The E-Flex Cadillac Provoq and the GM Fifth Generation Fuel Cell

44 Responses to “The E-Flex Cadillac Provoq and the GM Fifth Generation Fuel Cell”

1. 
   
   

   Brian Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 7:22 am

   Regardless of the propulsion system, you have to admire the physical beauty of the car.  
   
   (Quote)

2. 
   
   

   Jim I Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 7:40 am

   I like the looks too, but when they say “…as we introduce them are going to be low volume and they’re going to be more expensive than traditional propulsion systems.”, you can expect them to be REALLY expensive!

   I am still sticking with the Volt. It is the vehicle that will suit my needs!

     
   
   (Quote)

3. 
   
   

   Dave B Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 8:20 am

   Darn good looking car, but this fuel cell stuff is garbage…concepts and a WHOLE lot of money that is thrown into a black hole. If half the fuel cell dollars had been pumped into EVs, we’d all be driving cars as appealing as the Roadsters by now. Instead, we have to settle for the 40 mile range of the Volt.  
   
   (Quote)

4. 
   
   

   nasaman Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 8:44 am

   The most exciting thing about the Provoq is that it uses EXACTLY the same platform/body as the Plug-in Saturn VUE, which already has early mules in test. Since the Provoq’s two gigantic hydrogen tanks (under its rear seat) are not needed for the Plug-in VUE, there’s PLENTY of space to increase the Provoq’s 9KWh/20mile Li Ion battery to at least the size of the VOLT’s 16KWh battery. This should increase the Plug-in VUE’s currently wimpy battery-only range of only 10miles to….

   16KWh/9KWh x 20mi = 35.6 MILES!!!

   As I’ve said before, if it had a 35 mile range I’d buy the handsome Plug-in VUE in a heartbeat to park next to my VOLT!!!!!!!   
   
   (Quote)

5. 
   
   

   OptimisticMF Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 9:04 am

   Don’t be so pessimistic about hydrogen. I understand that the energy to produce hydrogen has to come from somewhere and there is no delivery infrastructure in place, but I like the idea of a serial hybrid hydrogen vehicle as opposed to a hydrogen propulsion system.

   “They like to produce power at a certain operating level and stay that way. A car is a dynamic device. You have to increase the amount and oxygen and hydrogen to get more voltage to make a car accelerate.”

   Isn’t this issue mitigated in a serial hybrid design, with batteries and/or capacitors capable of “smoothing” out the operating level of the hydrogen power plant?

   Getting back to the issue of hydrogen supply, check out this piece from last week:

   “Cheap Hydrogen
   A new process uses sunlight and a nanostructured catalyst to inexpensively and efficiently generate hydrogen for fuel.”

   http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20134/

   We should soon be able to produce hydrogen locally, without a centralized delivery infrastructure at a cost that is competitive with other forms of transportation fuel, without the pollution (OK, maybe I’m too much of an optimist, but hey…).  
   
   (Quote)

6. 
   
   

   ziv Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 9:20 am

   OptimisticMF, I wish that hydrogen would work, but the initial expense of building the Fuel Cell is very high, and the eroei is just horrible, about the only cost effective way that could be worked out would be using the cheapest coal around and that would be disastrous on several levels. As the article put it, Quoute, The company says that its process is cheap enough to compete with the cheapest approaches used now, unquote. So it would be about the same cost as the cheapest processes around now which aren’t financially viable, without massive government subsidies. But I am no expert…
   Where you produce the hydrogen will reduce the imbalance in the eroei, but it will still be horrendously inefficient. The fuel cell may actually be financially and technically viable in 10 or 15 years, but I doubt it will ever successfully compete with EREV’s, the simplicity of the LiIon and the probable supplemental use of Ultracapacitors will be hard to beat. Hydrogen seems to be the Holy Grail that government and big auto trot out instead of doing the hard work of getting an EREV on the road ASAP. I too, would love to see a plug in Vue as soon as possible.  
   
   (Quote)

7. 
   
   

   OptimisticMF Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 9:36 am

   ziv,

   Good points, but don’t forget how heavily subsidized our petroleum infrastructure is. If we could produce hydrogen at rates competitive with the cheapest methods available now, which do not benefit from subsidies, imagine what we could do with the same level of support that the oil industry enjoys. In addition, the process would be much less polluting. Also, the money spent on transportation fuels would remain in our economy and not be sent to hostile, foreign governments.

   Also, fuel cell costs, like batteries, will decrease with mass production. I’m not so sure that we shouldn’t be better off with just producting electricity as efficiently as possible and waiting for battery technology to improve over the next decade or so. I’m pretty sure by 2020, we wouldn’t need “range extenders” anyway…  
   
   (Quote)

8. 
   
   

   Eric Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 9:47 am

   People, people… Hydrogen is just a storage medium, and compared to battery electric vehicles, it takes 4 TIMES as much energy to make the hydrogen to drive a mile than it does to charge a battery to go the same distance.

   Bottom line? Hydrogen is a step backwards as far as energy sustainability goes, not to mention cost. So what drives the hydrogen development? The only reasons for using such a technology are:

   1) More range potential with fast refeuling. However, battery storage and charging is advancing as well. Plus, with a car like the Volt, you have the best of both worlds (ICE for long trips and electric for short) so hydrogen looks less and less appealing.

   2) Big Oil companies can become Big Hydrogen companies. Since Exxon-Mobil just made $1300 PROFIT per SECOND in 2007, I’d rather not see this happen.

   100% Battery electric is the way to go. Until the batteries are proven enugh and store enough energy for longer trips, plug-in serial hybrids such as the volt are the most elegant solution and practical step towards 100% BEV’s.  
   
   (Quote)

9. 
   
   

   Jason The Saj Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 10:30 am

   @DaveB and those who think like him.

   Fuel Cells != waste of time.

   The future is REEVers, electric vehicles with range extenders. The future of the REs are fuel cells.

   This opens up a very nice future, especially for those of us who want low-impact self-sustained energy systems. Where our homes are covered in solar cell shingles. We charge our vehicles, power our electronics & lights, and run a a unit to extract hydrogen from water. This hydrogen then provides gas for cooking, and fuel for range extending our vehicles.

   As for throwing money at things…the American education system should be a clear example of such futility. Money does not equate to results. And as this article shows, a lot of knowledge is being learned and shared between the two elements via brainpower.

   So it’s all good…quit trying to be such a downer and discourager.

   ***
   Best of all, the above setup does something your concept can’t do…provides a range extendable vehicle with zero emissions. Hybrids & ICE based REEVers create pollution, far less than normal vehicles to be sure.

   And even if you went just solar for charging, you are still stuck with the need to be able to extend the vehicle range when necessary. Using an ICE will cause pollution. Fuel cells on the other hand, output water… (which can even be collected for re-use).

   ***

   Those who keep referring to hydrogen only being extracted from hydrocarbons (coal, oil, etc) are being as blind as those who deride the use of ethanol because we currently derive it from corn. There are other means in development, and far many more means yet to be devised. If everyone was so negative we wouldn’t be talking about this because we wouldn’t have cars because “they’re noisy, and can’t go as far or as fast as a horse”.

   *sheesh*

   Improvements come, not over night but usually over decade. Otherwise we’d still be paying $1,000-$2,000 for basic CD & DVD players rather than $19-$49.  
   
   (Quote)

10. 
    
    

    Jim D Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 10:44 am

    I want a $19 HD-DVD player!  
    
    (Quote)

11. 
    
    

    Jim D Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 10:46 am

    But why does the cost of Cars and homes go up, not down? like electronics?  
    
    (Quote)

12. 
    
    

    MetrologyFirst Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 10:48 am

    I agree 100% with Eric. Battery technology is where most of the money should be spent. I still like the idea of serial range extenders in the future though; and the E-flex chassis is the game changer. Range extenders could evovle into being regional choices. E-flex is indeed an elegant soltion for at least 25-40 years. You can picture that as battery storage improves, the range extender is used less and less, or the plug in recharging requirement may only have to be a weekly exercise, like filling the car with gas is now.

    Hydrogen is important, but fuel cells might be more practical for other types of transpotation rather than your everyday car. The world will always need big, heavy, strong SUV’s and trucks, and transport vehicles. That might be the market for fuel cells in the future, not the cars.

    The Volt just has to be built carefully so it is dependable. I will buy one in a heartbeat if that is the case.  
    
    (Quote)

13. 
    
    

    Dave B Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 11:27 am

    Jason The Saj @ 9,

    Why not dump the money in battery technology where the focus needs to be? Since the EV-1, the problem has been “batteries,” right?

    If these technologies pan out, fine…but my tax dollars are pumped into fuel cells–skipping the ever-elusive battery, the #1 priority, for the problems we face. The fuel cell pipe dream, touted by politicians, oil companies, and the Big 3 for years and years, has not solved a single problem. Do the homework, and you’ll find an awful lot of dollars chasing the ghost technology. Focus on the battery at present, THEN focus on the flex part of eflex.  
    
    (Quote)

14. 
    
    

    Glenn Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    optimistic #6

    “but I like the idea of a serial hybrid hydrogen vehicle as opposed to a hydrogen propulsion system”

    …”"with batteries and/or capacitors capable of “smoothing” out the operating level of the hydrogen power plant”

    This makes a good point. A hydrogen vehicle is really just a REEV that uses hydrogen as a fuel (w/fc stack) instead of gas or diesel or CNG. I figure most of you already get this, but these cars aren’t generally being discussed as such. People talk about the technologies in an either/or fashion. When (if) hydrogen becomes feasible, then it will be married to a REEV, and people will have a choice how to fuel them.

    In the meantime I’m with nasaman. I like the idea of beefing up the Vue with more batteries. I’d even pay more for them as part of an upgrade package if it gets the vehicle to the 40/50 e only range.

    I’ve said this before, and I hope GM is listening. If they pull this off, I’m trading in my Honda and BMW for a Volt and a Vue. And I’m never buying a non-plug-in car again.

    http://www.pluginpartners.org/whatYouCanDo/onlinePetition.cfm  
    
    (Quote)

15. 
    
    

    noel park Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    GM needs to keep its eye on the ball and get the !@#$% Volt into production. Leave all of these other pipe dreams for later. Otherwise, Japan, Inc. (China, Inc.?) is going to run over it like road kill.  
    
    (Quote)

16. 
    
    

    Jim D Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    Yes, electric is where the near-term priority should be.

    Battery will need improvement, and funding priority should be here….concur.

    Fuel Cell needs some breakthru. Needs a miricle. May come later. Should not be the top priority. It does not appear to have the potential for near-term impact that the battery does. Although I would not abandon it. But the battery is where the low-hanging fruit lies.

    I have no interest in an expensive Fuel-cell experimental car….

    But I might be interested in that cadillac with an E100 range extender and 40+ mile electric range.  
    
    (Quote)

17. 
    
    

    Jim D Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    The reason cars go up in price is unions?

    Why to homes go up? Cause interest rates went too low?  
    
    (Quote)

18. 
    
    

    Rashiid Amul Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    Noel, #15, “GM needs to keep its eye on the ball and get the !@#$% Volt into production. Leave all of these other pipe dreams for later. Otherwise, Japan, Inc. (China, Inc.?) is going to run over it like road kill.”

    Agreed. Concentrate on the batteries and do the fool sells when and if they ever become viable for the masses. Batteries will be here WAY before fool sells are.  
    
    (Quote)

19. 
    
    

    Eric Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    @Jason The Saj

    It’ll take 4 times as many solar shingles to go a mile on your hydrogen than it would to charge a battery with that same solar tech. Seems more relevant to invest the money in battery technology advancements than hydrogen, IMHO.  
    
    (Quote)

20. 
    
    

    Demetrius Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    The only thing that will ‘Pry Us’ from Toyota is a Volt.  
    
    (Quote)

21. 
    
    

    Wise Golden Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    I certainly don’t fault GM for exploring the technology, but I agree that they need to get about 10 electric cars before they start turning the world of automotive technology upside down. I really believe that a lot of other technologies are going to have to mature before hydrogen will become a real player (like cold fusion and super-conductivity.)  
    
    (Quote)

22. 
    
    

    Jeff M Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    The hydrogen “hype” is really a hydrogen “myth”. It’s a great delay tactic by both big oil/gas and the automakers. Hydrogen was the cop out that allowed CA’s ZEV mandate to essentially be killed and all the automakers ending their EV (including RxEV’s like GM had a prototype of in 1998).

    Hydrogen is like nuclear fusion, it’s always just another 15-20 years away and several problems always need to be “solved”.

    As already mentioned, the most efficient source of hydrogen is from natural gas (CH4), not water (H2O), so it keeps big oil/gas in business, filling stations in business, does nothing to reduce CO2 (major green house gas) emissions. It also needs to be compressed (using more energy), and transported (and even more energy). The demand for natural gas will go through the roof, so the price will too, so no one can afford to heat their homes with it, electric rates will shoot up (natural gas powered plants), as will the price of the hydrogen produced (freed) from it.

    Also already mentioned, Battery EV’s are the most energy efficient, when measured from well-to-wheel. 10’s of millions of EV’s (with or without range extenders) will not require building any new power plants as most will be recharged using night time off-peak capacity.

    Battery EV’s also have no emmisions! Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are NOT emmision free! It may “only” be water, but think about it… all that water landing on the roads will keep them permanently wet and slippery, never mind icey in the Winter for 1/2 or more of the country at least. Some of that water may come out as water vapor instead… which also contributes to global warming from what I’ve recently read. Who knows what else a ton of extra water vapor in the air will do to the weather?

    Battery EV’s have been around for over 100 years and even predate the invention of the internal combustion engine! Some of those EV’s back then even got 40 miles per charge using 100 year old battery technology (yes, the cars weighed less then as well, and didn’t go 70mph, but still impressive).

    The only good thing about seeing some of these automakers and their fuel cell vehicles is that they are also EV’s, and so it’s easy for the automaker to turn those into Battery EV’s (with or without a “range extender” that’s NOT a fuel cell).  
    
    (Quote)

23. 
    
    

    Jeff M Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

    Almost forgot… I meant to give a link to:

    http://tinyurl.com/2tzguc

    It’s written by Shell’s Van Der Veer and gives an excellent summary of the ethanol and hydrogen myths.

    edit: url changed to a tiny one… this site must think the really long one was spam post  
    
    (Quote)

24. 
    
    

    Jason M. Hendler Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    Hydrogen is now cheaply produced directly by sunlight on a strained titania catalyst, making it as cheap as hydrogen produced from natural gas:

    http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20134/

    Hydrogen, ethanol, batteries, etc. should all be pursued, because you never know what breakthrough will occur to reduce costs / efficiencies, so don’t rule ANYTHING out based on today’s numbers.  
    
    (Quote)

25. 
    
    

    The E-Flex Cadillac Provoq and the GM Fifth Generation <b>Fuel Cell</b> | Hydrogen Fuel Cell . Net Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
26. 
    
    

    AES Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    “The way a fuel cell works is they like to be what we call a steady-state device. They like to produce power at a certain operating level and stay that way. A car is a dynamic device. You have to increase the amount and oxygen and hydrogen to get more voltage to make a car accelerate. What happens in a fuel cell is those transients take a little bit of the life out of the stack”

    The same could be said for the ICE Volt – after all, both cars are just different kinds of series hybrid drivetrains. The steady-state operation will increase the efficiency and longevity of both the ICE and the fuel cell.  
    
    (Quote)

27. 
    
    

    Jeff M Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    Jason, you have a major piece of mis-information about hydrogen NOW cheaply being produced…. read the 2nd to last paragraph of the 2 page article you linked to…. quote: “If it works as expected, the technology could help address one of the fundamental problems with using hydrogen as fuel….”

    That technology is not NOW, but possibly in the FUTURE… and as it says it “may” help address just ONE of the fundamental problems with hydrogen.

    The reality is that even if it did work… it would still be a LOT less efficient than using that solar energy directly to generate electrical power and feed it into the grid (or if it’s a home based system, directly into your EV’s batteries). That’s because once again… some of the other fundamental problems with hydrogen is that even after you free it from CH4 or H2O, you still have to compress it (energy required) and transport it (energy required), pump it, and then feed it to a fuel cell which the last I heard you were doing good if it was 50% efficient at turning that hydrogen back into electricity. Well-to-wheel. Hydrogen is just a poor way to store what is essentially electrical energy.

    A transportation infrastruture based on electricity is also the most flexiblle one of all. Not only is it very energy efficient, but we have many choices or combination of choices to generate it from… hydro, solar (PV and the other type), geothermal, wind, tidal, nuclear (fission now, but like with hydrogen, the promise someday of fusion), natural gas, and (gasp) coal. Even in the latter cases, the technology keeps getting cleaner and cleaner.

    The problem with continued funding and spending on hydrogen for transporation is that it continues to be a delay tactic for the auto industry, a potential boondoggle for the oil companies (no surprise the Bush admin supports it over anything else), and takes funding away from everything else that is much more viable.  
    
    (Quote)

28. 
    
    

    Neil Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    I’m a big proponent of BEVs for a number of reasons, but lets be careful about our facts. On a well-to-wheels basis, hydrogen FCVs can be just as energy efficient as a BEV. http://www.veva.bc.ca/wtw/index.htm You don’t want to get embarrassed in an online debate with a paid hydrogen advocate (I’ve run into more than one).  
    
    (Quote)

29. 
    
    

    NZDavid Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    #24 & #27

    A couple of interesting facts:

    1. If hydrogen was not produced from NG then the US would have to double its’ generation capacity to provide the electricity using current hydrogen production methods.

    2. In NZ if we converted the entire vehicle fleet incl. trucks & buses to run on electricity we would have to increase our generation capacity by about 8-9000MW (assumes 45% plant usage). the countries total installed capacity is about 9000MW currently.
    67% of our power is hydro based and can’t be drained more quickly than it already is, before someone says make the existing assets work harder at night!  
    
    (Quote)

30. 
    
    

    MetrologyFirst Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 9:07 pm

    I agree with all that’s been said about hydrogen’s drawbacks. As I have said before, battery technology is the key to our automobile future.

    I don’t think, however that efficient hydrogen fuel cell function or hydrogen energy release is unattainable. I think they should continue the research into hydrogen solutions; it will have a place in our energy future. I just don’t think it will be an widespread infrastructure solution. Perhaps localized heavy transport, big rigs, things like this may be a better application. The required infrastructure would be much easier to develop.

    Fuel cells need a quick development track, but not necessarily an expensive one, even if the work produces failures. We have a saying at my work place that the third iteration of an instrument almost always works, so get the first two failures out of the way as fast as possible. In the case of fuel cells, it might take 15 versions to get the desired results. So lets get the first 14 over with as quick as possible.

    BTW, I love the look of the Provoq. A very impressive and functional design. It doesn’t need the fuel cell range extender to be cool. A biodeisel generator would be fine enough. But I think I do understand GM’s point designing this as a fuel cell vehicle. It’s more of a show off of the E-flex chassis flexibility than anything else.  
    
    (Quote)

31. 
    
    

    mien green Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    I know noone wants to hear it, but I read somewhere that if all of the alternative energy sources, solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc., were exploited with present technology, it would only supply 10% of our current energy needs, and that the only realistically viable alternative energy resource to coal and gas/oil fired power generating plants is nuclear power stations. And one of the byproducts of the fission process is hydrogen production, thereby potentially supplying your cheap source of hydrogen.

    And to somewhat defray the inevitable cry of nuclear waste disposal biohazard, there is a vitrification plant currently being built to stabilize the radioactive waste sludge into glass logs for long term site burial or underground salt dome cavern storage. It’s all in developing the savvy to control the beast and public literacy, like fire, steam, electricity, petrochemical production…  
    
    (Quote)

32. 
    
    

    Jeff M Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    Neil, and your link to http://www.veva.bc.ca/wtw/index.htm saying it shows well-to-wheel that hydrogen fuel cell can be just as efficient as a battery EV….

    I’ve seen that web page before when someone tried to make the same false claim (was it you, either in another thread on this site, or on evworld?)…. follow the link right in the top paragraph to download the PDF that the page is based on, ie http://www.veva.bc.ca/wtw/EAVES_BEV_VS_FCV%20040703.pdf

    The two diagrams (page 5) show that it takes 2 1/2 times the amount of electricity to go the same distance in a hydrogen fuel cell as it does to go that distance in a battery EV… and on page 6 it says….

    “The inefficiency of the FCV pathway combined with the high capital and maintenance costs of the distribution system results in significant differences in the refueling cost between a FCV and BEV, particularly if the source is renewable. For example, Pedro and Putsche [31] estimate that using wind energy, hydrogen production costs alone will
    amount to $20.76 per tank to drive our FCV 300 miles. This compares to $4.28 “per tank” to drive the BEV 300 miles [18].”

    You’d need to improve the efficiency quite a bit in multiple places to have a FCV come anywhere close to the energy efficiency of a BEV.  
    
    (Quote)

33. 
    
    

    Jeff M Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 10:53 pm

    mien green, you’ll have to point to a better source than that you believe you read it somewhere I don’t have any numbers myself but we have vast amounts of untapped wind power available, and solar has the ability to soon be cheaper to put up than building and fueling a coal fired power plant.

    In any case, I’ve no problem with nuclear myself. In my State (NH) we were to have two reactors at Seabrook but only one was completed The future of nuclear may actually be a type of reactor design that produces only 1/2 the amount of radioactive wasted, see http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/07/68045 (Thorium reactors).  
    
    (Quote)

34. 
    
    

    mien green Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 11:14 pm

    It was a quote from some interview of an authority. Sorry, I just generally register this sort of information for my own personal awareness and perspective. It seemed plausible to me, which is why it registered. If it’s too vague a cited reference for you, just ignore my argument. Simple. Most arguments are for posturing anyway, not open dialog. Think politics.

    I seriously don’t think solar conversion technology will be anywhere close to the energy output level supplied by coal fired power plants anytime soon. We’d all be living in shadow.  
    
    (Quote)

35. 
    
    

    mikejz Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    Personally I think that the REEV Approach is the enabling technology for a hydrogen fuel cell.

    Lets do some math:

    Let’s assume that due to mass production, the cost of a Li-Ion pack falls by ~400% is $250/kWh (which is only 2x what PbA is). For an EV with a 250 mile range, the cost of the battery pack is still over $15,000 (assuming 250 Wh/mile). (And the battery pack for the Volt would be $4,000).

    GM’s fuel cell cost target is $50/kW. So to replace the Volt’s gas engine with a fuel cell would cost only $2,500. (Assuming 50kW, as the 71hp engine will likely be throttled less than it is rated to operate as efficiently as possible)

    So if battery costs fall by 400%, I can build:

    A 40 Mile Hydrogen REEV for $6,500
    –or—
    A 250 Mile EV for $15,000 (Or more than double the price)

    Remember hydrogen haters, in this scenario it’s not Hydrogen vs. Battery Instead It’s
    Hydrogen vs. Petroleum
    Hydrogen vs. Biofuels
    Hydrogen vs. Synthetic fuels (CTL/GTL)
    (I’m leaving off electrolysis, because I do find it too inefficient to consider).

    Also, EROEI is not Well-to-Wheel. Energy returned means nothing without consideration of the efficiently with which it is utilized. The Hydrogen Equanox I drove got around 38 Mpgge, so basically twice the mileage as opposed to a gas engine.

    So basically a more far comparison would be:
    The EROEI of Biofuels vs. 2x (for the efficiency of the fuel cell vs. ICE) for hydrogen produced by gasified biomass.
    Etc.

    Also having the EV range would dramatically reduce the need for hydrogen infrastructure, as most people would need to fill up infrequently, so for fueling stations a few in town and along stops on the interstate would be sufficient.  
    
    (Quote)

36. 
    
    

    nasaman Says:
    February 6th, 2008 at 11:58 pm

    Fuel cells aside, in case there’s anyone else here interested in seeing the real-life Saturn Plug-in VUE’s EV range increased from 10 mi to 35mi+, at least as an option, here’s the fax I’ve sent to Jill Lajdziak, Saturn’s General Manager on that subject….

    “From re-reading the description of the Cadillac Provoq concept recently revealed at the ‘08 Detroit Auto Show, I find that it’s virtually identical in size (180.3″L x 67″H x 72.8″W) to the Plug-in VUE also just announced. And studying a detailed cutaway of the Provoq concept at…

    “http://www.autobloggreen.com/photos/detroit-2008-cadillac-provoq-fuel-cell-concept/560979/

    “…reminded me the Provoq has two HUGE hydrogen tanks under/behind the rear seats that the plug-in VUE will not have. The Provoq uses a 9KWh Lithium Ion battery pack under the center tunnel that’s said to give it a battery-only range of 20 Miles. This tells me there should be ample space for Saturn to up-size the VUE battery to AT LEAST the Chevy Volt’s 16KWh pack by adding a “T” section under the rear seats as with the VOLT, which should give the VUE 16KWh/9KWh x 20mi = 35.6mi/charge (vs 10mi/charge)!

    “I’m sure there are many thousands like me that would greatly prefer a CUV like the plug-in VUE to the much smaller Chevy Volt sedan, even at a considerably higher cost …IF IT GOT MORE LIKE 35 (instead of 10) MILES/CHARGE!”

    (The fax # to Ms. Lajdziak is 313-667-8902 and the phone # is 313-556-5000. You probably won’t receive a reply, but if they get other faxes about this there’s a better chance they’ll consider offering an extended range as an option!)  
    
    (Quote)

37. 
    
    

    NZDavid Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 12:45 am

    #36 Nasaman
    I don’t understand. Does it get twenty miles range or ten?
    Your calculation uses a figure of 20, but then you say “IF IT GOT MORE LIKE 35 (instead of 10) MILES/CHARGE!”
    I’m confused.  
    
    (Quote)

38. 
    
    

    nasaman Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 7:47 am

    37NZ David:

    Sorry for the confusion. Here’s my reasoning in step-by-step form….

    1) The Plug-in Saturn Vue gets 10miles with an unspecified battery size

    2) The *same-size* Plug-in Caddy Provoq gets 20mi with a 9KWh battery

    3) Therefore GM should be able to upsize the Vue battery (ample space is available) to the Volt battery size and get 35+ miles, since battery capacity is linearly proportional to range in 2 vehicles with the same size, weight & aerodynamics, i.e……

    Plug-in Vue range with 16KWh battery: 16KWh/9KWhx20mi = 35.6mi  
    
    (Quote)

39. 
    
    

    Neil Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 9:34 am

    #32 Jeff M:
    Please look again. The charts on the table don’t come from the UCal(Davis) article at the top of the page. They come from the Argonne National labs presentation just bellow that at http://www.veva.bc.ca/wtw/273.pdf

    The Eaves report is absolutely correct to point out that in terms of cost and practicality of energy delivery, BEVs are far superior to FCVs. The only advantage I can see to FCVs is refueling speed, which may make it useful for niche applications and possibly range extenders as envisioned in this vehicle.

    As far as FCs go, for practicality we might be far better off figuring out how to use bio-methane in an SOFC than rather than trying to move H2 around the country.  
    
    (Quote)

40. 
    
    

    Jeff M Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    1st I’d like to know where folks are seeing the comment numbers…. I don’t see them any more and I’m guessing Lyle is using something that is not cross browser compatible for the numbers Lyle, if you are reading this I’m using Opera 9.24 on WinXP.

    Regarding refueling speed of a pure BEV (since it’s not an issue for a range extended BEV). Obviously not a problem most of the time as a pure BEV will likely have a range that is much more than sufficient for every day driving (commute, running errands, etc). So it’s those relatively rare times for most that a solution is needed. During the transition to the future, most households may be likely to have another vehicle that is not a pure BEV so will use that to go on vacations, for others w/out another such vehicle, renting those rare times is a viable option. Even a pure BEV however may be viable if your destination is within your BEV’s range and your accomodations offer overnight plug-in service.

    But I also think we are going to see moving forward more BEV’s that have battery systems with a “quick charge” option where “quick” is around 10 minutes. A quick charge station is a lot cheaper to put up than a hydrogen refueling station, and in fact a quick charge station can be put in lots of places that a hydrogen or gasoline would be allowed to be placed today.

    Of course the real transition solution is….. a vehicle like the Volt! A range extended BEV! And a clean diesel engine for the generator (range extender)!  
    
    (Quote)

41. 
    
    

    Neil Says:
    February 7th, 2008 at 12:32 pm

    As the owner of a BEV motorcycle, I can tell you that fast charge is the least of my problems. I start out every day with a full charge, the same can’t be said about most gas tanks. Instead of a gas or diesel range extender, NG (can be bio) which I also have delivered to my house would be a nice option.  
    
    (Quote)

42. 
    
    

    Jason M. Hendler Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Jeff M,

    I understand that the strained titania solar hydrogen generator is a prototype, but it is clear that it is viable, so again, my point is NOT to rule anything out.

    I suspect that nations which are rich in geothermal energy will become exporters of hydrogen, and I am certain that electricity providers are filling their shorts trying to envision how much electricity they will now have to deliver to homes, and how to manage peak demand. V2G is going to be phenominally tough to do effectively and safely.

    I still believe the ultimate balanced approach will be a 40 – 50 mile BEV with fuel cell range extender. Balances upfront costs with long term costs with adequate range and refill / recharge time.  
    
    (Quote)

43. 
    
    

    Brian Says:
    February 8th, 2008 at 6:12 pm

    ziv
    “OptimisticMF, I wish that hydrogen would work, but the initial expense of building the Fuel Cell is very high”

    I have seen many references that GM believes that they will get the cost of a fuel cell stack down to almost the same as a internal combustion engine. Because I doubt you would believe my word, I googled to find a GM researcher who said that:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/01/22/mfburns22.xml

    “The company says that its process is cheap enough to compete with the cheapest approaches used now, unquote. So it would be about the same cost as the cheapest processes around now which aren’t financially viable”

    The cheapest approach today is steam reformation of natural gas which is about $3/kg. Matching that is an astounding accomplishment. In the above article I linked, the researcher stated that he could build a car that could go 350-370 miles on 8kg of hydrogen. 8 kg * $3 kg = $24/350 miles. That is about what gas prices are today. Hydrogen if mass produced using nuclear power, using production during off peak hours, would translate to less than $1/kg, making it far cheaper/mile than gasoline is today. However, if you don’t like nuclear the just reread the solar article.

    Eric
    “it takes 4 TIMES as much energy to make the hydrogen to drive a mile than it does to charge a battery to go the same distance.”

    Yes, however, batteries that go 350 miles cost $30,000+. Battery technology is NOT underfunded. It is powered by the computer and mobile electronics industries. It is massively mass produced. It is also advancing very slowly, 2x increase in energy density in 10 years. At the current rate it will take 87 years for a battery pack like the one in the volt to do what hydrogen can do today. So yes, it takes more energy to create, but it is also more useful.

    “It’ll take 4 times as many solar shingles to go a mile on your hydrogen than it would to charge a battery with that same solar tech. Seems more relevant to invest the money in battery technology advancements than hydrogen, IMHO.”

    Yes, but hydrogen can be used when it’s needed. It is a STORAGE medium. A hydrogen tank can be as big as you need it. It costs similar to have a 20,000 kw-hr hydrogen storage system and it does to have a 2,000 kw-hr storage system. Most of the cost of hydrogen is in the fuel cell not the tank, and if GM is to be believed, a hydrogen fuel cell with enough power to run a house would cost $7000. For battery technology to do the same thing it would cost >$100,000. Yes, you would need more solar cells, but Intel just got into solar cells in a big way. Once the mass production systems used to make computer chips are applied to solar cells, they will become enormously cheaper very fast.

    I find it very frustration that so many on the internet call hydrogen a “myth.” Most of the arguments against hydrogen are flat out lies (eg. cost). My observation is that most of those who oppose hydrogen sincerely believe that we will not have enough energy in the future. Their only honest complaint is that hydrogen is less energy efficient. However, nuclear power today could sustain us for tens of thousands of years including enormous energy growth needs using just the uranium we can mine in the ocean with Japans recently developed and extremely cheep technology – essentially sponges in the ocean. Uranium is more plentiful on earth than tin. (http://www.cameco.com/uranium_101/) This is in addition to the enormous resources we have in solar and wind. As I discussed above, it is very likely that the cost of solar is going to drop through the floor. Ironically, hydrogen stored in giant caves may be the savior of solar power. Solar power’s biggest weakness is it is only produced during the day time. It NEEDS storage.

    Energy may become more expensive in the future, but it will not bring the world as we know it to an end. However, I don’t think it will become all that much more expensive either. The volt is the first step to all of these technologies – gasoline effiency, battery power, and hydrogen.  
    
    (Quote)

44. 
    
    

    LurkingNewb Says:
    February 11th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Great thread. I just wanted to toss something else in here that may be another game changer. There are fuel cells in development that can run on diesel (biodiesel?) WITHOUT a reformer. Think of these as another form of range extender that is more than twice as efficient as a diesel engine.

    Obviously they have emissions, but you get more than twice the work from the same emissions, AND the emissions are much more easily controlled (contained.) I think these would be an excellent compliment to the E-Flex platform.  
    
    (Quote)

Leave a Reply