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.

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.

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.

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)!

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.

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

“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!)

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.