• Thursday, June 25, 2009 Latest Update: 2:30PM

Greentech Media

Transportation

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) June 25, 2009 35 Comments

Will GM Abandon Hydrogen Cars?

As the automaker emerges from bankruptcy, it will have to decide whether it's still worth betting on hydrogen cars. Hydrogen car advocates have little love for electric cars: "EV people are killing our technologies."

Advocates of hydrogen fuel cell cars are a bit miffed about the attention and money the federal government is showering on companies making plug-in hybrid electric or all-electric cars.

It's not hard to understand why. The government is giving out billions of dollars to carmakers for build different types of electric vehicles. Consumers can get rebates for buying them.

Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Steve Chu has planned to cut millions of dollars from the hydrogen car program for the next fiscal year. The reason, Chu said, is because hydrogen cars aren't likely to be ready for the mass market for another 10 to 20 years, and that's just too far down the road.

"I was at a fuel cell meeting last week, and people were lamenting that all those EV people are killing our technologies," said Dave Barthmuss, General Motors' western region manager for environmental and energy communications, during his talk at the Edison Electric Institute's annual convention in San Francisco on Wednesday. EEI represents the country's investor-owned utilities.

Barthmuss was making a point that it will take different kinds of low or zero-emission cars to move the country away from relying on fossil fuel vehicles. Barthmuss noted that GM already has invested billions in developing hydrogen cars.

As General Motors works on restructuring its business and emerging out of bankruptcy in the next few months, the company will have to think hard about what to do with its hydrogen fuel cell car program, he said in an interview after his talk. The new version of GM needs to be lean, so it will have to allocate its resources carefully.

"It's like we have swam halfway across the English Channel only have to turn back," Barthmuss said. "We don't need any more breakthroughs to bring the cars into the commercial market by 2015."

What GM needs is for the federal government to fund the installation of hydrogen fuel stations across the country. Creating that network of pump stations across the country will be crucial to popularizing hydrogen cars.

California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the "Hydrogen Highway" initiative in 2004 to position California as a leader in adopting zero emission technologies.

That program hasn't been successful – there are 25 pump stations that have been built in the state, Barthmuss said. But only a handful could completely fill out GM's hydrogen demo car, the Equinox, because of the varying amount of pressure used to compress the hydrogen gas (10,000 psi for the Equinox versus 5,000 psi being dispensed at many pumping stations).

GM has been running the Project Driveway program to test the marketability of hydrogen cars. It gives a limited number of Equinox vehicles to consumers to tool around for two months and then gets their feedback afterwards.

California regulators, including the head of the state Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols, have written to Chu and other environmental officials in President Obama's administration and argued that the government should fund all sorts of alternative vehicle technologies to achieve its emissions reduction goals (see a post in Grist).

Critics have said it's far more costly to build a hydrogen car than an electric car, so why bet on hydrogen vehicles when cheaper and still cleaner alternatives exist?

While GM will have to figure out what to do with its hydrogen car program, it's firmly set on introducing its plug-in hybrid electric car, the Chevy Volt, in November next year.

"Part of our restructuring plan is based on the Chevy Volt," Barthmuss said. "That's the key to our reinvention."

Comments [35]

  • Peter A 06/25/09 10:43 AM

    Not only is hydrogen not feasible today, it’s not even a known quantity at this point. His analogy of swimming “half way across the English Channel” is flat out misleading. We have yet to even conceive of economically feasible ways to produce, store and transport hydrogen at scale, let alone implement them. Relying on the US Government for doing that? Another ethanol in the making! Ugh.

     Reply
  • Gordon P 06/25/09 11:53 AM

    I’m firmly in the hydrogen fuel cell camp—and am convinced that the future of electric propulsion is a full integration of batteries, fuel cells and capacitors.  Cars are not gadgets and there is a cost/performance ceiling that batteries cannot compete against fuel cells.  There is a difference when you separate fuel from oxidant…

    Re: hydrogen’s storage, production et al.  I don’t know where Peter A and others are looking for insights but there has been tremendous progress in solid state storage and nanostructured catalysts that lower costs and improve efficiencies on hydrogen production.  We’re not there now—but let’s stop talking like it 1998.  Chemistry science and engineering has not reached the end of the line.

    I am not betting on plug ins—and we should be careful about the faith that utilities will innovate to integrate vehicles into the grid.  Nor buy into the hype that it’s somehow cheaper to extend the grid ‘stream’ to cars?  Where is the cost estimates on building more wall sockets for a global fleet.  Plugging in is the worst idea out there…

    All the plug in advocates visions of ‘people will plug in at night’ are nonesense and early testing shows that consumer behavior is a major obstacle.  Here I am at a cafe hogging access to the wall socket—well imagine people who just want to plug in to ‘tap’ off a battery when they don’t need it.

    Chemical bonds people—that is how Mother Nature stores energy.  Hydrogen is not the energy sink that cynics make it out to be.  Learn about catalysis… And if you really want to get into an argument—let’s talk about the gross inefficiencies of the electricity grid.  Don’t confuse physics for business.  Or talk impact—worry about 4 billion vegetarians becoming meat eaters… not electrolysis. 

    Looking forward to the day when hydrogen or hydrogen rich fuels do power the transportation sector!!  This isn’t about ‘plug in vs fuel cell’ - it’s about how do we integrate both!

     Reply
      • Peter A 06/25/09 3:03 PM

        “Chemistry science and engineering has not reached the end of the line”. That’s exactly my point Gordon. The hydrogen lobby will have to prove that the only thing that stands between the technology and mass adoption is capital. And you know that’s not true yet. It might make sense for strategic, deep-pocketed investors to get in (think: Oil Companies), but GM and their ilk only have one egg to lay. It makes no sense to place that egg in a high-risk, high-long-term-return basket when you’re practically guaranteed to be out of business by the time it hatches.
      • Steve Pluvia 06/25/09 5:48 PM

        Gordon:  Write this on your forehead:  “Its about cost stupid”.  Plug-in hybrid technology is here and, it is within a stones throw from being cost competitive.  The technology behind Hydrogen fuel cells is not remotely close to being cost effective for any purpose. At this point fuel cells are cute science experiments, nothing more.
  • Colby 06/25/09 11:54 AM

    Great points Peter! I totally agree.

    We need to focus on electric vehicles; the infrastructure already exists!

     Reply
  • jjpro 06/25/09 12:51 PM

    Hydrogen vehicles are ready for prime time.  I have driven one for an extensive period of time.  Refueling is a breeze and the range was more than acceptable; more than twice that of an equivalent all battery electric vehicle.  Hydrogen on a per mile basis out competes gasoline today in operating costs!  There are no show-stoppers.  There is enough hydrogen produced that is now being used by the oil industry to make gasoline cleaner to power 15 million automobiles; hydrogen obviously is being made cheaply enough to go to market now.  Hydrogen from even natural gas gives us a 63% reduction in greenhouse gases over conventional vehicles and an over 30% reduction from hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.  By the way, hydrogen vehicles ARE electric vehicles.  Why anyone would want to be tethered to a power cord in this day and time is beyond me.  Hydrogen gives you all the advantages of electric drivetrains with the convenience of current gasoline vehicles, i.e. quick “recharging” times, better performance, trunk space, 5-passenger capacity, no maintenance, etc.  Go Hydrogen.

     Reply
  • LizR 06/25/09 1:29 PM

    Why does it have to be one or the other? It’s like saying the automakers have to choose building cars or pick-up trucks, but not both. Some people want a small car to run around town. Some people want an SUV with long range and lots of space. I bet many families have one of each. Why can’t we encourage the automakers to build urban battery vehicles and inter-urban fuel cell vehicles?

     Reply
      • EricR 06/26/09 2:43 PM

        Steve, like Steph and JJPro, I am involved in GM’s Project Driveway.  The fact of the matter is that the fuel cell R&D is done, and the design for commercial fuel cell powertrains is complete.  The cost projections are that with production of 1M units, the economies of scale would render the cost commensurate with current V6 powertrains.  This means that GM has the capability -today- to manufacture cost competitive fuel cell vehicles.  The trick, though, is how to get to 1M vehicles.  Any specially built prototypes will be expensive- that is not the issue.  The point is that GM no longer needs any R&D breakthrough to get the costs down.  Moreover, companies like the Linde Group are capable -today- to install hydrogen fueling infrastructure at a cost commensurate with conventional gasoline infrastructure.  Moreover, assuming a decent-sized vehicle population to utilize such stations, Linde’s current hydrogen production and transportation capability and logistics could deliver the hydrogen at a cost of approximately $5.00 per kg (which is very competitive with gasoline today on a cost per mile basis).

        Steve, we should all be excited by these developments.
  • stephsfuelcell 06/25/09 2:31 PM

    I have been driving one of GM’s Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for the past 6 weeks.  Peter A/Colby: do more research to see where H2 is in use (transported to & stored) TODAY in industrial world—they are NOT throwing $$ away for H2 use?!  Govt didn’t do enough for EVs, hybrids, or EtOH.  Is that really the hurdle you say you can’t jump?

     Reply
      • EricR 06/25/09 3:08 PM

        JJPro, Steph, small world smile  The quotes attibutable to Dave Barthmuss touch upon an important point that, in my opinion, GM needs to more effectively publicize: GM has the capability, today, to manufacture and sell fuel cell vehicles.  Moreover, if they can manufacture about 1M vehicles, they would be cost competitive with V6 variants (the benefits of economies of scale come into play).  If you think about it, if internal combustion engines were being developed now, they too would be very expensive until the benefits of economies of scale kick in. 

        Furthermore, in my conversations with the Linde Group (chemical manufacturer), they can install infrastructure and transport hydrogen at a cost competitive with gasoline infrastructure and transport.  No one needs any more breakthroughs.  The only thing preventing widespread adoption of hydrogen technology is the capital and political will to make it happen.

        - EricR
      • Steve Pluvia 06/26/09 10:06 AM

        No Steph, the hurdle is the million dollar price tag that vehicle costs.  Are you telling me you really have no idea how unreliable and expensive fuel cell tech is?  You ignorance on this issue is shocking.
      • Don J 06/26/09 8:36 PM

        How much did you pay for your fuel cell vehicle?  What?  You didn’t buy it?  That’s because it is leased on a massively subsidized basis.  If you had to pay the actually costs, it is unlikely you could afford it.  The technology is undoubtedly cool.  It is just inefficient and very expensive.
  • Carl Hage 06/25/09 4:17 PM

    I posted this on another blog, but it’s applicable here:

    There is a lot of confusion about hydrogen vehicles compared to others. Realistically, the hydrogen anywhere in the near term will come from natural gas, so why not compare a fuel cell vehicle with CNG? I did some calculations, using information from the EPA for the Honda Civic CNG, gas, and gas-HEV, plus the Honda FCX with EPA stats from the Honda web site, and CNG & CO2 equivalence from a DOE paper. Note the FCX is a hybrid with Li Batteries, so is most comparable to the gas-hybrid.

    Here are the results:
    Gas-HEV: 42 MPG, 4.4 T-CO2/y, 465mi range.
    FCX-H2: 40 MPG-CNG, 4.5 T-CO2/y, 240mi range.
    CNG: 28 MPG-CNG, 5.4 T-CO2/y, 170mi range.
    Gas: 29 MPG, 6.3 T-CO2/y, 345mi range.

    The gas hybrid-electric Civic is better than the Hydrogen FCX in all respects (except unknown fuel cost, estimated to be slightly less in the DOE paper). The FCX has more fossil fuel consumption, more CO2/year, and less range. Even if taxpayers build hydrogen fueling stations, PHEVs or BEVs are cheaper and better for the environment.

    [If the civic hybrid could burn natural gas, then it would probably use less natural gas than the fuel cell, assuming the H2 comes from natural gas (as it does now).]

    The FCX and HEV are pretty close though, so really it comes down to cost. Most current comparisons I see future fuel cell cost compared to current battery cost. Right now, fuel cells are fantastically expensive—much more than the expensive Tesla or Volt batteries. The question is, will future battery prices and recharge times improve faster than fuel cell prices?

    If you consider hydrogen from renewable electricity, keep in mind the cycle efficiency of a fuel cell (electricty-H2-electricity) is about 25% vs 86% for a battery/PHEV. It seems to me that the PHEVs will be the big winners in the near term as a cost effective way to reduce CO2, fossil fuel, as well as total cost of ownership.

     Reply
  • Didier 06/26/09 7:31 AM

    Hi,
    In order for a new type of car to catch on it will have to be cheap enough and easy to refuel. The compressed air cars of MDI are cheaper than traditional cars, cost peanuts per km driving, and the first model will be mass produced in France and Andorra end of this year, in Switzerland next year. The first preseries are being tested this summer by Air France and KLM airlines They run on compressed air, can be refilled in 4 hours at home (electrical socket) or in 3 minutes at an air station. They are zero pollution. Have a look at http://www.aircars.tk to see all informaton, pictures, videos of prototypes running.

     Reply
      • Steve Pluvia 06/26/09 8:02 AM

        Didier, compressed air is much more feasible than hydrogen although the drawback is limited energy density. I wish more $ were directed to that technology as it eliminates the expense of batteries.  Hydrogen will never be used for transportation, those suggesting otherwise are out of touch with reality and the competing technologies.
  • LizR 06/26/09 1:23 PM

    Boy, do I get tired of the “million dollar car” comment, You know, Chrysler applied for stimulas money to build 365 PHEVs and BEVs. How much money? $365 million. Sounds like a million-dollar car to me. The plain truth is that products in development cost a ton more than products in the marketplace. It’s why subsidies and rebates exist, to get developmental products through the “valley of death” where commercial quantities become profitable. It’s why governments support new drugs, digital television, ethanol, solar panels, green building materials and a thousand other products.

     Reply
  • Don J 06/26/09 8:20 PM

    EV people are NOT killing Hydrogen technology . . . the laws of physics and economics are killing hydrogen technology.  There are no real good ways of making hydrogen (H) efficiently, H is difficult to transport, it is difficult to store, a massive infrastructure would need to be built, and fuel cells are damn expensive.  It just is not feasible.  EVs have their own problems (mainly that batteries are still expensive), but they are FAR more economically viable.

     Reply
  • PhilJ 06/26/09 8:25 PM

    After reading the article and the 16 comments so far, I think there is a vehicle technology pathway that answers a lot of the objections:

    First, it’s important to see that a plug-in hybrid electric can use any type of powerplant—and whatever fuel or fuels that powerplant is designed to use. The powerplant can be a combustion engine that runs on gasoline, butanol, methanol, CNG, liquid propane gas, flex fuel gasoline/alcohol or diesel. The powerplant can be a combustion engine or a fuel cell. The fuel for the fuel cell can be methanol or butanol.

    There are good reasons for using a plug-in hybrid electric configuration—with a 20-mile range on stored battery power. A main reason is that the battery pack doesn’t need to be large or expensive; while the powerplant and the fuel can be any technologies that are already in use.

    The 20-mile range on electric power from the wall uses ‘fuel’ that is a quarter the price of any liquid or gaseous fuel—and this results in lower demand for liquid and gaseous fuels.

    I include methanol and butanol in the list of fuels because alcohol fuels work in combustion engines and also in direct alcohol fuel cells.

    I include methanol (CH3OH) and butanol (C4H9OH) in the fuel list because they can be synthesized in a number of ways from just carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. As well as the cellulosic processes to produce methanol and butanol, alcohol manufacturing will be associated with coal and gas generators. The carbon from coal fired electricity production can be recycled into alcohol fuels. The role of an associated nuclear power plant will be to provide process heat and power.

    Therefore, the coal fired power station, the nuclear power station and the alcohol synthesis process work as a group. Carbon is to valuable to sequester; it needs to be recycled into alcohol fuel.

    Back to the logic of having a conservative vehicle range on battery and additional range by carrying a liquid or gaseous fuel:

    1. Look at the example of soldiers in the field needing electrical power. The technology that is increasingly being used is a hybrid power supply; a relatively small capacity battery charged by a fuel cell that uses methanol as its fuel. The package is smaller and lighter than just batteries because methanol has greater energy density than a lithium ion battery on its own.

    2. Think now about power for a vehicle. A battery on its own is seriously inadequate when the driver wants heating or cooling without sacrificing too much vehicle range. A vehicle that also carries a liquid or gaseous fuel doesn’t have range worries when keeping the vehicle warm in winter or cool in summer. The next big killer of battery range is hills. If you have hills to negotiate, then also having a liquid or gaseous fuel will make sure you get to your destination. Another big downside of having battery only is when you have already driven for a while, you want to make a detour and don’t have the range to get there. This is an every day situation that is solved by also having a liquid or gaseous fuel that has a decent energy density and can easily be purchased using the existing liquid fuel infrastructure.

    Someone mentioned a difficulty of getting people to charge their vehicles predominantly during off-peak times such as during the night. The answer is real-time electricity pricing. Your house, commercial premises or you car has a black box programmed with your business rules such as “Vehicle charging normally occurs when power is less than say 20 cents per kilowatt hour.”

    Real-time electricity pricing will have an huge effect on reducing electricity peak demand. The black box, in every house, with its customised rules will be able to communicate with the appliances in the house so things like thermostats will be adjusted up or down depending on the price of the electricity at that moment.

    There is time to provide adequate electricity generating capacity becauseit will take 25 years for even a significant proportion of the world’s fleet of one billion vehicles to evolve into plug-in hybrid electric.

     Reply
  • FDDoty 06/27/09 12:41 PM

    Great article, as usual Uci, and lots of good comments.  I always like to come back to some basic physics – the energy density in hydrogen storage by any method compatible with vehicles will never come close to that of liquid hydrocarbons.  The ultimate answer to sustainable transportation will be standard hydrocarbons (like gasoline and jet fuel) synthesized from CO2, water, and off-peak wind energy.  It’s the most scalable, competitive, and carbon neutral option yet proposed.  The cost of off-peak wind energy in areas of high wind penetration has plummeted in the past 18 months, and especially in the past 6 months.  This cheap clean energy (~$10/MWhr last month in the Minnesota hub, where there is ~6% wind penetration) will be used to synthesize all types off fuels and chemicals from CO2 and H2O at efficiencies approaching 60% in the mid-term.  There is sufficient point-source CO2 available in the U.S. (over 4 Gt/yr) and sufficient wind energy potential (~80 PWhr/yr) to synthesize over twice the current U.S. liquid fuel usage (~0.7 Gt/yr) and supply over twice its other energy needs (~20 TWhr/yr).  The domestic wind potential is similarly favorable in China, Russia, Canada, Australia, the U.K, Brazil, and some other countries. 

    The hydrogen advocates should begin to realize that this is the best way to breath new life into their passion, as efficient generation of hydrogen is a key part of Windfuels.  The battery advocates need to appreciate that they will have a strong future in hybrids using next-generation IC engines running off variable mixtures of carbon-neutral gasoline, jet fuel, ethanol, and methanol. The DOE needs to appreciate that biofuels (even advanced biofuels) will not scale to the demand, will not be competitive, and will do little to reduce CO2 emissions.  More detailed info is available at the Windfuels website.

    Yes, it’s time to abandon the hydrogen car dream, because there’s a more cost-effective option coming that will be even more carbon-neutral over the full life-cycle – Windfuels.  One peer-reviewed non-copyrighted paper is available at the website for free download. Three more peer-reviewed technical papers will appear within a month (abstracts and other materials are currently available), and more peer-reviewed papers will appear over the coming months.

    Back to a little more basic physics.  The efficiency of fuel cells suitable for automobiles will not exceed that of advanced, small, flex-fuel ICEs (~45%).  The energy losses associated with distribution of hydrogen will not be less that those associated with synthesis of hydrocarbons from CO2 and renewable H2. The costs associated with distribution of hydrogen will always be more than an order of magnitude greater than for liquid fuels.  The costs of fuel cells will always be an order of magnitude greater than the costs of ICEs…

    All the auto makers will abandon the hydrogen car as the potential of Windfuels begins to be appreciated.  I doubt that point is more than a year away, and it could happen within 6 months; but I know there are many strong supporters of yesterday’s ideas that will be slow to warm to a better idea.

     Reply
  • NickC 06/29/09 8:19 AM

    Congrats to all for some excellent debate on the issue. I would like to offer some input from a different side of the story.

    People bat about the cost effectiveness of hydrogen vehicles and I’m not debating that ICE parity can be reached on the basis of a million vehilces. From working in BEV distributorship, I can tell you that something like parity means very little if its on the basis of an imagined scale.

    I try to get people to buy small electric vehilces. They’re the only cost-effective options at the moment. 2010 will see the first of the next generation BEVs (where we finally move away from NEVs). I can’t console myself with the fact that when our manufactures are making 1 million vehicles per year, they’ll be much cheaper and therefore easier to sell.

    Let me repeat that - they fact that the cars will be better and cheaper once millions are on the production line offers no consolation to me. My customers buy now. They are the early adopters and through a gradual creeping process (hopefully only a matter of years) we’ll have good production numbers and be able to deliver great prices on big cars.

    But this process has been going on for years. Many of you seem to forget this. Hydrogen advocates probably sound very similar to BEV advocates in 1993 when the lithium-ion battery started to reveal its promise. Of course its cost-effective. But a lithium-ion car in the mid-ninties was probably ike a H2 vehilce now - only available for lease; OEMs having very little idea how they’ll go about making on for $20-40k.

    Over two decades later and we’re within a stones throw of those targets for BEVs. Not only that, but there are still breakthroughs to be made in battery technology. Chemistry and science don’t stand still and that argument that applies to BOTH sides.

    So it’s not about what discoveries still have to be made. It’s about trying to balance the introduction of the new technology. How to you get from million dollar prototypes to volumes in the millions? A very tough one to answer. You get the feeling that two decades might have pushed the BEV to the start of market realisability. But this has come at a serious on-the-ground effort. That, I think, is why H2 is given a 10-20 year lead in time.

     Reply
      • LizR 06/29/09 6:02 PM

        Nick makes the right point. Blogs debate the science. Who has fewer grams per mile or is 3% more energy efficient? Most people don’t care. To meet the goals of cleaner air, fewer GHGs and less petroleum, the automakers have to make vehicles that people want to buy and use. Early adopters will put up with inconvenience; most people will not. Instead of playing the “mine’s better than yours” game, we should be working together to convince people to use less gas and electricity while we bring electric drive to market.
      • EricR 06/30/09 12:01 PM

        Nick, I think you hit upon the crux of the problem: how to get to 1M vehicles.  A year ago, I would have said that the automakers would have to form a consortium to set up a few “seed” stations in major metropolitan areas, and then let the market develop from there.  However, with the implosion of the auto industry, that is not likely going to happen.  I also doubt the federal government (or state/local for that matter) want to be in the business of owning fueling stations.  So that leaves private investors.  However, how do you convince them to stick their necks out, when the future is so uncertain?  The investors would have to get committments from the automakers to provide a suitable vehicle population to utilize the stations, and hydrogen suppliers to provide hydrogen at an agreed-upon cost.
      • Joe H 07/1/09 9:11 AM

        Nick C, I appreciate your perspective. The one problem is there is an underlying assumption that battery electric vehicles are further advanced than fuel cell elctric vehicles. That is simply not true. Actually, the leading OEMs working on both platforms, especially Toyota and Honda, have clearly and repeatedly stated fuel cells are significantly more advanced than batteries. A lot of bad information is out there. Today’s fuel cell electric caris an excellent vehicle. The infrastructure investment required to encourage the mass production of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles is a fraction of that invested annually to maintain our existing gasoline infrastructure.
  • Bob 06/30/09 12:56 PM

    Not feasible??? Yeah, right and that’s why the US goverment is PRESNTLY manufacturing HYDROGEN burning (as in a gas form) H1 HUMMERS under the direction/design of Denny Klein.  Please do your research BEFORE you open your mouth. Call the factory.

     Reply
  • Joe H 07/1/09 9:32 AM

    There is a very fair and balanced MIT report from 2007, which clearly indicates battery electric vehicles cost more, take up more space, result in more GHG emissions, and have far less range than fuel cell electric vehicles. You’ll never drive 300 miles in a BEV. Many FCEV get that range today. You’ll never approximate the fueling experiencse of gasoline with a BEV. With a FCEV, you can today. Why does the battery croed feel so threatened by hydrogen? Hydrogen works wonderfully with batteries and hides many of their blemishes. Plug-ins ... now that is just a joke. if I was a politician wanting to promise 10 million vehicles on the road, maybe I would find value in plug-ins, but as a consumer or citizen of the world, they have nothing to offer.

     Reply
      • Don J 07/1/09 11:25 AM

        But you are unable to provide a link to this alleged report.  Why am I not surprised?
      • EricR 07/1/09 3:41 PM

        Don J, I believe that Joe H is referring to the following MIT study: Kromer M, Heywood J, “Electric Powertrains: Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet,” Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Publication No. LFEE 2007-03 RP, May 2007.
  • Nick C 07/1/09 12:24 PM

    Joe H - I assume no such thing. And if this is about technology then the breathtaking pace of advancement in battery chemistries has to be taken into account. As I understand it, both types of car use AC induction motors so you’re simply saying that a hydrogen fuel cell is more advanced than a lithium battery. You don’t exactly deserve a medal for this statement. Besides, MIT have reported on a lithium-nano structure that charges in 10 minutes and market lead-in times of 3 years have been given.

    Look, maybe this is a red herring. Batteries might never do the job but there is something very encouraging about the present state of the auto industry and Eric R has touched on this - our post resession world will be all about low cost driving. Imaging financing a small BEV for something in the range of $29 a week (essentially the cost of your gas today). This is not an impossible proposition.

    So we can debate technology and the schemes with which it is to be introduced the the fact of the matter is that the market will probably just have to do the work itself. If low cost motoring is what the next few years are about, then I hold out considerably more hope for BEVs than I do for H2.

    Any by the way, some of you, stop lambasting politicians with regard to plug-ins. It works both ways, you know. If Obama had said he wanted a H2 station in every town within ten years the man would be a certifiable lunatic.

    But then again, that may happen…

    Can anyone answer me this - how much does a H2 FCX cost outright?

     Reply
      • EricR 07/1/09 1:16 PM

        Nick, I would imagine that Honda’s cost for the FCX Clarity is confidential.  However, I would argue that its current cost is not necessarily indicative of what a truly commercialized vehicle would cost.  For example, when factoring cost, do you amortize in the cost of the R&D that went into it?  My recollection (and someone please correct me if I am wrong) is that it can cost up to $1B to develop a new conventional car from conception to final assembly.  If you have a limited run in the order of hundreds, such as the FCX Clarity or the fuel cell Equinox, the cost per vehicle is very high.  I have to imagine that Tesla has not yet turned a profit.  But if you can manufacture millions, that cost goes down significantly.  At a GM presentation, we were shown a picture of their Gen 5 fuel cell powertrain, which is, according to GM, ready for commercialization (the Equinox is using Gen 4).  They specifically stated that this powertrain is anticipated to be cost competitive with a conventional V6 powertrain, assuming they were able to build approximately 1M units.  I was pretty suprised by this forcast, because I (like most people following this field), thought additional research was needed to bring the cost down.  When I questioned it, I was advised that it is no longer a factor of R&D, but one of engineering and manufacturing efficiencies associated with high volumes of production that will bring the cost down.

        As Joe H pointed out, hydrogen and batteries have great synergy.  Batteries are great at providing lots of power on demand (think Tesla Roadster).  Fuel cells are great at providing a nice steady stream of electricity to keep those batteries charged, as well as providing the convenience of 3 minute fills.  Three minutes is, in my opinion, the maximum amount of time a consumer would want to spend waiting for a car to fill up/be recharged.  From personal experience, one of the H2 refueling stations takes about 10 minutes to fill, and it is a long time.
  • Steve Pluvia 07/1/09 10:33 PM

    Firstoff, everyone needs to stop prattling about “1 million production” would bring affordable fuel cell power trains.  Who told you that?  GM?  You mean the same guys that have had their ass handed to them in auto manufacturing for the last 35 years?  How many of you geniuses have actually bought a GM product? I never have in 50 years.  SECOND.  Lets run over to fairy land and pretend fuel cell tech miraculously overcame the cost problem.  How about that reliability problem?  Ooopsidaisy! How about the wholesale lack of fuel infrastructure?  Ok since we’re in dreamworld, lets pretend we somehow got the fuel infrastructure—now how about that fuel price?  Compared to electricity?  $3.00 vs 23 cents per gallon for electricity… Really, how can people be so stupid to believe fuel cell tech has a snowball chance in hell of ever competing as a mainstream transportation powertrain?

     Reply
  • Michael 08/29/09 4:27 AM

    Steve Pluvia, or whoever you really are, you are nothing but a cyber bully.  If you really want to know, the Equinox prototype is a $250k vehicle with the 4th generation GM fuel cell.  That is not a billion.  That is not a million.
    That is what it costs to hand build the Chevy Sequel in a limited production run.

    As far as the fuel verses electricity comment, there isn’t a battery that is small enough and energy dense enough to make running a car on stored electricity practical.  If you only need to go 100 miles a day round trip and you only plug in at night, you never take long trips, you never take side trips, and you have very deep pockets, battery electric vehicles are an option for you.

    MOST PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE DEEP ENOUGH POCKETS TO BUY 16KWH BATTERIES ONCE LET ALONE EVERY THREE TO TEN YEARS.  Yes, I said three instead of ten first because that is probably how long the battery in the Chevy Volt will work.

    If fuel cell cars were produced today, they would cost $50k a piece.  This is a car that uses fuel that could be sold at a price that is comparable to gasoline and diesel.  Fuel cell cars in 2015 will cost less than $30k a piece or exactly $30k a piece.

    Steam reformation of natural gas is very efficient and it is a short term solution to get hydrogen.  Long term, hydrogenase in blue green algae can produce hydrogen and other non fossil fuel reformation methods of
    getting hydrogen also exist.  There is enough wind energy when electricity is not needed to produce all
    the hydrogen that 137 million fuel cell cars will need to provide practical transportation.

    I hate fuel, so battery electric vehicles are the only option for the future of transportation is a weak argument.
    Hydrogen will not be provided by OPEC, organization of petroleum exporting countries, nor will hydrogen
    come from an organization of hydrogen exporting countries.  The most practical source for hydrogen is a local
    source, not a remote one across one of the planet’s vast oceans.  In fact, the ocean is a place to retrieve hydrogen
    from.  Few people want salt water and there is a LOT of it.  Most people in the world are near an ocean.

    If you can synthesize fuel, there are 2 good options.  Make the cleanest burning fuel you can or make your fuel using the very pollution that it will produce so that burning it doesn’t make things worse.  Fossil fuels aren’t made from the pollution they produce when burned.  However, there is less pollution if you steam reform natural gas and burn the hydrogen than there will be if you burn gasoline made from OIL.  If you sequester the CO2 when you steam reform natural gas and use it somehow, there is no pollution.

    Methanol is pushed and direct alcohol fuel cells are pushed and certainly these fuels are easier to handle, but think about pollution.  Ethanol pollutes.  Gasoline pollutes, Diesel pollutes, Bio diesel pollutes, hydrogen when used in a fuel cell only produces water which is potable by the way.

    If you have a choice of what to burn, burn hydrogen for goodness sake.  Yes hydrogen storage technology is improving.  Hydrnol is a possible solution to the how to carry hydrogen on a car problem.  High pressure
    hydrogen tanks that can take being hit by a car or a bullet are a solution.  And by the way, fuel cell cars
    outfitted with high pressure hydrogen tanks will cost $30k or less in 2015.  I will be very surprised if a liquid
    hydrogen rich fuel that is recyclable and non polluting isn’t adopted in the future.  I will be very surprised if
    a cheap and safe way to store hydrogen doesn’t get adopted very soon.  Choose a technology that makes sense
    and start building the infrastructure to support refueling hydrogen fuel cell cars now.

     Reply

Related Content

Most Popular

    Articles

  1. Will Solar Crash the Smart Grid?

    November 2, 2009

  2. LDK Solar Shares Dive as Q-Cells Demands Money Back

    November 2, 2009

  3. 2,300 People on Waiting List for Think City and 4,000 at Aptera

    November 2, 2009

  4. DOE’s $3.4B Smart Grid Grant Program: The Winners

    October 27, 2009

    Discussions

  1. Electric Cars: Bad for Your Health?

    October 20, 2009 12 Comments

  2. The Home Energy Challenge, Pt. 2

    October 23, 2009 11 Comments

  3. Rooftop Solar, Batteries Included

    October 20, 2009 9 Comments

  4. 72 Different Kinds of Solar Cells?

    October 23, 2009 7 Comments

Copyright © 2009 Greentech Media, Inc. All rights reserved.

.