The University of Birmingham will unveil the only hydrogen gas fuelling station in England on its Edgbaston campus on Thursday 17 April 2008 at 11.30am.
Press Release: Fuel for Thought: University Opens England’s Only Hydrogen Fuelling Station
Watch the Video report on the BBC News wesite: Hydrogen car filling station
The Air Products Series 100 fuelling station is situated at the University’s Department of Chemical Engineering where research projects are being carried out to ascertain the viability of hydrogen in transport applications as part of Birmingham’s Science City hydrogen energy project.
Birmingham engineers will be comparing five hydrogen powered vehicles with the University’s own fleet of petrol, diesel and pure ‘electric’ vehicles so that they can learn more about their efficiency and performance. The researchers will determine how these vehicles need to be adapted in order to make hydrogen an attractive and cost effective option as a future fuel.
As a direct result of this research it is hoped that the public sector will start to buy into these new technologies, providing support to companies in the supply chain who are moving from the technology demonstration phase into the early stages of commercialisation.
The Series 100 station has been specially designed by Air Products, a leading producer and supplier of hydrogen with over 50 years experience in hydrogen applications, to meet the fuelling needs of the first hydrogen vehicles to appear on the roads. The fueller comprises an integrated compression, hydrogen storage and dispensing system, and is optimised to fuel up to approximately six vehicles per day. Minimal onsite utilities are required for the fueller, which can be easily moved from site to site, making it ideal for hydrogen fuelling start up stations.
Professor Kevin Kendall, lead investigator from the University’s Department of Chemical Engineering, says, ‘We are delighted to be the home of England’s only hydrogen gas filling station. It is absolutely necessary that we have the means to refuel our fleet of hydrogen powered cars so that we can carry out our research project into the feasibility of hydrogen in a transport context.’
Ian Williamson, Hydrogen Energy Systems Director, Europe, Middle East and Africa from Air Products says, ‘We are extremely proud to provide the first hydrogen fuelling station to a UK university. Air Products is the market leader in the development of hydrogen fuelling stations. We have already installed 21 mobile fuellers and built more than 80 stations worldwide. Over 50,000 vehicle fuellings have already safely taken place thanks to Air Products technology.’
Dr Bruno Pollet, from the University’s Fuel Cells Group says, ‘We are starting to take the necessary steps to gear up towards a hydrogen and fuel cell infrastructure, so it is essential, now, that we begin to develop a supply chain of businesses which can generate jobs and growth in these new technologies. Hydrogen powered vehicles will help to create new working partnerships and to bring about a sense of cohesion among those already working in the industry.’
Dr Waldemar Bujalski of the University’s Fuel Cell Group says, ‘We fully appreciate the initial capital investment from Advantage West Midlands which has enabled us to expand the scope of our long standing activities in the hydrogen and fuel cell research areas. This investment was crucial for securing further funds from a variety of sources for establishing and maintaining the necessary manpower and resources to carry out this exciting research.’
The research is part of the hydrogen energy project which has received funding from Regional Development Agency Advantage West Midlands to develop the use of hydrogen energy as a green fuel in collaboration with the University of Warwick. The project has been approved as part of the Science City Initiative.
Ends
Notes to Editors
The event will start at 11.30am at will take place at the Department of Chemical Engineering on the University of Birmingham’s Edgbaston campus. If you would like to send a representative to the launch please contact Kate Chapple, Press Officer, University of Birmingham, tel 0121 414 2772 or 07789 921164 or email: k.h.chapple@bham.ac.uk
1. Hydrogen Supply for the filling station
The hydrogen comes from Green Gases Ltd. The hydrogen is produced by ‘green’ means – therefore it is manufactured from renewable energy, resulting in a considerable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions when compared with conventionally produced hydrogen – http://www.green-gases.com/index.htm
2. Microcab
Five hydrogen powered vehicles have been purchased by the University from Microcab Industries Limited. The Microcab is the product of entrepreneur John Jostins who visualised a small, urban vehicle with zero emissions suitable for use as a taxi or light freight carrier – the result is a vehicle powered by a hydrogen fuel cell, pollution free and virtually silent in operation. The only emission is water. It weighs 500kg and has a maximum speed of 40mph with a range, on a full hydrogen tank, of approximately 160km (100miles).
3. Air Products
Air Products (NYSE:APD) serves customers in industrial, energy, technology and healthcare markets worldwide with a unique portfolio of atmospheric gases, process and specialty gases, performance materials, and equipment and services. Founded in 1940, Air Products has built leading positions in key growth markets such as semiconductor materials, refinery hydrogen, home healthcare services, natural gas liquefaction, and advanced coatings and adhesives. The company is recognized for its innovative culture, operational excellence and commitment to safety and the environment. Air Products has annual revenues of $10 billion, operations in over 40 countries, and 22,000 employees around the globe. For more information, visit www.airproducts.com.
For further information about Air Products and the fueller contact Guenaelle Holloway on 01932 249245. Email: hollowg1@airproducts.com
4. Birmingham Science City
Birmingham Science City is a widely drawn partnership of industry, business, education and the public sector, working together to establish the West Midlands region as a centre for world-class scientific research. By building on the region’s well established reputation for innovation, working closely with the knowledge base and bringing partners together through supported projects and communications, Birmingham Science City aims to promote the value of science and innovation in improving Quality of Life.
For more information please visit www.birminghamsciencecity.co.uk
5. University of Birmingham Fuel Cell Group
The Fuel Cell Group was set up in 2000 in the Department of Chemical Engineering by Professor Kevin Kendall who jointly, with Dr Waldemar Bujalski and Dr Bruno Pollet, is leading the research projects in hydrogen vehicles and Combined Heat and Power systems stemming from a range of AWM funding including the Science City initiative.
6. Hydrogen hybrid canal boat
A zero-emission hydrogen hybrid canal boat has also been developed by engineers at the University of Birmingham and was unveiled in September 2007. The boat is fully operational and demonstrates how a combination of magnet and fuel cell technologies could be used to power inland waterways craft.
For further information
Kate Chapple, Press Officer, University of Birmingham, tel 0121 414 2772 or 07789 921164.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Another Hindenburg in the making
I hope not – I work here.
I could figure out the cost/benefit relationships on paper without spending all that money to test it.
What a waste of time and money! I remember hydrogen fuel cells being touted as this panacea since I began my engineering studies some 30 years ago. Times up! They aren’t even close to solving all the related issues both economic and operational. Far better to spend research resources on direct electrical storage technologies and primary energy generation (which hydrogen does nothing to solve).
Liquid Hydrogen has an ‘energy density’ of about 10% compared to over 30% for petrol and diesel. Compressed gaseous hydrogen has an energy density of less than 5%. Ethanol has a energy density of about 22%. For batteries it is about 3%. Nothing currently beats petrol/diesel.
Energy density is the energy stored in a given volume of the fuel. A higher volume-energy density means that less space in the vehicle is taken up by the fuel, so the fuel tank or battery can be smaller, reducing vehicle size and weight or offering more usable space.
“Nothing currently beats petrol/diesel.”
No argument there – that’s why it’s been the primary source of motive energy for the last century.
From the perspective of alternatives, while volumetric energy density is still important (there are practical limits to how low it can be), it’s the gravimetric density that is key. From that perspective hydrogen beats petroleum based fuels hands down particularly when you factor in the actual conversion of energy to motion. From that perspective a hydrogen/fuel cell combo has at least a 4 to 1 advantage over ICE alternatives. It’s the economics (including factoring in practicality issues) that do in the hydrogen/fuel cell alternative. I see no reason why that will change anytime in the foreseeable future.
No argument that direct electrical storage has challenges from a gravimetric/volumetric perspective. Even the latest technologies that are likely to be used in the initial wave of PHEVs and full blown EVs will likely give a volumetric energy density of no better than 1 MJ per kg vs. 40+ for petroleum fuels. However, taken into account actual energy utilization efficiency including regeneration, knocks this advantage down significantly to the 6-7:1 range. Then if you factor in the potential weight savings from utilizing an all electric drive-train, the relative advantage of petroleum fuels diminishes even more to the point that when factoring in the cost of the energy supply, EVs could be very competitive with petrol/diesel cars if some of the promised new electric storage technologies do in fact see the light of day over the next few years.
Now if they could only get that anti-matter thing to work. With a gravimetric energy density of 90 billion MJ/kg., you wouldn’t need a very big “gas” tank.
“volumetric energy density of no better than 1 MJ per kg vs. 40+ for petroleum fuels. ”
oops, that was supposed to be gravimetric not volumetric.
Another bunch of useless academics doing nothing useful.
Pray tell, where does this hydrogen come from?
Mark,
If you think the gravimetric energy density is important, do the calculation with the mass of the container included.
Paul,
Safety wise hydrogen isn’t that bad. Lots of the passengers actually survived the Hindenberg and hydrogen is really no worse than natural gas or petrol and in some ways better.
It is still a scam due to the inefficiencies in generation, compression or liquefaction and storage.
Fuel cells have been around a lot longer than 30 years. They were used on the Gemini and Apollo missions. Damn finicky things kept failing too.
A technology that’s been around that long and still not perfected and economical doesn’t have much going for it.
The problem is that while hydrogen is inefficient, wasteful and the wrong solution it appeals to the status quo for the following reasons.
1. It preserves the current user experience of IC cars making it less frighening for people that find change difficult. Filling a hydrogen car from a hydrogen filling station can be made exactly the same as the current experience and car companies are very eager not to disturb the current UE so as not to scare off car buyers. The idea is if people have to start thinking to buy battery electric cars they also might think about buying a car from a different manufacturer instead of Ford or Holden.
2. Oil companies can easily switch from gasoline to hydrogen preserving the brands that they have spent billions on. While they can move into electricity there are already well established companies in this space with vastly more corporate knowledge that the oil companies cannot hope to compete with. With hydrogen everyone is at the beginning so oil companies hope that they can grow it fast enough and build up the corporate knowledge faster so they can compete.
3. Battery electric cars are far too reliable and simple ever to be supported. Electronic controllers and batteries are far outside the current main knowledge base of car companies and the support network that has grown up with them. BEVs only have one moving part, the motor, with the rest all solid state and from even the limited operational experience with current electric vehicles has shown them to operate with almost 100% reliability for many many years with almost no maintenance. Fuel cells and their high pressure tanks, on the other hand, have hundreds of valves and pumps which potentially will need far more maintenance supporting then current network of repairers far better.
In most things in this corporate world the best technology does not always make it. Though I hate the thought hydrogen fuel cell cars have the backing of both the car companies and the large oil companies and therefore will probably be the solution that is chosen by them for us despite all the shortcomings.
Unless we actually stand up and demand the more efficient answer, that of battery electric cars and plug in hybrids, the solution will be chosen for us by vested interests. I don’t want to see this happen so wherever you can choose solid state electric cars (BEVs) rather than chemical battery electric cars(FCVs).
So who’s the tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, Ender?
Ender,
No need to worry. There’s this wonderful thing that will ensure the best solution wins. It’s called the free market!
Eyrie – “So who’s the tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, Ender?”
Nobody – this is just how the system works. How is your betamax video recorder? How is your OS/2 computer? There was no conspiracy to defeat the betamax it was just VHS had better corporate backing and it won despite being technically inferior.
There is no conspiracy here and I am not suggesting that there is. It is simply large corporations doing what they do – struggle to preserve their existance.
Mark – “No need to worry. There’s this wonderful thing that will ensure the best solution wins. It’s called the free market!”
That is not the case at all. The best marketed solution wins not always the best technical solution. If that was the case I would be using an OS/2 or Linux computer now not a Windows XP one.
Another side to marketing vs technical – you could get some very interesting comments from code rollers who had to move to Intel chips from those made by DEC
“The best marketed solution wins not always the best technical solution.”
The again, there’s the Ford Edsel.
Mark – “No need to worry. There’s this wonderful thing that will ensure the best solution wins. It’s called the free market!”
Ender – That is not the case at all. The best marketed solution wins not always the best technical solution. If that was the case I would be using an OS/2 or Linux computer now not a Windows XP one.
But Ender, I said the best solution wins. I did not say the best technical solution wins. The market will generally ensure that the best ECONOMIC solution wins in which the underlying technology is only one of the factors. It’s a matter of price vs. function.
When dealing with “media” platforms, and computers are in essence just another “media” platform, ubiquity is a key consideration including the ubiquity of the related “media”.
In the case of betamax vs. VHS, while betamax was arguably a “better” technology at the time, the relative performance of VHS was close enough that it won out on an overall economic basis. Why? Because Matsushita broadly licensed the technology for manufacture, the machines were then cheaper to procure, the media availability for VHS then exceeded that for Betamax and VHS eventually conquered the market.
The picture was much the same for personal computers. Interestingly enough, I was personally caught right in the middle of market battle back in the 1990’s between the Mac and Windows. I worked for a large technology organization with about 50,000 personal computers with a mix between Mac and DOS. As a technology organization, most of the employees clearly recognized the technological advantage of the Mac OS vs. Windows and by the mid 1990’s about 2/3 of the corporation had moved to that platform. However, it was not without problems. The hardware was notably more expensive, there was a painful wait for a suitable portable version of the platform and there was a lack of suitable corporate applications at the time most notably e-mail! Then Microsoft came out with Windows 95, which closed the gap significantly with the Mac OS and because of the other factors the corporation made a decision to move 100% to the Windows platform. Now if Apple had allowed its OS to be run on platforms produced by other manufacturers in the early 1990’s, the market would likely have turned out much differently. In the case of Linux, although it may seem like a superior technical solution to the purist, is it a better ECONOMIC solution to the masses? Apparently not – at least at the current point in time otherwise we would see a mass migration wouldn’t we? As is the case with all “Media” technologies, standardization and media “lock-in” is a big factor. Will that change? My bet is that eventually the average consumer won’t even know or care what OS they use. Applications will move to a network hosted basis and then it’s only the tech. support people that will care about the OS.
The case of personal transportion is markedly different because there is no “media lock-in”. As long as a car can operate on a road, paved or otherwise, all manner of solutions are possible. The one that will dominate, as the ICE has for a century, is the one that provides the best ECONOMIC solution. While we may all agree that hybrids have some nifty technology, we are they not even close to being a major force in the marketplace? Because they don’t yet make economic sense. The extra capital cost in most cases is not justified by the money saved on fuel over the life of the car. It’s as simple as that. New personal mobility solutions will catch on when the cost vs. function performance reaches a competitive level. That is the barrier to entry – not some automobile/oil company conspiracy!!
Ender: I’ve got a non-paying job for you. A bit of research on water injection and Brown’s Gas {HHO}.
A relative of mine has an aquaintence who assures him that he has a vehicle running on 100% Brown’s Gas.
I’ve also got a mechanic friend working on a HHO system to fit a V8 Ford, because after initial discussion he became intrigued.
So far so good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engines%29
It just seems like readily available source of energy extender that can couple to existing technology and it doesn’t get a look in.
Also compressing any gas is an energy intensive exercise e.g. LPG reqires something of the order of 30%+ of the final energy to compress.
Unfortunately I disagree with you on electric/hybrid type vehicles because,at this point, of the high embedded energy in the initial production of such vehicles.
And why don’t we use sugar beet for bio-fuel production, which, I’m told, can be grow well enough in less well endowed soil.
Also ethanol is super corrosive to the extent that serious damage, not can, but will occur through use. {First hand experience here when my mower shop mechanic gave me the what for ,for using E10 in the chainsaw, and a $400.00 for a new carby etc.}
Gotta go…
i had complete my bachloue dgree.i m applying for higher aducation.
when i m search on net.then i find a beautiful univercity .i like it very much .plz give me admission in urs unvercity.