Comments on: Fuel Cells, Solar, Wind — Head-to-Head Clean Tech Comparison

By: Fuel Cells: A Clean Energy Alternative at New World Trade Center, New York City’s Octagon

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 17:57:29 +0000

[…] Leave a Comment nRelate.domain="cleantechnica.com"; Photo courtesy UTC Power Our posting of UTC Power’s February 2011 inforgraphic comparing the energy conversion and green tech attributes of their 400 kilowatt (kW) model PureCell […]

By: Tiji

Tiji — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:58:00 +0000

Well when you extract the energy from methane you will get water and co2. It is how efficient are you with that energy. If you combusted it in say a car you are looking at @25% then if that car motor is being used to make electricity you lose some %s here and there. Gas turbine ups it to hi30%s low40% with co-generation you can go hi40%s. co-generation typically is where you make heat and electricity. The fuel cell they are talking about here says the get @50% using co-gen which is about on par with gas turbine co-gen but without the spin-up and size of the turbine. They say they get their work done in 740sqft spot. So the size of a small apartment or about 2 of my living rooms. 25×25 being 625sqft and 25×30 being 750sqft.

-T

By: Fuel Cells, Solar, Wind: Head-to-Head on Energy, Emissions » greennewstweets.com

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 16:13:07 +0000

[…] Green News Source- Click to read full article […]

By: Fuel Cells, Solar, Wind — Head-to-Head Clean Tech Comparison | evolve+sustain | globally relevant sustainability news

Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:17:47 +0000

[...] full article at CleanTechnica Tags: Fuel Cells | Images + Infographics | Renewable & Sustainable Energy & Energy Systems | Solar Energy + Solar Cells & Photovoltaics | Wind Energy + Wind Farms [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:53:00 +0000

by the way, here’s the post/repost i’m mentioning: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/12/08/solar-power-less-expensive-than-analysts-purport/

i’m certainly no expert on fuel cells, but the solar info does look off and i’d really like to see what the assumptions were and where the info came from.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:39:00 +0000

Editor here: no money coming in for this (as far as i know). I’d like to see the actual numbers behind these statements, too. I see the sources, but I’m still quite confused by a handful of the statements.

Andrew.. can you get us these links? Or, it seems the company that created this might have popped on the comments — can you provide more on the assumptions here?

Agree that solar’s lifetime should be AT LEAST 30 years (we just had an article on that yesterday). And payback time seems absurdly high here. Also, curious about the assumptions for annual CO2 reduction.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:29:00 +0000

So, since you seem to like fuel cells, can you do or point to the analysis comparing feasible water cracking methods that are efficient enough whereby the entire system, intermittent green power source + cracking + fuel cells represent a competitive stabilized grid power system? I am hungry for news.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:25:00 +0000

The lack of detail in this article makes it look like a favor to the vendor. I want the CleanTechnica ed.s to give me the skinny. What are the inputs and the outputs of the fuel cell? Are those substances of such type that they could be generated and consumed in inexpensive conjunction with intermittent power, thereby making the system more like a battery? How so? If the system is like a battery, how does it compare to the capabilities of current batteries and to the lifetime maintenance and recycling costs? How the heck do you compare something that gets power by oxidizing hydrogen from [???] to things that get power from wind or sunlight? If greenwashing were strawberries, we’d all be drinking smoothies right now.

Regrettably Common Fuel Cell Plan:
1. Make fuel cells
2. Get hydrogen from ???
3. Save planet!

By: H2 Facts

H2 Facts — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:22:00 +0000

Sorry Matt but fuel cells produce energy as long as you have a supply of hydrogen (for PEM systems) or natural gas or bio gas for high temperature fuel cells. So, the point to be made is these systems can be compared as long as you have a constant supply of fuel to the fuel cell. The real key is to use hydrogen as a storage medium for the intermittency of renewables and either put it back on the grid through a fuel cell when there is demand or to put the hydrogen into other energy vectors; like for transportation in fuel cell vehicles.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:16:00 +0000

Are maintenance costs included in the comparison? How often over those 20 years do those fuel cells need to be replaced? What is the energy cost (or CO2 burden) to produce the fuel cells? Once a solar system is installed, the only maintenance is occasionally cleaning them. Wind turbines need occasional maintenance as well, but outright replacement of components is generally not neccesary.
I’m not surprised the graph is so skewed, coming from a fuel cell producer.
And where are the links to information sources for the numbers they provide?

By: Akbweb2

Akbweb2 — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:39:00 +0000

A most relevant point! Thx for contributing…I believe the infographic was done not to compare them head to head, which as you mention is sort of pointless, but to address the issue of fuel cells and CO2/greenhouse gas emissions…

By: Shotputsteve

Shotputsteve — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 15:36:00 +0000

Why would the graph be using the Northeast US as a reference for solar power? Pretty bad site selection if you ask me….

By: Matt_Grason

Matt_Grason — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:13:00 +0000

In addition to the numbers looking skewed (the lifetime of solar and wind is low-balled), to compare fuel cells to solar and wind is to compare apples to oranges. Fuel cells only store energy, solar and wind systems produce energy. A fuel cell system can be used to compliment an energy source, to even out intermittency. Perhaps one of the “critical areas” a revised infographic could examine would be: if you install each of these systems and press “go”, what happens? Without an energy source (green or otherwise) the fuel cell becomes a paperweight.

By: Akbweb2

Akbweb2 — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 10:00:00 +0000

Producing power, using energy is where emissions are created, certainly…

In the inforgraphic, CO2 emissions are based on normalized power output of 400 kW…

A watt being a joule/second, so 400,000 joules per second x number of seconds in a year – which is the period of time specified – gives you the results displayed as I read it, which are as compared to “typical central generation.”

By: Akbweb2

Akbweb2 — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:18:00 +0000

Agree, the numbers for solar seem exceptionally high…

When you say energy payback, do you mean only the avoided cost of producing your own power from solar as opposed to buying it from the grid? That would exclude equipment purchase, installation and maintenance costs, yes?

There are commercial sources of hydrogen that’s produced as by-product of large-scale chemical, chlorine production…

As a means of storing energy by electrolysis of water, would have to compare its footprint against alternative means of storage, which may well vary from location to location, as well as in terms of absolute cost…ie. stored hydropower vs. battery storage…

And as I understand it running methane through fuel cells results in a lot less in the way of CO2 emissions than combusting it…

This infographic does come from a fuel cell provider, and needs to be investigated more fully…

But to my mind, it’s not a question of finding or espousing on particular form of clean energy production to the exclusion of all others…

Seems to met that fuel cells have specific attributes that make them particularly well suited in certain applications, just as biofuels and bioga, in specific circumstances and produced in certain ways, helps us reduce our CO2 and GHG emissions.

By: Thomas Cheney

Thomas Cheney — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 07:43:00 +0000

Frankly, If a student sent met the UTC energy poster as an energy project, I would give it a C-. This is ahorrible and shorty analysis as it compares emissions on a basis of KWs of capacity rather than a KWH of energy. Generally it is the latter that is the source of emissions. Just had to vent.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 07:21:00 +0000

I can’t make out much of the graphic above but I can make out things that just aren’t true.

Solar panels clearly have a life much longer than 25 years. We’ve got panels that have been going for over 30 years with little drop in output.

The energy payback (if that’s what they mean by payback) is less than two years. Less than one year for some silicon panels and most/all thin film panels.

The life of wind turbines is clearly more than 20 years. We are just now taking down the first generation turbines at Altamont Pass after 30 years of electricity production. Newer design turbines should have a 40 year or long lifespan.

And what’s the fuel source for these fuel cells? Hydrogen from methane? If so, high carbon foot print? Hydrogen from water cracked by using wind/solar energy? If so, inefficient use of energy.

I’m calling BS on this one unless issues are explained.