Hydrogen the fuel for the 21st century - Ballard CEO


The following is an article that appeared in The Vancouver Sun (BC
Canada) on June 7th, 2005 P. A11, as a rebuttle. It was written by
Dennis Campbell chief executive officer of Ballard Power Systems.'
Unfortunately I missed the article by Jon Hykawy, who probably made a
lot more sense.

I look forward to reading knowledgable people taking issues with the
Mr. Campbell's claims. You think he would know better than to state
things like, "Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe."
It is true, but if we are mining the entire universe there is no
problem with running out of anything, anytime soon, such as Uranium.

======================================================================

Hydrogen the fuel for the 21st century

(Insatiable energy demands require innovative solutions.)

As someone who believes strongly in a future fueled by hydrogen, I
feel compelled to respond to Jon Hykawy, "Why Hydrogen is Not the
Super Fuel of the Future, May 30."

His thesis, while on the surface compelling, is based on three
arguments which we do not agree.

First, that hydrogen cannot be produced or consumed
efficiently, second that fuel cells cannot be cost competitive with
internal combustion engines; third, that governments should take a
short-term view with respect to investing in alternative energy.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. The U.S.
hydrogen industry alone currently produces enough hydrogen to power
approximately 20 to 30 million cars or five to eight million homes per
year. In fact, in the western world, most people live within 100
kilometers of industrial hydrogen production and use hydrogen every
day, in products such as peanut butter, margarine, ammonia, paint and
more. The point is, we know how to produce hydrogen; we know how to
store it.

While it is true that, at current volumes, hydrogen takes more
energy to produce than it yields, that is true for every fuel,
including gasoline.

However, hydrogen fuel cells are two to three times more
efficient than gasoline-powered internal combustion engines. Today,
one kilogram of hydrogen is about twice the cost of a gallon of
gasoline, and provides about the same amount of energy. But, when you
take into account the greater efficiency of the fuel cell engine, the
cost per mile driven with hydrogen is equal or better than with
gasoline.

A recent report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences suggests that
with further infrastructure development the cost of hydrogen could be
half that of gasoline on an energy-cost-per-mile-driven basis. And,
hydrogen can be manufactured locally, using readily available regional
resources: natural gas, clean coal, hydroelectricity, solar and wind
power. In an age where energy independence is top of mind for many,
this is a huge benefit.

Hykawy's second argument is that the fuel cell industry cannot
produce hydrogen fuel cells at a cost comparable to today's internal
combustion technology.

Reducing the cost of fuel cells so that each of us can afford
to park a fuel cell vehicle in our driveway is not an impossible
dream. The U.S. Department of Energy has set a 2010 target cost of
$30 US per kilowatt for an automotive fuel cell stack, a cost
comparable to today's internal combustion engine. Every fuel cell
manufacturer and automaker is focused on this target.

In 2004, Ballard demonstrated automotive fuel cell stack
technology that, if produced at volume, would cost $103 US per
kilowatt. We believe the DOE target is well within our reach and have
recently published a Technology "Road Map" that commits to
demonstrating the DOE target by 2010.

When it comes to platinum usage, no one in the fuel cell
industry is ignoring the high cost of platinum. Last year, Ballard
demonstrated a 30-per-cent reduction in platinum catalyst loading,
with no impact to the performance of out fuel cells. In addition, our
industry is conducting significant research into non-noble metal
catalysts.

This isn't Nobel-winning science; it's just part of what we
are doing to develop commercially viable technology.

Finally, I want to correct the perception that the majority of
government support for alternative energy technology should be
channeled to only those technologies that demonstrate results toddy.

Government's role is to plan for tomorrow. Why suggest 'that
we limit our options when so many technologies, including
hydrogen-powered fuel cells are demonstrating such promise?

Energy demand is growing at an unprecedented rate that
threatens to outstrip both fuel supply and power generation capacity.
Climatic changes are approaching an irreversible tipping point. And
air quality, particularly in the developing economies of the world, is
deteriorating to the point where serious health consequences are
inevitable.

The industrial revolution of the 19th century was powered by
wood and coal. In the 20th century, it was oil and gas that provided
the muscle for an unprecedented era of economic and technological
expansion.

In this 21st century, hydrogen offers a carbon-free energy
solution that can improve our air quality, counteract global warming
and relieve geo-political tensions.

Our appetite for energy is enormous. And hydrogen provides a
solution. Investing in hydrogen and fuel cell commercialization is a
"no-brainer" -- a keystone strategy, for securing emery supplies,
growing the economy and ensuring a healthy planet for future
generations.
.

Quantcast