An international team led by Edgar Hertwich and Thomas Gibon from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology conducted the first-ever global comprehensive life cycle assessment of the long-term, wide-scale implementation of electricity generation from renewable resources.

«This is the first study that has assembled and scaled up the assessment of individual technologies to the whole world and assessed technology implementation to 2050, taking the environmental impacts of production into account,» Hertwich said.

The researchers did the study because so little is known about the environmental costs of a widespread global shift to renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar power, and what the effect of this shift might have on material requirements. «

Would the shift to low-carbon energy systems increase or decrease other types of pollution?» the researchers asked.

Previous efforts to answer this question have typically looked at single issues, such as selected pollutants, or the effects on land use or need for raw materials, such as metals. Previous studies have also neglected to look at the interactions between different technologies, the researchers said.

To address these shortfalls, Hertwich and his colleagues developed an integrated hybrid life cycle assessment model.

An important aspect of the model was that «it allowed the integration of electricity produced by these prospective technologies back into the economic model,» Gibon said.

The researchers looked at concentrating solar power, photovoltaics, wind power, hydropower, and gas- and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS). They also assumed that the efficiency of the production of important raw materials, such as aluminum, copper, nickel, iron and steel, for example, would improve over time.

The researchers used two different energy scenarios developed by the International Energy Agency to assess how renewable energy would perform.

The first of these was the Baseline scenario, in which global electricity production is assumed to increase by 134% between 2007 and 2050, and where fossil fuels maintain their high share in the electricity generation mix, accounting for two-thirds of the total. Under this scenario, coal-based generation is 149% higher in 2050 than in 2007, accounting for 44% of all power generation.

The other was the BLUE map scenario, which assumes that electricity demand in 2050 is 13% lower than in the Baseline scenario because of increased energy efficiency, and that the power sector emits less pollutants from fossil fuels by reducing their use and adopting carbon capture and storage technologies, along with an increase in the use of renewable energies.

Low carbon technologies can demand much more use of raw materials per unit of power generation than conventional fossil fuel plants, the researchers noted. For example, photovoltaic systems need 11-40 times more copper than fossil fuel production, while wind power plants need 6-14 times more iron than fossil fuel production.

The researchers characterized these material demands from a broader perspective as «manageable but not negligible.» For example, the amount of copper needed to build out photovoltaic systems by 2050 represents just 2 years of current copper production. The demand for iron and steel would increase by a mere 10 percent, while the demand for aluminum will decrease.

The shiftover will also decrease air pollution and reduce fossil fuel extraction.

«Energy production-related climate change mitigation targets are achievable, given a slight increase in the demand for iron or cement, as two examples, and will reduce the current emission rates of air pollutants,» Gibon said.

The human health benefits are clear, Hertwich said.

«Pursuing climate mitigation will limit the human health impacts from air pollution, while continuing with business as usual will increase it,» he said.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Wyden has officially begun consideration of legislation to reinstate a suite of tax credits that big polluters and their allies succeeded in getting Congress to let expire, including vital, commonsense policies that promote clean energy.

These tax credits grow the economy by cutting pollution and their absence in the committee’s initial bill draft belies the broad, bipartisan support renewable and energy efficiency continue to attract.  As final legislation takes shape, Congress should remain clear just what is at stake: clean energy is central to meeting our obligation to defend the next generation from the dangerous pollution that threatens our climate, health, and economy. The nation’s tax code is an important tool and it should be used to promote progress, not turn back the clock on our children’s future.

Continued support of America’s critical renewable and energy efficient tax policies – and for a period longer than what unfortunately has been traditionally limited to a one-year extension— also will provide the market signals  and stability necessary for significant job creation and technological advances to further advance a clean energy future. It’s time to stop permanently subsidizing big polluters and instead double down on using our tax code to support clean energy.

Below is a list of the clean energy credits that Congress must ensure are included in any final package:

Support for Wind and other Renewable Energy:

• The Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC) offers a per-kilowatt-hour tax credit for electricity generated by qualified energy resources, including wind and geothermal. It has played a valuable role in advancing wind power and nurturing an industry that now provides jobs to more than 80,000 Americans. In 2012 alone, the tax credit helped the wind industry catalyze $25 billion in private investment in our economy. Over 70 percent of U.S. congressional districts have either a wind project or wind-related manufacturing facility, bringing local economic development to the region.

• The Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC) is a crucial strategy to launch the U.S. offshore wind industry, although it also applies to other resources like solar and geothermal. Considering that the Atlantic coast in particular has strong winds with an estimated potential of more than 1,300 gigawatts of energy generation, harnessing just 52 gigawatts offshore could power about 14 million U.S. homes and create more than $200 billion in new economic activity along the coast.  Solar projects and other technologies supported through the ITC should also be eligible if they begin construction prior to the end of the credit period.

Key credits for Energy Efficiency, our cleanest, cheapest energy resource, should be refined and extended:

• The Deduction for Commercial Buildings (179D) allows private building owners and public building designers who cut energy use by 50 percent, compared with what would be consumed if the building were constructed under the 2001 building code, to take a tax deduction of up to $1.80 per square foot. The savings are accomplished through changes in the lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation systems, or in the building envelope – insulation, external windows and doors and/or roofing material. With more than 4.8 million commercial and other nonresidential buildings in the United States, the energy-saving potential is huge.
• The Credit for the Construction of Energy Efficient Homes (45L) provides a $2,000 tax credit to builders who achieve a 50 percent reduction in heating and cooling energy use compared with a home built to the 2006 code. Studies since the 1980s have shown energy efficiency can increase a home’s value by roughly 9 percent. 

• The Credit for Residential Energy Efficiency Improvements (25C) offers homeowners a tax credit for 10 percent of the cost of energy efficient building envelope improvements and replacement equipment that meet certain criteria, with a $500 maximum over the life of the credit.
• Credit for the Manufacture of Energy Efficient Appliances (45M) offers a per-unit credit to builders of high-efficiency dishwashers, refrigerators, and clothes washers, according to energy savings. Enacted with industry support, this incentive boosts U.S. manufacturing as well as energy efficiency. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers says 40,000 jobs are affected by this incentive: at least 17,000 direct manufacturing jobs and 23,000 support jobs.  

Incentives to help grow the alternative-fuels sector:

• The Second-Generation Biofuel Producer Credit (Section 40) provides a $1.01 tax credit per gallon of cellulosic or algal biofuel production. Although it could benefit from several changes, the credit is the bedrock tax incentive for potentially sustainable alternatives to petroleum. 

• The Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit (Section 30C) helps individuals and businesses invest in recharging infrastructure that supports electric vehicles. Ideally, a multi-year extension would provide the necessary certainty to reinforce private investment across the electric and fuel cell vehicle markets.

• The Incentive for Fuel Cell Vehicles (26 USC 30B), which expires this year,provides a substantial tax credit to defray the cost of new fuel cell vehicles. Because it is performance-based, it provides a greater incentive for light duty fuel cell vehicles that achieve greater mileage performance. These vehicles represent an opportunity to shift the transportation sector from petroleum to hydrogen.

Commuter Transit and Parking Benefits

• Monthly commuting costs are reduced by excluding them from federal taxation. Drivers benefit from this provision via cheaper parking at their sites of employment. Providing this benefit for transit and vanpool users as well puts them on par with drivers and delivers an effective incentive for choosing these cleaner and more energy-efficient means of transportation, benefiting communities and the environment as well as workers.

In short, we need every wind turbine, solar panel, electric vehicle, and energy-efficient heater if we’re going to cut the carbon pollution driving climate change and to move America closer to a more stable and prosperous future. Both chambers of Congress should follow Chairman Wyden’s lead and waste no time reinstating the full suite of clean energy credits.

This article was originally published on NRDC and was republished with permission.

Lead image: US Capitol via Shutterstock

How the West Was Won: Toyota Offers Chance to Be a Fuel Cell Pioneer

TORRANCE, Calif., Oct. 8, 2014 – It’s hard to be a trendsetter in places like Los Angeles or San Francisco, but one lucky Californian will blaze that trail when they park a new Toyota Fuel Cell Vehicle (FCV) in their garage.

Toyota and the Environmental Media Association (EMA) are offering a historic opportunity to own the company’s first zero-emission hydrogen vehicle when it arrives in California in late 2015. Toyota is the first major auto manufacturer to give away a fuel cell vehicle to an individual owner.

As the infrastructure to support the vehicle is currently only available in the golden state, prize applicants must be California residents. Residents can purchase opportunities to win at www.biddingforgood.com for a cost of $100 per ticket or $500 for six. All monies raised will benefit programs of the EMA, a nonprofit 501(c)3 dedicated to harnessing the power of celebrity and the media to promote sustainable lifestyles.

The winner will be announced at the 24th annual EMA Awards, presented by Toyota and Lexus, on Oct. 18 at Warner Bros Studios. The EMA awards honor individuals within the entertainment industry for efforts to promote environmental messages. Toyota and Lexus have been presenting award sponsors for 14 years.

The FCV combines hydrogen and oxygen from the air to generate electricity that can power the car approximately 300 miles on a single fill-up. Nothing but water vapor leaves the tailpipe.

«Hydrogen fuel cell technology is the next big leap in automotive history, and through this extraordinary drawing, we’re seeking bold drivers ready to embrace that future,» said Bob Carter, senior vice president of Automotive Operations, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

For more information on the Toyota FCV, please visit http://www.toyota.com/fuelcell/.

Unstoppable: B-Class F-CELL sets continuous running record

— Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle cracks 300,000 kilometer mark
— Extreme long-term test under everyday conditions
— Record Receives Innovation Award

With more than 300,000 kilometers, a B-Class F-CELL from the current fuel cell electric vehicle fleet of Mercedes-Benz has achieved a continuous running record under normal everyday conditions. The world’s unique and still running test show that fuel cell cars are reliable even under extreme stress and over several years. For this achievement, Daimler AG was honored with the «f-cell Award 2014» and therefore was, for the third time, convincing with its developments in the field of fuel cell technology in the competition for the Fuel Cell Innovation Award. «The test is a step in the direction of series-ready application of the fuel cell drive train», says the jury comprising of experts from economics, science and politics.

Produced under series production conditions, the Mercedes-Benz B-Class F-CELL has already been in day-to-day use with customers in the European and American markets since 2010. Today, the total mileage of the Daimler fuel cell fleet, which now numbers more than 300 vehicles, including numerous research vehicles, reaches far more than 9 million kilometres. Based on the current and pending results, the Mercedes engineers expect to identify further potential for optimization, which will flow directly into the development of the next generation of fuel cell electric vehicles. The company has the clear objective to develop a common drive train in cooperation with Ford and Nissan and to bring competitive fuel cell electric vehicles in large numbers on the streets by 2017. Pressing ahead, Daimler is thus working on market preparation — and is involved in several initiatives, such as H2 Mobility, for the build-up of a hydrogen infrastructure. «We have clearly demonstrated that the fuel cell electric drive is ready for the road,» says Prof Herbert Kohler, Vice President Group Research and Sustainability, Chief Environmental Officer of Daimler AG. «The last hurdles we will overcome in intensive cross-industry and cross-border teamwork.»

The f-cell award is given for the fourteenth time by the Ministry of Environment, Climate, Protection and Energy Sector Baden-Württemberg and the Stuttgart Region Economic Development Corporation (WRS). Donated by the state of Baden-Württemberg, the Innovation Award honors application-oriented developments around the fuel cell topic. Its aims are to honor outstanding developments in one of the most interesting fields of technology of the new century and to stimulate further innovation.

Canada, US and Big Oil bullying dilutes EU dirty fuel law

Brussels, 07 October – For immediate release

After five years of heavy-handed lobbying by Canada, the US and oil majors [1], the European Commission today published fuel quality rules that fail to discourage oil companies from using and investing in the world’s dirtiest oil such as tar sands and coal-to-liquid.

Agreed in April 2009, the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) for the first time obliges fuel suppliers in Europe to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of transport fuel by 6% by 2020. The law lacked rules on how to account for GHG emissions from different sources of crude oil, which represents 95% of EU’s transport fuel market, and electricity. This meant that the enacted target could only be met with biofuels.

Today’s proposed implementing measures will still encourage the use of electricity in transport and incentivise oil producers to reduce emissions from highly polluting processes such as venting and flaring. The proposal also mandates oil companies to report the origin and trade name of their products, bringing some transparency to this opaque industry.

Reacting to the proposal, Nusa Urbancic of TE said: «After a five-year siege by Canadian officials and industry lobbyists, the EU is letting oil corporations off the hook. That is not just a tragedy for the climate; excusing the oil industry from carbon reduction efforts is unfair, inefficient, and costly as well.»

Back in 2012 EU environment ministers failed to agree on proposed rules to implement the FQD. The Commission was legally obliged to produce new implementing rules ‘as soon as possible’, but amidst intense lobbying it was delayed by more than 32 months.

Transport is almost entirely dependent on oil: it emits 31% of the EU’s total CO2 emissions and will become the biggest source of climate-changing emissions soon after 2020. The FQD is a key law to promote cleaner transport fuels and is part of the EU’s wider goals to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2020.

Last year, the scientific community wrote to outgoing Commission president Barroso to urge him to go ahead with labelling tar sands and other dirty forms of oil as more polluting than conventional crude, arguing that ‘we cannot burn all of the fossil fuels without causing dangerous climate change’.

«After five years of delay, we will likely end up with a very flawed law that won’t deliver on its original objectives of discouraging high-carbon fuel investment. Despite that, we need to implement it. Starting post-2020 work with a basic tracking system in place is better than nothing,» Nusa Urbancic concluded.

A coalition of alternative fuels companies and green NGOs have written to the EU Council, European Parliament and Commission urging them to set an EU binding target to reduce GHG emissions from transport fuels after 2020.

The proposal still needs to be approved by national governments and the European Parliament in the coming months.

Footnotes:

[1]. Big European corporations with stakes in tar sands projects include Royal Dutch Shell, with US$26bn in planned investments for the next decade, BP of the UK and Total of France.

New Hampshire —

Does nuclear energy deserve a seat at the table alongside renewable energy technologies in weaning us off of fossil fuels and transitioning into a cleaner energy world? A new report published yesterday suggests not only will newer small modular reactor (SMR) technology be at least as expensive as larger reactors, it won’t fit the needs of a more flexible grid system, and its development will siphon away funding from the truly renewable energy options that need it.

Few debates rile up the renewable energy sector, and our own readership, more than the issue of whether nuclear energy should have a starring role in our energy shift from fossil to clean technologies. Proponents point to its baseload functionality and lack of emissions; opponents rail against enormous costs, high-profile accidents and vast long-term impacts including what to do with the waste. Both sides rely on extensive subsidies to be viable, though at vastly different levels, and renewables (notably solar and wind) are quickly proving viable without them in an increasing number of markets. (At least neither side believes this Spurious Correlation.)

Yet analysis from international economic, climate change, and energy groups all reach the same conclusion: «Nuclear power is among the least attractive climate change policy options and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable [future],» says Dr. Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, author of The Economic Failure of Nuclear Power and the Development of a Low-Carbon Electricity Future: Why Small Modular Reactors Are Part of the Problem, Not the Solution (PDF here, audio summary here). «Worse still, pursuing nuclear power as a focal point of climate policy diverts economic resources and policy development from critically important efforts to accelerate the deployment of solutions that are much more attractive: less costly, less risky, [and] more environmentally benign.»

Here’s why he says SMR nuclear not only isn’t part of the renewable energy equation, it actually undermines it:

• It won’t be cheaper. Like any significant technology leap SMR involves substantially more costs, from using more material per MW of capacity to establishing the infrastructure to design and build the reactors: up to $90 billion by 2020 to fund just two designs and assembly lines, he predicts. That’s three-quarters of the total projected investment in all electricity generation — and of course it’s far more than renewables’ slice of that pie. And the flip side of this coin is subsidies. For 60 years nuclear has been deeply reliant upon vastly more subsidies than renewables have received, and it’s still dependent upon them — except in the current scrutinous political climate many of the key ones for nuclear aren’t on the table, from liability insurances and waste management to decommissioning, water use, and loan guarantees.

• The strategy is bad. The aggressive deployment strategy being proposed for dozens of SMRs near population centers is reminiscent of the ‘Great Bandwagon Market’ of the 1960s-1980s when utilities ordered hundreds of reactors and ultimately cancelled more than half of them. That was followed by the ‘nuclear renaissance’ in the 2000s but only 10 percent of those planned reactors are under construction. Now SMR is in the spotlight, five years on and still on the drawing boards, with key developers Westinghouse and Babcock Wilcox reigning in their SMR efforts (partly blaming low-cost natural gas) as they struggle to find customers and major investors. «It is always possible that nuclear power’s fairy godmother will wave her magic wand over the technology and solve its economic, safety, and environmental problems,» mused Cooper in an e-mail exchange, «but there is nothing in the 50-year history of commercial nuclear power that suggest this is anything but a fairy tale.»

• Safety is not first. Despite a raft of safety issues that SMR technologies have to overcome, proponents actually want pre-approvals, limited reviews, and reduced safety margins including staff and evacuation zones. With Fukushima still in the headlines three years later, good luck getting policymakers and regulators to agree to de-emphasize safety — as long as we’re all reminded about it.

• What’s best for the future? The trend toward a more decentralized energy delivery system is the opposite direction from the passive one-way 24/7 baseload delivery model of a nuclear reactor. «Any resource that is not flexible becomes a burden on the system, rather than a benefit to it,» said Cooper.

Billing SMR nuclear technology as more flexible and cheaper than larger reactors is an even better argument to support non-nuclear renewable energy options unencumbered by the same security, proliferation, and environmental risks, Cooper points out. But giving nuclear power a central role in current climate change policy will «not only drain away resources from the more promising alternatives, it would undermine the effort to create the physical and institutional infrastructure needed to support the emerging electricity systems based on renewables, distributed generation and intensive system and demand management.»

Lead image: Solar panels and nuclear power plant, via Shutterstock

2015 HONDA CR-Z SPORT HYBRID COUPE COMBINES SPORTY DRIVING DYNAMICS WITH FUEL SIPPING POWERTRAIN

— Compact dimensions provide sporty handling and around-town agility
— Hybrid powertrain offers spirited performance with a EPA highway fuel economy rating of 39 mpg1 making the CR-Z both fun and frugal

10/08/2014 — TORRANCE, Calif. — With sleek and sporty styling paired with spirited performance and high efficiency that lives up to its sport hybrid moniker, the 2015 CR-Z went on-sale today with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) starting at $20,1452.

The CR-Z is powered by a 1.5-liter i-VTEC® engine with Integrated Motor Assist (IMA®) electric motor, paired to either a short-throw 6-speed manual transmission or sport-tuned continuously variable transmission (CVT) with paddle shifters. Engine and motor combined peak output is 130 horsepower2 and 140 lb-ft of torque3 (127 lb-ft4 on CVT models).

Both the standard CR-Z and the feature-rich EX trim come standard with Bluetooth® HandsFreeLink®, Bluetooth® Audio, rearview camera, an Expanded View Driver’s Mirror, AM/FM/CD/USB audio system with six speakers, automatic climate control, power windows and door locks, remote entry and cruise control.

TRIM MSRP5 EPA Fuel Economy Ratings1
(city/highway/combined)
CR-Z 6-speed manual $20,145 31/38/34
CR-Z CVT $20,795 36/39/37
CR-Z EX 6-speed manual $21,990 31/38/34
CR-Z EX CVT $22,640 36/39/37
CR-Z EX 6-speed manual with Navi $23,490 31/38/34
CR-Z EX CVT with Navi $24,140 36/39/37

For those wishing to raise the CR-Z’s fun factor even further, Honda Performance Development (HPD) offers a full range of track-proven, street-reliable performance upgrades and accessories. These include front brake, sport suspension and exhaust kits, limited-slip differential, clutch, 18-inch alloy wheels and spoilers. For more information visit: automobiles.honda.com/cr-z/hpd.aspx.

For More Information
Consumer information is available at automobiles.honda.com/cr-z. To join the CR-Z community on Facebook, visit www.facebook.com/hondacrz. Additional media information including detailed pricing features and high-resolution photography of the 2015 Honda CR-Z is available at hondanews.com/channels/honda-automobiles-cr-z.

1Based on 2015 EPA mileage ratings. Use for comparison purposes only. Your actual mileage will vary depending driving conditions, how the vehicle is driven and maintained, battery pack age/condition and other factors.

2 130 horsepower @ 6000 rpm (SAE net plus electric motor).

3 140 lb-ft @ 1000-2000 rpm (SAE net plus electric motor).

4 127 lb-ft @ 1000-3000 rpm (SAE net plus electric motor).

5 MSRP excluding tax, license, registration, $790 destination charge and options. Dealer prices may vary.

Third-party trademarks: The Bluetooth word mark and logos are owned by the Bluetooth SIG, Inc., and any use of such marks by Honda Motor Co., Ltd., is under license. Pandora, the Pandora logo and the Pandora trade dress are trademarks or registered trademarks of Pandora Media, Inc. Used with permission.

Grand Coalition for hydrogen: Daimler, Linde and partners to build new hydrogen fuelling stations in Germany

— Daimler/Linde joint initiative enters implementation phase
— 13 new refuelling locations by the end of 2015
— Sustainable sourcing of hydrogen (H2) secured
— Supported by the German National Innovation Programme (NIP)

Automobile manufacturer Daimler and gases and engineering company The Linde Group will team up with oil and gas companies TOTAL, OMV, Avia and Hoyer this year to significantly increase the number of hydrogen fuelling stations in Germany. To this end, the two companies are investing around EUR 10 million in ten fuelling stations each. On 29 September, the first of the Daimler- and Linde-initiated public fuelling stations for fuel-cell vehicles was officially opened at a TOTAL multi-energy fuelling station on Jafféstrasse in Berlin-Charlottenburg. The following locations have been earmarked for additional stations by the end of 2015:

TOTAL:

— Geiselwind, Bavaria, on the A3
— Fellbach, Stuttgart region
— Ulm
— Karlsruhe
— Neuruppin, Brandenburg, on the A24
— Cologne-Bonn Airport
— Berlin city centre (upgrade of the existing fuelling station at Holzmarktstrasse)

OMV:

— Greater Munich area
— Greater Nuremberg area
— Greater Stuttgart area

AVIA:

Stuttgart-East

Hoyer:

— Leipzig, in the vicinity of the A14

«We are pleased to be driving this expansion of Germany’s H2 fuelling network,» comments Dr Andreas Opfermann, Head of Clean Energy Innovation Management at Linde. «We are making a valuable contribution to the successful commercialisation of fuel-cell vehicles while supporting initiatives like the Clean Energy Partnership (CEP) and ‘H2 Mobility’.»

«There is no question that fuel-cell technology is reaching maturity. From 2017, we are planning to bring competitively priced fuel-cell vehicles to market. So now is the time to build a nationwide fuelling infrastructure. The aim is to enable motorists to reach any destination in Germany in their hydrogen-fuelled vehicles. This initiative is a huge step forward on the journey to a truly nationwide H2 network,» states Professor Herbert Kohler, Vice President Group Research Sustainability and Chief Environmental Officer at Daimler AG.

Negotiations on the details and construction of the remaining seven refuelling locations with additional partners are at an advanced stage. The National Organisation Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology (NOW) is supporting the project as part of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology National Innovation Programme (NIP).

Linde already secures half of the hydrogen for existing CEP fuelling stations from «green» sources, and it will power the 20 new stations with fully regenerative hydrogen. The gas is obtained from crude glycerol – a by-product of biodiesel production – at a dedicated pilot plant at Linde’s gases centre in Leuna. The certified green hydrogen obtained in this way produces far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than conventional methods. Linde also has other sustainable sources at its disposal like bio natural gas and water electrolysis using wind-generated electricity, as part of the ‘H2BER’ project for example.

From 2017, Daimler AG plans to bring mass-produced competitively priced fuel-cell electric vehicles to market. To speed up technology optimisation and minimise investment costs, the company formed an alliance with Ford and Nissan at the start of 2013 for the joint development of a drive concept. Experts reckon that in 2018, well over ten thousand fuel-cell vehicles will populate European roads.

By the end of 2015, the number of H2 fuelling stations supporting this growing fleet in Germany is set to reach 50 with the support of the Federal Ministry for Transport along with partner companies and organisations (see http://www.now-gmbh.de/en/presse-aktuelles/2014/50-h2-refuelling-stations.html). Furthermore, the ‘H2 Mobility’ initiative, which Daimler, Linde, TOTAL and OMV are also part of, agreed last year on a detailed plan of action to expand the network to around 400 stations by 2023.

In July this year, Linde opened the world’s first small-scale production facility for hydrogen fuelling stations in Vienna.

Trucks, cars and motorcycles are energy-guzzlers: over 60 percent of the energy generated in their engines by fuel is lost through the exhaust gas and the coolant. The biggest part of this simply slips off into the environment as heat. Beneath our engine hoods, gasoline, diesel and electricity are wasted and unnecessarily pumped into the air through the exhaust system as CO2,» says Dr. Hans-Peter Kollmeier, from the Fraunhofer Institute for Chemical Technology ICT in Karlsruhe. The «new drive systems» project group is probing the causes for this kind of waste. Together with other researchers, it is developing efficient drive concepts for vehicles. In the laboratory, they have already succeeded in increasing the degree of efficiency of car engines by five percent, and up to ten percent for commercial vehicle powertrains.

The scientists have new test facilities available since this summer. «At the Karlsruhe location, we were able to map the entire process of powertrain development: from design to simulation and to testing,» says Kollmeier. The researcher’s goal is to optimize the technologies of the drivetrain being utilized, so that the fuel savings is optimal. For this purpose, you must know how the individual components interact with each other in reality. «With the new testing options, we have come one huge step closer to this goal. Through this effort, we have the opportunity to test the drivetrain as a whole, and validate our simulations,» says Kollmeier.

The linchpin of this new test infrastructure is an engine and hot gas test stand. There, researchers can analyze engines and their components both mechanically and thermodynamically. A computer controls the systems and simulates realistic application scenarios. For example, the computer can additionally switch on virtual hybrid drives (like electric motors) or systems that use waste heat. The scientists analyze how the vehicle drive acts with regard to fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. For this purpose, Kollmeier’s team simulated vehicle in terms of type, route, or driver methods accordingly. Once sufficient data are gathered, the researchers build prototypes and then gradually substitute the simulation models through real components in the test facility. Step by step, they are thus arriving at the optimal powertrain. In the process, lightweight materials become increasingly important.

If it is about making car engines more efficient, then the term «downsizing» comes into play. Generally speaking, it is minimizing the displacement of the engine, without reducing its performance capacity. Through the diminished friction resistance and the improved thermodynamic process, we can reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. As a rule, turbo-chargers are used in downsizing concepts, which are integrated into the suction and exhaust tract. These screw-shaped components — about 15 centimeters in cars — suck up air and push it into the internal combustion engine. Thus, more fresh air is conducted to the engine, which allows for a greater quantity of fuel to be consumed. Due to the higher cylinder pressure that this reaches, higher engine power is also achieved for the same engine displacement. The turbocharger is driven by the exhaust gas of the vehicle. At the hot gas test facility, the scientists are testing their turbo-chargers. At this facility, a certain exhaust gas mass power is generated by a natural gas burner which corresponds to that of an internal combustion engine. The burner can be set very precisely, in order to analyze how the most miniscule changes to peripheral conditions affect the turbo chargers.

«The turbo charger is the classic approach to improving the degree of efficiency of an engine. You use a portion of the energy that is deflagrated through the exhaust. But it is also subject to limits. Steam power cycles can be helpful here for example,» says Kollmeier’s colleague Dr. Sascha Merkel. In doing so, a fluid working medium (e.g., water or ethanol) is heated by the waste heat. It evaporates and drives small turbines that will, in turn, generate mechanical energy. The gain can then be transferred directly to the crankshaft or converted by a generator into electrical energy, in order to supply them into the new power circuit, e.g. in the vehicle’s electrical system. At the hot gas test facility, scientists are studying how individual components of a mini-power plant behave under various framework conditions.

The scientists are closely networked with other powertrain experts from research institutions and the development departments of automakers. «Of course, contact with the automotive industry in particular is immense. This development of the powertrain concepts runs in close coordination with carmakers. The direct application of the research findings in the practice is at the forefront,» explains Kollmeier.