For those of you who might not know, Project Driveway is the name GM is giving to a modestly-large scale hydrogen fuel cell vehicle test it is planning.
For the event, GM will be giving out 100 hydrogen-powered Chevy Equinoxes to selected and fortunate parties in the U.S. located in L.A., N.Y.C., and Wash D.C. You can actually sign up as a volunteer on GM’s website. The volunteers will keep the cars for up to 2 years, and the test will be the largest fuel-cell test in history.
The vehicles are modifed Equinoxes using GMs 4th generation fuel cells running compressed gaseous hydrogen. A similar car was recently demonstrated to drive uninterrupted for 300 miles in New York State. The reason the roll-out is being limited to these three big cities is, obviously, there must be a hydrogen fueling station nearby.
The project has been promoted with a launch date this fall. By my calculations, fall begins in 2 days.
Well, the update is, as per ABC news, the cars will not be rolled out to the public until January. However, in an effort to keep their word, GM will roll out the media fleet this fall.
In some communications I’ve had with GM people, there has been some difficulty in establishing the fueling stations at least near where I am, in New York City. This delay in being able to set up the infrastructure is likely the delay for the roll-out, and not the vehicles themselves.
Certainly, people here have shown passionate disinterest in hydrogen power for reasons such as the need for energy to produce the hydrogen in the first place, and the lack of widespread infrastructure. Storing energy in a lithium-ion battery seems to make more sense. Some people in GM do agree with these concerns too, but point out that certain locations such as Iceland where there is tremendous geothermal reserves, storing energy as hydrogen may make sense.
GM is thinking globally about hydrogen too, and the element fits in to the developing “portfolio” of energy diversified vehicles.
[UPDATE: As per GM spokesman Rob Peterson: "Program timing for Project Driveway has not changed. The media launch of the vehicles will take place in October, with several test drives at select locations available soon after. Overnight drives will begin in January as scheduled."]
Thanks for helping us set the facts straight Mr. Peterson.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 at 10:44 am and is filed under Fuel, Hydrogen, Public Opinion, Release Date. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Sep 19th, 2007 (11:36 am)You have to live in the more affluent areas to qualify(i.e.the hills). More discrimination against the average joes.
Sep 19th, 2007 (11:55 am)Here we go again!! GM always wants to spread themselves thin on other projects instaed of concentrating on getting the VOLT into production. Why are they worrying about infastructure when when the VOLT already has the infrastructure in place to re-charge the batteries? I would think that the VOLT would be their first and foremost priority and concentrate ALL my efforts to get this auto to market and in the hands of the consumer.
Sep 19th, 2007 (12:34 pm)I strongly agree with TOM. Although there is some good reasoning for not putting all of your eggs in one basket (ie. Batteries), hydrogen just doesn’t make any sense in this country. The infrastructure just isn’t there. Not even close. I say, forget the hydrogen and concentrate on the Volt. When it comes to this site, I am a laymen. I know nothing about electronics, fuel, etc. I’m a computer programmer and not an engineer. But I know what I want. A Volt that works very well and one that I can plug into the wall socket.
Sep 19th, 2007 (1:03 pm)Thank you Tim !
I might add, Get this Volt to market before the rice burners do !!You can bet your sweet bippy that they are not setting on their hands when comes to GM beating them to the punch.
Sep 19th, 2007 (1:07 pm)What’s Big Oil supposed to sell you if you don’t buy 87 or H ?
Sep 19th, 2007 (1:13 pm)Let me remind you that GM is a global company. I agree that hydrogen doesn’t make much sense for the U.S. But it may make sense in developing countries like China and India where there is not much of an infrastructure. If they are going to build one, they may choose to base it on hydrogen. If they do, that would be a great market for GM to tap into with hydrogen fuel cells.
Sep 19th, 2007 (1:32 pm)Marty McFly, I think that is the point. For me, I would not shed one tear to see the oil companies go away. I am of Arab ancestry. I hate the middle east and all the evil they stand for. I would love to see us never buy oil from them again.
Sep 19th, 2007 (1:50 pm)I’m one of thos who believe hydrogen has its place. Plug-in electric vehicles are currently only practical for very lightweight designs. Cars and light trucks are not the most major consumers of petroleum in this country.
Burning petroleum (and ethanol) as a backup generator even has its disadvantages. Putting CO2 aside, it produces toxic emissions in areas where people live, in addition to noise pollution. Hydrogen does not. I would rather a large truck use a hydrogen fuel cell than a diesel or biodiesel engine billowing out black smoke as we walk down the street.
Hydrogen can be produced in areas where populations don’t exist, unlike electric power plants. Most wind resources in the US are located offshore or in unpopulated areas. Same goes with cheap, otherwise useless real estate in sunny areas of Arizona, Nevada, etc, but nobody lives there. No grid exists to take those electric resources to the populations, and even if it did it would be prohibitively expensive with large transmission line losses. Producing hydrogen with those abundant resources makes sense.
Hydrogen “infrastructure” is not yet in place, on the other hand it is. If there’s a demand for it, existing gas stations could relatively easily retrofit to phase new pumps in. Not everybody has electric outlets for each of their cars, either. There’s an infrastructure limitation also.
Sep 19th, 2007 (2:11 pm)The way I see it, H is nothing more than an expensive substitute for oil (to continue to keep America hooked).
Nobody wants it but Bush, BP and Arnold…
My .02
Sep 19th, 2007 (2:18 pm)Comment on about Big Oil. My belief is that it is Big Oil that is pushing for Hydrogen Fuel Cells. Big Oil knows that oil will not last forever and have to look for other source of revenue. Utility company have control over electricity and big oil figures hydrogen could replace their current production and distribution of hydrogen.
In addition it may not be all bad news. If they can come up with some big breakthroughs then maybe there would be place for hydrogen . Maybe smaller vehicle would use batteries and then the larger trucks and etc use fuel cells.
Sep 19th, 2007 (2:22 pm)Ops. Correction on my previous statement.
“Utility companies have control over electricity and big oil figures hydrogen could replace their current production and distribution of oil based fuel (not hydrogen).”
Sep 19th, 2007 (2:30 pm)SteveF:
care to provide any proof as to why you think big oil is pushing for hydrogen? i am not trying to defend “big oil” (whatever that is), i just hate when people throw around these types of conspiracy theories without any evidence.
for the record, i have not done research myself, so you might be right for all i know. i have seen commercials from oil companies touting ethanol, but not hydrogen.
Sep 19th, 2007 (2:32 pm)BP has invested a lot in solar as well. I don’t work BP, by the way, and I’m not Arnold. I’m actually Bush posting from the oval office, so you got me.
Sep 19th, 2007 (2:42 pm)Hydrogen would be more practical when we get more wind, solar and nuclear power generation. Use surpluses in power to electrolyze water to get hydrogen.
I look forward to the day when I can affordably install high efficiency solar panels on my roof, and generate my own electricity, then maybe use surplus to electrolyze water to generate my own hydrogen. THEN a fuel cell vehicle might be practical to me.
Sep 19th, 2007 (3:33 pm)Hydrogen is not readily available in a pure form. (obvious to some, but not to others)
The two popular ways to get Hydrogen…
1. Electrolysis
=== Positives ===
– Clean (uses two ingredients, electricity and water, you could do this at home)
– Great for places like Iceland that have TONS of clean sources to generate electricity (hint: GeoThermal)
=== Drawbacks ===
– Energy intensive (uses FAR more electricity than you eventually get out of the fuel cell, that’s right… fuel cells are simply used to produce electricity…most people don’t know this either)
– Not great for places that get electricity from dirty sources…like the US and China
2. Natural Gas
=== Positives ===
– Cheap! Unless a pipeline is readily available a lot of oil wells just flare off methane (natural gas) as waste. Plus there’s a ton of this stuff waiting to be tapped once it becomes cost effective for oil companies (something that millions of fuel cell cars would help)
– Easy! Leeching H from Methane is a peice of cake and not very energy intensive
=== Drawbacks ===
– DIRTY! What is methane? It’s four H atoms and a fat ugly carbon atom. You take the H’s fromt the C and the C finds two friendly (Breathable) O’s to join up with and then they go and hang out at the Greenhouse Gas Party
– Non renewable (There IS a limited amount of this stuff)
The largest drawback to Natural gas is that it’s too easy (No one is kidding themselves about using electrolysis except when the media is around, Hydrogen from natural gas? Oil companies win and Auto companies look green for using fuel cells… Win…Win.. Win… except for tropical tree frogs… um… they lose.
Sep 19th, 2007 (3:54 pm)I agree with Matt986. Once the Volt comes out, I’m getting Solar on my roof.
Thanks to Enron and OPEC the savings on electric bills and gasoline alone will finance the car and solar system.
Sep 19th, 2007 (4:50 pm)Brian,
Here’s a little Hydrogen fix for you:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/presidents_initiative.html
And here’s the partnership list (on page 3):
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/fc_fuel_partnership_plan.pdf
Foshizzle…
Sep 19th, 2007 (5:10 pm)I think that this and other hydrogen fuel cell programs are good for adding to a near-future portfolio of energy-diversity. That being said, I don’t think that the efforts for bringing the world a “hydrogen economy” are in any way genuine. Electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen is a good way for managing an energy surplus and providing fuel for the future. But then, so are biofuels, as well as gasoline, petrodiesel, and CNG. Also, energy surpluses can be managed (when they occur) by reducing output! Shocker, I know. Also, there is G2V technology (also known as “smartcharging”) which can be dramatically efficient. Also, V2G technology (or a trasportation-linked smart grid) can provide another avenue to effectively manage surplus power.
I do support this technology, though, and it will be ideal in certain, more or less isolated, energy grids (Iceland, Hawaii, etc.) that have a power surplus in their domestic supply and high energy import costs. But I don’t think that it should be done outside of the context of a range-extending EV, or that it should be done in a continental grid, in the US, China, or elsewhere. Traditional fuels, including petroleum, natural gas, and biofuels, along with electricity (E-flex style) should be used with smart G2V and V2G designs integrated into the grid in those cases. Good for some places, but not for most of America. In my opinion.
Sep 19th, 2007 (5:24 pm)Correct me if I am wrong, but hydrogen vehicles are electric vehicles. They use hydrogen to produce electricity. Therefore, the purpose of hydrogen is to “store” electricity much like the purpose of batteries is to store electricity. The major benefit I see to hydrogen is the ability to quickly add it to your car, unlike most tested systems of plugging in which can take hours. Now, this makes great sense because we could fill up like normal and be on our way.
However…we are missing a very important point. Demand drives research and development. We have already seen great advancements in battery technology in the last 10 years with demand coming from computers and cell phones mostly. Imagine the demand when vehicles use them and some of the largest companies in the world put pressure onto and money into battery companies. Battery technology will improve exponentially. Nearly every home and business has electricity. It is cheap and everywhere. Hydrogen stations are as rare as business with no electricity. I mean come on, we can’t even get ethanol in every city and the automakers have been pushing that for years. Do you honesty think million dollar hydrogen stations are going to open up? By the time hydrogen is ready, it will be pointless because battery technology will have surpassed the benefits associated with hydrogen in every way.
Sep 19th, 2007 (5:34 pm)I believe most Hydrogen vehicles utilize an internal combustion engine – and someone will need to provide that Hydrogen…
“KEEP AMERICA HOOKED” !
Sep 19th, 2007 (6:48 pm)Hydrogen would bring more suppliers, not just the oil companies. Electric companies could produce it with nuclear power plants. Google “NGNP Demonstration Project” and “high efficiency hydrogen plant”.
Developing countries particularly could benefit, where large scale generation is not deployable, i.e., weak transmission areas & limited generation requirements.
Full deployment will be a long way off, but that’s not an excuse to stop marching forward. Batteries simply can’t supply the required energy density for anything other than light cars and trucks in the foreseeable future. If all cars and light trucks were completely eliminated from the US, that would only reduce our carbon footprint by about 20%. Using hydrogen instead of petroleum for heavy trucks, buses and vehicles, even in a hybrid-electric context, would give us tremendous benefits of diversity of supply, even if it isn’t the most efficient from a net BTU standpoint. As I mentioned earlier, hydrogen generation lets us extract and store energy where major electric grids simply don’t exist. Keep an open mind and let the market and economics play it out on its own merits.
Sep 19th, 2007 (7:53 pm)I live in the greater LA area, and don’t meet the “geographical requirement”, according to GM. So this test must be limited to people who live and commute within just a few miles of the refueling station.
Sep 19th, 2007 (8:22 pm)For some reason, many people get all philosophical when they think about at fuel cells. Reality seems to go out the window.
Here are the realities:
Running a car on hydrogen requires about 3 times more electricity than running a car on batteries.
Making hydrogen from water requires huge amounts of clean water, which is already becoming a precious resource.
Solar, Wind, Hydro, Geothermal, Ocean Waves, Biomass, and Nuclear power all produce energy as electricity. Using this electricity to power fuel cell cars is only 25% efficient. Using this electricity in plug-in electric cars is 70% efficient.
If clean energy sources aren’t enough to supply all of our needs, then the carbon footprint of a fuel cell car will be 3 times worse than an electric car.
With the current means of producing electricity, the carbon footprint of a fuel cell car is much worse than current gas engine cars.
The cheapest way to make hydrogen is from natural gas. What do you think they’ll use in the end?
Big Oil is pushing the hardest for fuel cells.
These are only some of the reasons they call them FOOL SELLS.
References:
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
http://www.teslamotors.com/display_data/twentyfirstcenturycar.pdf
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
Sep 19th, 2007 (8:55 pm)Again, you can’t feasibly power large vehicles (which are the most consuming) with batteries alone. It simply isn’t feasible. They aren’t equal alternatives. Even in small vehicles like the Volt, they are not using batteries alone. The backup is gasoline. It could also be hydrogen.
On the issue of water, studies show we would not need that much compared to domestic water use. And regardless, the refinery industry uses nearly as much water a year to produce gasoline.
Ultimately it will come down to cost. I say cost, because a carbon cap and trade system is inevitable in the next 5-10 years. It will live or die on its own merits. Strident evangelism has little effect in the long run. People who lose weight on the Atkins diet get excited about it and cultish in their shunning of carbs. Eventually, they rejoin the real world for a variety of practical reasons.
Sep 19th, 2007 (9:49 pm)[quote comment="8099"]Again, you can’t feasibly power large vehicles (which are the most consuming) with batteries alone. It simply isn’t feasible. [/quote]
Can’t?
http://www.getransportation.com/na/en/docs/806574_050504_Hybrid-locomotive_OP.pdf
Looks like batteries work pretty well for this fairly LARGE hybrid. Given the rate of progress with battery technology you may want to be more cautious when using the ‘C’ word.
Sep 19th, 2007 (10:35 pm)EVan:
He said you can’t FEASIBLY power a large vehicle with batteries ALONE. I think what he meant was that people are arguing that you can just use batteries in a pure EV sense instead of hydrogen. This is different than a hybrid, because there is no gasoline or diesel in a pure EV.
The amount of batteries you would need to power a large vehicle for 300 miles would probably weigh and cost more than the vehicle itself.
Sep 19th, 2007 (11:23 pm)OhmExcited – We don’t need 100% Electric vehicles right now. The idea is to eliminate the majority of our gasoline use ASAP. If all cars in the U.S. were gas/electric PHEVs with a 40 mile electric range, then around 80% of our gasoline use would convert to electricity. Oil imports would be unnecessary. Carbon emissions would go way down. And this is all with the infrastructure we have right now.
I see no reason you can’t power the first 40 miles of a large vehicle (e.g. SUV) on A123 batteries. The weight of the battery is offset by other weight savings (no transmission, small ICE, etc). Powerful electric motors are relatively small and light. The only issue I see is battery cost, and that will come down with time.
As time goes on, better and cheaper electric storage devices will be discovered that increase range significantly, and the remaining 20% gasoline usage will dwindle away.
By contrast, fuel cells don’t have this kind of future. No matter how much technical innovation goes into fuel cells, the conversion of hydrogen has built-in inefficiencies. These inefficiencies will make them costly to use. Hydrogen can never compete with its own fuel source.
So at best, I see fuel cells as a potential stop-gap measure until better electric storage devices are discovered. In addition, the infrastructure will take a long time to roll out. By the time is does, it will probably be unnecessary. We’ll likely need an infrastructure of electrical filling stations by then.
The future belongs to electricity. If we refocused all our fuel cell research & development into new electric storage devices, we would get there faster.
Sep 19th, 2007 (11:30 pm)EVan, not trying to be obtuse, but I’m not sure I see your argument. That locomotive is not powered from the grid (though, light rails actually are, but not by plug-in batteries).
There is nothing wrong with a hybrid design. I’m a big fan of electric motors. The only difference is that you seem to be a bigger fan of petroleum specifically for the driving force than I am.
The Chevy Volt was largely the product of GM’s hydrogen research. An electrically driven vehicle. The design is generalized such that any power plant can exist to charge the batteries. Gasoline in the US for now, diesel in Europe, ethanol in Brazil. Eventually, their intent is to shift over to hydrogen fuel cells. I don’t know if you noticed, but oil is $82/barrel right now.
Sep 20th, 2007 (12:31 am)As to the claim that “Again, you can’t feasibly power large vehicles (which are the most consuming) with batteries alone.” …
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/tnt_launches_ne.html
for a few trucks. Meanwhile ABAT is providing the batteries for 3000 garbage trucks and for buses to be showcased during the 2008 Olympics. (Buses have an interesting option – they can pick up brief charges at stops if that route is so designed.)Their PLI battery “weighs approximately 500 pounds, and is designed for commuter vehicles. It permits a top speed of 120 mph, and a traveling distance of 240 miles per charge. The battery discharges 5% of its energy per hour, when not in use, so daily recharging is necessary. The battery can be recharged in 3 to 4 hours.” The volume sale went for $3333 per battery.
Large vehicles are farther along to being powered by batteries along than they are by fuel cells. A123 batteries are not the right product for that application, they lean towards power density more than energy density and large vehicles need the opposite pattern. But ABATs and ALTIs can fit the bill.
I would not say that hydrogen has no place (although I am not sure what its place will be), but citing false limitations of electric possibilities is a poor argument in favor of fuel cells.
Sep 20th, 2007 (3:57 am)Fuel cell cars still cost how much more than a phev or ev? That alone will keep fuel cell vehicles out of regular people’s hands.
Where to get the hydrogen?
That alone will keep regualar people’s hands for a long long time. And since it will keep the cars out of our hands then it will also keep the hydrogen infrastructure from being built as soon, if ever.
Technology doesn’t need to advance one iota from what the volt has to make serial plugins available to everyone who drives.
So right now there is NOTHING to keep serial plugin’s from completely taking over the auto industry.
Hydrogen has many hurdles to overcome before they are even practicle.
Battery or better yet ultracapacitor technology will not stand still. Any advances beyond what is demanded of the volt will just speed conversion of cars from primarily gas powered to primarily battery powered.
“Nick Says:
I agree with Matt986. Once the Volt comes out, I’m getting Solar on my roof.”
Why wait for the volt to put in solar. You will get 100% utilization if you power some of your home electric use from solar! If you use the solar for the car only then you might not utilize all the power and to save the energy for charging after you get home from work means you would need to invest in energy storage solutions with are not needed if the power goes straight into the house.
Sep 20th, 2007 (8:43 am)Another good source for electric power ia a wind turbine. The unit I am looking at is by PackWind and is called the “SeaHawk”. It is a vertical axis wind turbine and has high efficiency ratings. It is a very aesthically pleasing and can blend into nearly any urban landscape. It is ideal for residential applications. While I am away at work it can be used for the household electricity needs. I know this is not the total answer, but it works for me and should charge the VOLT at night.
Sep 20th, 2007 (10:29 am)In comment #8, OhmExcited states, “Cars and light trucks are not the most major consumers of petroleum in this country.” This is wrong.
Based on 2003 data, cars and light trucks consume 63% of the oil consumed for transportation or about 44% of all the oil annually consumed in the US. The complete break-down of oil use in the transport sector is given below.
“Approximately 70% of oil in the United States is used for transportation. The demand for oil in transportation mainly goes toward the internal combustion engines of highway
vehicles. Sixty-three percent of the oil consumed is used in light vehicles (37% in cars
and 26% in light trucks such as vans, pickups, and SUVs), 5% to mid-size trucks, and
14% to heavy trucks. Outside of highway vehicles, about 1% is used to drive buses and
all public transit, 9% toward aircraft, 6% to ships and boats, and 2% to railcars.
The remaining 30% of oil that is not used for transportation is divided into three places:
6% is used in building (of which 2/3 is residential), 8% is for industrial fuel, and 17% is used as industrial feed stocks such as asphalt and petrochemicals.”
Ref. pp. 25-26 of http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/pubs/Arlington%20Institute%20report.pdf
Sep 20th, 2007 (11:46 am)AES, there are hydrogen fueling stations in Torrance, LAX, and a list of other places only minutes away from LA but I guess if you don\’t live in Downtown LA or your zip code isn\’t 90210 they don\’t want you for the program. Well, those are my thoughts anyway…
Sep 20th, 2007 (12:02 pm)Before I say anything else I’ll repeat that I am a big supporter of EVs.
Having said that you must be careful when making blanket statements about the efficiencies of FCVs vs. EVs. (or you’ll get sideswiped by someone who knows what they’re talking about)
FCVs can in fact be just as efficient (well-to-wheels) as an EV. It all depends on how you make your hydrogen. Most people make the mistake of comparing EV efficiency to the efficiency of an FCV running on room temperature electrolysis of water.
Here is a link to some charts on efficiency and GHG emissions.
http://www.veva.bc.ca/wtw/index.htm
The main strikes against FCVs is cost, platinum use and infrastructure.
Go VOLT!
Sep 20th, 2007 (3:35 pm)Neil, someone already mentioned above that yes, there is a more energy efficient way to generate hydrogen. Ie. not from water, but from CH4, ie. natural gas…
But that solves nothing… natural gas is a limited fossil fuel. Free the hydrogen and you are left with CO2 (carbon dioxide, greenhouse gas). And you are still dependent on the same suppliers (big oil/gas), ie. foreign energy dependence, and prices rocketing ever skyward.
And regardless of whether you free the hydrogen from water, natural gas, or something else, the hydrogen needs to be compressed, and then transported, which also both require energy.
And compressing hydrogen is essentially freezing it… unless you use more energy to keep it frozen, the hydrogen will expand and you’ll lose some each day as it vents (via pressure release valve).
Sep 20th, 2007 (7:41 pm)Jeff: Have you taken a look at the charts? Those numbers are for complete well-to-wheels, compression and transportation are factored in. You will also note that the FCV columns include multiple hydrogen sources including renewables that are carbon neutral.
Personally, I vote for EVs over FCVs (because of all of the other problems with FCVs and hydrogen). I just don’t want someone to get in a debate with a hydrogen advocate (there are some around) and get clobbered for making rash, incorrect statements about efficiency. I’ve seen it happen and it makes the EV advocate look like a fool.
Sep 20th, 2007 (9:57 pm)It has been known for some time that hydrogen is a dead end. I hope that GM is milking some of the Energy Dept. hydrogen development money for the battery version of the Volt. Otherwise they are dumping money and even more important, precious development resources, down a rat hole.
When the first oil shortage shocks hits, which will be soon, they will not be able to produce enough E-Flex vehicles for at least a decade. Every day required to get to market is precious.
The real limiting factor on getting these vehicles produced in volume will be 10 year warranty concerns. If you were GM, would you want to warranty billions of dollars worth of batteries for 10 years when you have never seen one aged that long? This is an ideal place for government participation in guaranteeing part of the warranty costs in order to supplant oil use earlier.
With regard to hydrogen made from natural gas, Cummins Diesel has a conversion kit which allows LNG to be used as in conventional diesel truck engines. Why bother converting it to hydrogen? Natural gas may very well become a bridge fuel when the first oil shocks hit.
Sep 20th, 2007 (9:59 pm)Hi Neil; I looked again at the web page/charts you pointed to… but going through it it confirms that battery electric vehicles (BEV) are, well-to-wheel, more energy efficient than a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (HFCV).
What can be mis-leading on those charts is it compares HFCV with the hydrogen generated from clean/green (renewable) electricity sources, to BEV’s using electricity from the current US power grid (52% coal, 2% oil, etc). That’s not comparing apple to apples and is not realistic (if you had that clean power it still makes more sense to plug it into the grid).
Note that the web page you point to, right near the top, points to the PDF http://www.veva.bc.ca/wtw/EAVES_BEV_VS_FCV%20040703.pdf …. which right in the synopsis at the top says well-to-wheel BEV’s beat HFCV’s… and the conclusion at the bottom of the paper even says… “The results show that in a future economy based on renewable energy, the FCV requires
production of between 2.4 and 2.6 times more energy than the BEV.”
Maybe I missed something?
Sep 20th, 2007 (10:21 pm)Neil; I should have been clearer… the comparison between clean power vs. existing grid mix actually has nothing to do with well-to-wheel efficiency, that only affects emissions of CO2 and VOX’s.
Bob; regarding natural gas being a bridge fuel as oil prices rocket… I don’t know where you live, but up here in the Northeast, the price of oil, natural gas, and propane seem to go in lock step proportionately in the same direction. NG/propane would only be cheaper if the price of gasoline itself goes up independent of oil prices (ie. due to refinery problems or lack of refining capacity).
OhmExcited (#28); I believe you are incorrect in your statement that “The Chevy Volt was largely the product of GM’s hydrogen research”. The Volt is a continuation of the work GM had already done for the EV1 in the 1990’s in order to meet the then California’s ZEV (Zero-Emission Vehicle) mandate. Adding an onboard range extender is not rocket science. Too bad none of the EV makers then added an onboard generator then as we may all be driving EV’s now.
Sep 21st, 2007 (3:48 am)Jeff: If you just do room temperature hydrolysis of water, yes the EV wins hands down. High temperature hydrolysis brings the well-to-wheels for the FCV to EV level. An FCV running on hydrogen from the gasification of biomass (renewable) or NG is also competitive.
Sep 21st, 2007 (3:52 am)The only place (other than certain niche applications) I see fuel cells being useful would be as range extenders for a PHEV. The fuel cell could be much smaller and the PEM on a fuel cell run at stable rates will last much longer. That of course is provided they can get the stack price and carbon fiber H tank down to something bearable.
Sep 21st, 2007 (12:55 pm)Neil; I googled for high temperature hydrolysis and found nothing useful. Please provide more info or a pointer to something useful, thanks.
High temp implies the water is being heated… meaning more energy in that you aren’t getting out (of the hydrogen produced). Maybe the hydrolysis of the high temp water will require less electricity at this stage… but that savings there is probably more than negatively offset by the energy to heat the water.
Regrading NG (natural gas) as the source of hydrogen, as I had previously mentioned is indeed more efficient than from water (CH4 vs H2O), but the byproduct is CO2, and because of the energy required to compress and transport, and the inefficiency of the fuel cell compared to a Li-ion battery, well-to-wheel it’s less efficient than a BEV.
Regarding hydrogen from gasification of biomass… like ethanol production, don’t forget to add in the costs of producing the biomass (energy to plant, fertilize, water, harvest). It does look a little more efficient than ethanol production as you don’t need to distill it, but looks like heat and steam is needed in the gasification process. And like all hydrogen sources, add in compressing and transporting, and FC inefficiency.
In any case, bottom line is that there’s a reason why big oil & gas and the Bush admin (made up of individuals from oil and gas) is so behind a “hydrogen economy”. Their products will still be the primary (directly and indirectly) source of hydrogen, and they keep you tied to an infrastructure of filling stations… that means not only that CO2 is still a problem, but we are still dependent on non-renewable fossil fuels from outside the US as we are today.
Sep 22nd, 2007 (8:16 pm)Jeff M. The issue with natural gas vs gasoline is as follows:
Cost per million BTU’s
gasoline — $24
natural gas — %8
Carbon per million BTU’s
gasoline — 20.3 Kg
natural gas — 14.5 Kg
Also according to The Oil Drum and APSO oil will outstrip supply within 5 years while natural gas should last about 15 years.
Seems like a much preferable bridge fuel to Hydrogen. Instead of stripping the hydrogen out of the natural gas, just burn the whole thing and put all of its energy to use.
Oct 17th, 2007 (11:58 am)[...] We have been hearing for a while about GM’s project driveway (see post). This refers to their large-scale experiment in which 100 people will get to use Fuel Cell Equinoxes for several months of real world driving. [...]
Mar 14th, 2009 (2:30 pm)You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.
Sep 21st, 2009 (6:51 pm)Hi,
I tried to add image but I don’t know how to do this
Can anyone be kind to tell me how?
thanks a lot