Filed under: Hydrogen
ITM Power, a British hydrogen company, says it's reached a bi-fuel "breakthrough"
The British company ITM Power said today it has a made a "major breakthrough" for petrol-to-hyrogen vehicle conversions. Let's see how much through this announcement breaks.ITM and the University of Hertfordshire have been working for about the last six months on putting hydrogen in IC engines
at the Sustainable Energy Tehnologies Centre (SETCE). The news from ITM today is that they've run a bi-fuel Ford Focus, "with minimal modifications," through initial trials that sent the car over 25 miles on a single charge of hydrogen (they don't say how much hydrogen makes up this single charge).
The other announcement is about the green box you see in the picture. This device is "a low-cost electrolyser which can convert renewable energy (wind, wave or solar power) or off-peak electricity into hydrogen." The device made hydrogen that the Focus used in its test.
Jim Heathcote, ITM Power's CEO, keeps up the bluster, saying "Both these developments represent a seismic advance in our efforts to cut ourselves free from the dependence on oil and other fossil fuels. The Bi-fuel car and refuelling system clearly demonstrate a simple, convenient and low-cost transportation solution that can significantly reduce greenhouse gases and help mitigate climate change. We believe combining electrolysers with an internal combustion-engined vehicle brings affordable hydrogen transportation forward by many years."
ITM will demonstrate the refueling station and the car later the year. But what's the breakthrough here? Other companies have hydrogen-burning ICEs, and there are other hydrogen home refueling systems in the works. I'm glad to see people working on alternatives to petrol, but, um, let's not use breakthrough without good reason, K?
Related:
[Source: ITM Power]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Chris M 9:14PM (6/29/2007)
A mere 25 mile range? The average cheap NEV can do that, and using a lot less electricity to boot.
This is a graphic example of the problems of storing enough bulky H2 fuel, and how horribly inefficient IC engines really are.
Their proposed electrolyzer/IC combination is under 10% efficient. Why throw away most of our electric power, when charger/batteries/motor are 80% efficient?
Reply
A.Brien 9:26PM (6/29/2007)
With technologies like that it will be possible to power a house and a car with only solar panels or windmills if living in the north like me. I prefer windmills too because it's useful at night too contrary to more costly solar panels. I think that
this technology(electrolyser) don't appeal the general consumer only because 99.9% of the people don't have a clue of what an electrolyser is nor fuelcell or that water can be separate in 2 giving hydrogen and oxygen. If they put that on the market the consumer will adopt it on the long run and will understand it then forget abouth petrol,ethanol,nuclear,coal,natural gas, tidal, geothermal except for tourism, hydro-electricity.
Only cigarette lighter will survive, LOL.
Reply
Petri 9:39PM (6/29/2007)
I agree on comments made by Chris M before me.
I personnally after reading how ineffecient hydrogen actually is, have come to same conclusion than Chris and I would rather see good NEV's to be developed ASAP.
Hydrogen is only oil-companies baby, which make all of us to be dependent on big-oils fueling/charging stations. I would rather charge my future electric car in my own garage.
Reply
Chris M 10:15PM (6/29/2007)
Someone actually did a setup with photovoltaics and electrolyzer and fuel cell and H2 compressor and lots of hydrogen tanks to fully power his house. It cost $500,000.00 So, A.Brien, do you have a spare half million to set up your own home H2 power unit?
Ironically, he could have achieved the same result for less than 1/10th the price if he had used regular batteries for energy storage, instead of pricy H2 electrolyzer/fuel cells. Batteries would have a higher efficiency, too!
Reply
Mike Z 11:58PM (6/29/2007)
Actually, this seems like a really nice idea for using hydrogen as a way to power a car. I like PHEVs but its a good idea to have other technologies in development too. Overall, this idea overcomes the major problems with hydrogen, storage and production. Using a small home generating station to provide a PHEV like range then gasoline will really reduce gasoline consumption. If the costs are not too bad, Its an appealing idea.
Reply
Nils 7:16AM (6/30/2007)
Wake up people, this system solves nothing, it brings only more problems of its own at a higher price-tag and delays/diverts the attention from real solutions.
Reply
Mike Z 8:59AM (6/30/2007)
Nils:
How does it do that any more than a plug-in hybrid?
Reply
Mike Z 9:33AM (6/30/2007)
I'm really sick of everyone just running on anti-hydrogen autopilot on this one, how this has anything to do with the points you brought up is really beyond me.
Anyways, the idea itself has some real merit worth considering. Think of it as a PHEV that instead of batteries uses a low pressure hydrogen tank to power an ICE engine for the first few miles.
Its, actually an ingenious idea if you think about it, and actually worthy of some admiration.
Now the problem as I figure it is that the average efficiency for an electrolyzer seems to average about 55 KwH per 1Kg of hydrogen, which contains 134,200 BTUs of energy. So If you assume $0.05 off-peak rates, your still talking $2.50 GGE, which is not exactly impressive in the US, but might be a big deal in Europe with their high gas prices (not sure of the electricity prices).
Anyways, stop it with the canned anti-hydrogen posts, most of you didn't make it past the first line of the story.
Reply
Joseph 4:47PM (6/30/2007)
I don't get it. Where's the innovation? Wow, an ICE that runs hydrogen.
Reply
Chris M 2:53AM (7/01/2007)
Mike Z: Not only did I read the entire article, I also went to the ITM-Power website and read most of that as well.
Like many of the "anti-hydrogen" folks, I originally had high hopes for H2, but after getting all the gritty details and finding out about all the problems, I realized what a bad fuel H2 really is.
I don't know where you'd get electricity for $0.05 per Kwh, but that is less than half the local price, and $6 per GGE does not sound appealing at all.
Consider a hybrid getting 50 mpg, gas at $3, fuel cost is 6 cents per mile. A "plug-in" version averaging 200 wh per mile with $0.11 per Kwh electricity would be only 2 cents per mile. That's one reason why the "plug-in" option is better than H2. Another advantage is lower emissions - not only would plugins use less electricity than that H2 electolyzer, but battery electrics produce no NOx, unlike burning H2 in an IC engine.
Reply
L Connolly 11:48AM (7/01/2007)
Well ladies and gentlemen it appears to me the author of the main article and many of the follow up posts just don’t understand what Ion Transfer Materials [ITM Power] have achieved. Breakthrough is a most appropriate word to use I can assure you.
Firstly the last paragraph in the original article states in its defence “Other companies have hydrogen-burning ICEs, and there are other hydrogen home refuelling systems in the works”. Firstly the BMW 7 series H2 vehicle runs on cryogenic H2, a completely different animal to the ITM approach and has many inherent problems. 1/ Boil off of the stored liquid H2 while the vehicle is idle. An idea which could possibly work for fleet operated vehicles on the road 24 hours a day, but completely impractical for a domestic situation. So no comparison can be made to the ITM product on that score. 2/ There is presently no cryogenic H2 infrastructure to fuel such a vehicle and there won’t be for the foreseeable future. I believe the BMW 7 Series isn’t being seriously marketed as a fossil fuel replacement vehicle, but more of a demo to encourage further debate on the Hydrogen Economy. Therefore in conclusion the BMW example isn’t appropriate to be used against ITM.
The second example given to discredit the word “breakthrough” in the original article is the “other H2 hydrogen home refuelling systems are in the works”. I’m not sure if the GM home refuelling station in the link provided is a PEM electrolyser using Dupont’s Nafion membrane? But if it is I can assure you it will only be millionaires who are doing any home refuelling. ITM’s PEM electrolyser membrane cost 100th the price per sq/mtr of the industry standard PEM which is Dupont’s Nafion. ITM have also eliminated platinum from their electrolysers, considerably reducing costs still further. Finally, assembling conventional PEM membrane stacks are a very complex and expensive process. ITM have developed a single shot moulding method that can create a stack of any shape without any labour intensive assembly requirements. Therefore ITM are at present light years ahead of the nearest electrolyser manufacturer on a cost basis.
I also feel many who have posted simply don’t understand how significant the fact of being able to drive 25 miles a day with zero emissions from home grown H2 is. It is estimated that taken as an overall average the mileage for a domestic vehicle about 25 miles a day. [All those short trips to drop the kids off at school or the quick trips to the Mall] If the ITM Home Refuelling Device is fed with off peak cheap green tariff electricity, either from a utility or possibly from home solar or wind generation, then I believe the word breakthrough can once again be justifiably used. The beginnings of energy independence also spring to mind. ITM are now keeping the latest cost of producing a kilo of H2 very close to their chests for commercial reasons. However, the rumour on the street is that it is now below the comparative cost equivalent of fossil fuels [In Europe but your prices are creeping up in the US too and cheaper isn't going to happen] Also keep in mind it is estimated that the first units will be producing up to 1 kilo of H2 a day at 75 bar, enough to cover at least 25 miles in a city car such as a Ford Focus. ITM are working on achieving greater pressures, which will equal greater mileage as the technology progresses.
Are any of the posters living in the real world when it comes down to what the imminent future holds for a world powered by oil? World consumption is presently around the 84 million barrels a day. The US alone is consuming about a quarter of this. China and India are growing at an unprecedented rate and it is forecast that world demand will surpass 120 million barrels a day by 2025. It’s estimated that in the US there’s around 800 vehicles for every 1000 of population. In China it’s 9!!! In India it is 6!!! The Exxon’s BP’s and Shells of this world are not replacing their reserves. The world isn’t such a large place any more when using modern technology in the hunt for oil and it is generally believed the days of finding Saudi sized oil fields are over.
Generally it is believed the Gulf States will up production to meet this demand, but has anyone considered the population explosions currently under way in Middle Eastern countries. Saudi Arabia’s population for example was approximately 14 million 15 or so years ago. It’s currently estimated to be around 24 million and forecast to be 40+ million by 2025. If you up your production, [if you believe that’s even possible, personally I don’t] what are you going to do with it? Sell it cheap to people you don’t particularly like or satisfy home demand first? More likely satisfy home demand first, then sell it at an extortionate price [$150 - $200 a barrel] to people you don’t like very much second.
Apologies for going slightly off topic but in reality it’s all very much related. ITM’s low cost electrolysers are the solution to the much talked about Hydrogen Economy chicken and egg situation. i.e. Who’s going to buy a hydrogen car when there’s no refuelling stations? But who’s going to build the refuelling stations when there are no hydrogen cars to fill? I believe ITM are leading the world and if anyone has a serious fighting chance of ushering in the hydrogen economy this company is it.
Knock them all you like, but my moneys on the fact that their BREAKTHROUGH is the start of something truly huge.
Reply
Chris M 7:58PM (7/01/2007)
Connolly, we do understand how much of a "breakthrough" this is. It is yet another electrolyzer joining hundreds of others made by would-be "H2 messiahs". While PEM membranes and platinum electrodes can be used for electrolysis, they are not required, and eliminating them is no breakthrough.
Running an IC engine on compressed H2 is no breakthrough, either. Ford, Quantum, and Mazda have already done it. Some college students converted a Gremlin to run on compressed H2 back in the '60s.
Now, if ITM’s PEM membrane really did cost 100th the price per sq/mtr of Dupont’s Nafion and if the ITM membrane lasts longer than Nafion, that would count as a breakthrough - for fuel cells. If ITM really did find a way to dramatically reduce assembly costs, that too would count as a breakthrough. An affordable fuel cell is the holy grail of H2 fuel research. So why are they fiddling around with inefficient IC engines, when fuel cells are much more efficient, and potentially more lucrative?
Perhaps the same reason they are fiddling around with H2, rather than using much much more efficient batteries.
Reply
Chris M 8:04PM (7/01/2007)
Yes, Connolly, we are aware of "peak oil", the problem of global warming, oil money going to hostile regimes, overpopulation, and a host of other looming problems. That is precisely why we are so upset about all the money, time and effort wasted on such an unpromising technology as H2 automotive fuel, particularly when there are cheaper cleaner safer alternatives already available.
Reply
L Connolly 3:00AM (7/02/2007)
Chris M
I'm not going to attempt to convince you here because this will end up a tit for tat tennis match of claim and counter claim. but I think if you do some deeper research into ITM you will discover that the reason they are "fiddling" around with ICE H2 is very obvious. You are most correct in your statement that a cheap fuel cell is the holy grail of H2 research. Also you are probably aware a fuel cell is in simple terms a reversal of an electrolyser. ITM decided that the main problem regarding the enabling of the H2 economy was the lack of a cheap way to generate H2 from green sources. With this in mind they decided to focus research on reducing the costs of electrolysis first which as an interim measure the H2 produced could be utilised in a non breakthrough H2 ICE. Their research program is now applying the same chemistry to the Fuel Cell side of the chemical loop and they are making great progress on this too. I can assure you ITM's membrane is 100 times cheaper than Duponts Nafion at an approximate ratio of $500 to $5. Do your research and you will uncover this fact easily. I can also assure you the durability test on their electrolysers have now passed 11500 hours of continues operation which makes the ITM technology now commercially viable. This technology is now being developed for their fuel cells and in due course will arrive. In the mean time reflecting on the words of Honda. Using an ICE to burn H2 produced by a cheap electrolyser that IS LIGHT YEARS AHEAD OF ALL THE COMPETITION enables the beginning of the H2 economy TODAY, rather than in another 10 years time.
Reply
terry mechan 9:06AM (7/02/2007)
The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.
Build it and they will come!
ITM's cost efficient and easily manufactured electrolysers will provide a home/in-car H2 refueling or generation system which will provide a first generation of H2 usage in bi-fuel ICEs.
Other now-emerging systems and products will be married to the ITM system further putting their system ahead of alternative H2 consumer fuel generations.
Marry the electrolysers to solar, wind, or other natural energy generators, (many of which are now coming on stream as 2nd generation efficient devices) will generate free or low cost hydrogen.
For example, ITM have also married their electrolyser to engines manufactured by another H2 engineering company;- The Hydrogen Engine Center.
HEC have recently demonstrated a Carbon-Free Hydrogen Ammonia (anhydrous) Engine.
The increased density of hydrogen associated with the ammonia fuel provides the engine with significantly more power than hydrogen alone.
The small amount of hydrogen needed can be generated by ITM electrolysers onboard the engine, thus eliminating the need for a second fuel.
So marry ITM electrolysers, HEC engines, and bird shit (sorry ammonia) solves the storage and availability problems associated with hydrogen.
Article here
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070605/20070605005441.html?.v=1
Reply
L Connolly 12:15PM (7/02/2007)
Very true Terry. Also ITM have been conducting trials with ABRO a UK Ministry of Defence contractor for the past 7 months. This trial is another feather in their cap. The trial consists of fitting on-board ITM electrolysers to British Army vehicles which then generate small quantities of H2 which is then fed directly into the air intake of the various diesel engined equipment under trial, increasing fuel efficiencies and also significantly reducing emissions. Just before Chris M informs me that this is also not a new approach, I am already aware of that fact. A Canadian company have been doing the very same thing for the last 2 years. However yet again ITM's breakthrough in cost reduction creates a completely new ball game in this sector too. The results of this trial are expected on the 31st of this month. It is estimated that the British army have up to 95,000 vehicles, the majority of which could utilise this technology.
If ITM are successful in securing this contract, then what this in fact translates into is a HM government endorsement. Certainly not just some other wannabe electrolyser manufacturer.
Reply
terry mechan 4:02AM (7/03/2007)
If the MOD ever decide to make a decision!!.
My concerns are the usual delays with MOD assessments.
Government evaluators always think there is something better around the corner and usually avoid making these sort of decisions for as long as possible.
What Britain and ITM needs is some sort of decent pilot order for the kit. The MOD have had it long enough on loan to get a feel of it now. We don’t want another British invention going by the board just because the MOD can’t get it’s finger out.
Quote from ITM RNS
"However, the full commercial or military implications of the results cannot be judged in advance of a research programme such as that agreed with ABRO"
Also I know what researchers are like.
To them, the product is never ready; they always can improve more before going to market.
I hope ITM have a visualiser who can "see" the packaged consumer/industrial product "on the shelves" next year.
i.e. we can go into any major garage chain, and ask for an ITM conversion whose installation and running costs will have a payback of under a year for a 15K annual mileage motorist.
The conversion should come with an internal charging system or a 12 volt external connector for overnight mains or alternative energy charging.
Perhaps even a H2 boot container which is "plug replaceable" so that a hot swap can take place and the other unit charged with H" "offline"
These are the sort of things I visualise they should be doing to make the impact on the market the research and early development deserves.
I know from my own patents and designs in Video Pabx technology how important it is to have an end product and price in mind/
It is important it is to specify and build in all the sales features and benefits of the end product before development, not wait until each piece of the design and testing is finished before addressing these issues of system integration and end user packaging.
Reply
Jack 10:31PM (7/06/2007)
The anti-hydrogen guys are missing an important point - it's going to take decades to switch over from ICE vehicles to electric vehicles. If ITM's tech is cheap enough however society can put a subsidy on it, get existing vehicles retrofitted, and come out ahead by saving the cost of unfought oil wars and unchanged climate.
Personally I believe electric vehicles will win out over hydrogen in the long run, but in the short term there is definitely a place for ITM's product.
Reply
TheTom 4:40PM (7/07/2007)
If we haven't yet hit peak oil (my feeling is we have) then we will in just a few years. It may be another decade or two but that's going to be about it. So we (the industrialized world that is) need to have alternatives in place, ready to quickly replace gasoline when the time comes.
The costs of not investing in hydrogen and plant-based fuels as well as electric/battery vehicles would be catastrophic.
If all you had to do was take your car into the shop for a few hours to have the h2 tank installed and the other adjustments to the fuel system that would be a lot easier than converting your vehicle to battery. Still not as easy as converting your car to run on biodiesel or ethanol but still a good option. I wish them great success in the future.
Reply