« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
McCain's $300M Battery Prize: Dumb & Dumberer
John McCain has proposed a $300 million prize at taxpayer expense to stimulate development of a more efficient, long-lasting battery to power electric vehicles.
Dumb.
Automakers and battery researchers, including those in the U.S., already have plenty of incentive to develop a next-generation battery. With gasoline costs soaring and Americans actually driving significantly less for the first time in 30 years, the handwriting on the wall could hardly be clearer: The days of the internal combustion engine are numbered.
General Motors has announced its sales fell a whopping 26 percent in June, while its truck sales fell an astounding 37 percent. Other automakers around the world reported similarly disappointing sales for June, with only Toyota showing an increase in U.S. sales of its more fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars.
So survival alone already dictates that automakers move past gasoline to another fuel source. But is electricity the right source?
Quick answer: No.
Even the most efficient battery is only a storage device for the electrical current that powers hybrid and electric cars. The electricity itself has to come from somewhere, and that excess load would outstrip current U.S. generating capacity. So if John McCain has his way, those hundreds of thousands — maybe millions — of shiny new electric vehicles will have to get their power from scores of new fission reactors burning plutonium or uranium.
A better, more sustainable solution is already being implemented in the tiny country of Iceland, where hydrogen fuel cells power the small fleet of Daimler-Chrysler buses that crisscross Reykjavik. Still experimental, the goal of Iceland's SMART-H2 project is to completely eliminate oil imports within two decades.
GM and other companies are already racing to develop hydrogen fuel cells, hyrdrogen generating systems and the infrastructure to deliver it at the filling station.
There are drawbacks. The investment required to convert the U.S. transportation system to hydrogen would run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. And electrolysis, the technology that refines hydrogen by separating water into two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, also requires great amounts of electricity.
But hydrogen has too many advantages to ignore. First of all, it comes from water, the most abundant and readily available resource on the planet. There are no foreign sources required when the Atlantic and Pacific can supply all our needs. Second, a hydrogen vehicle's only emission is water vapor. Conceivably, the water could even be captured and recycled back to hydrogen and oxygen.
So if there are any prizes to be given out, they should be for developing hydrogen. Otherwise, we're just buying an expensive — and short -term — hybrid solution.
And that's even dumberer.
Comments (21)
Howdy Ripper. I agree - the battery prize is a sleight of hand. The "prize" that already exists is worth billions - namely, GM, Toyota, Tesla, Think et al are racing to win market share with plug-in hybrids & electrics, and that prize is worth BILLIONS. $300 million is nice for R&D, but irrelevant for the larger race..
That said, hydrogen - for small passenger vehicles - just can't beat plug-in hybrids or all-electrics. For larger, heavier-duty vehicles (like buses and trucks), it's got a shot.
Now, before you chew my arm off (rip?) note that Obama is well-positioned on this. He co-authored one of the first bills backing plug-in hybrids.
The reasons why batteries win here are pretty strong I think.
(1) Any life-cycle analysis will show that electricity can be gotten from batteries through to the wheels at around 80% efficiency. Fuel cells, far far less - maaaaaybe 60%? Because you have to produce, compress, ship, store, dispense & then reconvert hydrogen back into electricity through the fuel cell.
(2) I've done the calculations lots of times, and no, the electric load from batteries won't outstrip our generating capacity. Rather, it works out to 10%-20% of the load. Give it a spin - for a plug-in hybrid you get about 5 miles to the kwh. Travel10,000 miles/year = 2,000 kwh. Quite small. For instance, a single wind-turbine will get 3,000-4,000 cars of the road.
(3) Most important are what the electric system engineers have known for a decade. That plugging in vehicles with batteries actually boosts STORAGE capacity for the electric grid. And the electric utilities are desperate for this - they pay big money for it. Their association, EPRI, has researched this and WANTS it. They call it "Vehicle-To-Grid (V2G)." Why is it so valuable? Because if you add batteries to cars.... you boost storage for the grid.... which means you can add LOTS of new renewables like wind & solar (which need storage because of their daily variations.) Our cars can run on wind and solar direct - nice.
(4) Adding batteries is just much cheaper than adding fuel cells. I can get my Prius converted to a plug-in today for $10k. A fuel cell would run me, what? $100-$200,000 in real costs? The fuel is also a lot cheaper. 5-10 cents/kwh = ~25-50 cents/Gallon.
Don't get me wrong, I think there's room for hydrogen & fuel cells - for onsite power generation, heavier-duty vehicles etc.
But I think Obama's line of attack here has to be that he's already out ahead of McCain here, on plug-in's etc., and that McCain's just trying to steal some glory with his fancy "prize." A prize which doesn't amount to much in the real world, where every company is racing like hell to get batteries into their cars.
Sorry, for the length, but I - like you perhaps - have spent waaaaay too much time in this world! Thanks fer yer post, keep 'em coming, rec'd.
June 24, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOVE the comments!
quinn esq,
1) efficiency of transmitting power from storage to wheels is one thing, but doesn't take into account loss of power from original generation to grid, from grid to battery and "seepage" from the battery itself. How do those factor in?
2) adding 20% to our current national load (correct me again, if I'm wrong) would be more load than we currently can produce.
3) there is no such thing as a 100% efficient battery. Electrical storage always runs up against the laws of conservation of energy/mass. Hydrogen, being mass, is more efficient at storing innate energy. Technical problems exist, but this is true of batteries, also. Your comments welcome, of course.
4) because fuel cell technology is in its infancy, the economies of scale are not there to drive down costs yet. At mass production levels, fuel cells would be more than competitive.
June 24, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Ripper. Here's what I know: 1) Yes, there's another 5%-15% lost thru transmission of electricity, and that's on top of the 20% losses from seepage plus electricity conversion. Problem is, H2 loses this way too - from the grid (if electrolyzed) or thru the natural gas system - wells, processing & pipelines. So all in, it's still a >20% absolute advantage for batteries.
2) Yes, we can add 10%-20% to our power supply. We'd only need 5% max in the early years as plug-in's come in. and most jurisdictions are already adding 10%-20% through wind & solar now, by law, through their RPS's. The coal & nuke guys want a share of this, but even they've realized that adding batteries - and thus, storage - to the grid greases the path for new renewables more than them.
Plus, you're gonna see a lot of plug-in's & electrics sold where you get a Green Power supply as PART of purchasing the car. i.e. Wind or solar will be added sufficient to supply your incremental load. You get to "Ride The Wind" as the Austin Texas program has branded their vehicles.
3) You're right, electricity cannot be stored at 100%. H2 may well be better at long-term storage. The thing is though, it's easy for almost anyone with a car to plug-in at least once a day, or once every few days - at home, at work, etc. So the seepage losses aren't very large.
4) Fuel cells got sold to us, big-time, by Bush and co. I have a lot of friends who work(ed) on them. Very simply, economies of scale are driving battery cost down MUCH faster. Why? Consumer electronics - not the auto industry (who never would have done this on their own.) Lithium ion batteries got driven by cell phones, laptops, etc.... and will continue to be driven by that, as well as (now) by the entry of the carco's. Fuel cells are stuck, if you talk to Ballard or Hydrogenics or the other FC makers. I can convert my car to batteries NOW, as a one-off, to get 150 mpg equivalent, for under $10,000. We've got 2 running here as I speak.
And a big EPRI and Big 3 study a few years back outlined how that's expected to fall to ~$4000 with economies of scale. There is just NO way fuel cells can match that. This is why GM, Toyota, and all the others have turned and are racing toward electrifying the transportation fleet.
If you're interested, check out a company called A123, which spun out of MIT. They make incredible batteries. Used nanotech (and phosphate materials) to make them lighter, safer, faster to charge. They also just bought a small Canadian co named Hymotion, which does conversions of hybrids to plug-in hybrids. Hymotion's engineers, by the way, LEFT Hydrogenics to start it up - they just came to believe that there was no way fuel cells would ever beat batteries.
Sorry for the length!
June 24, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended, though I don't agree. Moving to an electricity based transportation system actually makes the most sense, using alternative fuels to power electrical generation.
Why?
The electrical grid already exists and goes to each and every home. It can be widely supplemented by solar if we can get the right leadership in place.
An efficient and reliable electric car in every home powered by solar panels, wind and other renewable sources (perhaps using hydrogen power plants vice nuclear or "clean" coal) seems the fastest and most long-term approach to this particular problem rather than converting a grossly inefficient and fragmented oil distribution system into one that spits out hydrogen instead.
Now, if we want to talk about alternative methods of generating hydrogen for personal use that doesn't require a massive waste of money on new infrastructure I am all ears. I think there is some promising research in turning starches into hydrogen. Also, there is a promising use of bacteria to create petroleum. Both of these might represent a piece of the puzzle as well.
I guess my main criticism of your blog is that it presupposes that one or the other is the answer rather than some combination of a bunch of different solutions. I am convinced that in this particular race, the most sustainable solutions will be the ones that win in the end, whatever that looks like.
June 24, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
All good points.
June 24, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a scholar and a gentleman, Ripper.
June 24, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Worth noting that Iceland generates their hydrogen with electricity generated from volcanic/geothermal heat. So their hydrogen can be produced inexpensively.
June 24, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty hot. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. Iceland rocks when it comes to this stuff!)
June 24, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post and solid comments.
I'll just point out one bit of silliness: "Conceivably, the water could even be captured and recycled back to hydrogen and oxygen."
Um, why would anyone even try?
It's not like water is in such short supply, or that pure water is going to pollute our water tables.
Worse, its capture, concentration and transport to an electrolysis facility would waste vast amounts of energy.
Mostly, I see production of hydrogen as a useful way to store the excess power that electric plants could produce during off-peak hours.
Much like the car batteries that would also be charging mainly overnight.
June 24, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if one could use the onboard battery to perform electrolysis on the fly? Worth researching?
June 24, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are describing a perpetual motion machine.
They don't work.
June 24, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doh! You got me.
June 24, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuel cells have enough problems handling the cold and heat, the stops and starts, the abrupt motions and such that go with being in a car. The FC industry doesn't talk about this much, but they're still VERY tetchy lil items. The whole H2 distribution chain struggles with this in fact.
Which is why they're looking to get them into stationary applications first - and which has potential for them I think.
June 24, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I'm talkin' about!
June 24, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops. Meant to go with ChronsSpark's below on that last one.
June 24, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honda already has a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Car on the market.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
Now if only American automakers could get on the bandwagon...
June 24, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post and great comments?
Is that Honda Fuel Cell car for real??? I never heard of it.
June 24, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's totally for real. They're only being leased right now ($600/month) and in a very limited amount, I guess. It's real, though. First heard about it by seeing a commercial on TV for it.
June 24, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ripper McCord -
You don't know what you are talking about.
Hydrogen fuel cells are batteries. They may be more or less efficient than lithium ion batteries (the current best technology), but they are batteries all the same. There is no "reserve" of hydrogen waiting for us to tap.
Hydrogen is generated commercially via stripping it from methane or via reformation of coal. Hydrogen can be produced via electrolysis of water (and other compounds), but $1 worth of electricity will produce 20 cents worth of hydrogen. Yes, people are working on techniques to produce hydrogen more efficiently, but it is research stuff.
But the point is: fuel cells are just batteries. They are a means of storing and recovering energy that was invested in producing the hydrogen.
They toyota Prius achieves a real 45 mpg fuel rating using NiCad (nickel cadmium) batteries. They don't use Lion yet because of cost. If improved batteries were available at a lower cost, the mpg rating would be even higher.
Yes, ideally there would be no need for fossil fuels. Realistically, there will be a transition, not a cold turkey conversion. The first good step is to reduce the number of miles we drive. The second good step is to incrementally improve MPG ratings. The third step is to switch to more radical drive trains.
To get informed of daily developments in this area, check out http://www.greencarcongress.com/
June 25, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But the point is: fuel cells are just batteries. They are a means of storing and recovering energy that was invested in producing the hydrogen."
No, they are a means of storing chemical energy and recovering it from the combination of hydrogen with oxygen.
But, hey, I thought you knew that, smarty pants.
June 25, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I may be wrong? But.... Doesn't it cost more.... in electricity to make the fuel for hydrogen cells?
Isn't hydrogen fuel more expensive than petrol?
I could be wrong again but .... wouldn't the countryside need to be dotted with hydrogen fuel stations? Like some .... serious infrastructure!!! ???
I could be wrong .... again, but .... hasn't the technology for battery powered cars improved so much that ... EV batteries can be recharged in 10 minuets?
I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard for a gas station to make 240 V power available for recharging an EV. I mean it's two 110 V outlets right?... put together right? I mean a local electrician could do it?
Easier then having a whole hydrogen plant put in?With specialised equipment and technological know how?
I reckon some one has been pulling your leg?
Just asking. :-)
August 27, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment