Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Fuel Cell Chevy Volt for Production in 2011

November 7th, 2007 | Posted in: Fuel, Hydrogen, Release Date

USA today recently published a piece including an interview with Larry Burns, GM’s VP of R&D. Burns described GM’s push to develop fuel cell cars as a competitive race with other auto manufacturers, who he’s paranoid are up to the same thing.

He is further quoted as saying that GM could deliver production fuel cell cars as early as 2011, and most likely to be in the form of the fuel cell Chevy Volt, the concept of which was first unveiled in Shanghai (see prior post)
It is expected that fuel cell Volts could hit dealerships a year after the ICE-version arrives in 2010. The cars would number only in the hundreds and obviously be limited to locations where hydrogen fueling centers are available (there are 16 in LA and 1 in NYC metro right now).

Also it is reported that these hydrogen Volts would have to be leased as their cost will be quite high.

This information seems consistent with recent discussions I’ve had with Nick Zielinksi and other GM fuel cell experts, and the fact that Nick was made the chief engineer of the hydrogen Volt, with a new separate executive in charge of the ICE Volt; Andrew Farah. This shift indicated production-intent for both vehicles (see prior post).

Source (USA Today)

Posted by: Lyle

50 Responses to “Fuel Cell Chevy Volt for Production in 2011”

Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 3:27 am

Thanks Lyle. I just wonder now how we (the general public) could influence who to increase the number and the diversity of hydrogen distribution centers in the USA as well in Western Europe. I just saw a H2BMW 7 in the center of Brussels the other day (one of 2 H2 BMW cars used by the European Commission) and I was very dispointed to learn that the only H2 refueling stations it uses has been built on purpose, are temporary. In terms of global public acceptance, this is not a big step forward.

(Quote)
Rashiid Amul Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 7:51 am

Two things:
Hydrogen fuel cell: Waste of time here. Triple the range of the battery. That would be better. I wonder who would buy this very limited range car. You certainly couldn’t take it on a trip in the USA.

Lease only option: So they can take it away like they did with the EV-1.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 8:12 am

More proof that the H2 economy is just vapor.

(Quote)
Chris C Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 9:33 am

Seems to me the Volt and plug-in hybrids in general have a huge advantage. Nearly everyone who would buy one has electricity available. And if we can get the software to allow us to charge them automatically off hours when there’s surplus energy there’s really no extra load on our electrical system from generation through distribution.

Hydrogen on the other hand first needs to be manufactured (refined?), then distributed to as yet non existant facilities for us to buy it. And isn’t hydrogen just bottled electicity?

Fueling stations in general could dissappear if we can ‘fill’ our own cars at home. And this is just the beginning. With increased acceptance and improved batteries in perhaps a decade, charge times should drop as range increases. As it becomes more normal, perhaps high amperage outlets in the garage are an option or maybe that’s what the old ‘filling station’ will be doing.

Anyway, this seems to be a pretty exciting time to be alive!

Go Volt team!

(Quote)
Tom M Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 9:51 am

Has anyone done any research into insurance for these vehicles? I have contacted St. Farm but have not received any informationas as of now. It will be very interesting to see if the insurance industry is looking to the future, and what we can expect for premiums ?
GO VOLT > > > BUY AMERICA

(Quote)
Neutron Flux Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 11:13 am

Anyone watch “Who Killed the Electric Car” quite eye opening! If not I highly recommend it & may be available from public library or sold through SONY. Seems the the guy in charge of CARB, that killed the ZEV mandate in California got offered the job of running the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Project 6 months before the vote to kill ZEV & ergo the electric car. The outcome of the vote was apparently decided before the hearing. Hydrogen costs several times more energy to produce than just using electricity & batteries. To prove Hydrogen is dead it would be good to see the cost per mile of Hydrogen as a fuel, it is primarily made from natural gas so has a carbon footprint. The only thing Hydrogen was good for was the apparent justification to kill ZEV & the CARB decision. The concept sounds good water out the tailpipe but lack of distribution, higher costs, no ability to regulate cost of hydrogen like you can electricity = more money for any big business who can force this unripe tech on us. Until they can drop a cheap catalyst into water to make hydrogen gas it will never compete with electicity & batteries, even ICE is cheaper to opperate than fuel cells + hydrogen.

(Quote)
Dave B Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 11:29 am

Anyone check the business news today? Not good for GM. I look at the Volt as the make or break product for GM. The sooner the better.

(Quote)
Statik Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 11:41 am

That was a monster writedown for GM today, but largely a accounting exercise.

One would hope that off-loading all of their medical expense to the union and the ridiculously low US dollar (hence much cheaper labor) will enable GM to compete much easier than in the past.

Only time will tell if they got their ‘ducks in a row’ in time to save themselves.

As long as I get my Volt before they go under…I’m OK, hehe.

(Quote)
OhmExcited Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 11:41 am

“it is primarily made from natural gas so has a carbon footprint.”

As opposed to American electricity, which is made primarily from coal and has no carbon footprint?

(Quote)
Matt986 Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 11:46 am

I agree with the sentiment that hydrogen is a waste of time right now. It takes too much energy to produce it from water, and if it’s obtained from hydrocarbons, well, that leaves it’s undesireable leftovers (which I really don’t care about).

What WILL make hydrogen more feasible for our economy will be MORE NUKE PLANTS. Better, cheaper, more efficient SOLAR cells. More WIND generation.

When we have a HUGE surplus of available electricity, then we can use the extra to generate hydrogen on a scale that might be economically feasible.

Until then, something like a fuel cell Volt is an exercise in distraction. Worry about the batteries first, then getting it into MASS production with a gasoline range extender. Do what will work NOW.

(Quote)
OhmExcited Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 11:58 am

At least we will have a choice. E-flex is generalized enough that the range extender can be gasoline ICE for US, diesel for Europe, ethanol for Brazil, etc. Next generation is hydrogen. They aren’t making perfect enemy of the good, so are introducing fuel cells slowly over time.

Long term, hydrogen makes sense for a number of reasons, despite claim of armchair engineers in our favorite movie about electric cars:
- They are quiet (reduced noise pollution)
- They produce no smog or toxic emissions in population centers. Even ethanol can cause poor air quality and health concerns.
- Hydrogen can be made and transported where electricity can’t be feasibly transported (vast wind resources in North Dakota, Minnesota, off shore, etc. Vast thermal energy sources in Iceland. Vast solar resources with cheap real estate in deserted areas of US southwest.)
- Long distance and heavy vehicles simply can’t rely on batteries alone.
- Energy diversity — a hybrid gasoline vehicle while efficient is still like giving red wine to an alcoholic. Oil remains a strategic commodity, causing us many headaches and hidden costs.
- Hydrogen well-to-wheel is not as “inefficient” as some claim. It’s more like 1.3 to 1, rather than 4 to 1.

(Quote)
MC Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Any chance we have a plug-in fuel cell Volt which can use the power to split water to get your hyrdrogen? Sure it may be too costly power-wise, but it seems like a cool idea to pour in some water (including trapping that which remains from exhaust), plug it in, and you’re good to go…

(Quote)
Neil Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 12:09 pm

If you’re going to use a fuel cell, then using it with a battery makes a lot of sense. If run in a hybrid with a battery the fuel cell can run at a constant state. This would reduce the size of cell needed and allow it to run at a steady state which is much better for the life expectancy of the PEM.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 12:12 pm

H2 is an inefficient way to store electrons and fuel cells are an expensive, short lived and unreliable method of extracting those electrons. In fact, just using batteries and electric motors is 400% more efficient. However, batteries share many of the problems of fuel cells.

HOWEVER, Hydrogen Fuel Injection can be used to improve the combustion of other fuels giving more power & better mileage with fewer emissions. H2 electrolyzed onboard and injected into the range-extender intake may be a great way to maximize its efficiency.

Yes, Hydrogen injection systems like this one DO initially rob a couple horsepower from the engine, but the hydrogen increases the efficiency of the burn enough to recoup that horsepower, and then some. Since the burn is more efficient, less particulate make it into the atmosphere. This may be a relatively cheap for Diesels to meet the new pollution requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_injection

(Quote)
Neil Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 12:14 pm

MC: You could run a home electrolysis machine, but it would only help the environment if that is done with local renewables. The only economically reasonable way I know of to create hydrogen at the moment is high temperature electrolysis.

IMHO GM is doing the right thing in implementing fuel cells as a range extender for a plug-in rather than using it as the primary drive train power source.

(Quote)
law Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

I think the way things will play out in the end is that states with extra renewable energy in wind and solar like texas, south and north dakota, will export as much electricity as possible to neighboring states and than any extra will be converted to hydrogen and shipped to states with high population densities, little arable land or states with little renewable resources such as the south east. While ethanol will be exported from states with large amounts of arable land to these same areas. So hydrogen cell has its place in places like the north east and a highly populated california and the south east, while many of the central states will be producing hydrogen but using more electric vehicles and PHEV’s with Eflex rather than hydrogen cells.

(Quote)
Andy Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 12:31 pm

[quote comment="13643"]IMHO GM is doing the right thing in implementing fuel cells as a range extender for a plug-in rather than using it as the primary drive train power source.[/quote]

Actually, if USAToday got it right, this isn’t really E-Flex:

“In the hydrogen versions, fuel cells would replace batteries, combining hydrogen and oxygen in an electrochemical reaction that produces electricity.”

From that statement it appears that the car will be 100% hydrogen powered.

I’ll pass

(Quote)
Oil Jihadi Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Tim #14:
“Hydrogen Fuel Injection can be used to improve the combustion of other fuels giving more power & better mileage with fewer emissions.”

There is a major problem known as ‘hydrogen brittleness’, which is basically the small hydrogen atoms getting inside of microscopic cracks in the metals of the ICE, and causing the metal to fatigue. Hydrogen in an ICE will probably never happen, fuel cells are the only way. This same problem makes transporting hydrogen thru metal pipes very difficult.

If we build more nuclear power plants and produce hydrogen during the off hours, and get the fuel cell costs down, it might just be doable in a decade or three, I assume…?

Allah has blessed nuclear power. It could possibly be used for desalination if the Southwest of America enters a serious drought.

Death to oil – http://www.oiljihad.org

(Quote)
Neutron Flux Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 1:49 pm

OhmExcited #9,11:
Point 1) There is a carbon footprint to make hydrogen to dispell the misnomer it is a clean fuel & zero emmissions, just like an electric car it has a footprint as it takes petroleum to haul the hydrogen around (current methods) and natural gas to make it. The point was not to say it had more of a FP than coal. How you going to get your hydrogen from the middle of No where to population centers. Trucks use gas, I think pipelines cost more than power lines for maintenance not to mention a Nice bomb target(open borders). They use Liquid Hydrogen to launch the Shuttle if I am not mistaken. The NIMBY’s would come out of the woodwork you won’t get a pipe line build within 40 mile s of a large population center. I do not think they will build excess generation just to make Hydrogen from electrolysis (not cost effective)& how you going to get water out to the middle of nowhere to make it. Sounds good on paper but when you actually finance all the associated costs it will be cheaper to put in power lines & convert the AC to DC ship it long distance & convert it back from all the solar & wind. Driving a fuel cell Volt will be like the Governator driving a fuel cell Hummer. All PR & no practicality for the foreseable future. When you can make electricity cheap enough to use it to make Hydrogen we will have world peace as there will be no worldwide energy shortage. Research money better spent to wean us off petroleum quicker IE batteries, MAGLEV trains etc. great strides have been made with fuel cells no doubt but they need to park it for awhile until they figure out cost effective creation and distribution that can compete with batteries(who wants a Hydrogen pipeline in their neighborhood, they have not even thought distribution out yet). Before they reach that point you will be able to recharge your electric car in 5-10 minutes for a 300 mile range on all electric & the ICE will be obsolete.

(Quote)
Neutron Flux Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Oil Jihadi #18 Remember all that off peak product is going to be used to recharge the Electric batteries in our Volts with none left to waste on Hydrogen. I will try to look up cost of electrolysis so you can see how truly inefficient it is to make hydrogen from electrolysis to compute KW/miles for batteries vs the current most efficeint Hydrogen fuel cells Gen 5 but I am sure someone has already done that reaseach. That will put the Fuel cell thread to bed I think.Give me a day or two.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 2:00 pm

oiljihad – So you’re saying that “hydrogen brittleness” would be more prevalent in an ICE engine running biodiesel with 3%-5% H2 for a more efficient and far cleaner burn than it would be in a fuel cell running on pure H2?

You’re not saying that H2 would make an effective, cheap and efficient primary fuel even with the $Trillion infrastructure change are you? http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/h_scam.htm

Which system would be less expensive to design, test, build, maintain & replace, a $M fuel cell or a $500.00 on board electrolysis system?

Here is one of the MANY commercially available designs. This one is designed for the trucking industry, but the premise is what’s important.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2×76TzSP3s

The “Hydrogen Economy” is ruse, but Hydrogen does have it’s place in the Diversified Distributed Renewable Energy Economy.

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 2:02 pm

[quote comment="13642"]
Yes, Hydrogen injection systems like this one DO initially rob a couple horsepower from the engine, but the hydrogen increases the efficiency of the burn enough to recoup that horsepower, and then some. Since the burn is more efficient, less particulate make it into the atmosphere. This may be a relatively cheap for Diesels to meet the new pollution requirements.
[/quote]

These systems that generate hydrogen using the car’s electrical system are rubbish – you would get the same benefit and more through intelligent alternator management and direct injection, without having to go through the convoluted, inelegant hydrogen system.

What’s more, the system is very suspicious from a thermodynamic point of view – the energy delivered from burning the hydrogen is FAR less than the energy used to create it. The engine’s electric generator is 90% efficient at most, the electrolysis process even less so, and then there is the burning process of hydrogen which at most is 50% thermally efficient.

(Quote)
Steven B Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 3:42 pm

I’m absolutely certain, due to what I’ve learned about hydrogen, that it is never going to be a major source of energy. And one thing I wonder, considering the trade-offs and storage technologies that have been developed for fuel cell cars: How much better or worse would it be to use compressed natural gas (which can be derived from renewable resources like landfills and sewage processing, including what they call ‘cow power’) in an ICE range-extender instead of cracking the gas and using it in a fuel cell? Another benefit of natural gas is that like electricity, when a person asks about the infrastructure, you can often point to a wall and say “that’s the infrastructure.” Plus natural gas is cheaper and cleaner than gasoline, ethanol, diesel, biodiesel, or butanol. And like the range-extender on the Volt that we’ve grown so fond of, it is also a flex-fuel engine, seeing as it can be powered by natural gas from the ground or renewable biogas.

While I definitely see hydrogen as a quality alternative for certain niche markets, maybe even including Hawaii, but definitely Iceland with massive domestic renewable energy resources, water, and are nonetheless isolated. I don’t think it is good for mainlanders or nations with major conventional resources, including land for biofuels and biogas.

But how about that other alternative? A CNG range-extended Volt? Much better than a Civic GX. To be honest, I kind of like it. I just wonder about trunk space.

(Quote)
Tim Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

AES,

So, you’re saying that taking power from the engine to improve combustion is breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics because “the energy delivered from burning the hydrogen is FAR less than the energy used to create it”? I absolutely agree when hydrogen is the primary fuel source. This is NOT the case with HHO injection.

Turbo-chargers (which take power by restricting breathing) and super-chargers (which take power directly off the crank-shaft) improve the burn of the primary fuel by compressing “air” because “air” contains a small % of oxygen which improves combustion. Basic, right?

H20 “water” = HH0 when separated and BOTH Hydrogen and Oxygen improve combustion of the primary fuel for more power and less pollution. These 2 gasses work better together than just compressing “air” to gain a little more Oxygen. What if we could make enough HHO for this purpose with a 9 volt battery? See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzGz4ms02Vc

The 2nd law of thermodynamics has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of these methods of improving the efficiency of combustion.

(Quote)
Oil Jihadi Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Neutron flux #20:

I agree that electrolysis is a very inefficient way to make hydrogen from nuclear, however there is something called the ‘thermal iodine’ process, I THINK thats the name but I’m not sure, but basically you heat water via nuclear, and use a chemical catalysis to create hydrogen from it, and it’s believed to be the cheapest way to mass produce hydrogen. Not sure though, don’t have the time to look it up right now, I’m in the middle of a Jihad at the moment.

I believe there was a statistic floating around out there that if 40% of the population used Chevy Volts that the existing infrastructure would support it but only with off peak charging. My friend works in the operations of the power grid’s Independent Systems Operator Corp, says that during off peak hours there’s LOTS of extra unused capacity.

Tim #21:

If only 2% of the input fuel is hydrogen, then perhaps it won’t be a big deal, because the engine MIGHT wear out before the brittleness problem occurred. I was assuming you meant running the ICE completely on hydrogen, which I’m aware has been tried and the engines last about 20,000 miles if they’re lucky (maybe it was 30,000?).

That link you provided was a good one. It mentioned: “Hydrogen also tends to make metal brittle [14].”

One thing to remember about expensive fuel cells is that the precious metals can be recovered and reused. So (in theory) once you purchase the expensive platinum, you will receive residual value when you later exchange your old and clogged fuel cell.

I wonder if it would take ordering NASA to grab an asteroid with precious metals and slam it into Alaska, in order to bring down the price of platinum, to make fuel cells affordable?

“Which system would be less expensive to design, test, build, maintain & replace, a $M fuel cell or a $500.00 on board electrolysis system?”

That’s an easy answer, assuming you’re comparing apples to apples, which you’re not. I didn’t review the youtube video (Jihad takes all my time), but I must say this: if it was a slam dunk then why wouldn’t the manufactures provide it as an option? If they don’t, perhaps it’s because it will void the warranty, because diesel engines can be continuously rebuilt to get over a million miles out of them but not when you inject hydrogen into them. OR, this is such new technology the manufactures are slow to respond. However, given the inherent competition of a capitalist market, I would bet it’s the first possibility. Just because the hydrogen may improve mileage, if it increases maintenance costs, it may be financially a bad decision. Total continuous renewable cost is the metric that counts.

If you have any other good links, please send them to me, to aid in the Jihad. Salem aleikum my brother.

Steven B #23

Don’t completely write off hydrogen just yet, perhaps it may be used for large ocean ships, via liquid hydrogen and fuel cells. It MAY be economic there, someday. One oil tanker engine produces more smog than 50,000 automobiles (I think), and they have next to no legal restrictions on them.

(Quote)
SilverBlade Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 6:16 pm

The Electric/ICE version has my money. Also, there are no hydrogen stations anywhere near Winnipeg….

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 7:27 pm

Tim #24-

Turbos and superchargers provide an efficiency benefit because they provide additional oxidizer (O2) to help the fuel burn more completely. The energy all ultimately comes from the gasoline, and the 2nd law isn’t broken.

With on-demand hydrogen injection, on the other hand, you are creating an entirely new fuel de novo using an extremely endothermic process that uses the gasoline energy as a starting point. It takes a great deal of energy that ultimately comes from gasoline to split the hydrogen and oxygen molecules apart. Unless you violate the 2nd law, the absolute most energy boost you can get from burning the hydrogen alongside gasoline is the exact same amount you used to create the hydrogen in the first place.

“HH0 when separated and BOTH Hydrogen and Oxygen improve combustion of the primary fuel for more power and less pollution. These 2 gasses work better together than just compressing “air” to gain a little more Oxygen.”

Hydrogen doesn’t burn all by itself. It needs oxygen as well, you know?

When you electrolyze water, you are creating a perfect stoichiometric ratio of hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen itself needs oxygen to burn – so it’s just going to recombine with the oxygen that came out of the water in the first place. Completely circular flow of energy and mass, and it ultimately doesn’t make the fuel mixture any more lean.

I have no doubts that injecting hydrogen fundamentally improves emissions, the best any on-demand system will do is break even. Water isn’t a fuel.

(Quote)
RB Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 8:43 pm

I’ll consider it when I can buy Hydrogen in my neighborhood. As I do not live in an urban center, that may be a long time.

(Quote)
NeutronFlux Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 12:11 am

Here are the numbers:
Cost per mile for Lithium Ion charged from the grid at .12/KWh= .024/mile in electricity.
Based on the GM 5th generation Fuel cell info you can go 300 miles on 4KWh of H2. A UC Davis study (http://hydrogen.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/pubpres/2006pub/melaina/preview_popup) puts levelized cost of producing hydrogen at between $5.12 & 8.92 /Kg via electrolysis depending specified assumptions. Best case scenario (4)($5.12)=$20.48/300 miles or $.0683/mile on hydrogen fuel. With unknown cost of Fuel cell that has a 50,000 mile life in Gen 4. That is 2.85X the cost for hydrogen of driving on the batteries with electricity from the grid and the life of battery far exceeds that of fuel cell. Not to mention no current distribution for hydrogen and any public panic over putting stations near people. Cost of LIon battery vs Fuel cell would have to be 2.85:1 / KWh over an equivalent life span to make fuel cells competetive. The cost of a 50,000 mile fuel cell will have to be under $2,000.00 to have a prayer of competing with Lithium ION batteries & the grid and will have to continue to decrease in cost & increase in efficiency with battery tech to stay competetive. With electricity prices regulated in most places and Hydrogen not, I see cost per mile of hydrogen far exceeding these best case estimates when factoring in distribution & markup for profit by big oil.

(Quote)
NeutronFlux Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 12:14 am

For some reason the source link got truncated when submitting:
http://hydrogen.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/pubpres/2006pub/melaina/preview_popup

(Quote)
NeutronFlux Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 12:16 am

Lyle your forum truncates long URL posts!Last part of URl is:
melaina/preview_popup

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 12:36 am

The only reason GM and other automakers are even bothering with hydrogen fuel cells is because as has been mentioned it’s good PR, but also because your tax payers are being used to fund a lot of the research…

… and why? Well as has been mentioned above, the most efficient and cost effective source of hydrogen is to free it from natural gas (CH4). That makes big oil/gas a big supporter of pushing for the so called “hydrogen economy”. Follow that into the Whitehouse whose current admin is all tied to big oil (Bush is an oil man from an oil family, Cheney you already know, even Condy Rice came from Chevron who had named an oil tanker after here), and it’s no surprise that the Bush admin got through billions in spending for the “hydrogen economy”.

If the free money (to them) dried up, you’d hear even less about hydrogen. The 1st casualty (Ballard Systems) won’t be the last.

Hydrogen for general transportation just doesn’t make sense. As some folks have already mentioned, especially getting it from water (H2O) it takes more energy to free it than it it stores (even before other inefficiencies are introduced). On top of that, hydrogen as everyone should know is the lightest known (and possible as far as I know) element. After freeing it (from water, natural gas, etc) you need to 1st highly compress it, which uses more energy that you don’t get back, before the above mentioned transportation (to get it where it’s needed) energy costs. And I may be mistaken, but I think just trying to store compressed hydrogen, you are going to lose some every day as it “boils” off via pressure relief values.

As far as using hydrogen to “store” excess electrical energy… there is no place as far as I know that is that remote inside the USA that it wouldn’t be more efficient and cost effective to add some more transmission lines (as mentioned by someone else above). Look at how far power from the big hydro projects (Boulder/Hoover Dam, and the Tenn. Valley… even those of us in the Northeast get some of our power generated by hydro in Canada [or at least we used to, maybe the Canadians don't have a surplus anymore]).

I also agree with others though that hydrogen does have some niche applications. One growing market for it seems to be for backup power systems. Though I would think even in that application it would make more sense to just use LNG or propane fired generators.

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 1:04 am

One of the main appeals of electrochemical fuel cells is that they can extract much more usable energy out of a given fuel than a combustion engine could.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Fuel_cell_efficiency

83% theoretical maximum efficiency, vs 21%.

So independent of hydrogen as a fuel, there’s a lot of promise for fuel cells in general.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 1:25 am

AES, where you you get a theoretical maximum efficiency of 21% for an ICE (internal combustion engine)?

I was under the belief that some diesal engines already get better than 21%.

Also other ICE designs are being worked on… LiquidPistion claims it could reach 50% efficiency, see http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/24-07-07_2

There’s also an HCCI design claiming they can get 25% fuel savings over conventional, see http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19139/

Assuming any of these designs or others become reality, imagine using those designs for your range extender in your Volt or equiv….

(Quote)
AES Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 3:28 am

The 21% efficiency is sourced from the wiki article, and appears to make some assumptions about minimum and maximum operational temperatures for the example heat engine. The most I’ve ever heard quoted for a gasoline-powered ICE was 37%:

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/HV/2.pdf

The Volt’s ICE will probably be set up to run at constant speed (like the Prius’) but under constant load as well, so expect 37% or better.

As far as I know, current real life fuel cells achieve around 50-60% efficiency, which is still far better than any heat engine, with much of the inefficiency coming about through heat formation on the cathode (air) side of the reaction.

My point is that fuel cells are fundamentally a very efficient technology, and can be designed to run on many different fuels – not just hydrogen, so even if the hydrogen economy flops, there will still be a chance for fuel cells to replace the traditional combustion engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-oxide_fuel_cell

Given that fuel cells also run at their most efficient at lower power density, that makes them a fairly ideal fit for the constant operational regime that’s encountered by E-Flex.

(Quote)
Neutron Flux Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 10:22 am

Fuel cells are designed to extract electons from specific fuels, one designed for extracting from Hydrogen cannot just have natural gas pumped into it. When & if you can find an abundant fuel source & a cost effective fuel cell to extract the electricity from it then we can talk. None of that is on the drawing board everything else is tied to limited supply fossil fuels. Unless you have unlimited almost free supply of electricity the Hydrogen fuel cell economy is as dead as the EV1. Can we now put this to rest? I suggest you write you Congressman & tell them to stop wasting your tax dollars on the Pipe Dream of a Hydrogen economy using the figures provided, more reason for them to approve funding for Lithium Ion battery tech!UC Davis has been researching Hydrogen for over a decade if their reports prove it is not cost effective isn’t that enough? Atleast lets dry up the research to a trickle & redirect funds to better investments, my pocket via a reduction in my tax rate for starters. Otherwise just tax me & give it to Bush & Company directly & cut out the middle man, that would be cheaper.

(Quote)
Oil Jihadi Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 3:14 pm

I doubt hydrogen is dead on arrival. Of course it has problems, so does nuclear fusion, but that doesn’t mean they won’t ever be achieved. Don’t underestimate science and determination. Plus, ‘necessity is the mother of all invention’

I do believe it will be quite some time before hydrogen is a possibility, and the thought of liquid hydrogen powered cars is the one thing I’m certain will never happen.

If you look at the first generation fuel cells, they cost a fortune, were inefficient, and didn’t last very long. Then look at the second generation, then look at the third then fourth.

The fact is, improvements have been made. And if they continue to be made, hydrogen may have a real possibility.

GM is the only automobile manufacturer that develops their own fuel cells. As a capitalist corporation, I seriously doubt they would do so unless there was future potential.

When an ICE wears out, its only real value is as scrap metal. When a fuel cell wears out, that platinum is still inside it, and can be reused. So fuel cells have considerable residual value, you should be able to trade them in and pay the difference in price, NOT throw away the fuel cell and buy a new one.

As for natural gas being the cheapest form of hydrogen. That’s true, TODAY. Not necessarily in the future, especially if demand for hydrogen rose and the supply of natural gas did not keep pace.

Hydrogen via nuclear:
http://public.ca.sandia.gov/hydrogen//research/production/nuclear.html

Also, it should be pointed out that at a high enough temperature steam will ‘crack’ into hydrogen and oxygen. If this can be utilized by a high temperature nuclear reactor, I do not know. Allah has not revealed that to me (yet).

http://www.oiljihad.org – Death to oil.

(Quote)
Steven B Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 4:32 pm

I sincerely consider hydrogen fuel cells to be a really good technology in a niche market. I emphasize every part of that statement including “to be a”. But for mainlanders, I don’t see it as ever being competitive with conventional technologies in PHEVs and RxEVs. And I’m also very sincere about the idea of maybe using the natural gas directly in maybe a combined cycle engine, as mentioned in Jeff M.’s first link on #34. But its production via electrolysis and thermal cracking, as well as the capital cost of the fuel cell itself, seem to me to be barriers that will make it non-competitive from the get go. Maybe major breakthroughs will occur, and maybe using chemical production process or some sort of solar thermal technology will make it cost competitive, and maybe there will be breakthroughs in the device itself, but there will still be the infrastructure issue.

PHEVs and RxEVs are ideal technologies to replace conventional ICE-powered vehicles as much because of infrastructure as for the ability to integrate technologies. And looking at the new breakthroughs with engine technology, maybe PHEVs will be better and more cost-effective to consumers than RxEVs. And I definitely don’t mean to dog fuel cells, but I just don’t seem them as practical on the continents of the world. And maybe it will be ideal for large vehicles, such as trains and ships and buses. But I just don’t see it having a future in the Volt (due to cost) or the rest of the light vehicle fleet (due to infrastructure). I won’t call them fool cells, but I will call those who think it will ever work for everybody fools.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 4:39 pm

“…it is reported that these hydrogen Volts would have to be leased as their cost will be quite high…”

GM said the same LIE when they leased the EV1, then destroyed all these “high cost” excellent oil-free cars.

They ran just as well when they were CRUSHED as they did when new. GM lied, GM cheated, GM even charged us for “scratches” on the EV1 it crushed.

(Quote)
Doug Korthof Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Hydrogen fuel cells in cars is not going to happen.

While the anode requires high-pressure technical grade H2, the cathode relies on O2 from the ambient air, which is not pure. Thus, the contamination from the air (all those other gas cars and hydrocarbons) destroy the fuel cell unless you carry bottled O2 as well.

(Quote)
Oil Jihadi Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Doug #40

O2 can be stored in liquid form at room temperatures in a standard tank, like those used for welding. If I remember correctly. It also has about a 700:1 expansion ratio, thus every car having an oxygen tank may not be unrealistic.

From what I understand, it’s the precious metal costs of fuel cells that are the primary problem, and cold weather causing ice inside them is the second problem. Nano scale manufacturing and new alloys may greatly help with the first problem.

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Yea, let’s drive around with not only a compressed highly flamable gas, but let’s drive around with a tank of oyxgen, that if both leaked, could look like the space shuttle taking off (or worse, like the Challenger)

(Quote)
Oil Jihadi Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 9:37 pm

Jeff, you lack faith in Allah.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 11:49 am

I mentioned above, on the Toyota slamming the Volt thread, my 27 year old son’s comment about electric cars. He also saw a PBS feature on the fuel cell Equinoix. He was really enthusiastic about it.

I share all of your doubts about the whole hydrogen scam, especially the no fueling infrastructure and the what is the real economics of producing the hydrogen issues.

On the other hand his the demographic that must excite GM, not me (us?). So, maybe they are on to something?

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
November 11th, 2007 at 1:16 am

Here’s an interesting possible problem with hydrogen cars… could be banned from tunnels…

http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/motoring-tech/mg19626296.300-hydrogen-cars-pose-tunnel-risk.html

(Quote)
Jeff M Says:
March 6th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Bob Lutz himself now says he doesn’t believe in hydrogen fuel cell powered Volt…. see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120468405514712501.html with Bob’s comments at the Geneva auto show yesterday.

Bob actually sees 300 mile (on battery) range Volt before hydrogen fuel cells are even remotely viable.

(Quote)
johnandrews52 Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 6:29 am

Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

(Quote)
ronaldcollins Says:
July 19th, 2008 at 1:49 am

hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed, only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us i really recommend it to everybody, it’s a nice eBook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.

(Quote)
Michael Robinson Says:
February 27th, 2009 at 4:02 am

The Chevy Volt hydrogen is a very good idea.

Compressed hydrogen tanks are safe, but they are not
the best option for storing hydrogen both safely and
compactly. Liquid hydrogen is currently the best popular
method of storing hydrogen on a vehicle. There’s no need
to go the compressed gas or liquid hydrogen route though
when you can create a slurry that has the consistency of
Latex paint and characteristics that allow it to be pumped
through cheap iron pipes at standard temperature and
pressure. This slurry outputs twice the hydrogen of liquid hydrogen for the same space.

Fuel Cell vehicles like the Toyota FCHV SUV can go 500
miles on 10k PSI hydrogen now. Liquid hydrogen stores
tighter than 10k PSI compressed gas and slurry is 2x
better than liquid hydrogen for gas produced. You only
need a fuel tank that is 20% larger than the typical gasoline
tank to fuel a fuel cell car for the distances a gasoline car
can go if you use slurry as a hydrogen source.

There are technologies available to allow hydrogen to go
through a pipeline as a gas. A pipeline that can carry h2
gas costs $500k a mile. The advantage of an H2 gas
pipeline is that it can be hidden underground. It is much
easier to bury a pipeline than it is to site an electrical line
that is a serious eyesore. The other advantage of building
a H2 gas pipeline infrastructure is that you can upgrade
the natural gas pipeline network at the same time.
Natural Gas and hydrogen mixed together in the right
concentration will go through traditional pipelines.

Fuel cells are the only way to end dependence on foreign
oil. Batteries are not a solution, especially if you depend
on Lithium that comes from Peru and China. Bush
supported fuel cells because he knows that hybrids
and flex fuel cars are only going to slow consumption
of foreign oil. There simply isn’t enough farmland even
if you use algae to produce biofuels in the quantities
necessary to replace gasoline and diesel.

The problem with EV zealots is that they ignore the range
problem. There is no battery that can power an electric
vehicle for 300 miles that is both small enough and light
enough to be installed in a standard sized vehicle. Even
hydrogen takes up less space and adds less weight
than the best comparable battery. The other thing EV
zealots ignore is the fact that Lithium is not a U.S.
commodity. We simply don’t have any Lithium reserves.

There is plenty of Magnesium available. Magnesium hydride
slurry is a transport medium for hydrogen that will work with
the current gasoline/diesel infrastructure with very little
modification. If waste is used as a source of hydrogen,
methane gas from horse manure, the problem of expensive
electrolysis goes away. The methane from horse manure
will end up in the atmosphere anyways if you don’t do
something with it unlike oil pumped out of the ground or coal
mined out of a mountain.

Converting to a hydrogen infrastructure wouldn’t mark the
beginning of using hydrogen as an industrial gas, it would
merely mean that more has to be produced and used.
Hydrogen is used to produce gasoline now, in a hydrogen
economy we would simply use the hydrogen directly and
skip producing gasoline.

(Quote)
Michael C. Robinson Says:
August 15th, 2009 at 4:34 am

You are full of yourself and misguided. Only by using hydrogen
fuel cell cars can carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles be reduced by 80%.

It doesn’t take any electricity to produce hydrogen if you produce it photochemically. There are other options as well such as breaking down the oxygen in water to release the hydrogen. If hydrogen production is the only barrier to fuel cell vehicle adoption, and it
pretty much is at this point, that barrier will come down soon.

Government motors is the mouthpiece for Obama’s 1 million EREVs.
To hell with one million EREVs. Give me a fuel cell car now or make
them affordable by 2015 and mass produce them. Displace a significant portion of the vehicles that use 30% of the imported OIL.
That will take GM and the other auto manufacturers selling millions
of fuel cell cars.

There should be an Apollo like program to get to a hydrogen economy if carbon dioxide emissions are as harmful to the environment as scientists believe they are. Only by using a fuel
cell, not a large battery, can an electric car that produces zero emissions travel 500 miles on a single fill. Toyota has the best
fuel cell vehicle in the world and it’s an SUV to boot.

(Quote)

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory November 18, 2009
Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1038564_thnk-picks-indiana-for-u-s-factory) […]
Jason M. Hendler
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010 November 18, 2009
FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010: _Link_... […]
Jason M. Hendler
Any news about the NiMH battery? November 18, 2009
Now that there are new owners of the patent, is there any indication that they will allow its use for electric cars? Like many others, I believe that... […]
Desertstraw
energy requirments of modern electric vehicles November 18, 2009
does anyone know any credible sources of information concerning the electricity requirements of modern electric vehicles per mile of travel and the... […]
crubkings
30% reduction November 18, 2009
The Belgian governement decided that if you buy a car with less then 60g/km emmision you get a 15% tax reduction and you can write it off for 100% if... […]
filiep

Fuel Cell Chevy Volt for Production in 2011

50 Responses to “Fuel Cell Chevy Volt for Production in 2011”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts