Fuel cells for transportation
Opinions on the ecological benefit of the use of fuel cells in traffic differ widely. The Federal Environment Agency (Umwelt-Bundesamt - UBA) held a meeting on 18. and 19. May during which it repeated its position which it had already advocated on the occasion of the presentation of the fuel cell car NECAR 3 on 4. May. UBA and Greenpeace stated that NECAR still generates CO2 and that it is not fit for the market economically either as it is now (efficiency, price). DWV here presents its position about the use of fuel cells in traffic and comments about certain arguments of the skeptics.
Though the German Hydrogen Association is named after the clean and sustainable energy carrier hydrogen, we do not see it as an end of its own. We rather consider it as one component of a new energy economy based on environmentally compatible and renewable energies. It will be assisted by the fuel cell as optimum transformation technology. When the objective is to include hydrogen and fuel cells into a clean and sustainable energy economy we must begin with their use in time, which is today. For a start they may also be coupled with conventional primary energies to let them make their first steps by means of this intermediate solution.
The regenerative energy economy must include both the stationary consumers and the traffic. Stationary fuel cell demonstration plants have efficiencies of 85 % in cogeneration mode, even when supplied with conventional natural gas. Here is an example how the technology of tomorrow can be coupled with the primary energy of today.
DWV's position on traffic applications is this:
- Reduction of environmental loads caused by traffic must be achieved primarily by reduction of traffic (public transportation, car sharing, new concepts for mobility). Working on the individual vehicle is certainly important, but secondary.
- In the case of so-called "limited emissions" (NOx, CO, particulate matter, VOC) we are glad to see that a rather low level has already been achieved or will be achieved in foreseeable time by means of available technology. This is the very reason why these emissions have been limited. There is no catalyst against CO2, but for the time being the only cure against this is to reduce consumption.
- Fuel cell cars being unlikely to gain an important share of the market in less than 10 years, we can not do without improvements of conventional technology to reduce emissions and consumption. Correspondingly, almost all major car makers work not only on fuel cells, but only on more economical internal combustion engines. A good demonstration what can be achieved is Greenpeace's "Smile".
- In the long run, however, solutions for traffic must be found which do not depend on fossil fuels. For alternative energy carriers as well the whole chain from generation to end use must be considered in the ecological balance.
DWV and Federal Environment Agency are in complete agreement about these items. When certain UBA experts still draw very negative conclusions about whether fuel cells in traffic make sense we think that this may have to do with a certain short-sightedness of their approach and an corresponding uncertainty of their objectives. It is wrong to simply insert progressive and clean vehicles into today's traffic system. Solutions must be developed and introduced in the market, and this takes time. Comparisons as made by UBA should generally comprise comparable types of vehicles with comparable drive concepts, equal fuel, and comparable degree of technical maturity. Comparing two quite different types of vehicles as "Smile" with an optimized combustion engine on the one hand with a NECAR with a fuel cell on the other hand is not suitable. Both drive concepts should compared for either vehicle ("Smile" and NECAR).
DWV thinks that there are three ways to reduce environmental loads from traffic:
- Avoid traffic
- Reduce emissions from vehicles
- Avoid CO2 emissions
Neither of these items must be considered separately, but they require a whole bundle of measures. Concentration on a few details will not lead to the aim. While No. 1 requires substantial political and social changes, Nos. 2 and 3 can be approached on the technical level under suitable conditions. One of the most promising ways to this is the mobile application of the fuel cell. It allows:
- Emission free drives
- High efficiency of energy transformation (with H2 fuel about twice that of a combustion engine)
- A whole drive system without emissions if hydrogen is used as fuel (Zero Emission Vehicle)
- Independence of fossil fuels.
The still high development potential of the fuel cell appears to make it possible to meet the requirements of the car manufacturers on costs and of the environment on emissions. A problem under today's conditions is the fuel supply. Emissions are possible in the production of all possible alternative fuels, no matter whether they are made by natural gas reforming, water electrolysis, of biomass gasification. This is why not only the vehicles, but also the fuel supply must be further developed. (An approach to this can be seen in the "Energy Strategy for Transportation Economy", which was presented on 11. May by the federal minister for transportation.)
DWV itself and some of its members are in close contact with UBA. DWV fully supports the statement which UBA president Troge made in an interview with the "Berliner Zeitung" on 5. May:
"We have by no means categorically stated that the fuel cell makes no sense in vehicles, but we ask where the specific pros and cons are." According to present information from the manufacturers the fuel cell will still "cost significantly more" than other technologies also in the years to come. This might very well change, however. They would not "condemn the development finally". Today's results are not for eternity.
DWV emphatically supports this balanced view and considers it to be a good basis for further discussions with UBA.
|
