Comments on: Project Driveway Update http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/ Real-time news, information, and discussion about the Chevrolet Volt. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:55:54 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: madhuts http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-148035 madhuts Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:51:10 +0000 http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-148035 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 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

]]> By: Ana Russo http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-100545 Ana Russo Sat, 14 Mar 2009 19:30:14 +0000 http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-100545 You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog. You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.

]]> By: GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site » The Garage Doors Have Opened on Project Driveway http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-11197 GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site » The Garage Doors Have Opened on Project Driveway Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:58:34 +0000 http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-11197 [...] 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. [...] [...] 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. [...]

]]> By: Bob Goldschmidt http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8448 Bob Goldschmidt Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:16:06 +0000 http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8448 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. 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.

]]> By: Jeff M http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8325 Jeff M Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:55:33 +0000 http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8325 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. 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.

]]> By: Neil http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8259 Neil Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:52:13 +0000 http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8259 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. 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.

]]> By: Neil http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8258 Neil Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:48:24 +0000 http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8258 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. 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.

]]> By: Jeff M http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8223 Jeff M Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:21:58 +0000 http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8223 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. 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.

]]> By: Jeff M http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8217 Jeff M Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:59:50 +0000 http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8217 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? 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?

]]> By: Bob Goldschmidt http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8215 Bob Goldschmidt Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:57:42 +0000 http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/19/project-driveway-update/#comment-8215 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. 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.

]]>