JNS Holding Corp (JNSH)

[anunnaki]

THE FACTS ABOUT FUEL CELL AND BATTERY EV'S

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/thomas_fcev_vs_battery_evs.pdf

2.0 Fuel Cell and Battery Comparisons

In the following sections, we compare hydrogen
vehicles (FCEV’s) with battery­ powered electric
weight, volume, greenhouse gases and cost.

2.1 Vehicle Weight

EVs must be much heavier than FCVs for a given range,
As shown here, the extra weight to increase the range of the fuel cell EV is
negligible, while the battery EV weight escalates dramatically for ranges greater
than 100 to 150 miles due to weight compounding. Each extra kg of battery
weight to increase range requires extra structural weight, heavier brakes, a
larger traction motor, and in turn more batteries to carry around this extra mass,
etc.

2.2 Storage Volume

Some analysts are concerned about the volume required for compressed gas
hydrogen tanks. They do indeed take up more space than a gasoline tank, but
compressed hydrogen tanks take up much less space (including the fuel cell
system) than batteries for a given range. The basic energy density of the
hydrogen fuel cell system in watt­ hours per liter is compared with that of
batteries in Figure 5.
The hydrogen system has an inherent advantage in basic energy density. But
this advantage is amplified on a vehicle as a result of weight compounding.
Thus the battery EV requires more stored energy per mile than the FCEV as a
result of the heavier batteries and resulting heavier components. The net effect

An EV with an advanced Li­Ion battery could in principle achieve 250 to 300
miles range, but these batteries would take up 400 to 600 liters of space
(equivalent to a 100 to 160 gallon gasoline tank!). The fuel cell plus hydrogen
storage tanks would take up less than half this space, and, if the DOE hydrogen
storage goals are achieved, then the hydrogen tanks would occupy only 100
liters (26 gallons) volume for 300 miles range.

2.3 Battery Performance Assumptions

We have assumed in particular that the Li-ion battery technology achieves the BEV goal of
150 Wh/kg and 300 W/kg, well above current Li­-ion battery system
achievements. Note that Li­-ion batteries have demonstrated 150 Wh/kg, but
only at very low power levels. Similarly Li­-on batteries with very thin plates
have achieved up to 800 W/kg specific power levels, but only at very low energy
levels that would be totally unsuitable for a BEV.
These curves demonstrate that all battery technologies involve a trade­ off
between energy and power. For hybrid vehicles power is the major driver, since
the onboard fuel provides stored energy via the internal combustion engine. An
all­ electric vehicle requires much more energy storage, which involves sacrificing
specific power. In essence, high power requires thin battery electrodes for fast
response, while high energy storage requires thick plates.

2.4 Greenhouse Gas Pollution

The greenhouse gas (GHG) implications of charging battery EVs with today’s
power grid are serious. Since on average 52% of our electricity in the US
comes from coal, and since the grid efficiency is on the order of only 35%, GHGs
would be much greater for EVs than for hydrogen­ powered FCEVs, assuming
that most hydrogen was made by reforming natural gas for the next decade or
so. The increased weight of the EV to achieve reasonable vehicle range increases
fuel consumption as the vehicle becomes heavier. The impact on GHGs with
today’s marginal grid mix is shown in Figure 8 below. Once again, the hydrogen
FCEV running on hydrogen made from natural gas can achieve the 300 to 350
mile range demanded by American drivers without sacrificing GHG reductions.
For frame of reference, the gasoline ICE version of the AIV Sable produces about
480 g/mile of CO2­ equivalent emissions, so the hydrogen FCV would immediately
cut GHG emissions by more than 50% compared to regular cars. This GHG
calculation includes all “well­ to­ wheel” GHGs adjusted for a 100 ­year atmospheric
lifetime.

2.5 Cost

Kromer and Heywood at MIT have analyzed the likely costs of various alternative
vehicles in mass production. They conclude that an advanced battery EV with
200 miles range would cost approximately $10,200 more than a conventional car
in 2030, whereas a FCEV with 350 miles range is projected to cost only $3,600
more in mass production. Plug­in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) with only 10
miles all ­electric range would cost less than the FCEV as shown in Figure 9, but
plug in hybrids with 60 miles range are projected to cost over $6,000 more than
conventional gasoline cars. If we extrapolate the Kromer and Heywood data for
BEVs to 300 miles range, then the BEV would cost approximately $19,500 more
than a conventional car.

We conclude that the fuel cell electric vehicle could provide the range, passenger
and trunk space and refueling times demanded by modern drivers for full function
vehicles. All ­electric battery­ powered electric vehicles will probably find
niche applications as city cars and limited range commuter cars. A major
breakthrough in battery technology, well beyond the US ABC battery goals,
would be required before a battery EV could satisfy customer’s needs for
conventional passenger cars, particularly with respect to battery recharging
times. Most drivers would not accept more than 15 to 20 minutes charging time
on long distance travel for EVs, while FCEVs can be refueled in the 5 to 10
minutes expected by consumers.

3.0 Well­ to ­Wheels Efficiency

Some analysts have concluded that fuel cell electric vehicles are less efficient
than battery electric vehicles since the fuel cell system efficiency over a driving
cycle might be only 52%, whereas the round­ trip efficiency of a battery might be
80%. However, this neglects the effects of extra vehicle weight on fuel
economy. Since battery EVs are heavier than fuel cell EVs for any given range,
the BEV will require more energy per mile driven.

In other words, we need to estimate the total “well ­to­ wheels” efficiency of the
vehicle, not just the efficiency of any one component acting in isolation. For
example, suppose we have one million btu’s of natural gas. What is more
efficient: to convert that natural gas to electricity to drive a battery EV, or to
convert that natural gas to hydrogen to run a fuel cell electric vehicle?
Figure 10 illustrates the answer: one would need to burn approximately 1.77
million btu’s (MBTU) of natural gas in a combustion turbine generate the
electricity to power a battery EV for 300 miles on the EPA’s 1.25X accelerated
combined driving cycle. For a more efficient combined cycle gas turbine
generator system, 1.18 MBTU’s of natural gas would be required. But only 0.81
MBTU’s of natural gas would be required to generate enough hydrogen to power
a fuel cell EV for 300 miles. On a full ­cycle well ­to ­wheels basis, then, the
hydrogen­ powered fuel cell electric vehicle is between 1.5 to 2.2 times
more energy efficient than a battery EV in converting natural gas to vehicle
fuel.

4.0 Conclusions

The fuel cell EV is superior to the advanced Li-­ion battery full function EV on six major counts; the fuel cell EV:

" Weighs less
" Takes up less space on the vehicle
" Generates less greenhouse gases
" Costs less
" Requires less well­ to ­wheels energy
" Takes less time to refuel