Swapping gasoline with gas: are hydrogen fuel cells the future of land transport?

When I was a child, I recall being impressed by the sophistication of hydrogen fuel cells, a power source used in spacecraft that generated water as a by-product. What I didn't realise at the time was that the basis for fuel cell technology had been invented back in the 1830s. Now that automobile manufacturers are promoting fuel cell vehicles for consumers, is it time for the technology to expand from niche usage to mass market?

Road vehicles of all sorts have had more than their fair share of ups and downs, not least due to the conservatism of that unholy alliance between the internal combustion engine and fossil fuels sectors.  Although there were hydrogen-powered test vehicles in 1970s, it wasn't until 1991 that the development phase was completed. There are currently three car manufacturers with fuel cell models intended for personal customers: the Honda Clarity, Hyundai Nexo and Toyota Mirai. The latter two are intended to enter to take off (not literally) across South Korea and Australia respectively over the new few years, apparently selling at a loss on the assumption of beating rivals Nissan and BMW into the market. Brand loyalty being what it is, and all.

So what do fuel cell vehicles have that makes them a credible alternative to gas guzzlers and electric cars? Their primary benefit in this time-poor age is that they take only minutes to refuel – and with a range considerably greater than that of electric vehicles. Even so, this is hardly likely to be a convincing argument for petrol heads.

To anyone with even a vague knowledge of interwar air travel, hydrogen brings to mind the Hindenburg and R101 disasters. The gas is far from safe in large quantities, hence the rapid end of airship development; even with helium as a substitute, today's airships are smaller, specialist vehicles, their lack of speed making them an unlikely substitute for passenger jets. Although fuel cells themselves provide a safe power source, large quantities of hydrogen needs to be transported to the refuelling stations. A neat solution is to transport it in the form of ammonia (admittedly hardly a pleasant substance itself) and then convert it to hydrogen at the point of use.

What is less easily resolved is the cost of manufacturing the gas and the resulting high price for the customer. Most of the world's hydrogen is produced from natural gas; it can be made from renewable sources, but only at much greater expense. Wind-to-hydrogen methods are being tested, but in general there is a distinct lack of environmental friendliness to the gas production process that counteracts the emission-friendly usage in the vehicles themselves. To date, analysis is inconclusive as to whether en masse replacement of fossil fuel vehicles with fuel cell equivalents would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, some reports claim they use three times the amount of electricity per vehicle than the equivalent battery-powered car!

In addition to the price of hydrogen, fuel cells use rare elements such as platinum, contributing to the production costs. But most importantly of all, how will the vehicle manufacturers resolve the chicken-and-egg issue of providing adequate infrastructure when there is only a small customer base? Without enough refuelling stations and repair depots, most regions are unlikely to attract new customers, but how can a corporation afford to put these facilities in place before there is a demand for them? Most private vehicle owners would require an immediate advantage to migrate to the new technology, regardless of any environmental benefit. Unlike the early days of the internal combustion engine, fuel cell vehicles do not offer the paradigm shift that the automobile had over the horse-drawn carriage.

So with continuous improvements in battery technology, is there in fact any need for the fuel cell vehicles? Aren't electric cars the best alternative to the internal combustion engine? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on battery development and not waste effort on a far from optimal alternative that might turn out to be a dead end? Perhaps this is a case of corporate bet hedging. After all, the telecommunications industry was taken completely unawares by the personal consumer demand for mobile phones - a device that was aimed squarely at business users - so this may be a Plan B if something happens with the growth of electric vehicles. At least vehicle manufacturers aren't anti-innovation this time, unlike their voracious gobbling up of advanced steam car development in the early 1970s.

If not for private road vehicles, could there be a future for fuel cell technology in public transport? China and some European nations such as Germany have been trialling hydrogen-powered buses and tram cars, whilst Boeing is one of the aircraft manufacturers investigating the use of fuel cells in small aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles. That isn't to say the future of commercial air travel excludes the turbofan engine; fuel cells will probably only ever be used for auxiliary power units.

I wouldn't want to disparage innovation but can't help thinking that in this instance, the self-regulating capitalist model is failing to cope with the paradigm shifts required to face the challenges of climate change. Would it be better for governments to incentivise the front-runner replacements for environmentally poor technologies, in this particular case favouring electric-powered vehicles? Solutions are needed now and I'm just not sure that there is the time to solve all the issues surrounding hydrogen fuel cells and the necessary infrastructure. Perhaps this technology should be saved for a rainy day sometime in the future, once our current crises are over and dealt with?

Full steam ahead: is there a future in revisiting obsolete science and technology?

Several weeks ago I was looking towards Greenwich in south-east London when I spotted an airship. A small one to be sure, but nevertheless a reminder of the time when Britain not only had a large manufacturing industry but in some sectors was even in the vanguard of technological development. The blimp in question was probably the 39 metre-long Goodyear Spirit of Safety II, which although nominally an American craft was assembled at RAF Cardington in Bedfordshire. I visited this site about 20 years ago and managed to go inside one of its' two enormous air sheds, once home to such giants of the skies as the 237 metre-long R101. Sadly, these days the hangers are mostly used for filming and rock band rehearsals, and recently a housing estate was built inside the base perimeter. However, it's not all a case of rust and nostalgia, as Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd are making use of Cardington in a joint project with the aeronautical heavyweight Northrop Grumman to build three unmanned hybrid airships. The 76 metre-long Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicle or LEMV - a classic boffin-flavoured acronym, hurrah - is being developed for a US military surveillance role. The company's future plans include eco-tourist airships, so are we seeing the glimmer of an airship renaissance?

On the whole this seems rather unlikely. In the 1980s Cardington was home to Hybrid Air Vehicles' predecessor Airship Industries, one of who's Skyship 500s appeared in the James Bond film A View to a Kill (the same design as seen in my circa 1984 photograph below). Unfortunately the innovations in materials and engines weren't enough to save the company from liquidation.


Although Hybrid Air Vehicles has grandiose plans for vehicles up to twice the LEMV's length, it's doubtful there will be a near-future resurgence in long-haul civilian airships. After all, even during their interwar heyday a transatlantic ticket on the likes of the Hindenburg cost more than double that of an ocean liner. Therefore, military usage and cargo delivery to aircraft-unfriendly terrain are a far safer bet from an economic viewpoint, despite the obvious advantages of aerial craft less reliant on fossil fuels. Indeed, there are even schemes afoot in several countries to develop solar-powered cargo airships.

Another UK-based proposal that seeks to put new life into old technology sadly appears to have rather less chance of success. The Class 5AT (Advanced Technology) Steam Locomotive Project plans to develop a steam engine capable of matching current main line high-speed stock. After ten years' effort, the team have put together a very detailed study for a 180 km/h locomotive, but as you might expect there hasn't exactly been a rush of investors. The typical short-term mentality of contemporary politicians and shareholder-responsive industry means few appear willing to support the initial start up costs, especially when Britain's current rail network operates so wonderfully (hint: that's called irony). If you think any of this sounds familiar, check out the post on boffins and their pipe dreams, where the science and technology were frequently superlative and the economics frankly embarrassing.

Then again, a resurgence in motive steam might appear to have little relevance outside of alternative history novels, but a point to remember is that it was only when James Watt started to repair a working model of Thomas Newcomen's atmospheric pumping engine in 1763 - a design by then half a century old - that the development of true steam engines began.

The steam car has even less chance of a reawakening, although there appear to be good engineering reasons behind this, namely difficulty coping with the constantly-changing speeds required in urban driving. As it is, steam on the road seems to have mostly novelty value these days. A good example is the British Steam Car, winner in 2009 of the Guinness World Land Speed Record for a steam powered car. It may have a dull name, but with a Batmobile aesthetic and top speed of 225km/h, the world's fastest kettle has certainly proved a point that steam needn't be associated with slow.

Somewhat less romantic and rather more pragmatic, NASA has returned to tried and tested capsule technology for their space shuttle replacement, Orion. The "Apollo on steroids" design is now accompanied by the Space Launch System or SLS (another uninspired moniker), which refers to a rocket slightly taller than the Saturn V that will have second stage engines developed from those used on this famous forebear - which incidentally last flew in 1973.

But reappraising old science isn't restricted to high technology, as can be seen by the resurgence of biotherapeutic methods in the past few decades. Most people have heard of the fish pedicure fad but the rather more important use of disinfected maggots to clean flesh wounds has received NHS support following some years of trials in the USA. A 2007 preliminary assessment even showed success using maggot therapy to treat wounds infected with the 'superbug' MRSA. Yet the technique is known from Renaissance Europe, Mesoamerican and Australian Aboriginal cultures: sometimes low-tech really could be the way forward.

Possibly that's the key as to whether these revitalisations are likely to succeed; if the start-up costs are relatively cheap then there's a good chance of adoption. Otherwise, the Western obsession with the now makes it all too easy to dismiss these projects as idealistic dreams by out-of-touch eccentrics. Not that new technologies have always followed the rational approach when initially developed anyway, since historical backstories have probably been as much a driving force as objective analysis. I guess we're back again to disproving that old Victorian notion of continuous upward progression, but then as the philosophically-minded would say, we do live in postmodern times.