Ultra Light Rail – the Fast Track to Fuel Cells
Introducing Fuel Cells to the Commercial Public Transport Market
Fuel cells are now recognised as a key technology in the process of weaning the modern world from its dependence on fossil fuels and leading it into a new age of alternative energy. The principal obstacle still to be overcome is the high cost of fuel cells. In transport, for example, one kilowatt from a fuel cell costs around $3,000, compared with $30 per kilowatt for an internal combustion engine. Somehow a reduction of two orders of magnitude has to be achieved if fuel cells are to compete with alternatives in the commercial market for transport.
There are two complementary approaches to achieving this reduction. The first and most obvious is to increase the efficiency of the fuel cell in producing electricity from hydrogen. But producing electricity is not an end in itself. It is rather a means to enable us to achieve the end objective, which is to provide people with useful services such as heat, light and mobility. The cost of mobility can therefore be reduced just as much by increasing the energy efficiency of the system in which the fuel cell is used, as by increasing the efficiency of the fuel cell itself.
Ultra Light Rail is a transport system designed to eliminate the two orders of magnitude gap between the fuel cell and the internal combustion engine. The first step is to increase the efficiency of the vehicle system in which the fuel cell is used. This can be done in a number of ways but the most dramatic “step change” in energy efficiency can be achieved by using a vehicle running with steel wheels on steel rails. This immediately reduces the energy requirement by a factor of three, since the lower rolling resistance allows a tram to use only one third of the energy required by a similar sized bus.
Further cost reductions in the vehicle system can be achieved by introducing an on-board energy storage system in a hybrid electric drive train, similar, in principle, to that used in the Toyota Prius and other cars and even in some buses. This makes possible a lower rating for the prime on-board power source which is required only to run at its optimum level, in order to keep the energy storage system topped up. It also allows for the energy from braking to be recaptured and used, rather than dissipated in heat vented to the atmosphere. Still more efficiency can be introduced by integrating the electric motors into the wheels. The overall weight of the vehicle can be reduced by each of these innovations whilst the body itself can be manufactured from carbon fibre composite materials in a monocoque form. The whole process, using standard proven technology, creates a spiralling cost reduction, resulting from each innovative feature.
Using only some of these features, practical test work carried out by Sustraco Ltd, with support from a Carbon Trust grant, has shown that a 25 kilowatt fuel cell would be sufficient to power a light tram with similar capacity to the fuel cell buses tested in London under the EU’s CUTE programme. These buses have done an invaluable job in demonstrating to the public that fuel cells are no different to internal combustion engines in performance and safety. However the buses themselves are grossly inefficient in commercial terms, costing, as they do, some five times as much as a similar diesel bus and requiring 250 kilowatts fuel cell to operate them. The next logical step in commercialising the operation of fuel cell powered public transport vehicles must therefore be to integrate the fuel cell into an energy efficient tram.
The full report can be found by following this Link.
Posted by:
admin
| Comments
Professor Roger Falconer FREng, Halcrow Professor of Water Management, Cardiff University, Monday, 12th January 2009, 19:00 (Refreshments at 18:30)
University of Bristol, Merchant Venturers’ Building, Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1UB
The presentation will review the current main Severn Barrage proposals, as originally promoted by the Severn Tidal Power Group, together with giving a brief overview of alternative options such as the Shoots Barrage and Offshore Tidal Impoundments.
In particular, emphasis will focus on assessing the potential hydro-environmental impact of a barrage, including the implications for geomorphological and flood risk changes. An outline will also be given of recent research undertaken by the Hydro-environmental Research Centre at Cardiff University on bacterial-sediment interactions and the application of computational hydro-environmental models.
For further information please contact John Eley – jteley@theiet.org
Comment – will be interesting to see if he goes into the reasons why the government has impeded Tidal Electric’s proposals, which could be fully funded by the private sector and ready to go, whereas all the various studies of the barrage (3 so far) has shown it has a hopeless economic case. Also interesting if he will discuss the factor of 8 (800% error) in the claimed recent cost calculations by Parsons Brinkerhoff for BERR- see an earlier news item.
Posted by:
admin
| Comments
December 14, 2008
The infamous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig_(Boston,_Massachusetts))) American engineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff (“PB”) has submitted cost numbers on power from tidal lagoons (25p) that are roughly 800% higher than all the previous studies of Tidal Electric Limited’s tidal lagoon power conducted by UK engineering giant WS Atkins (3.1p) and corroborated by AEA Technology, OFGEM, Rothschild Bank, Montgomery Watson Harza, and several private energy companies. PB has arrived at their extraordinarily high numbers by ignoring the technology developer’s design parameters and introducing their own design and therein making four costly design errors:
1. Depth. The PB tidal lagoon is partially in 10 meters depth whereas the Tidal Electric Limited design calls for a maximum depth of 5 meters. The added depth in PB’s design increases the cost of those sections by about 250%.
2. Output Calculations. PB calculated the output from a tidal lagoon in a 10 metre tidal range by using the output from a tidal lagoon in a 6.5 metre tidal range. The output from a tidal lagoon is a function of the square of the tidal range and thus the power output is underestimated by about 100:42 ratio. This is the most basic fact regarding tidal power and it is difficult to understand how PB is unaware of the relevance of the size of the tidal range, given that they have been tasked with discerning which tidal technologies are best suited for use in the Severn.
3. Two-way generation. The tidal lagoon is designed to generate on both the ebb and the flood tides, but PB simply says it is more productive to generate only on the ebb tide. This error reduces the output estimate by about half. Tidal Electric Limited has demonstrated in meticulous detail how two-way generation is more productive than one-way generation, despite the intuitive obviousness of the fact. Note: it is the practice of barrage advocates to pronounce that two-way generation is unproductive, perhaps because it is unproductive for the barrage.
4. Crest width. PB insists that the top of the wall must be 5 metres in width while the Atkins design calls for a 3 metre crest width. When questioned, PB responded that 5 metres is required for “health and safety” reasons. Further inquiry reveals that PB proposes that the wall be constructed to accommodate a road for inspection vehicles and that the inspection vehicles require 5 metres width for “health and safety.” Tidal Electric Limited has always assumed that the offshore location is more suitable for boats to serve as inspection vehicles and had not planned for a road and presumably a car park somewhere on the structure. The increased crest width adds about 20% to the cost and a road and car park cause the cost to jump significantly. Tidal Electric Limited regards the road as impractical and unnecessary and a likely danger to the public as an “attractive nuisance.”
Please see below for a more detailed view of the discussion.
http://www.claverton-energy.com/download/200/
Contacts:
Peter Ullman (Ullman@tidalelectric.com)