Liquid Air Energy as Vehicle Fuel - Literature review Example

Liquid Air Energy as Vehicle Fuel Literature Review Cryogenic liquids are extensively applied in industry, but their adoption as asource of energy in the automotive field is only just beginning. According to Kumar et. al. (2011), liquid energy has more potential than the fossil fuels. Manufacturers are preferring it as it requires low or no amounts of carbon for energy production. The consideration comes because air is available and abundant without any cost, and there are existing infrastructures that can assist in the early adoption, there are mature supply components or chains, storage of liquid air occurs at relatively low cost and safe low pressure, and there is no risk of combustion of the fuel (NC State University 2014). In addition to that, liquid air technologies are especially adaptable to low-grade waste cradles such as data centers, thermal generation, or internal combustion engines or IC found in vehicles and can easily turn into power. As a result, myriad researchers have conducted myriad studies on the area and its impact on the environment. Fuel Cell The hydrogen fuel cell solution has been identified by many as a viable alternative method of fueling vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cells contain two main components: the hydrogen and the fuel cell that receives the energy. The hydrogen fuel cell stands as an electrochemical conversion device for energy that changes oxygen and hydrogen fuel from the atmosphere into water, producing heat and electricity for the vehicles engine in the process. Fuel cell data usage from 2000 shows that the hydrogen fuel cells are in use in equal measure as other energy sources in fuelling automotives. Fuel cells have ion-conductive membranes that have platinum catalysts on their two sides. Hydrogen gets in from one side and gets out from the other side. Oxygen and hydrogen react while at the platinum catalyst to develop water and electricity. Some refer to the fuel cell as the proton exchange membrane (PEM) (Kung & Kung 2005). The quantity of energy realized from the fuel cells depend on the pressure, amount of hydrogen used, and the size of the fuel cell. The Department of Energy states that a single fuel cell can result in only one volt, which is not enough even for the smallest use. To raise the energy that comes from fuel cells, engineers are developing fuel stacks (Dincer 2008). A quintessential fuel stack contains hundreds of fuel cells. Besides, hydrogen does not occur freely in the environment and is found in water (H2O). Natural gas could also be another source of hydrogen, but this source would only lead to the pollution of air and present no difference from the use of petroleum fuels. Biogas can also aid in the production of hydrogen, but the alternative is overly expensive because of the unavailability of agricultural wastes. Thus, the electrolysis of water remains the best option for producing hydrogen as it is cheap and friendly to the environment. In the US, for example, electrolysis accounts for 95% of hydrogen production. Hydrogen from electrolysis, in average, accounts for 48% of the hydrogen available for industrial use in the world (Fuel Cells 2000). According to Ronney (2009), fuel cell vehicles are simply a variation of electric vehicles. They are essentially similar to vehicles that employ batteries for propulsion except that the source is continuous, and it goes into converting air and fuel into electricity. They are able to produce far much more electricity than battery powered vehicles and can thus be able to have wider application. The most common application of these vehicles is space missions. They are different from heat engines and thus have a better advantage in terms of thermodynamics as compared to heat engines. An example of a fuel cell engine, the Ballard, produces ninety one horsepower of energy and weighs around 480 lbs. The efficiency of converting fuel to electricity is around 48%, and the needed fuel is hydrogen. The vehicles require electric motors at their wheels for shaft power. Hydrogen powered vehicles have a lot of advantages in terms of performance (Ronney 2009). Researchers also praise the vehicles for their environment friendliness compared to hydrocarbon vehicles. Types of Fuel Cells Fuel Cell type Applications Advantages Limitations Status Proton Exchange Membrane For Medium to large systems. For portable and stationary automotive Compact design; long life; quick start-up, 50% efficiency Expensive, needs pure hydrogen and complex water management. Widely developed and practical Alkaline Spacetransport, submarines Low manufacturing, operation costs; no compressor; High cathode kinetics Large size; needs H2 and O2 In demand because of low operating costs Molten Carbonate Large-scale power production Efficient uses heat to run turbines Electrolyte instability; short life Well developed and semi-commercial Phosphoric Acid Medium to large power generator Lenient to fuels Low efficiency and requires an expensive catalyst competes with PEMFC Solid Oxide Medium to high power generation uses natural gas; 60% efficient low fuel use High temperatures and short life New material and renewed development Direct Methanol Portable and stationary use Compact and no compressor slow load response with 20% efficiency Easy to handle Table 1, compares the different types of fuel cells. Source http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/fuel_cell_technology Liquid Air Vehicles Liquid nitrogen stands as another area that has gained the attention of researchers as an alternative mode of offering energy to vehicle’s engines (Sukahara & Awayama 2005). Focus on alternative source of energy began not so long ago in the University of Washington and the UNT where both instances involved the development of liquid nitrogen without knowledge or consideration of the other’s advancement (Ross 2006). After 1996, the Kharkov National Automobile and Highway University with assistance from UNT developed an additional vehicle powered by liquid nitrogen. These developments of vehicles were all centered on enhancing the efficiency and performance of liquid nitrogen engine systems. The core aim was to assist in determining whether researching on liquid nitrogen as a propulsion system was viable to any other propulsion method (Ronney 2009). Cyrogenic engines Cryogenic vehicle engines use cryogenic substances to produce energy for the propulsion of vehicles. The engines make the cryogenic substance develop pressure by placing it in a tank or enclosure. The pressure that emanates from the process is used to extend cylinders or to turn motors. The process is almost the same as that of a steam engine, whereby engines use water that is boiled externally to generate steam, which is in turn used to work. However, cryogenic engines contrast, other engines as they use heat, from the surroundings to produce the heat that they use. The ambient surroundings offer heat, making a nitrogen rise from -196 degrees Celsius to almost ambient atmospheric temperature (Pettersen 2010). The challenge that researchers and engineers face is making the liquid nitrogen present the most energy to the engines. Recent developments to siphon all the energy has come up with a dual stage engine that has a reheating process in between. Research also needs to assess the efficiency of multistage turbines as a future way of increasing the energy trapped from liquid air (Maxwell & Zhu 2011). Research into the design of cryogenic vehicles shows that they very friendly to the environment as compared to hydrogen, biogas, or the worse off gasoline vehicles. Liquid nitrogen air vehicles use liquid nitrogen that emanates from air-fractionating contraption (Bernatik et al. 2011). The production of 1kg of liquid nitrogen requires about 1kW hour of energy. The vehicles can receive this power from wind stations, hydraulic stations, or from nuclear stations. The vehicles can be able to produce this energy without the use of hydrocarbon fuels at all. These engines, therefore, are friendly to the environment and can get energy from renewable sources such as wind, river, sun, and tidal stations for the conversion of liquid nitrogen from the atmosphere. The internal combustion engines are the most recommended for urban areas and transportation needs in such places as they do not consume gasoline and have pneumatic motor efficiency coefficient of up to 60% (Hong et, al. 2009). According to Sarkar (2005), he considers liquid air energy as the application of an old fuel in a novel form. The researcher states that this form of application has become popular over the recent past because of the benefits that it holds. Liquid natural gas or LNG presents several advantages compared to pipeline transportation modes of natural gas when the demand is far from the production areas. Moreover, the researcher denotes, LNG also has an edge over other forms of fuel when it comes to automobile fuel (Sarkar 2005). Researchers break down the constituents of natural gas elucidating that it consists of methane, propane, ethane, butane, etc. Natural gas is also referred to as methane most of the time as it contains over ninety percent methane (Bromberg & Cheng 2010). Liquid nitrogen is of low energy density. At atmospheric pressure, its energy density is 460 kilojoules per litre. The amount is seven times less that of Gasoline that has a density of 33,000kj/l (Bromberg & Cheng 2000). According Sakar and Bose (2002), liquid air energy appears to be superior in terms of energy output and eco-friendliness when compared to other forms of fuel. The superiority of liquid air energy is also in terms of calorific energy in which it supersedes the energy produced by fuel oil and gasoline. LNG also has unique characteristics that will make it a better engine fuel in the future. It avails 41KJ/Kg for storage as compared to only 21.2 KJ in the case of liquid nitrogen (Kumar et al. 2011). The higher refrigeration possible with liquid air energy can be applied towards improving cooling between the stages of the compressor and water jackets cooling. In a piston engine that is turbo charged with high output, the refrigeration effect of liquid natural gas reduces the ingoing charge temperature (Thomas & James 2000). This enhances output and lowers the tendency towards pre-ignition and knock. Over the ages, researchers have also been involved in cost comparisons of the different energy options for vehicles. Comparisons used include both the onboard reformer and the fuel storage costs. Three major forms of fuel: hydrogen, liquid air or nitrogen, and gasoline, feature in the comparisons. As it emerges, hydrogen fuels are the cheapest when all the key variables of measurement are considered. In effect, the most common choice of fuel has led to the increase of the cost of vehicles as compared to what the vehicles would be operating when using hydrogen. Therefore, the current most common application of fuel is expensive because it is the preferred fuel choice. As a result, cleaner and cheaper forms of energy have been left, and their development in the automotive industry is stagnated compared to the gasoline fuel form (Thomas & James 2000). Gaps from Literature Review The above literature review shows the various fuels applicable to vehicle engines and their respective advantages. It is evident that the fuel cell and liquid air energy are viable options when it comes to environmental protection. Analysis of cost implications also shows that gasoline engines are the most expensive in maintenance when compared with other internal combustion engine options. However, there is insufficient literature regarding the factors that hinder the uptake of liquid air energy and its close rival- the fuel cell engine option. Methods to Fill the Gaps Various measures will be employed in filling the gap from literature. Finding out reasons as to why liquid air energy has not been adopted will be done through analysis of relevant literature. This will constitute identifying relevant literature on factors contributing to the hindrance of the adoption of the cost effective and environmental friendly method. Systematic review of literature journals, and articles is an ideal way of identifying key information, and it will provide information that will fill the gap from the literature. Besides a review of existing literature, this study will achieve its aim by conducting an assessment on the attitudes of manufacturers towards LNG and other green vehicles. This assessment will assist in showing whether there is a shift in terms of attitude towards LNG vehicles. This will occur through the use of questionnaires that will be able to capture the views of vehicle manufacturers. This technique will relevantly provide sufficient information regarding future developments of LNG vehicles and the obstacles that prevent development and adoption. Comparison of Study Findings on LNG and other Incumbent Technologies In a bid to identify the reasons causing slow adoption of liquid air energy in the automotive industry, it is essential to assess other incumbent technologies. Manufacturers are reported to have made essential advancements in the path to Near Zero Emission heavy duty vehicles (Holz et al. 2009). Assessment of this development in relation to liquid air energy technology will provide essential insight. This assessment will entail the current developments in various parts of the world, especially in California aimed at reducing environmental pollution. Fuel Cell, Electric, and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle Model Hyundai ix35 FCEV 2014 Toyota FCV-r Concept Honda FCX Clarity Chevrolet Volt 2014 Tesla Model S Toyota Camry L 2013 Volkswagen Passat S 2014 Price N/A* $50,000 - $100,000 (projected) $600/month 3-year lease (limited location) $34,185 $69,900 - $89,900 $22,425 - $30,705 $20,845 - $33,895 Fuel Type Compressed Hydrogen Gas Compressed Hydrogen Gas Compressed Hydrogen Gas Electricity and/or Premium Gasoline Electricity Gasoline Gasoline EPA Mileage Estimates (City/Highway/Combined) Combined: 71 N/A 60/60/60 Battery Only: 101/93/97, w/ Range Extender: 35/40/37 88/90/89 25/35/28 22/32/27 Curb Weight (lbs) 4034 N/A 3582 3786 4647 3190 3166 Range 361 miles 300 miles 240 miles 38 miles (battery only), 380 miles w/ Range Extender 208 miles 510 miles 500 miles Fuel Capacity 5.64kg @10153 psi ≈6kg @10000 psi 3.92kg @ 5000 psi Voltec® electric drive system w/ 1.4L gasoline-powered 60 kWh battery 17.0 gallon tank 18.5 gallon tank Table 2, comparing the different types of vehicles with their energy source. Source https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtSwOvF1gsvndGY2TG1mbkV2VzdHMmVIdXJVbnVsUUE&usp=sharing#gid=0 Finally, a review of the demand scenarios and fuel prices related to natural gas is important in filling in the literature review gap. A review of alternate fuels is key as petroleum-based fuels alone cannot sustain the demand for energy in the automotive industry in the future. Markets need to diversify in order to ensure that consumers are protected from deficiencies and price variations. Natural gas offers one of the most auspicious long term prospects to diversify the usage of transportation fuels (Werpy et al. 2010). Conclusion This review shows that liquid air energy has a lot of potential as vehicle fuel. Several researchers have delved into this fairly old form of fuel and looked into how it can be transformed and used in novel approaches. Researchers have also looked into alternate sources of energy such as hydrogen used in fuel cell engines. The two forms of energy are important in energy conservation (Werpy et al. 2010). However, liquid air presents as a preferable form of fuel because of its characteristics including storage capacity and performance. In terms of cost, liquid nitrogen gas stands second after hydrogen, which is the most efficient. Researchers also argue that gasoline is expensive because of a preference by consumers and manufacturers. Overall, liquid air energy presents characteristics that will steer the future of the automobile industry and, therefore, warrants attention (Holz et al 2009). Recommendations Manufacturers and governments ought to make investments in stationery equipment for fueling to advance the natural air energy fuel option (Dincer 2008). Governments should encourage the adoption of ultra clean fuel options by giving incentives to those who accept such options both in terms of production and consumption (Sarkar 2005). Environmental awareness and sensitization regarding pollution and emission of greenhouse gases should be given to manufacturers and individuals to ensure that the fuel options they make are conscious (Kumar 2011). Further, research and development into how the automotive industry can make eco-friendly energy options the best options for consumers is needed (Bromberg & Cheng 2010). Reference List Bernatik, A., Senovsky, P. & Pitt, M., 2011. LNG as a potential alternative fuel - Safety and security of storage facilities. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 24, pp.19–24. Bromberg, L. & Cheng, W.K., 2010. Methanol as an alternative transportation fuel in the U.S.: Options for sustainable and energy-secure transportation. Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dincer, I., 2008. Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies for sustainable future. JJMIE, 2(1), pp.1–14. Available at: http://jjmie.hu.edu.jo/files/V2/001-v2-1.pdf?origin=publication_detail [Accessed June 4, 2014]. FUEL CELLS 2000. "Fuel Cells 2000." - Charts. http://www.fuelcells.org/base.cgim?template=charts (accessed June 12, 2014). Hong, Y.-P. et al., 2009. An experimental and numerical study on the motion characteristics of side-by-side moored LNG-FPSO and LNG carrier. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. pp. 172–179. Kumar, S. et al., 2011. LNG: An eco-friendly cryogenic fuel for sustainable development. Applied Energy, 88, pp.4264–4273. Kung, M. & Kung, M., 2005. The Hydrogen Fuel Cell Solution : Improving Air Quality and Ensuring Energy Independence by The Hydrogen Fuel Cell Solution. Montgomery College Student Journal of Scicence & Mathematics, 3(June), pp.1–10. Manor, R., 1976. Air powered vehicle. US Patent 3,980,152, 1(1), pp.54–56. Available at: http://benthamscience.com/open/openaccess.php?toefj/articles/V001/54TOEFJ.htm [Accessed June 4, 2014]. Maxwell, D. & Zhu, Z., 2011. Natural gas prices, LNG transport costs, and the dynamics of LNG imports. Energy Economics, 33, pp.217–226. NC State University, 2014. " Cryogenic Safety." Environmental Health& Safety, Cryogenic Safety. http://www.ncsu.edu/ehs/www99/right/handsMan/worker/Cryogenic_Safety.htm (accessed June 12, 2014). Pettersen, J. (Statoil), 2010. LNG – Fundamental Principles. In ipt.ntnu.no. Available at: http://www.ipt.ntnu.no/~jsg/undervisning/naturgass/lysark/LysarkPettersen2011A.pdf\npapers2://publication/uuid/A409A338-69B2-4F1D-9688-9B6A9D3FBCD0. Ronney, P.D., 2009. Hydrocarbon-fueled Internal Combustion Engines. University of Southern California. Ross, D.K., 2006. Hydrogen storage: The major technological barrier to the development of hydrogen fuel cell cars. Vacuum, 80, pp.1084–1089. Sarkar, S., 2005. LNG as an energy efficient eco-friendly cryogenic fuel. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa, 16(4), pp.55–58. Available at: http://webdav.uct.ac.za/depts/erc/jesa/volume16/16-4jesa-sarkar.pdf [Accessed June 4, 2014]. Sukahara, K.T. & Awayama, S.S., 2005. Liquid Fuel Production Using Microalgae. Journal of the Japan Petroleum Institute, 48, pp.251–259. Thomas, C. & James, B., 2000. Fuel options for the fuel cell vehicle: hydrogen, methanol or gasoline? International Journal of Hydrogen, 25, pp.551–567. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319999000646 [Accessed June 4, 2014]. Holz, F., von Hirschhausen, C. & Kemfert, C., 2009. Perspectives of the European Natural Gas Markets Until 2025. The Energy Journal, 30. Werpy, M. et al., 2010. Natural Gas Vehicles : Status , Barriers , and Opportunities. Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Lab, pp.1–59. Read More