Lutz: Why Do You Need Fuel Cells?
GMs vice-chairman is Bob Lutz, he is the father of the Chevy Volt and shepherding its development along personally. When he says something about the car, it has validity, and often he will be the first to leak out news, sometimes I suspect, against the wishes of GMs PR people. One thing is certain to me, he is honest.
His recent comments about global warming reverberated intensely through the blogosphere, and indeed still do.
Now here’s another goodie. People on this site and others have railed against the idea of hydrogen fuel cell cars, making the logical argument that long-range batteries are a simpler and more efficient answer. This is in spite of the fact that GM and other automakers seem to be making pushes towards fuel cells.
Mr.Lutz recently told reporters:
“If we get lithium-ion to 300 miles, then you need to ask yourself, Why do you need fuel cells?”
Good question Mr. Lutz.
Source (Wall Street Journal)
Popularity: 3%
(6 votes, average: 3.83 out of 5) 
Loading ...
75 Responses to “Lutz: Why Do You Need Fuel Cells?”
Leave a Reply
March 8th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Couldn’t you use one of those home hydrogen making machines that Honda plans to sell?
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/03/gm-developing-home-based-hydrogen-refueling-station/
It could be powered by whatever clean source your home electricity is powered by. They are basically the same thing as electric just changing the form of energy one extra time. Electric and fuel cell will just co-exist, people will buy one or the other.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:43 am
Lutz needs to be congratulated for his commonsence.
Well done
March 8th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Converting electricity into hydrogen then back to electricity is way more inefficient than than battery use only.
eg 100kwh
= Compression H2 23 kwh assumes electrolysis 75% efficient, fuel cell 50% efficient, 10% power to compress, Transport 20% power.
= Liquefaction H2 19 kwh assumes electrolysis 75% efficient, fuel cell 50% efficient, 35% power to Liquefaction, 10% power to transport.
= EV 69 kwh with regenerative braking. assumes 10% loss to AC grid transmission 15% loss to AC-DC conversion and battery charging.
Source: http://www.efcf.com/reports/E21.pdf
March 8th, 2008 at 3:20 am
I mostly agree with others here about hydrogen (at least in the near term), but let’s not forget that fuel cell cars have a lot of parts and technology in common with PHEVs. Batteries, inverters/converters, drive motors, high voltage management systems, software (that is a BIGGIE), electric accessory systems, etc.
The development of fuel cell cars over the last ten years has resulted in priceless knowledge and a growing supplier base for all of these things that will soon be used in PHEVs. And the government has been funding this research, and will probably continue to do so for a while, which helps manufacturers justify the cost and time they have put into it without any tangible reward.
So let’s not be too quick to crucify GM and others for spending time on fuel cells. Frankly I am surprised Lutz said what he did, but as Lyle says, Lutz is as honest as they come.
March 8th, 2008 at 3:49 am
I see no connection between Co2 and what is generally considered "smog" of all types. IMHO they are two different things. It is Co2 that is believed to be responsible for global warming and even if you see that as a "crock" you can still believe that EVs are good for the environment. The reason is simple. If you burn E85 or even the eventual E100 you might very well contribute just as much Co2 to the atmosphere as fossil fuels. But you will not contribute all the carbon byproducts that I believe are responsible for ruining air quality and causing smog and pollution. Ever seen that black snow the snow plow kicks to the side of the road? Uhhh that is not CO2.
Simply put, I never saw anything contradictory in Lutz’s belief in climatic cycles as opposed to "one source" finger pointing.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:26 am
#2NZDavid
Great set of statistics there!
A very simple law is being shown in NZDavid’s post. Expressed in basic terms it shows that for every step where energy is converted from one form to another, there is a loss of energy in the form of heat created during the transform. This means that each step in the process stores less energy than the previous step.
And then to compound the ‘loss of energy’ (Entropy) effect there is also the energy required to do the transform in the first place…..
Not to mention transport of the ‘energy’ (fuel, Hydrogen, electricity, etc) to the delivery point so that the end user can access it.
Hydrogen fuel requires far more transform steps and infrastructure to deliver than plain old electrons do.
Ter
March 8th, 2008 at 5:57 am
There is not enough lithium for Volt type cars (40 miles electric) if it replaces all the cars in the globe. So 300 mile
lithium ion should not even be considered as an option.
It will get dry at the end like Oil though lithium recyclying could extend this further.
My bet is on EEstor like ultracapacitors, biodiesel from algae,
Coskata ethanol, Los Alamos Air to fuel and 50% efficient solar panels.
Algae based Bio diesel itself has enough potential to replace all the oil that we consume, in addition to that, create a diesel hybrid with 100 mile all electric using EEstor ultra or MIT Nano type ultracapacitor and relax for centuries without worrying about what fuels your car.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Although I agree in part with Bob, that a 300 mile electric range would make the use of fuel cells seem unnecessary, the question would then be "how fast can you recharge the battery pack?"
With a pure BEV, to take a trip across country, you would need a way to recharge your batteries in a reasonable time, not just overnight, as many people will travel more than 300 miles in one day.
Maybe Bob still feels an ICE would still be included, but that it would be used so infrequently, that the emissions and CO2 would be very small.
As NZDavid noted in #2, although hydrogen is abundant, it is typically not in a usable form (i.e. lots of hydrogen in H2O, but it takes a great deal of energy to separate it into H2). Therefore, the hydrogen economy is not extremely efficient, it just reduces CO2.
The fact that Bob is mentioning 300 mile range battery packs is encouraging, because it tells me that GM probably sees a lot of promise in some of the new electric storage methods, both lithium-ion and ultra-capacitors.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:52 am
#6Talks
An interesting document on lithium availability is available here: http://www.evworld.com/library/lithium_shortage.pdf
Although the author of this document makes some good points about long term availability, (or lack thereof) I think that Lithium represents a very good starting point. As other people have pointed out battery technology is evolving.
One interesting point in the above mentioned article is towards the end where the author discusses two different battery technologies, one of which is the Zebra cell.
The author positions the article to amplify the downside to Lithium batteries, for instance the author states that at the current rate of Lithium production it would take 75 years to equip the current number of vehicles in the world with batteries. This seems to state that it would take too long to change over to battery powered cars. The author also implies that the entire world MUST change over at the same time.
Nonetheless this article does make for good reading and does have some valid points. Read it and judge for yourself.
Ter
March 8th, 2008 at 7:46 am
It doesn’t have to be JUST litium. Less lithium per car extends the number. What about compressed air. There are some compressed air cars out there being developed that are very impressive. Lots of advantages to both batteries and compressed air… probably more advantages to compressed air.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I’m glad that the larger companies are starting to see the "electrons". Bob’s (GM’s) viewpoint is slowly morphing towards Tesla’s and vice versa with Tesla’s current plans for their sedan. This is a very good thing, IMO. Usually when different entities converge on the same path after coming from such varying perspectives and motivations, it is a very sensible path. Even though I don’t agree with Bob’s opinion on global warming, I’m glad he has it. Having that opinion and still supporting EV’s so strongly, brings more validity to this approach.
While there have been some benefits to EV’s from developing hydrogen power as Brian M mentioned, these have been minor at best. Electric drivetrains existed long before the push for hydrogen started in 2000. Most of the vast sums of $ were earmarked for hydrogen development, distribution, storage, and fuel cells. This has beer a colossal waste and has been more responsible for sidetracking BEV development than aiding it. Hydrogen has it’s advantages and will find it’s place in some areas, but not the automobile. The mindless government support for hydrogen development should be abandoned. Hydrogen should be re-evaluated for which markets it can realistically benefit and funding should be allocated accordingly. The vast majority of funding (probably @ 90%), IMO, would do more good as electric only range and clean renewable energy incentives.
Quick charging would be great, but think of the business prospects. How often would you need it if your range was 300 miles or even 150 miles? In a sense, it would be a rapidly diminshing market opportunity by itself. It could work long term as means of attracting customers for other primary business activities (restaurants, hotels, convenience stores, etc.), but conventional 240V or 277V may be sufficient for this. I think Th!nk’s approach could make sense or a hybrid scenario of ownership and renting. Buy the battery capacity you need for regular driving and rent additional capacity for the occasional long trip. For me, 150 miles of range will suffice for all but maybe 3-5 trips a year and renting additional battery range that can be swapped will take care of the rest. This way you only have to pay for the battery capacity you need. It would keep the cost of long range BEV’s affordable untill battery prices come down (hopefully) enough to where the cost of range is irrelevent. Of course a cost effective, energy dense alternative like EESTOR is proclaiming or even Zebra cells may make all the traditional electro-chemical issues irrelevent.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:37 am
#s 2 and 6, very simple explanation. It begs the question as to why auto manufacturers and big government push for the hydrogen economy when clearly the infrastructure is not here and it is an energy loser. I’m not a conspiracy-type…maybe I am?
If we’d dumped a tenth of the dollars into batteries that we did in hydrogen, we’d all be driving free Volts by now.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Good reason agrees with Dave B, but I think using the term conspiracy is misleading. It has been a lot of very poor judgment by a lot of different people and entities. In an over enthusiastic effort to support existing business structures, hydrogen was seized upon as an elixir for many ills. IMO it’s promotion was done mostly with good intentions, but it didn’t take long for the majority of the engineering and scientific community to recognize the issues with hydrogen. It’s absurd that the decision makers have mostly ignored or marginalized the advice of scientists on what is a scientific issue.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:24 am
#8 BillR
I, too, find in encouraging that Bob comments on the possibility of 300-500 mile batteries. Perhaps the Volt battery tests and other battery developments are more promising than has been publicly acknowledged.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I also concur with the bulk of the posts, the Hydrogen effort seems like a pie in the sky diversion, calculated to forestall a shift to hybrids with significant AER. In a few months, we will know whether the prototype battery packs deliver the performance needed. And if one or both do, then our only barriers will be cost and production, which are related.
I believe it is a myth that they is not enough readily available lithium to produce enough batteries to get off oil.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I couldn’t agree more with Bob. Hydrogen doesn’t have a future. Hopefully when the Volt appears ready for production, GM can end its hydrogen program and put the dollars into electric research.
I’m currently watching a car program and it’s all about hydrogen. Many car companies are pouring a lot of money into it. It seems such a waste.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I concure with 3, 6, & 12
The only possibility for hydrogen to be a factor is a dramatic technological break through in production.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I know very little about fuel cells, but I do know one or two NASA agencies know a LOT about them because of their use throughout the Apollo & Shuttle programs (& a few others) going back nearly 50 years. I also know that most fuel cells have always used thick platinum electrodes —and that’s where most of the expense lies. And although NASA has used H2 as a rocket liquid propellent for about 50 years too, they certainly know it’s VERY expensive to transport and to store (high rate of evaporation).
So why didn’t the Whitehouse ask NASA experts years ago, BEFORE they spent so much trying to make H2 practical for automobiles? I’m sure they did. And I wouldn’t be surprised if NASA’s experts encouraged further R&D, hoping massive additional research might discover breakthroughs in fuel cell electrode design (and other areas) that would make them inexpensive to mass produce. Regarding H2 distribution & storage, it seems more likely to me the government’s administrative-types just assumed those things could also be resolved —IF fuel cell designs could be made affordable.
So, as often is the case, the hoped-for breakthroughs haven’t happened ….and I agree it’s time to refocus R&D funding, public & private, on battery (& perhaps ultracapacitor) research. Government/industrial conspiracies? No, it’s just the way advanced R&D turns out (much of the time it doesn’t pay off).
March 8th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Efforts need to be directed to solar. Hopefully panels will become so efficient that we will accept the losses associated with splitting hydrogen from water with electricty . I would like to see this hydrogen used in heavy applications where a large storage tank is not an issue : over the road trucks , locomotives , buses , ships …
March 8th, 2008 at 10:38 am
In my opinion, hydrogen will not be a real option until we decide to improve our nuclear electricity production. Hydrogen, even future hydrogen, will require nuclear power to give it any form of a fighting chance. And that obviously begs the question that Bob asked, why not just build really good batterys and skip the middle man.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Solar, in my opinion, will be limited to highly specialized applications. If it were to quadruple in the efficiency that they achieve today, it would be one forth as efficient as nuclear. That’s not to say that I don’t root for solar – I do, but the realist in me says that we should concentrate on finding its niches rather than looking for some type of radical breakthrough. Those niches exist now – solar water heating is a home run and has the potential to replace about 25% of all electrical use at the point of the home. I could even foresee a small solar panel option for the Volt that allows a 3-5 mile charge over 8-10 hours while the car is parked in the lot at work, or for that matter, while it is moving or parked anywhere in sunlight. I can foresee LED street lamps that use such a small amount of electricity that a small solar panel becomes cheaper than wiring the lamp. But the idea of converting sun light to electricity to hydrogen to electricity to motion – never. It’s never going to be efficient enough – too many conversions.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:02 am
#12 Dave B
"I’m not a conspiracy-type…"
Oil and car companies really like the status quo and want it to continue as long as possible. They know change is inevitable, but if they could just stall it for decade or so they could pocket a few more $$$ on the infrastructure currently in place. The H2 promises of a decade ago allowed them to do just that.
On the other hand, why didn’t European and Japanese companies (with generous public funding) create a Volt-like car before GM? They’re in a much tighter position with regard to imported fuel than we are.
Maybe GM didn’t kill the electric car after all. maybe the technology just wasn’t ready for mass production.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:07 am
RE John #19
Even if solar power was $0.50 per watt (10% of current costs) batteries would still be a better deal for efficiency compared with hydrogen. There is point generating cheap power only to waste it, and without some huge technological / scientific break through hydrogen production/transport/storage/use just wastes energy. It is better to use the cheap clean power to displace cheap dirty power (coal).
March 8th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I know many are against the idea of Hydrogen vehicles, some as much as to adamantly loathe the concept and ridicule anyone who is just willing to even ponder the idea, (seen it many times). IMO, I think from what I’ve observed it would be great in a range extender application—Zero emissions and no apologies necessary.
Baby’s calling. Gotta go!
March 8th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
#6, Ter Meenal,
You forget one thing, the efficiency of charging, then discharging a battery. Sure, it stays as electricity, but there is still a loss due to storage.
A second thing is that hydrogen has a higher specific energy - it is the lightest weight energy carrier. There are efficiency losses in accelerating and decelerating a large mass of batteries, even with regenerative braking - just ask Tesla, whose Roadster drops from 260+ miles driving conservatively to 160+ driving aggressively.
Finally, there is capital cost. There are car makers today who can manufacture fuel cells at only a 20% premium over ICE powerplants (figure $1.2K), while battery packs for 200+ mile range cost $20K.
Bottom line, battery packs aren’t significantly more efficient for performance driving to justify their high upfront costs.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I agree with Schmeltz, we will have hydrogen E-REV’s vs. rapid recharge BEV’s in the long run, just as we have gasoline and diesel vehicles today.
March 8th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Compact cars powered by a new European designed compressed air engine developed, tested and patented, over the past fifteen years may be introduced to the U.S. market in 2009. The "air car" is said to cost around $20k and gets the equivalent of 100+ MPG with zero emissions (800+ miles per compressed air refill). Both the cars and engine may be manufactured in the U.S., perhaps the first real alternative to hydrogen, PHEVs, and other alternative fuel approaches. More information: http://zeropollutionmotors.us/
March 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Additionally, hydrogen, as stated above, is rapid refill, AND it has great cold start capabilities when used in hydrogen ICE, as it has no problem atomizing in cold climates.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
While I have been quick to criticize Mr. Lutz when I don’t agree with him, I have to second Lyle in saying:
"Good question Mr. Lutz."
#3 nzdavid and #6 Ter Meenal clearly have it right. Every time you convert from one type of energy to another there is a loss.
I agree with #8 BillR that sometimes even 300 miles/day is not enough range. On the other hand, I drive 25,000 miles/year for my business, and every bit of it could be done with a 300 mile range. So maybe our family needs one car with a small range extender, and one without.
Someone once suggested a small trailer with a generator which could be rented by people who only very occasionally drive long distances. Maybe something like that could work. Maybe it could be minaturized and plugged into a designated bin on the car, or go in the trunk. Maybe on the roof in something like the streamlined roof carrying bins you see.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
This comment may be vague but i read in last month’s motor trend in the "technologue" section about the most efficient way to store braking energy was by keeping it mechanical, you slowing your car down spins up a small flywheel up to 65000 RPM’s inside a vacuum chamber (would otherwise heat the air around it to 700 degrees F) and releases the energy as you start to accelerate again, which by definition would be more efficient than a battery. That’s just braking energy though…it would still be a great addition and mileage booster to any ICE or electric vehicle. Has anyone heard any more about these than i have?
March 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I believe the adage is "don’t put all your eggs in one basket". If the auto industry has learned something it’s that. Relying on the oil industry has hurt everyone, including their SUV sales. So while electricity looks very promising you have to look to diversify. I think the consumer would want the choice to not be forced into an energy monopoly, as we have been with oil.
March 8th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
#13 Tim D:
Well it’s tough to argue with that. Who knows where the next breakthrough is going to happen?
Look at #30 Mike D’s comment, for example. At our local ports, someone has come up with a gizmo for cranes that stores energy when a container is lowered with a flywheel, and uses it to help lift the next one. Apparently, it actually works in the field.
Every little bit helps, a la low power consumption windshield wipers!
March 8th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
You can’t just look at current lithium production rates and say there isn’t enough lithium for greater future use. For many years there just wasn’t that great of a demand. Don’t be surprised to see other ways to extract lithium come about. They won’t be as simple and intuitive as what we have now; but when we increase the demand just see what happens. Lithium is not a rare element and can’t be ruled out simply by looking at today’s production processes and capabilities.
About 100 years ago some argued that ICE cars could never win out because there wasn’t enough oil being processed!
March 8th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Tim D (#31) Electricity IS diversity and unlike H2 it can be easily made at your home. PV technology will quickly improve and prices will come down as BEVs increase demand for distributed electricity and distributed energy is less susceptible to terror attacks.
Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) can use the EXISTING infrastructure whereas H2 Electric Vehicles (H2EVs) require a NEW $Trillion infrastructure. H2 aside, fuel cells are MUCH more expensive than batteries and only have a FRACTION of their lifespan. Mr. Lutz is FINALLY admitting what we already logically deduced.
Is there a place for H2 in the future? YES, in special industrial applications.
March 8th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
#33, Tim,
H2 will most certainly be used in air transportation and maritime shipping, where specific energy is a significant factor.
BEV’s require high current circuit breakers to charge, so don’t kid yourself that your bathroom lightfixture outlet will do. Moreover, rapid refill charging stations are just as expensive to build as hydrogen filling stations, so don’t think BEV’s are going to work for everyone, especially those who don’t have the time for the vehicle to charge all night.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Here is a link to an interesting analytical article at Green Car Congress that compares hybrid car architectures of the Volt and Prius types.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/calcars-weighs.html#more
The article concludes:
“What neither company (GM and Toyota) has stated is that it is following its quickest and least expensive way to build its first PHEVs by taking advantage of its own existing hybrid and/or EV technologies and tooling. For each to do this is highly desirable for all of us. Since each type of PHEV has its own advantages, disadvantages, costs, and optimum driving regimes, our expectation is that during the first few years—maybe a decade—of PHEV production, all types of PHEVs will compete well in the marketplace. Then, eventually—as batteries become a cheaper, longer-life, commodity item, liquid fuels become more dear, renewable electricity generation proliferates, and CO2 emissions are increasingly targeted—the PHEVs with the most EV power and range will come to dominate.”
If you haven’t read it, the article makes for interesting reading. See what you think of the article.
GM and Toyota bring PHEVs on as fast as possible.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I’m no fan of fuel cells and also doubt that a 300 mile li ion battery pack will exist anytime soon, but then, who cares?
There is no need for a battery-only EV. Period. Once you get beyond 40 miles of range, with a 50 MPG liquid fuel mileage, the gasoline industry goes Poof! Just look at the DOT commuter mileage figures and do the math yourself, assuming a Volt type vehicle with 40 and 50 electric
mile ranges. You’ll find that a 40 mile plug-in commuter fleet can average 275 MPG and avoid 93% of gasoline usage, even without any workplace recharges. If 1/4th can recharge,
then the mileage jumps to 397 MPG and almost 96% of gas is avoided. With a 50 mile range plug-in, the numbers turn
out to be 500MPG and 754MPG if 1/4th can recharge at work. Gas avoidance in these cases is 96.6% and 97.8%, respectively. There will be plenty enough ethanol to supply all the liquid fuel required for such a fleet. Gasoline for commutingis a very large portion of consumption, and many other trip distributions (second car - wife’s car, retiree’s car, etc) will benefit similarly, if not even better than commuters.
So who needs a battery-only EV or a fuel cell EV? Plug-ins can destroy the global crude oil industry and
the oil cartels. OPEC should fear plug-ins, not battery-only electrics or fuel cell cars.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
It wouldn’t be that difficult to have a high voltage circuit put in your house. 220 is a snap, and if you need higher, you’ll need a different breaker-box but it’s doable and no it’s no where near the level of an H2 station.
The most important thing is that if we had the cars and the battery, the high potential is already available. Juice comes into your home before the transformer and breaker at 10,000+ volts. The nice thing about high potential is that you don’t need all that current.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Jason, if you are plugging your plug-in vehicle into your bathroom’s light fixture, you need a new house!
And where do you come up the data to say that rapid recharge stations would cost as much as an H2 filling station to build?
Series hybrid BEV’s (aka "range extended EV") like the Volt luckily don’t need either! Plug in (and obviously not in your bathroom) your Volt when you get home every night, and for those relatively rare occasions you need more than the range of your batteries (40+ in the Volt, possibly more in the competition and/or future Volt generations or other GM vehicles), then your generator set kicks on.
As time goes on and batteries (and supercapacitors, etc) increase their energy density, maybe vehicles get lighter as they move away from steel, the range keeps growing, it becomes even more rare that you need to exceed the range.
March 8th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
As to the question why the auto makers have been spending the money on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles… you need to go back to earlier this decade when they (and others) were able to get the California’s ZEV mandate essentially gutted. Part of the agreement they made then was hydrogen fuel cell vehicles… 2008 was the deadline I believe which is why you are seeing them come out this year (no surprise).
It was a great way to delay the inevitable. Why would the auto companies want to delay? Status quo was already mentioned, and it’s definitely part of it. However they are for profit companies (in this case also with share holders), and we’ve mentioned this before… EV’s have 70-90% fewer moving parts than a conventional vehicle with an internal combusion engine (ICE). Auto makers and auto dealers make much more money on a vehicle post sale then they do on the sale itself. This is especially true for the auto dealerships who handle all the regular servicing and repairs and parts replacements. EV’s need significantly less parts and service over their lifetime.
Can you blame them? Planned obsolesence is part of capitalism. If you design a product to be too maint. free and long lasting, you will soon put yourself out of business.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
And here’s another reason hydrogen for general transportation is just too little too late…
See http://tinyurl.com/2vccak
It’s only a concept, but it’s a VW Golf TDI (diesel) hybrid that gets 69 miles per gallon.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I gotta agree with Kent; batteries alone are a tough sell, and ethanol or other bio-fuels alone are tough sells, but when you combine them together in a PHEV you can use so much less of each that they both become feasible. All with minimal infrastructure changes compared to Hydrogen. Your fast charge is a liquid refuel and is comparatively rare. Your overnight charge is fine for the battery and is what you’ll usually do. PHEV with gasoline is an enabling bridge; PHEV with biofuel from scraps might be a longer bridge a short ways down the road and might even be an end solution.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Jeff M,
Regarding the bathroom fixture, just emphasizing the point that people will have to upgrade their circuit box / wiring to include a high amp circuit breaker for their garage.
I think the first reason the automakers were fighting the EV mandate is that they would have losts their butts selling a handful of EV’s in a market that had access to cheap gas in the late ’90’s, early 2000’s. Don’t know why people have to keep looking for a villain to skewer, because today, we have many tech advancements and configurations that better serve the market place - namely, Li-Ion batteries and range extenders.
March 8th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Jeff M #38
"Can you blame them? Planned obsolesence is part of capitalism. If you design a product to be too maint. free and long lasting, you will soon put yourself out of business."
*** *** ****
No doubt this has been one of the sticking points, otherwise we’d have had EV’s since the 70’s or maybe even the 60’s.
Big oil has also been up to no good, but suffice it to say that any car mfg makes significant revenue on RPL parts.
With an oligopoly like the auto industry, once you get just one EV out there the others have to follow suit. Ensuring that the big auto cos will produce EVs are the plans of Tesla and Phoenix to produce EVs for the masses. Since they have never produced ICE vehicles they will push the envelope and ensure that the major automakers take notice. In the case of Tesla, perhaps the very reason the Volt exists.
March 8th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
[...] GMs vice-chairman is Bob Lutz, he is the father of the Chevy Volt and shepherding its development along personally. When he says something about the car, it has validity, and often he will be the… [[ This is a content summary only. … Read More [...]
March 8th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I would like to point out that Lithium is more abundant than copper and more abundant than lead and zinc put together. The only reason for shortages is the lack of mining effort. Most Lithium now comes from surface mining. The mining scale up is pacing well with increased use. Main battery costs are R/D recoup. $0.30/WH is easily obtained with scale.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
The Hydrogen proponents are out in force defending this article. If you do any research at all on hydrogen (or you can just go to the old forum on this site for detailed debate) you will find that hydrogen is at best going to be for specialized markets where batteries don’t make sense. Why? Because most people don’t want to replace one liquid fuel with another and be beholden to large energy companies that control, tax and regulate it. Don’t worry about the scare tactics used to sway you from batteries. The technology is great today (with the help from a small ICE powered by E85 ) and only getting better tomorrow. In less than 10 years batteries will be over 5 times better AND have quick charge capabilities. I like hydrogen!! It just makes no sense for most everyday drivers. The conversion, storage and fuel cell costs are just outrageous. Far more pie in the sky than advanced batteries. Oh and there is plenty of materials in the earth for batteries. Are people actually thinking there will not be advanced recycling programs? Thus, stay the course on the electrification of the automobile powered by advanced batteries. It’s so simple. Please do your homework!
March 8th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
45Rich Anderson
You said, "I would like to point out that Lithium is more abundant than copper and more abundant than lead and zinc put together. The only reason for shortages is the lack of mining effort. Most Lithium now comes from surface mining. The mining scale up is pacing well with increased use. Main battery costs are R/D recoup. $0.30/WH is easily obtained with scale."
Could you cite a reference, Rich? (I want to use Lithium availability as a question at VoltNation & want as much backup as I can get.)
March 8th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
nasaman, Please don’t forget the concept of recycling. We as a race will have to come to the realization that we are going to have to move towards sustainable living. Currently we can get away with just throwing things away in huge landfills because the materials are so plentiful and recycling technology is not yet cost effective. However, sustainability is where the world is headed. If not it is headed for disaster. Can anyone actually put up a good argument against that? Thus, we need to stop making strategic plans based on non-renewable resources. We must complete the cycle or risk the pain of reduction.
March 8th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Texas…
Yes, and recycling plastics and other synthetics would do their very small part in reducing oil imports.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Grizzly, Think small do small. Are you implying that humans are unable to not only achieve sustainable living but also unable to live without oil? That is just plain silly. Think about it.
March 8th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
I meant exactly what I said, I implied nothing. Even though recyclables are only a small part of petroleum usage, we’re still not doing enough in that respect.
March 9th, 2008 at 1:57 am
Oil Companies want H2, they have tons of it they just burn every day. They want to keep selling you something, not just big gulps and candy bars.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:13 am
If you look at what memory for computers cost a few years ago compared to today. A smililar thing will be the same for batteries in a few years after the start of production and all the tech. start up money is recovered. The oil companys would love to see hydrogen be the next only fuel, so they could just carry on their merry way. With a monoply on the market.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Texas,
Finally, you admit that you are lashing out against big oil, or soon-to-be big hydrogen - being emotional, and not logical. Hydrogen can be produced individually, just like electricity can. I will post this article as often as it take to get it to sink in to the thick-skull hydrogen conspiracy theorists:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20134/
Here is the company website:
http://www.nanoptek.com/
Get a grip!
March 9th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Re # 45 and 47 . In preparation for New York search William Tahil . Looks like most of the Lithium is in Bolivia , Chile , China and there ain’t much of it . Glad you are going to ask that question!
March 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Maan, I can’t wait til I read the press release from GM, A123 or the other battery suppliers that they are going to provide 300+ mile range batteries for the Volt. That’s going to be a HUGE day. It’ll probably be a major story around the world. OPEC and the oil companies might not like it too much though.
As far as fuel cells go, it all depends on the advancements with the lithium ion battery and the economics of fuel cells in general. I think the fuel cell companies ought to keep developing them though for other applications besides $30,000 family type cars. The fuel cell companies ought to try focusing on getting the first fuel cells into big rig 18 wheeler trucks and other construction type vehicles if that is practical. They already use fuel cells on ships and maybe in planes too in the future (for A/C and other electronics, etc.)
If the batteries for the truck are pretty good, the truckers might be able to make it to certain truck stops with hydrogen pumps … no problem. I bet some truckers drive very regular routes between cities. They could put hydrogen stations in 5-6 cities and pilot test it to see how it would work.
I bet Wal Mart would be willing to try out fuel cells for their truck fleet in some sort of pilot test. Wal Mart is buying some diesel hybrids this year.
http://www.thepetestore.com/news-detail.php?id=15
http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/fleets/walmart.htm
http://www.eaton.com/EatonCom/OurCompany/NewsandEvents/NewsList/98065887
I think hydrogen fuel cells will be like plasma TVs 5-10 years ago. It will take a good while to get cheap enough for most cars and pickups. Like Bob Lutz said, if the batteries get 300+ miles of range, it could be a moot point for most people anyway.
However, those truckers and heavy equipment people would probably still want the fuel cell as a backup even if the batteries got really good. You gotta bring the fuel TO the bulldozer you know. They don’t usually have easy access to chargers out in the middle of nowhere. A hydrogen truck could keep them fueled up.
March 9th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Hydrogen produced individually is fine for around home, but how much could you carry on a long trip without stopping at the Hydrogen station (new gas station)
March 9th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Ha! Jason, I guessed that you would come back and argue. Good! Yes, there is always lots of talk from companies when it’s time to get their funding. The company you just mentioned just finished a 4.8 million dollar funding round (peanuts by the way). Ok, if you are going to mention technology that is not in production so can I.http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.htmlYes, silicon nanowire lithium-ion battery technology that provides 10x performance and super fast recharge. These guys also have a prototype cell in the lab working. Now I ask you if this is true would we even need to mess with a liquid fuel again? Transportation, taxation, storage, new fueling infrastructure, etc.? Do you want to? Why do you want to? I said many times that I love hydrogen (for specialized applications but not for cars) and that R&D should be continued.Back to reality, Let’s not argue using technology that is not in production. Fair? If so, hydrogen is still a pipe dream that is decades out in terms of cost alone! Let’s not even talk about the inefficiency of the whole process. I have a grip. do you?
March 9th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I saw today where someone had referenced this in a comment and thought it to be delightfully ironic.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/14/state/n184110D93.DTL
I just hope it wasn’t here.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
#60, It’s not ironic at all. Only a fool refuses to change their mind when new technology or conditions present themselves. If anything It makes me more at ease because GM CAN change their minds. Hydrogen may have made more sense in the past plus there was a lot of government money to win. GM wisely used most of that funding towards the electrification of the automobile. New lithium-ion technology just about made hydrogen obsolete for many applications. This is a good thing! I wonder about people that look back on decisions made in the past and gloat. Hindsight is 20-20, eh? Let’s not be afraid to make the best decisions based on the info we have today with a mindset to change on a dime when conditions change. That’s how us humans survived so long. We adapt quickly. Give Mr. Lutz a break.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
#60 mien green. Yep, he said that back in 2006. How times change.
#58 Jimee#10
By Baldur Eliasson and Ulf Bossel
A mid-size filling station on any frequented freeway easily sells 25 tons of fuel each day. This fuel can be delivered by one 40-ton gasoline truck. But it would need 21 hydrogen trucks to deliver the same amount of energy to the station, i.e. to provide fuel for the same number of cars per day. Efficient fuel cell vehicles would change this number somewhat, but not considerably. The transfer of pressurized
hydrogen from the truck to the filling station takes much more time than draining gasoline from the tanker into an underground storage tank. The filling station may
have to close operations during some hours per day for safety reasons. Today about one in 100 trucks is a gasoline or diesel tanker. For hydrogen distributed by road one may see 120 trucks on the road, 21 or 17% of them transport hydrogen. One out of six accidents involving trucks would involve a hydrogen truck. This scenario is unacceptable for political and social reasons.
Source: http://www.woodgas.com/hydrogen_economy.pdf
#55 Jason
The H2 produced during the day still has to be compressed and stored until the car can be refilled. Good luck with your insurance premiums after a couple of accidents! It does make sense to have the fuel cell at home though in a combined heat and power setup.
H2 for vehicles just doesn’t stack up (pun intended).
Also, I stumbled upon that company last year and am watching their progress with interest. I am looking for a cheap way to make NH3 on a commercial basis.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
#61:
It’s not so much that he changed his mind as it was almost verbatim politico hyperbole. Almost Orwellean, that. Here’s even a better link of the article that bespeaks the "deja vu all over again".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14848423/
Bob knew where he wanted to go. He just didn’t quite know how to get there.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I don’t understand why a few of you appear so hostile (if you consider yourself just skeptical, you might need to tone it down a little) to hydrogen as a propulsion fuel.
There is just as much research going in metal alloy technology, nanomaterials, and hydrogen-production techniques as there is in battery technology. Maybe more, but I’m not sure.
The point is that the technology that will support the E-Rev is the result of the profit motive. Hydrogen production, and hydrogen-based energy, have their own profit motive, only a portion of which has to do with vehicles. Because of that, I would not be painting myself in a corner about how nearly-impossible hydrogen is as an energy source. People are saying the exact same thing about EEstore right now.
March 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
re Lithium: The ocean contains 17ppm lithium. IIRC that’s enough lithium for about 10,000 cars per cubic mile of seawater. You can retrieve the stuff with selective absorption. The reason nobody is doing that yet is because the South American brines are cheaper. As desalination for drinking water becomes more common you also gain another source of brines.
March 10th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
You are all confused! There is very Lithium in Lithium Ion batteries, its the ion not the metal that is in use. And if you want facts on Lithium mining you are either a newbie or have not religiously kept up with past posts, where I published the link to the USGS’s reports on where it is mined, & who is buying it. Try using google : http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lithium/lithimcs06.pdf
March 10th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
#66 Neutron Flux, Thanks for the link.
#64 Eco. H2 is doable now, its just a bad idea for vehicles as I explained in post #3. it is not energy efficient. It would be better to use compressed air if you want massive range and short recharge times. Long term stripping is out of gas won’t work (peak gas). There is no way of getting past the 2nd law of thermodynamnics, as #6 Ter pointed out there is ALWAYS a energy loss each time you convert from one energy form to another.
March 11th, 2008 at 1:08 am
About the compressed air solution. I kind of like the idea but was wondering if anyone worked though the water problem. When you compress air you not only get a lot of heat but also water. You need expensive air dyers for many locations because there is so much water in the air (100 percent humidity days). Thus, I’m thinking about cold weather locations where you are dealing with massive temperature changes as well as massive amounts of standing water. Cold plus water is not good.
I wonder what the air car engineers have to say on the matter.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:20 am
"Lutz: Why Do You Need Fuel Cells?"
Its good to hear you talk that way Bob, I always had you pegged as an idiot & oil company stooge. Now I’m beginning to think otherwise.
Even Bob Lutz knows that fuel cells are still a long way off; they’re a put-on fostered by the oil companies and the Bush administration to kill the electric car. They’re still pushing the ‘fool cell’ when they should be pushing the serial plug in hybrid vehicle instead.
Be careful Bob, by bad-mouthing the fool cell you may have made a lot enemies. Fortunately I am not one of them.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Compressed air really is the answer. The MDI company has been working on them for many years and are suppost to offer them to some countries for different applications shortly. The moisture and freezing problems are not to much of a problem.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Just think, anyone could have a air station, and it wouldn’t have to be one of the big oil companys. Stores, restraunts, McDonalds, Walmart etc. With that kind of competition, prices would be very good, and you could also do it at home.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
"Lutz: Why Do You Need Fuel Cells?"
Because making and disposing of batteries would cause many problems. Hydrogen fuel cells are the long term solution.
The air car is not efficient. It takes too much energy to compress the air and you can’t produce enough power to weight.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
#72 Perry
The batteries get recycled.
H2 also has to be compressed. Unlike air, H2 has to be made first which uses up even more energy.
H2 is a dead end street for vehicles.
#71 Jimee#10. You are correct. I think the range extender using compressed air is the future, unless the algae biofuel industry gets up and running.
March 13th, 2008 at 1:41 am
NZDavid, I agree with just about every you said in your #73 post but not about the compressed air range extender being the future. I think the future is advanced battery technology. So simple, no moving parts, highest efficiency, etc. However, I’m not sure what will happen. Several projects are worthy of massive amounts of R&D. Compressed air is one of them. There are also projects to use compressed air to fill huge underground caverns for base load storage. Exciting times!
March 20th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Hydrogen fuel cells are dead… I think the only reason they were chosen is because it would be a way for the oil majors to stay in the transportation game with fueling stations and also one of the ways to get the gas is to fracture natural gas into it’s component parts… Batteries are far more energy efficient…