viable for societal use as you seem to suggest.
And then it has to be acceptable to the citizens of that society, Honda's new hydrogen fuel cell vehicle with it's limited market and high cost has to pass the test of the public, are they willing to pay the price for the technology or is the appeal of the economical existing choices a greater factor in their everyday lives.
I think hydrogen has a long way to go before it is accepted by the public at large.
So tell me you're going to hold nuclear energy to that same standard.
Dan: "At what point do you believe a technology is viable?"
Renewable technologies are "viable" now.
Dan: "The technology to build fuel cells was developed in 1839...."
And yet you've been saying that the technology is decades away!
Dan: "...just because the technology exists doesn't mean it is viable for societal use as you seem to suggest."
You know, Dan, I've been trying to tell you for a long time that renewable energy is attracting ever more greater amounts of private investment (as opposed to nuclear energy, whose lobbyists have to squeeze congress for tax payer loan guarantees to attract reluctant investors). Renewables investments stand to increase even more if Bush doesn't veto the energy bill about to come out of congress. It is a minor push for renewables, certainly not on the level of the subsidies/tax breaks that fossils and nuclear have enjoyed for decades, but the increased amount of investment and development it spurs can only speed deployment and innovation of existing technology.
Dan: "And then it has to be acceptable to the citizens of that society..."
Again - you ARE going to hold nuclear energy to that same standard, right?
I think citizens of this country are very ready for renewables. Specifically, hydrogen will be accepted by citizens when they understand accurate information about the risks, which are no more than gasoline.
Dan: "Honda's new hydrogen fuel cell vehicle with it's limited market and high cost has to pass the test of the public, are they willing to pay the price for the technology or is the appeal of the economical existing choices a greater factor in their everyday lives."
What was the time frame between the first computers, costing millions of dollars, and the pc's that people consider a "factor in their everyday lives" today? What makes you think that hydrogen fuel cell cars won't follow the same price trajectory?
Dan: "I think hydrogen has a long way to go before it is accepted by the public at large."
Lovins lays out a strategy. I've linked it for your benefit before. I hope you have or will read it. BTW, his strategy doesn't start with fuel cell cars. It starts with stationary fuel cells providing electrical power for buildings, which is already beginning to happen.
A Strategy for the Hydrogen Transition
"So tell me you're going to hold nuclear energy to that same standard."
Certainly, nuclear has been providing power to our society for decades, millions maybe billions of people use some of it every day.
Society has accepted nuclear energy. Most of the fear surrounding nuclear is not founded in reality but instead is very effective propaganda fostered by a small vocal minority which of course you and Sam are a part of.
The polls indicate that people are about 50/50 on nuclear so you've got a lot of work ahead you if you are going to dissuade enough people to switch away from supporting nuclear to kill it as an industry.
I think it important to say here that you and I only have two disagreements, that I am aware of.
1. Time frame and 2. Nuclear power.
You want to push past any and all obstacles to get to your goals regardless of the current cost to society, because you believe the future benefits outweigh the immediate costs.
1. I don't believe that will be possible in our society, I agree that our citizens are ready and eager for alternatives, but they are not willing to give up their cheap energy, no matter if alternatives have the potential to be economical they are not willing to give up their cheap energy today.
B. The transition towards alternatives will take place through our centralized system, we already have lots of alternative energy flowing through out our grid, people all across the U.S. (and I assume the world) can buy energy specifically made from alternative means.
3. Nuclear will be a part of our future.
"What was the time frame between the first computers, costing millions of dollars, and the pc's that people consider a "factor in their everyday lives" today?"
40-50 years.
Good. So I expect you won't be complaining about NIMBY anymore, and you will respect the will of the people of Nevada to not have the nation's nuclear waste stored in their state. Thank you!
Dan: "Most of the fear surrounding nuclear is not founded in reality but instead is very effective propaganda fostered by a small vocal minority which of course you and Sam are a part of."
Of course, my response is that nuclear proponents discount legitimate concerns about nuclear energy, minimize the risks and distort the expense. But since you have agreed to let society accept or reject it - then I can agree with that.
Dan: "The polls indicate that people are about 50/50 on nuclear so you've got a lot of work ahead you if you are going to dissuade enough people to switch away from supporting nuclear to kill it as an industry."
I haven't seen those polls. Even so, it would seem that all I would have to do is to point out that the same benefits accrue without the risks and expense of nuclear through using renewables. All I need is a few percentage points. I'll keep working at it.
Dan: "I think it important to say here that you and I only have two disagreements, that I am aware of. 1. Time frame and 2. Nuclear power."
Could be. Your problem, though, is that I'm right on both points. ;)
Dan: "You want to push past any and all obstacles to get to your goals regardless of the current cost to society, because you believe the future benefits outweigh the immediate costs."
That may be partly true. I do want to push through obstacles. Why wouldn't I? I disagree with the "the current cost to society" part because I think there are ways around it. However, you want to impose nuclear waste on people, who don't want it, and you want to guarantee loans to build new nuke plants, despite opposition.
Ideally, Dan, what I'd most like to see is an end to subsidies for fossils and nukes, and a period of subsidies and tax incentives for renewables. That's only fair, since fossils and nukes have enjoyed subsidies for decades. I think that would get us where even you acknowledge we need to end up - with a renewable energy foundation for our growing economy.
Dan: "I agree that our citizens are ready and eager for alternatives, but they are not willing to give up their cheap energy...."
Some "tipping point" have already been reached. In some regions and in some time frames, wind has undercut natural gas, and even when natural gas dipped again below wind, many customers (especially businesses) signed up for 10 year plans because 1. expectations that natural gas would spike again, and 2. guarantees of a fixed price make budgeting more managable. Also, I have read forecasts that a $5K residential solar system will be on the market in a decade, which will effectively replace utility bills. I think that is believable, given start-ups like Nanosolar, which is dramatically cutting cost of traditional solar cells. But with tax rebates in a growing number of states, and citizens taking advantage of these in increasing numbers, I don't know that your statement here has much validity. People have their "tipping points". I've driven a hybrid for 6 years. At first, I was a rare sight on the roads. But now, it's not uncommon at all to see a Toyota Prius.
Dan: "The transition towards alternatives will take place through our centralized system, we already have lots of alternative energy flowing through out our grid, people all across the U.S. (and I assume the world) can buy energy specifically made from alternative means."
That's also a point of disagreement between us - not completely, but in this respect. You want to keep the energy system centralized. I see that as not likely, though there will obviously be a grid. A centralized system benefits a few at the expense of the many. No, I think a distributed system is more likely, and utilities' roles will gradually change from producers of energy to managers.
Dan: "40-50 years."
And when did you first buy a computer? My first computer cost about $2K about 20 years ago. My computer today cost much less and does much more. I expect you have a similar experience. So cut 20 years off of that 40-50 years for a large segment of the population, because I was - even then - not an "early adopter (adapter?)". Renewables ARE following a similar trajectory.
Dan: "Nuclear will be a part of our future."
Not if I can help it!
"you will respect the will of the people of Nevada to not have the nation's nuclear waste stored in their state. Thank you!"
Certainly Steve, but the problem you have to face is that those people can be educated past the fear mongering and may change their minds in the future.
"All I need is a few percentage points. I'll keep working at it."
Fear is all you have Steve and as I said above people can be educated above fear.
"Of course, my response is that nuclear proponents discount legitimate concerns about nuclear energy, minimize the risks and distort the expense."
But you and Sam can't seem to put those issues in a post that makes them appear even close to legitimate. You both just keep returning to the fear mongering. Ie. OMG we can't have nuclear….something bad might happen!
"part because I think there are ways around it."
Again, It's just that you can't seem to relay those "ways" as reasonable solutions.
"Could be. Your problem, though, is that I'm right on both points. ;)"
You wish.
"You want to keep the energy system centralized." I do? When did I say that?
It is however a reality that we will not be moving away from that evil inducing central energy distribution any time soon.
"And when did you first buy a computer?"
If you want to rephrase your question I'll be more than happy to give you a different answer, but according to your previous question my answer is about correct.
"Not if I can help it!"
You can't
Actually, it's the problem you face. 72.4% of the people in Nevada don't want nuclear waste stored in their state. What you call "educating" people amounts to industry promulgated distortions. There is sufficient information that counters those distortions.
Dan: "But you and Sam can't seem to put those issues in a post that makes them appear even close to legitimate."
Wrong. You just keep mischaracterizing those issues as "fear mongering". It doesn't matter. 72.4% in Nevada don't want nuclear waste in their state.
Dan: "...It's just that you can't seem to relay those "ways" as reasonable solutions.
I've given you enough references. I can't help it if you don't read them. Hint: check out the concept of "feebates" in Lovins' work.
Dan: "When did I say that? It is however a reality that we will not be moving away from that evil inducing central energy distribution any time soon."
You say it all the time when you talk about imposing nuclear energy and waste on a public that doesn't want it. You constantly assert - falsely - that renewables cannot possibly replace "traditional" energy structures, at least not in the near term. These are propositions that "traditional" energy industries want you to believe. They are nothing but self-fulfilling "proficies". You constantly argue against the viability of mass production of renewable, micro-technologies, that could distribute energy production, and accept as "reality" the necessity of large, centralized, wasteful energy production and distribution. You say it all the time!
Dan: "If you want to rephrase your question I'll be more than happy to give you a different answer, but according to your previous question my answer is about correct."
Well, it's not correct, judging from my experience with computers. The only way you might be right (40-50 years) is that computer industry didn't face an established, existing industry, that sought to suppress it. You are (unwittingly?) helping that suppression.
"There is sufficient information that counters those distortions."
And you have posted them and I have shown them lacking, so you don't bother posting them any more because they are just to easy to discount.
"Wrong. You just keep mischaracterizing those issues as "fear mongering"."
Then post something that isn't fear mongering, you won't, you can't, because that is all you have.
"I've given you enough references. I can't help it if you don't read them. Hint: check out the concept of "feebates" in Lovins' work."
Well Steve, I just gotta figure if neither you nor Sam are willing post any near term solutions to our near term problems then what there is isn't much.
Either that or you guys are getting "gun shy" by now.
"You constantly assert - falsely - that renewables cannot possibly replace "traditional" energy structures, at least not in the near term."
Steve you have had every opportunity to prove me wrong and you haven't done it yet.
"Well, it's not correct,"
Sorry Steve I just answered you question as you asked it, I suggest you re-read your question then do the research, you'll find I am correct.. Or very close.
Who's wishful thinking?
Dan: "Then post something that isn't fear mongering...."
The mischaracterizations continue because it's all you have.
Dan: "I just gotta figure if neither you nor Sam are willing post any near term solutions to our near term problems then what there is isn't much."
I just gave you one, but you ignore it. Oh well....
Dan: "...you have had every opportunity to prove me wrong and you haven't done it yet."
This article proves you wrong. The technology already is being demonstrated. You just don't want it mass produced. That's the gist of it.
"Who's wishful thinking?"
Post them again and I'll discount them again.
"I just gave you one, but you ignore it. Oh well.…"
You didn't give any solution. I can't ignore what doesn't exist.
"This article proves you wrong.'
If anything this article illustrates how far we have to go before hydrogen as a vehicle fuel is viable.
It doesn't prove me wrong and certainly doesn't prove you right. It is just like the lighthouse a functioning experiment. It is so far from being feasible in our society, maybe in a decade it will begin to be feasible.
You claim both of those self admitted experiments as viable yet you have no information about the costs of either of them. To you it is enough that they exist.
Ten unsolicited points from the world's worst connection. Merry whatever you celebrate!