AND 
Vice Chairman Tom Stephens on the Current State of GM’s Hydrogen Fuel Cell Program
Hydrogen powered vehicles is a topic that tends to bring out debate. Before the recent explosion of interest in battery electric cars, talk of a hydrogen superhighway and fuel cells cars being the next big step were all the rage.
Interest appears to be waning.
Tom Stephens is vice-chairman of GM and is responsible for product development. I had the chance to ask him his thoughts on hydrogen and what GM is doing with respect to development and production of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
Is the Volt the endgame or is it the fuel cell vehicle?
No. Each of them will continue going forward. My thesis is if you look at what’s going on for energy demand especially in the developing countries, the energy demand is going to continue to grow exponentially and we’re going to have to learn how to utilize energy from all sources if we’re going to have sustainable mobility. We haven’t done that in the last one hundred years. We’ve stayed on petroleum and that’s not a smart thing. It just doesn’t make any sense.
So going forward we are going to break it up
So are you still planning to produce fuel cell vehicles?
Right now what we have is a fuel cell demonstration fleet, Project Driveway, and we’re in one county and we’re going to four more countries and we’re trying to get a lot of customer feedback. We’re doing a lot of work on fuel cells right now to try and continue to move those forward.
At some point in the future we’ll have to decide whether we want to actually go into a production program.
So you haven’t made that decision yet?
No, not at this point. We could do it, but there are a lot of factors. One is our part which is the fuel cell stack and the fuel cell vehicle and how much it will cost. The other part happens to be the infrastructure in order to support the fuel cell and we’ll have to develop both of those.
Right now Germany and Japan are putting in an infrastructure for fuel cells and what we really need is for big US metropolitan cities to decide they want to put in the infrastructure and then it would make sense to go forward.
————————-
Mr Stephens appeared on Autoline Detroit TV today and took some of our questions. You can see the show below:
219 Responses to “Vice Chairman Tom Stephens on the Current State of GM’s Hydrogen Fuel Cell Program”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
- Report: New Buick Regal Will be First to Get GM’s New Hybrid Drivetrain, and Possibly Plug-in
- Chief Powertrain Engineer Pleased With Chevy Volt’s Charge-Sustaining Mode
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
- Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory November 18, 2009Th!nk picks Indiana for U.S. factory: _Link_ (http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1038564_thnk-picks-indiana-for-u-s-factory) […]Jason M. Hendler
- FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010 November 18, 2009FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010: _Link_... […]Jason M. Hendler
- Any news about the NiMH battery? November 18, 2009Now that there are new owners of the patent, is there any indication that they will allow its use for electric cars? Like many others, I believe that... […]Desertstraw
- energy requirments of modern electric vehicles November 18, 2009does anyone know any credible sources of information concerning the electricity requirements of modern electric vehicles per mile of travel and the... […]crubkings
- 30% reduction November 18, 2009The Belgian governement decided that if you buy a car with less then 60g/km emmision you get a 15% tax reduction and you can write it off for 100% if... […]filiep
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
September 21st, 2009 at 6:22 am
Thanks Lyle for the debate post.
From the article
Right now Germany and Japan are putting in an infrastructure for fuel cells and what we really need is for big US metropolitan cities to decide they want to put in the infrastructure and then it would make sense to go forward.
I disagree with fuel cells altogether. However, this statement doesn’t make sense to me. Why would someone care if US metropolitan cities had an infrastructure? When you drive out of these areas, what are your choices? Most of the US is not a metropolitan area. A person may still need two cars.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:30 am
It is hard to judge a project like this when there are no indications of what the initial cost and the operational costs of these vehicles might be.
Also, there is nothing I have ever read that talks about the range or what maintenance would be required.
So how do you give any type of real opinion?????
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:33 am
Sounds like fuel cells will be an option in Germany and Japan, so GM better offer something or lose out to Japanese and German automakers.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:35 am
Lyle starts his post with “Hydrogen powered vehicles is a topic that tends to bring out debate.” Now why would Lyle ever say that? (smile)
The best part of the post is the insight into thinking at gm’s high levels. To me they are saying “we’ll do it if somebody else will pay for it.”, That is the history of automotive research on hydrogen, always fine as a government project, but never something paid for by real automotive buyers.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:36 am
Electric Vehicles already have a power grid infrastructure. We’ve also got a very mature gas/diesel infrastructure. EREV’s are the best near term (next 20 years at least) solution. Hydrogen at this point is a distraction until they can prove that there are significant benefits either by cost or performance that would merit spending the $$$ to push the auto fleet in that direction. Personally I just see hydrogen as another way to collect cash from drivers every week to fill up. With an EV I can (and plan on) get solar on my house and fill up for free as long as my car is running.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:53 am
I was all ready to post a response for this thread and then I read yours. No need now… you just said it all.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 7:03 am
My father-in-law had an interesting idea regarding the chicken-and-egg problem of demand for new fuel sources versus the infrastructure to support them: if a car company wants to release cars that run on a non-gasoline fuel, why not build fill-up stations for that new fuel type at their dealerships? Customers that live close enough to buy from a dealership are close enough to fuel up there. It may not be the “fill up anywhere anytime” end goal but at least it creates an egg for the chicken and makes the new fuel feasible to use. Meanwhile, customers coming to the dealership to fuel up may also be tempted to get their maintenance work done there, driving up revenue.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 7:26 am
Metro areas contain large populations in smaller areas. More birds w/1 stone. As far as driving outside the city, either the car would essentially be a NEV, or you would have to have enough fuel to make it to the next metro area.
I think hydrogen & fuel cells made sense before battery technology took off. Now it seems unecessary. Hydrogen may have more energy density than a battery, but the battery technology is improving every day.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 7:42 am
Both fuel cells and Ethanol have been pushed by leftist loons, whereas off shore drilling and shale oil have been pushed by those beholding to big oil. Meanwhile, we cannot buy a PHEV for less than $30,000. The question we must ask ourselves is this, if we had spent the money on battery research and building battery manufacturing and bought EESor to determine whether it is a scam, that we have spent on Ethanol, fuel cells and two wars in Muslin countries, would we be better off?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 7:49 am
Gasoline vs. Electric vs. H2. It is like talking politics or religion. People seem to have their opinion and no one is going to change it no matter what facts are out there as they will just skew the facts in their arguments direction.
I have driven four of the fuel cell cars and all were fully capable cars. In Los Angeles there are at least three H2 stations which is as many as CNG stations near me at this point. I have a CNG car and have no problem fueling it. If there was an H2 car available today I would buy it.
Cost of H2 will come down and cost of fuel cells will come down. Time will tell where battery electric and fuel cell end up, but I am sure for a long time there will be all kinds of wonderful breakthroughs in both areas as long as we don’t let politics and self-serving interests kill either one.
It has happened over and over in history. FM radio was postponed for 50 years by AM radio (CBS), Electric cars by Big Oil, TV by radio, the early car by the horse interests. England had a rule you had to have someone with a red flag walk in front of your car so you didn’t scare the horses. I wonder who lobbied for that law.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 7:50 am
I believe that BEVs are a great bridge to hydrogen-powered vehicles. We must remember, both are electric vehicles. The only difference is the power source. In an EREV, the battery is recharged by a generator. In a HEV, the battery is a fuel cell stack fueled with hydrogen. But the platform is basically the same — an electric vehicle. So, if we spend the next 10 years refining the electric vehicle platform while fuel cell research continues to evolve, at some point in the future we can marry what then will be a mature electric vehicle platform with an alternate fuel source (hydrogen). The transition will not be quite so dramatic (nor risky nor costly) as leap-frogging to hydrogen out of the gate. And, as Tom Stephens suggests in the post, what’s wrong with having both alternatives — hydrogen-power and grid-power as alternatives to petroleum?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 7:57 am
(click to show comment)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:16 am
The short answer to your concerns Rashiid is “Los Angeles.”
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:18 am
I agree completely, Jason. And as I said here a few days ago regarding fuel cells….
If the efforts GM, DOE and many others to produce cellulosic ethanol or methanol on a large scale are successful, the infrastructure is already here (our gas stations)! And ethanol fuel cell technology has already been proven practical, renewable and (almost) non-polluting.
I’ll even take a leap of logic and suggest that research (probably classified) may find a way to extract pure hydrogen from ethanol/methanol on board vehicles. This could explain GM’s retiring R&D chief Larry Burn’s belief (expressed in his online chat on 9/16/09) that a “hydrogen economy is both real and practical”. This guy obviously knows something I don’t and I can’t believe he would make a fool of himself on the eve of his Oct 1 retirement!
PS: I strongly suspect automakers in Germany, Japan (& perhaps other allies of ours, as well as the US automakers) are aware of advanced fuel cell research which may very well be highly classified …..and they therefore can’t discuss it except by “dancing around it” like Tom Stephens does here.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:20 am
Well, my sheets are made out of Muslin, and they seem OK.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:26 am
wireless power transfer has a better chance than fuel cells in common cars, but I can see airplanes, helicopters and so on using them.. but probably not from gaseous hydrogen but some liquid fuel.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:37 am
Argh.
Must… Resist… Urge… To… Rant…against…impractical…H2…distraction….
rrrrrr…..
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:42 am
And I don’t have the time to rant against it, myself, right now. Drat.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:43 am
3rd Grade Teachers can be really harsh. ;(
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:44 am
nasaman,
I give you one better – fuel cell systems that reform gasoline have a functioning infrastructure in place. I think that is the best way to segue fuel cells into automotive applications. Once fuel cells become cheap through volume production for gasoline applications, then you can move to natural gas, then hydrogen.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:45 am
Let’s presume that we’re OK with the low energy density of H2 (200 miles of range is OK with everybody?). The next big hurdle is the price of the fuel cells.
Is GM doing the basic research in fuel cells or, like battery technology, is someone else doing the heavy lifting and GM’s integrating someone else’s fuel cell into their vehicle?
If it’s the latter, GM is really wasting their time with this. The big problem in fuel cells is cost. They’re hideoously expensive. If GM doesn’t see their own breakthrough on the horizon, if they’re just planning to wait until decent H2 fuel cells fall into their lap, then this is just a ridiculous waste of resources.
GM should focus on things that they can do to get an edge in actual sales in the relatively near term.
They went BANKRUPT, remember?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:47 am
Right now, most dealerships aren’t going to be able to access the capital necessary for such a project.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:47 am
If the other automakers are not rushing to get on board with hydrogen the way they seem to be doing with electricity, then it must be the wrong approach.
Why would anyone build a nationwide infrastructure for only one 1 brand of auto? I suppose if the government owned and controlled said brand, then they could…. Oh! Wait….
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:52 am
Adam, I dislike betterplace even more than I dislike hydrogen. Betterplace is nothing more than an opec wannabe trying to insert itself into the EV equation unnecessarily (IMHO). They are another “infrastructure solution” that tells the average joe that he needs to wait until there are enough battery swap stations around before EV’s are practical. The volt and volt like vehicles get us off oil %100 of the time for the first 40 miles (most of our daily driving) and then let us drive another 350 miles (can’t keep track of how big the gas tank is anymore) on gas that we can fill at any existing gas station. There is no new infrastructure needed! As battery tech improves we can increase the battery capacity without increasing the cost or keep the 40 miles and lower the initial cost. Either way we have a great car today that costs what a Gen 1 will cost but allows for constant engineering breakthroughs to be built into it all while maintaining today’s infrastructure.
ONLY if i were an apartment dweller who couldn’t convince my landlord to put in power outlets in the parking garage would I advocate better place being a viable option. Even then I’d be wary because it will cost much more in the long run to battery swap over grid charge (they’ve gotta make money after all). More importantly though betterplace is in the sameplace as hydrogen. who’s going to buy a car that needs infrastructure that isn’t even in place yet. OK, some people will but are there enough of them to justify entrepreneurs to build quick charge stations all over the place? not in the next 5-10 years.
I don’t care about GM, but they created a brilliant engineering solution in the volt. This is why I follow this blog and it’s also why I feel the US can finally embrace EV’s. There is no compromise and minimal extra cost with going to a volt like vehicle. As soon as we start talking new infrastructure (hydrogen, natural gas, betterplace, hell even nuclear cars) we move into the 20 year from now fantasy world. In 2010, if every midsize car in the US sold were a voltec vehicle without a single infrastructure change, nobody would have to modify their habits to continue business as usual. Plug in if you want or just fill up like you currently do. Simple as that.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:52 am
My third grade teacher was Mrs. Cowher, and I was more afraid of her than any teacher I ever had…………….
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:52 am
Hydrogen can be generated on board from any hydrocarbon fuel, from ammonia, from urea and other synthetic liquids. A 5lb block of urea and a lot of water would produce enough hydrogen to power a car for 2400 miles. Urea is cheap.. You can even make hydrogen from sugar and water.
But high pressure gaseous hydrogen or cryogenic liquid hydrogen will remain impractical (and expensive) in cars.. even in rockets it is an iffy proposition.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:58 am
Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM, Mercedes, BMW all have Fuel Cell cars.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:59 am
Why in the world would you ever what to pay for fuel (H2) when you can buy a car next year that you can fill for FREE !!!
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:00 am
(click to show comment)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:02 am
The problem, zipdrive, is that Los Angeles, CA is not the entire country.
There are way too many areas (vast areas. I have driven from the east coast to the west coast) that are not a metropolitan area.
Sure, it will work fine in Los Angeles, but how far can one drive before needing to be re-energized with something?
Electricity, Ethanol, and unfortunately Gasoline/Diesel are the best sources we have at this time. Fuel cell infrastructure isn’t even close. The money spent on this could be better used improving battery technology and solar technology.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:07 am
(click to show comment)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:10 am
(click to show comment)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:15 am
(click to show comment)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:17 am
(click to show comment)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:21 am
(click to show comment)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:27 am
The issue Comcastic is that it takes a lot of energy to create/distill/separate and compress said hydrogen.
That process takes a LOT more energy and is as a result much less efficent than simple storage in batteries using current technology.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:27 am
(click to show comment)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:34 am
That’s right they went bankrupt. Don’t you people get it. Blame the economy sure, lets blame everyone but ourselves. GM only lost $60 billion of their own money well before the economy tanked. They failed because they are littered with bad management. They still need to purge the company of this deadwood. Hopefully it will start to happen in about 10 weeks thank to the new Chairman shaking these dunderheads at their core.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:34 am
People like Edison and Tesla said 100 years ago that if we didn’t find alternatives to gasoline that society would pay a terrible price. Perhaps folks today like Rashiid Amul realize that their 100 year old predictions were correct.
If you think gas at 147 a barrel caused the world economy to hiccup and sputter, you should take a look at the economic sustainability of a hydrogen economy.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:35 am
Hey Troll, I can get a complete system for $3.28 a Watt (installed myself) http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_power_kits.htm. This is a 6KW system and based on where I live I get 25 days of 5 hours direct sun a month (conservative estimate) which comes out to 750 KWH a month. I’m currently paying .174 a KWH (Full price after distribution and taxes). The system I’m looking at costs $20,000 and only $13,333 after my federal bailout. It’ll only take me 8 years to pay that back. After factoring in what I could have made on interest with my money I’m looking at a 10 year payback and that doesn’t take into account the future price of electric. So, financially solar makes perfect sense for me (I have no issues installing myself). And yes after the first 10 years of owning solar I will be filling up for free.
As for the Volt, I never said it makes financial sense to own a volt. For me personally however it would eliminate my monthly gas bill for commuting and I’d be doing my part to keep money in the US and out of terrorist countries. Plus there are environmental benefits that help my decision to get an EREV.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:35 am
There are lot of things wrong with H2 – including the fact that it leaks even through metal being the smallest element.
But the most important thing is that a BEV is 3x more efficient than a H2 car. Do we want to triple the power generation capacity just so that we can use H2 cars ?
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E21.pdf
—
Fundamental laws of physics expose the weakness of a
hydrogen economy. Hydrogen, the artificial energy carrier,
can never compete with its own energy source, electricity,
in a sustainable future.
—
—
In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.
—
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:37 am
Gee, no partial-credit for the role that the global credit collapse played in all this ?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:39 am
Automakers decided H2 is the best way to get rid of California’s zero emission mandate.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:44 am
There isn’t a commercial size sustainable way to produce ethanol/methonol that can power the whole world.
Solar is the best source of energy we have – currently that means CSP or PV. May be one day Sapphire will make algae work … then we can look at bio-diesel.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:46 am
“Hydrogen powered vehicles is a topic that tends to bring out debate.”
It also brings out the trolls, in truck-loads.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:48 am
“you are nothing more than an ignoramus.”
…this from an ignoranus.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:49 am
I think that this is the week for Lyle to block “no name’s” IP address.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:52 am
Regarding EEStor, all we ask for is proof.
So far there is only rumours.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:54 am
Pretty good chat going on with Mr. Stephens.
- At least as far as oil/peak oil and the need for alternative fuels, I would say Mr. Stephens “gets it” (unlike Lutz).
- He mentions they are looking at BEV’s.
- He rolls right through the volt (basically skips over) when the subject comes up, or when it would likely be a centerpiece of the conversation, he just doesn’t hit on it. (also, does not talk about hybrids, in general)
- Seems that cellulose ethanol and the cruze are where he would steer a “green” conversation.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:57 am
I think it may work out for Germany and Japan on a small scale if it continues to be heavily subsidized. Perhaps methanol fuel cells could be more cost competitive one day and sustainable ventures could be possible.
At this point IMO scaling up hydrogen without planning continuous large subsidies would lead to bankruptcies like the ones affecting corn ethanol companies. At large enough scale you could even see this effecting the economies of countries trying to adopt hydrogen. Redirecting big energy sector investments to hydrogen and removing the current subsidies could create economic failures, even though the technology itself is sound.
Since most hydrogen is created by gas reforming today I don’t believe subsidizing the start of the hydrogen economy with today’s preferred industrial processes leads us in a sustainable direction either economically or environmentally.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:58 am
Comcastic, so tell me which auto you own that provided a positive return on your investment. No auto ever purchased ever had a positive return on investment… period.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:58 am
I would be very surprised if there were no intramural rivalry between the 2 programs within GM. “Hydrogen” probably feels a bit like the legitimate heir being usurped by a johnny-come-lately (Volt) rival.
This is a great pity, since the two approaches have at least some potential to benefit one another.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:59 am
Alec Brooks (one of primary EV-1 engineers) wrote the following paper that gives an engineering perspective on the H2 vs. electric car. http://www.oilcrisis.net/hydrogen/PerspectivesOnFuelCellBatteryVehicles_Brooks.pdf
The basic conclusios were as follows:
To be emission free, electrolysis of water and compressing of Hydrogen will require four times more electricity than powering an EV.
Reforming natural gas to H2 produces more emissions and provides less range than just burning the natural gas in an ICE car.
In addition, fuel cell technology to get to 300 miles range is still more expensive than battery technology. I’m very impressed with GM’s 5th generation fuel cell stacks and they are making great progress in brining down the costs and increasing reliability, but they have a lot longer road to being commercially viable vs. battery electric cars.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:07 am
Well, if Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM, Mercedes, BMW all jumped off a tall building, should GM jump after them?!!
/not a mother
/don’t play one on TV
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:10 am
I don’t want to burst anybody’s bubble but Iceland the only place where they were seriously giving hydrogen fuel cells a serious try out has abandoned the idea of fuel cells in favor of battery electric vehicles.
In the future hydrogen may possibly be a good carrier of energy , but only if it is burned in a piston or rotary engine in a hybrid car gen-set .
Link to the story ; at evworld the ev authority .
http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=21796
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:11 am
Gsned57,
I believe you will need a licensed installer to at least “sign off” on your homeowner installed system to qualify for all of the assistance.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:13 am
Add,
Ok, later in the show, the interviewer does hold him on the Volt subject for some time.
Basically, he stays vague on a specific price and warranty question.
Does (kind of) mention that he expects Volt battery to make 100,000 mi.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:13 am
The last time this came up (when I was around), someone pointed out that SPE* fuel cells can reform hydrocarbon fuels. They also pointed out the problem with this technology; high temperatures in the 700 – 1000 degree Celsius range.
If there is a ‘top secret’ hydrocarbon-to-H2 & CO2 reforming technology, perhaps it solves this temperature problem.
1000 degrees C + hydrocarbon fuel + crash = BOOM
*Solid Polymer Electrolyte
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:18 am
Overall,
I Have to say I’m pretty impressed with Tom Stephens. He seems knowledgeable, reasonable, and balanced.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:22 am
I wish people would stop referring to an automobile as an investment.
A car is not an ‘investment’ it is an expense. An investment implies that you will get a ‘return on investment’ which literally means that you make money. A car loses value immediately upon driving off the dealer’s lot and continues to do so until it is junk.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:23 am
Let us not forget Ballard , the fuel cell company that essentially shut down because they realized that the jig was up and that the public wasn’t going to get sucked into their stock buying and selling any longer .
They rode the wave as long as they could and then abandoned ship .
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:30 am
______________________________________________________
All cars will over the next 15 years transition to an electric motor power train (series)…including non-pluggable gas powered cars. The unknown variable is what will become the winning energy delivery system. Will it be EREV-Gas ICE, EREV-Methanol Fuel Cell, 100% Grid BEV, or some other solution? I believe the winner will be 100% Grid BEV.
So what is the tipping point required for 100% Grid BEV to emerge the winner? Here is my guess:
1. Total cost of ownership of the battery (capital cost + M&R excluding fuel costs) lower than total cost of ownership of a Gas-ICE (capital cost + M&R excluding fuel costs); not yet available.
3. Battery capable of providing 150+ miles AER; available.
4. Widely available quick charge infrastructure allowing battery to be recharged at 80% SOC in less than 15 minutes; not yet available.
5. Cost of electricity lower than cost of gas per mile; available.
_______________________________________________
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:32 am
They didn’t use anyone else’s money for the EV1 project. And they spent a lot of their own money (when it was still their own money) on the Volt.
WIth hydrogen, I think their attitude is–it’s probably impractical, and not really a good use of research funds, but if the government wants to fund it, why not? First of all, long-shot technologies sometimes pay off. Second, they might learn things in the process they can use on EVs.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:32 am
We’ve got an 11kW array that, out of the box, is saving us money (current electricity prices vs. lease price). And, long term, I’m willing to bet that electricity costs are not going to decline, so in 5-10 years we’ll be even better off.
Bad me, i know…feeding the trolls…
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:34 am
Comcastic,
Just remember that Freedom of Speech only works if you make sense…
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:36 am
I know California requires that but I didn’t know the fed had that stipulation. My state requires an electrical inspector to buy off on it but that’s about it. I’ll have to look more into the federal requirements before I install anything. I’m not ready yet anyway.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:40 am
Hydrogen fuel cell cars are EV’s. It’s only the use of a fuel cell stack that costs more than the average house and use of an expensive energy carrier that makes building and maintaining these EV’s so difficult.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:43 am
By the way , you can’t drink the water coming from the tailpipe . It is acidic , not strong enough to be used in a battery , but too acidic to put into your body . I never measured the ph level but it is not 7 that is for sure .
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:43 am
Initially, some petroleum-based fuel would have to be used. This sounds absurd at first, but consider that such a fuel-cell system based on a petroleum fuel would be:
1) More efficient. Direct chemical conversion of hydrogen and oxygen to electricity, minus whatever energy is used to reform the hydrogen from the hydrocarbon fuel, still equals greater efficiency versus combustion.
2) Less polluting. Output from reforming hydrocarbon fuel is CO2 and H2; output from fuel cell is water.
3) Less mechanically complex
4) Lower weight
5) free of pesky “how do you store Hydrogen on board” questions. Just use an ordinary gas tank.
These factors alone would result in less petroleum use overall. If the fuel cell system is combined with the Volt’s (as a range extender), it could potentially result in no, or rare, fuel use.
A large population of such cars (Voltified or no) would keep Researchers’ feet to the fire to develop something like bio-diesel (or alternative reforming-fuel-cell fuel).
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:45 am
Tom Stephens is a very smart guy. He knows the VOLT is the real deal and is confident it will be successful. He also knows he needs to keep GM on a multi-tracked path toward the future in order to keep various propultion sources moving forward. Yes, this is costly. And yes, the global financial colapse has caused serious issues for GM.
One could argue that if GM had not moved forward with ‘Project Driveway’, putting Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles into the hands of real world consumers AND pushed forward with the development of the VOLT concept, that they could have survived without going bankrupt. GM’s management must be given some credit for pushing forward with these programs. In the long run, both GM and the US will be better off because of these efforts.
If GM learned anything from their first 100 years, it should be that they cannot count on just ONE energy source.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:49 am
Fuel cell research is hugely important and should not necessarily be coupled to the unfavorable economics of hydrogen. An example of good potential is using fuel cells with natural gas. Sure, natural gas is less fuel dense than gasoline or diesel, and therefore doesn’t make as much sense when combusted in an engine. But unlike gasoline or diesel, NG is very clean and can power a fuel cell with few complications. And fuel cells can be up to twice as efficient as ICEs. So if you can develop a cost effective fuel cell that uses NG, that could be a good alternative to the traditional ICE. And the best part is that a NG infrastructure already exists. So why aren’t more people looking at this route? Am I missing something?
(And yes, I know that battery technology is here-and-now, and therefore is a better immediate solution. I am talking about R&D strategies for the long view)
PS – Hydrogen doesn’t make energy sense NOW. But all it takes is one major breakthrough in catalytic / electrolytic technology (i.e. making hydrogen from water), and the whole game could change. That should be a primary focus of hydrogen funding. Power this process with a nuclear plant and you are golden. Without a focus on electrolysis, hydrogen is a shell game. Why the hell would I want to use hydrogen created from petroleum?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:53 am
Prove it
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:55 am
Gassification and/or liquification are not the only ways to store hydrogen. There are solid-state methods as well. Not to mention on-board conversion.
That said, the present state of hydrogen use is not economically feasible compared to just using electrons directly.
I can see using a fuel cell to replace the ICE in Volt (flex- remember?) in the future, but, there will still be a need to recover brake energy and have full power. Thus a battery is still in your future.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:58 am
Wow. If a cold country like Iceland embraces batteries, you know there must be some pretty compelling arguments against fuel cells. Of course I support continued R&D into fuel cells and hydrogen, but battery technology is just plain more advanced right now.
Also worth considering is that Iceland is a small country (40,000 square miles, or 200 miles across if it were a perfect square), with the populated areas comprising only part of that. So range anxiety is not likely a huge issue. That doesn’t translate to the US, unless you live in Hawaii.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:13 am
While I certainly agree that L.A. is not the entire country, if you can provide a clean power source to the big cities around the country you will cover a very large percentage of the vehicles in the U.S. and a large percentage of the miles driven. This is by no means an endorsement of fuel cells or hydrogen as a power source. I like electricity much better and batteries to store it in the vehicles. But eventually the manufacturers are going to start hydrogen vehicle production no matter what we as consumers think because it is the method preferred by them and the government. There are too many reasons to list here. They have all been discussed before. I am sure they will be discussed later at some point.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:14 am
We are a long way from a BEV infrastructure and a long way from making a battery cheaper with higher energy density.
While we need to be planning and thinking about replacing petroleum power, it’s just not going to happen over night.
Read “Fuel Cell Projects for the Evil Genius”. It’s pretty informative on how fuel cells work from a practical view. (I especially liked the one made from a bandaid!) The difficult part is getting the hydrogen extracted from wherever it is locked up (water, methane, etc.). Currently, it costs way more to extract than just using electrons directly.
Yeah, there could be a H2 catalyst from left field, or EEstor could actually be real, but, we need to work from reality here.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:23 am
2H2 + O2 —> 2 H2O.
What’s coming out that’s acidic? The end product should be water just as pure as distilled. Please explain.
Edit: Sorry, <sub> and </sub> tags do not work here. Imagine subscripts where necessary.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
Exactly!
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:28 am
I don’t know much about Hydrogen.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:29 am
Pretty much the way I see some of the reasons for hydrogen also.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:33 am
Norway has the hydrogen highway. I read somewhere they will be using solar electricity to do the conversion at stations.
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/norway-hynor-project.htm
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:34 am
Could not have said it any better. Thanks. Saved me a lot of typing.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:39 am
I am sure he is expecting his $150,000 hydrogen vehicle to give him a positive return in about 75 years. If he is lucky.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:43 am
Your father-in-law has a good idea. Now, if the dealers can get government (local, state and federal) help along with auto company help in getting the financial side of the equation working, this could be a good first step.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:45 am
It takes one to know one.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:49 am
Here you go, Comcastic, making a good statement that I could agree with, then you end it by calling RamZ a doofus making stupid comments. Your comment would have been acceptable except for the name calling. Are you just trying to instigate trouble? If so, you are succeeding beyond your expectations.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:57 am
My objections, little as they are, to hydrogen is that it continues tying the vehicle owner to a service station network for fuel sources. Plus the fact that many of the methods suggested for creating hydrogen is from hydro-carbons such as fossil fuels. Another objection is the expense of producing hydrogen from any source will most likely be much more expensive than producing and storing electricity in a battery to provide locomotion. I realize we don’t have all the hydrogen facts yet, but nor do we have all the battery development facts at hand. In 10 or 20 years things can change for either to make it more sustainable. We can all hope so.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Yes and only the government would be so stupid as to do it.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:03 pm
And candy from Uncle Sammy was the driving force behind the hydrogen development at all of them. Hundreds of billions of dollars for many years. Lots of candy.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Mike ,
Don’t be lazy , look it up , do your own research please . It is not as simple as combining hydrogen and oxygen to make water . There is more to it than that .
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I am sure Comcast is very happy with you stealing their copyrighted terminology (Comcastic). Lets hope they get in touch with you soon. Very soon.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
I think that when most people refer to the “hydrogen economy” they are really referring to the “fusion economy”. Fusion is the power source of the future, not hydrogen.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Pure water actually has a slightly depressed pH (between 6 and 7). Keith is right that you wouldn’t want to drink it, but not for the reason he thinks. Pure water with no ions will aggressively leach ions from your body; think of it as the opposite of Gatorade. On a cellular level, when you drop cells into deionized water they actually explode because of the difference in osmotic pressure and the in-rush of water into the cell.
In other words, it absolutely is not an acid in terms of batteries(although it’s pH is lower than 7), and it is very clean. But no, you would not want to drink it.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Or just use the gasoline infrastruction for methanol or ethanol.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I know you are, what am I?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Wayyy off topic but check this out…
Chrysler owners’ manuals go digital for 2010, saves 20,000 trees
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/21/chrysler-owners-manuals-go-digital-for-2010-saves-20-000-trees/
Sounds like a good idea. Maybe GM can put the Volt’s manual in the computer in .pdf format and allow to view it in the car……or print it out on your home wifi printer. Of course that defeats the non killing trees claim.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Wayyy off topic but check this out…
Chrysler owners’ manuals go digital for 2010, saves 20,000 trees
Google for: chrysler-owners-manuals-go-digital-for-2010-saves-20-000-trees/
Sounds like a good idea. Maybe GM can put the Volt’s manual in the computer in .pdf format and allow to view it in the car……or print it out on your home wifi printer. Of course that defeats the non killing trees claim.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
LOL
I owed you that one after screwing up your Ricky Bobby. Still hanging head in shame.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Exactly!
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Comcastic, I have no problems with zero emissions.
Fuel cells are a waste when we could be developing something else. I just don’t understand why you and people like you who support fuel cells, think they are a great solution for the near term. They are way out. An entire infrastructure needs to be built.
And as for drinking it, go right ahead. You sound like someone who wants to wrap their lips around the tail pipe and suck it dry.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
don’t know much biology….
can’t remember all the french I took…
what a wonderful world this would be.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Right now most people don’t realize that oil production is on the decline. We have either reached peal oil in 2008 as some predict or will see peak oil occur between now and 2012 as some predict. Some of the solution to getting off foreign oil involve other hydrocarbons which have a limited life. Therefore, it is essential to develop every form of energy including hydrogen. Right now the technology for hydrogen fuel has not reach a reasonably profitable point but advancements have been made in our University laboratories and government labs. Their research should lead to advancements in product development which will lower the cost of hydrogen as a fuel. The issue of finding and developing sources of energy other than hydrocarbons is so important to the nation’s economy that it is vital for government to take a front and center position in encouraging research and development in this area.
Robert L. Hirsch is a leading expert on the subject of peak oil.
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1751
There are still many who are not aware of what is happening at major oil fields around the world and who are in denial that the problem of dwindling petroleum supply exists. “We briefed it to all kinds of audiences, including people in the hierarchy and at the committee level at the National Academies. We gave talks to technical and lay audiences, and have been doing so for years now.” Hirsch states in the article sited above. I suggest that all readers here read the article and search out some of the sources mentioned. It is clear to me that many in industry, including
GM , understand the seriousness of this bad news, and have begun the process of moving to new sources of energy. I used to be a sole proponent of green energy and spoke out against bio-fuel and nuclear power but now realize that we must pursue all forms of alternate fuel for both the short term and long term. Clearly, IMHO, solar and wind power which are free for the taking are among the best choices; they are free and non polluting sources. Government funded research has begun into developing the next generation of nuclear reactor. There are many problems associated with nuclear energy. It is not non-polluting as recent ads claim. The means of cleaning up nuclear waste has to be solved. There are hopes the third generation nuclear fuel for fusion reactors will be near non-polluting and that ITER will achieve its goal. Alternate feed materials for bio-fuels are being found that will not utilize agricultural crops essential to feeding the world’s growing population. Problems still exist with the tremendous amount of water needed by the process of making bio-fuels. This is also true of extracting oil from shale. Research must be funded to solve these problems. No one energy source should be favored over the other; where there is evidence of possible break-through in any given fuel, there should be funding for further research. Business interests for any one industry will be competing for the available funds. In these hard times, those funds will be limited but we must find the way to fund meaningful advancement. With the current world economy dependent on petroleum and the already or pending peak oil occurrence, the move toward electric transportation is vital.
As this is one of the premier EV websites visited, I believe this is one of best places for this message to reach as many as possible. Your patience with these repetitious statement is appreciated.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
GM take note: begin installing the 220V charger in parking spaces at Chevrolet dealerships. “Come look at the New Volts, and charge your old one.”
If nothing else, it will help demonstrate the 220V charger technology.
You’ll likely need something of the sort anyway, in order to return an in-for-service customer vehicle with a full charge (like the free carwash at Saturn, a cheap way to generate good will and add to the driving experience).
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Maybe Tag can psychoanalyze this dork and find out what is wrong with him. I agree with Jackson.
Lyle, a HUGE portion of us enjoys debates and commenting, without the childish negative attacks Comcastic seems to enjoy.
This is really doesn’t have anything of value to say when he puts everyone down like this.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Only a practical fusion-based energy economy could provide the surplus of environmentally clean energy that would allow hydrogen to almost make sense as a chemical motor fuel. That both are based on Hydrogen is something of an ironic coincidence.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Good question Jim.
If the hydrogen fuel cell is too expensive then using an internal combustion engine is less efficient but practical. Either way, its zero emissions, plus a slight lube oil burn perhaps in an ICE.
If hydrogen fuel cells were built on a frame instead of a unibody then I wouldn’t care how long I would have to financially keep the hydrogen vehicle, since the body and frame would last longer because it is much easier to maintain and protect from total loss to corrosion.
Plus, hydrogen is a fuel people can produce and compress themselves in the backyard under thier wind turbine.
His last answer I find to be ambiguous:
” So you haven’t made that decision yet?
No, not at this point. We could do it, but there are a lot of factors. One is our part which is the fuel cell stack and the fuel cell vehicle and how much it will cost. The other part happens to be the infrastructure in order to support the fuel cell and we’ll have to develop both of those.”
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:53 pm
There seems to be an echo in here.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
lol….
Yeah, I get modded everytime I post a link from ABG.
It’s a filter thingy I guess.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Most of us are in full agreement with most of what you said.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Totally barking up the wrong tech tree. Hydrogen is so not an energy source. And if we have to put a bunch of energy into making a fuel, might as well make something that is liquid at standard PVT rather than a gas. We already have a full liquid delivery infrastructure, it doesn’t make any sense to create a whole new gaseous infrastructure for a gas we have to create as well!
We’ve got an electron delivery system and a liquid delivery system. Let’s just focus on using those. It’s not like we don’t have some other uses for our money around here.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 1:00 pm
WarrenPeace,
Out of curiosity I went to the site , we don’t have to worry or even think about hydrogen since nothing is happening there.
I searched the site and the map to hydrogen filling stations takes me to three in California .
It turns out that it was all hope and no action .
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Another excellent idea. Listen up, GM.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Might be an old site. I saw a little ditty on it on “How Stuff Works”. Take a look here: http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/32240-future-car-hydrogen-pumps-video.htm
I think Hydrogen is the future but it’s just not the now.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 1:10 pm
That is actually a really good idea
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 1:21 pm
BYD news…
BYD only sells 100 plug-in F3DM hybrids in eight months
The BYD F3DM plug-in hybrid went on sale in China last December. In the first eight months that the car has been on sale, only 100 have been sold, according to a new report from Gasgoo. This is well below the company’s original stated goal of selling 10,000 in the first year, although they do have another four months to turn things around. Gasgoo says BYD changed its sales estimate to 3,000 to 4,000 units in the first 12 months earlier this year. In June, the F3DM went on sale in Hong Kong.
While the plug-in F3DM hasn’t sold as well as expected, BYD is still planning on offering the all-electric e6 in China later this year. Overall, BYD sold 176,795 vehicles in the first half of 2009, an increase of 176 percent compared to the first six months of 2008.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Off topic, but might be of interest to you Capt…
I have discussed the to Volt with all my family members, so they all know of my keen interest.
Last night I spoke to my mother on the telephone and she mentioned that she recently saw some news on the Volt.
She described to me that what she heard was GM wanting to repay the the tax payers as soon as possible and part of their plan to do this was to bring the Volt to production sooner than previously stated.
Not only that…she told me that the Volt would also be cheaper and better that was previously stated.
Now…I’ve searched and searched the web for anything that has a hint of this news and found absolutely nothing.
She is over 70, so maybe she misunderstood and/or saw something that was old. I mean how could she have heard something like this without GM-VOLT.com knowing anything about.
I think I’m going to call her tonight and press her for some specific’s.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Even better, why don’t you just use gasoline! As the batteries get better we will use less and less gasoline. We will always use some petroleum products. There is no getting around that. People should not let idealogy blind common sense.
The infrastructure is all set for gasoline and other petroleum products, and so is the electrical system. Use what we have, and focus on the battery technology!
Sometimes the obvious answer is right in front of you.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Not bad, not bad. I suspect it will probably play out that way. Eventually, we will get to hydrogen, whether through petroleum, natural gas, alcohols or what have you.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
… especially if it is a gasoline fuel cell Voltec system, in which the gasoline is only a backup.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 1:43 pm
RamZ,
I’m curious. What happens with your fuel cell car when you leave Los Angeles with it? How far can you go until you breakdown from lack of energy? I have no doubt you would be okay in L. A. but what happens when you are outside of L.A.
Thanks.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:15 pm
They also have the advantage of cheap reliable electricity from geothermal power plants.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Isn’t it the idea? To stir things up and drive truck-loads to this website?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Jim,
Thank you for the thoughtful, polite response. It’s a lot more than I got from Keith.
Mike
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Looks like all the regulars here have been called a doofus at one time or another by Mr. Trolly the trollster working in his troll booth. I think trolls have big hair so it makes it easier to grab them and slam them upside that tree. hee hee
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
GeoThermal FTW !
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Just think about the infrastructure of electrical outlets that already exist…in combination with a pro-active alternative energy and grid enhancement policy, we can effectively eliminate the need for any other “gas station” like expense.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Battery is almost dead.
Time for a Beer Chug.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:44 pm
My gut feeling says GM will announce a lower than $43,000.00 price for the Volt BEFORE the rebate.
But that’s jus me.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
While were kind of swaying subject to charging here, we’ve been talking about charge rates at 120VAC on a 15A circuit and 240VAC on a 30-35A circuit. Will GM have anything for those that have 120VAC 20A circuits?
Just thought i’d ask. We have 20A circuit for the washiin machine.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I can think of a number of things I wouldn’t want dumped on me by the truck-load.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Rashiid,
I think he has been attached to the tailpipe for quite some time now. Might be the explanation for his comments. Some people substitute some things for other things they are unable to obtain. Comcastic substitutes a tailpipe for brain food.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I’m somewhat conflicted right now Mark…
That is one of my all time favorite songs… and you have it stuck playing in my head over and over!!!
Sam Cooke rest in peace.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I agree.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:53 pm
So much Hydrogen in one post.
Is this Lyle’s way of getting Statik back?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Considering there are gas stations everywhere, why not build in some buffering Li batt packs in them for fast charging. Then you won’t have to worry about having to upgrade it’s “Grid” connection.
Start with a 32KWh pack and when EV proliferate then simply add more to the buffer. THEN you can consider a “Grid” connection upgrade, but that won’t be till a few years later.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
People don’t seem to know that water is a solvent. I was watching a program on bottled water and they explained exactly what you said, that if they were to truely prufiy the water and then it was consumed, it could possibly kill. I would think that with an internal combustion engine one would not want to drink the water because of the leakage of oil and other contaminates. For a fuel cell, I’m sure there must be some loss of material from the plates in the cell. I have no idea what fuel cells are made of but my guess would be that it wouldn’t be good for the body. One thing is true though, burning or use in a fuel cell, the results coming out of the tail pipe are less dangerous to the environment than that produced by gasoline.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I’ve been thinking about this sort of arrangement for a while now.
I think the missing part is an affordable storage medium and THAT may well be addressed by the ‘low temp’ sodium sulfur batteries that we discussed a few weeks back.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:07 pm
And here I was thinking it was over medicating that was causing you to double submit. Keep slinging it, Capt Jack.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Fuel Cells are here, they are working, and they have a solid future,.
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
Check out this company, they’re doing cool things. And they’re NOT asking for investors, they don’t want them.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Probably many factors influencing the lower than expected sales. The economy, new technology, less tech savvy customer, short experience of the company offering the vehicle for sale and more, I am sure. I don’t think GM will have he same problem in the U.S.and Canada with the Volt. Four things may hold it back. Initially, price and availability. Later, dependability and quality if GM does not deliver a superior product. BYD may be able to finally deliver on their expectations, but it might take a little longer than they thought.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
whats the temperature of the flame front inside the cylinder of an ICE?.. or a catalytic converter at full throttle?
I see crashed cars exploding in the movies all the time.
The issue with high temperature in SOFC is durability from thermal expansion and slow startup..
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Statik is probably hard at work on a new article explaining his new found research on hydrogen and the future of hydrogen filling stations. He is known to love the subject of hydrogen.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:29 pm
We await your report on converting your vehicles to use this hydrogen generator. I bet it will be “interesting”. I hope they have something here, but…. I don’t know.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I wonder what models they sold in the stated “176,795 vehicles”?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Peakist Cassandras are always with us.
Reality: The dominance of fossil based fuels is coming to an end and will be half or less than half the demand of today 40 years from now. Known but unexploited oil deposits are good for a few hundred years or so, so the World will still have lots of Oil when no one wants it any more for stupid uses like fuel..
Fact: Iraq the Worlds second or third largest Oil supplier has not yet returned to anywhere near its prewar status as an oil exporter. Nor have any of the vast new fields found in the Sunni areas even barely been tapped.
Iranian fields are suffering from twenty-five years of under-investment as even the leaky embargoes have had some effect on oil field maintenance, on this rogue state and international pariah. How long does the rogue regime even have, to live?
The majority of the US oil fields are off limits due to environmental obstructionism, nothing else. The Oil in vast amounts is there. Meanwhile the OIL PRICE Monopoly has set the oil price high enough even at current $70 dollars a barrel of oil, to make it profitable for the Brazilians and the American oil companies to go forward with exploiting even the deepest ocean and deepest drilling and still make a profit. That is bypassing the exploitation of heavy oil deposits such as Venezuela who ordinarily would be the natural next commercial oil to be exploited; but oil commissars, political instability, and artificial pricing has prevented that.
That only underlines how profitable Saudi fields are and their true lifting costs of at most a $1 a barrel. And just what a ripoff has been going on by the politicians who nationalized their Oil companies in the 1970s, and use the old Seven Sisters to distribute their product. There is a long way for the Price of Oil to collapse! To reach the natural price level to undermine the support for the current high cost exploitation such as very deep water.
“Actinide Burning” is the final correct solution to long-lived, high level radioactive waste, and its has partially arrived in France already.
GEN III+ plants queuing up to be constructed in the USA over the next half decade, will bring even-numbered isotope actinide burning to the US too, in much better “perfected” LWR fission power plants. These will be constructed at reduced costs through maximum standardization, and legal remedies. preventing much obstructionism,aimed at delay to drive up costs.
ITER is no longer an experiment as much as a Confirmation that everything that ITER has originally sought to accomplish has ALREADY been achieved at many smaller specialized experimental fusion reactors worldwide. But ITER brings all advances together in one place, and scales it up to commercials power plant sizes. Fusion reactors will make odd-numbered isotope actinide burning both safe and easy. Thus obviating the need for Gen IV fission plants. So even with the maximum obstruction by the Clueless One’s disciples,already appearing, the World no longer needs American participation in ITER.
I even expect an Worldwide race by many countries to design the hoped for commercial designs of Fusion Reactors in view of the enormous profits from such designs and the foreign exchange that would bring. After ITER is judged a success, and that’s a lead pipe cinch, watch the Sputnik-like era “space race” for the commercial Fusion power plant,speed Fusion into being.
ITER is a CERTAINTY of success. Since this is so, Fusion reactors will be a routine feature of daily life forty years from now and with it, all concerns about energy wither away. With essentially infinite supplies of clean cheap electricity, you can purify seawater with desalinization, and even de-oxify hydrogen for fuel cells, if you wanted to do so. Or even construct petroleum from scratch.
Concern for CO2 and energy will be recognized as just so much blarney; and as valid as the “dreadnought races” of 1900.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Seems that cellulose ethanol and the cruze are where he would steer a “green” conversation.
He also said GM will have 50% of its fleet E85 ready. That’s a very big deal. And he also says that refining costs of celluostic ethanol is currently between $1 and $1.50. Assuming there is one breakthrough in the next 5 years, which Steven Chu says is a 50%-50% deal, then celluostic ethanol will displace far more gasoline than any flavor of EV over the next twenty years.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:50 pm
A company in NY callled PlugPower recently made a sale of fuel cell forktrucks to Walmart for their cold storage warehouses. Walmart wanted zero or nontoxic emissions, and the cold was killing their batteries. Can’t link to it with my PDA, but you can Google it. Yes, it is a niche sale to be sure; I just thought it was interesting.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Fresh news about the Chevrolet VOLT has been lacking around here lately… except for Mr. Lutz’s viewpoint on the future price of gas.
Bring on some POSITIVE new about VOLT development!
And a photo of one newly painted at the factory in Victory Red!!!
Woo! Woo! Woo!
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Could the public buy it?.. I believe sales were restricted to government agencies only.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
First of all, kudos to Lyle for helping put this web cast together. It was very interesting.
On the substance of the discussion, it was disappointing how little attention was paid to mass. Yes it was refreshing to hear Tom Stephens admit that GM was behind on reducing the mass of its vehicles — nice that the moderator brought the issue up — and to hear him say GM was “working on it”. But he gave the impression that this is one of those “yes we know we have to do this, and we will, but let me talk about things that get me more excited, like the seven new flavors of engines we’re working on”. In this regard, Tom loved talking about engines — he knew all about them — but really had nothing specific to say about the task of reducing mass.
GM might help itself by having a few more scientists and few less engineers interested in engines. It reminds me of the guy who spends hours figuring out which air conditioner is the most efficient but neglects the fact his doors and windows are leaking like crazy. From what he said, a big breakthrough engine technology like HCCI might yield a 15% improvement in efficiency. That’s great but getting rid of a few hundred pounds of useless mass would do the same. Plus, if GM reduced the mass of their vehicles they could use a smaller engine, which would not only be more efficient but would also cut down on the mass some more.
At this point most of the upside to efficiency is on the mass side but GM is still focused on engine efficiency. Reducing the mass needs to be a much higher priority. Not only will it reduce gas consumption painlessly, the benefits can be gained from across all lines regardless of the power train, be in a combustion engine, a battery, or a hydrogen fuel stack.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 4:06 pm
” I believe sales were restricted to government agencies only.”
I haven’t heard otherwise. That just might be the case. They (local govt and municipalaties) may have just purchased these for “Proof of concept” or some sh|t like that.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Yep. But I sure would like somebody to SMTD. (and if they can produce it for this price, is there enough water available to make it sustainable?)
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Methanol can be made from common trash. Not a cheap way to dispose of trash, so it’s only a triple and not a home run. Better than being buried in trash over the long haul though. What is the cliche, America spends more on trash bags alone that the entire GDP of all but the largest 10 economies in the world?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 4:32 pm
LauraM said
“They [gm] didn’t use anyone else’s money for the EV1 project.”
————————————
The company has developed many innovations, including the EV1 but also the automatic transmission and OnStar (which I like). I was told that some years back they played a major role in electric starters.
Most innovative ideas have been developed with gm’s own money and sold to customers at dealers. In contrast, my impression is that hydrogen work has been mostly on government contracts.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Toyota plans to release a fuel cell car for the 2016 model year. If the government is willing to pick most of the tab for GM, why wouldn’t they want to keep up? Then GM doesn’t have to take the risk of not having a “competitive” product.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I haven’t looked into the fed requirements yet either, but being from California, I know it can be better to be safe than sorry.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 4:40 pm
For me, the grid will be my storage medium
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I was delighted that Tom Stephens was asked my question about the enormous artificial inflated price of a VOLT due to CARB bungling.
He essentially confirmed it exists, and said that GM had chosen not to fight it. Stephens explained that GM was going through al its exercises of “save the battery” merely to meet the excessive CARB warranty on PHEV and EREV battery life. I was surprised that knowledgeable people like Csabe Csere and Tom Wolt as well as Mr Autoline apparently did not know of this artificial price impediment.
Unfortunately he did not chose to answer the “3 Sigma question” of how long batteries were actually living by their testing.
I wanted to know what is a reasonable target to seek as an achievable warranty that both protects a consumer yet, would remove the “hidden extra battery cost” buried in the $40,000 rumored price of a VOLT. So that we electric car activists,and VOLT enthusiasts could undertake a campaign to have CARB reduce its artificially high life expectancy,and also install a reasonable life expectancy for HEVs and BEVs to protect consumers.
Mr. Stephens did intimate that they seem intent on meeting the 150,000 mile battery life, even if neither BEVs nor ICE cars are warranted for anywhere near 150,000 engine life. And even though the extra $10,000 cost might make the VOLT a poor competitor in the marketplace merely as result of this artificial and stupid regulation imposed by an organization whose stated goal is to bring forward a replacement for the fossil car.
Mr.. Dennis Lyle can you find out in one of your conversations with GM officials? I would be willing to work with you to organize a campaign to reduce the price of a Volt or make it more economically feasible for all of us to purchase. But it is ill advise to seek a say 120,000 mile target when batteries are not meeting that either and a 115,00 mile life would remove the extra $10,000 price increase.
Mr. Stephens did say that GM wants a battery that would exist “for the life of the car” But what is that? Is a 10 year life, a reasonable definition of the life of a car? If so than for the average driver a 100,000 mile warranty is acceptable if it reduces the price by $10,000 dollars. Don’t forget these batteries won’t be dead at the end of the warranty, they will have only decreased in capacity by some percentage, say to 80% of original capacity.
Who else would join the campaign to make the VOLT more affordable?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Oh boy, expanded dealer roles and govenrment sponsored credit, a perfect job for dat da dah daa, Barney Frank!
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Agree with what you’ve said here. Kind of like conservation always being the lowest hanging fruit, but it’s just not exciting so nobody seems to pay much attention to it.
I thought it was particularly surprising how Csaba Csere (former Editor in chief of C&D) seemed to be on point on this subject, and pretty well on board with the efficiency theme overall. I remember (or at least thought I remembered) reading his editorials from years back, and he always seemed rather pooh-pooh-ing of this sort of subject material. (i.e. screw hybrids, screw efficiency, it’s fun and power that the customer wants)
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Todd,
That used to be true. But no longer. Not that I recommend breathing the tailpipe of a PZEV ICE powered car. It is hot, and somewhat O2 deficient. But when cooled and mixed it improves the ambient air quality.
Astoundingly the ICE has been cleaned up beyond the conceits of even the wildest enviro, as the PZEV rating was created to hammer ICE cars with the pure tailpipe of a FCEV, But ICE cars meet that negligible emissions standard now, as well.
In near majority of new car numbers too.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 5:30 pm
What about using hydrogen fuel injection in a strong hybrid model? It would lower emissions while being practical, since the hydrogen is produced onboard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
100 vehices in eight months…sounds really bad, what are the problems?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
BYD was also sued by forty or so of its buyers for producing a car that didn’t meet specifications… like actually work.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Unfortunately, Natural Gas isn’t always pure. Sometimes, on your gas stove, you can see the flame turn yellow. That is carbon dioxide that is coming through with the Natural Gas. The result in your residence is carbon monoxide. (That’s why you don’t leave gas burners unattended nor use them to heat your residence).
Purifying natural gas for fuel cells might be another hurdle that would need to be addressed.
I just like the process of Voltec that is happening right now, just plugging it in.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Stas,
I felt the same way at one time but looking at the way the battery is contructed (and the fact that an eight year battery will not be anywhere near using 100% of capacity when new) the price increase will not be $10,000 or even $5000 due to CARB requirements. The aggregated battery pack wouldn’t likely differ by very much without CARB except almost a third of the cells would not be needed. That’s a substantial fraction, but if you take 75 cells out of the pack (searching for a reasonably rounded number) it’s not going to result in a 10 thousand dollar price reduction.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Hydrogen is the biggest scam going. It’s the big oil companies that are pushing hydrogen. They know it will probably never work out, and if it does, hydrogen will be made from natural gas, like it is now. Meanwhile, they’ve used the promise of hydrogen to delay other viable alternatives, like plug-ins. That’s why they call them Fool Sells. They are meant to deceive us. Classic red herring.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
“In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.”
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Here are the realities of hydrogen.
1) Hydrogen is not a fuel source, it’s a fuel carrier. In other words, some other energy source is required to make hydrogen.
2) The main energy sources for hydrogen are electricity (to crack water) and natural gas. Of these, natural gas is much more economical. Cracking water is inherently inefficient. There are other ways to make hydrogen, but these are even more expensive and inefficient.
3) Current electricity production uses 70% fossil fuels, 20% nuclear, and 10% renewable. The economics of renewables is such that this won’t change significantly anytime soon. So hydrogen in the U.S. will most certainly be created from fossil fuels.
4) The efficiency of hydrogen conversion, transportation, storage, and fuel cell electricity production is poor.
5) The net result of all the above is that hydrogen cars would create more CO2 emissions than our current gas engine cars.
6) The infrastructure of hydrogen fueling stations is nowhere in sight.
7) The big oil companies are pushing the hydrogen economy the most. They are also using the promise of fuel cells to help delay or prevent other solutions from fully taking hold. This is how they managed to kill the California zero emission vehicle mandate.
That’s why they call them “FOOL SELLS”
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:02 pm
We’re many many years away from needing anything but the grid for a storage medium (unless of course you don’t have grid access at your home)
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:06 pm
DonC:
Gee, I thought that mass doesn’t matter anymore because of regenerative braking, or some such as that. I hasten to add that I think that’s a bunch of hooey – that the laws of physics have not been repealed – but how many times have we seen it here?
Weight (mass, if you prefer)) is the enemy. “Simplicate and add lightness”. “What ain’t there don’t give you no trouble”. KISS.
Well said. +1
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Hey stas,
I disagree that reducing the warranty is necessarily a good thing. I drive 18,000 miles a year. (Within 50 miles each year, interestingly). Reduced “mileage” to me would mean a 6 year warranty on the Volt if the “battery warranty” included “ICE” runtime miles. That just would seem unfair and be a deal breaker if I didn’t get that full 10 years out of the battery warranty due to higher ICE miles.
This topic has not yet been addressed as far as I know on the site. If you were to separate the actual daily 40 or so miles that the battery works, then why would it be fair if I was to be penalized for my higher annual mileage when that extra ICE-only mileage has not affected the battery? Perhaps GM has calculated that the fair thing to do for those who actually do drive the 48 miles per day, to work that into the higher warranty years and miles.
I would be out of warranty in about 8 years at 18,000 miles a year for a 150,000 mile warranty if ICE miles also count.
So what does everyone else think about that? This merits discussion.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Drivers don’t like the current twice per week Chevron stops at $20-$30 each. Drivers like quiet peppy cars. Especially the ones that get a combined 100mpg.
The Volt , and hopefully the EREV Orlando, are vehicles that the average driver can easily use. Everyone knows how to plug into a 110v outlet. Everyone knows how to use a gasoline pump. A huge bonus being that 110v outlets and gasoline stations are everywhere.
The last time we had an alternative fuel post at gm volt dot com several here came right out and said that it wasn’t the time for them. This created a backlash of “addicted to oil” rebuttal.
The hybrid has raised efficiency from 25mpg to 50mpg. This has worked well for 10 years. We will now make the jump to 100mpg from 50mpg with EREV. This being in the form of 110v/gasoline pump technology. Most here agree that EREV will be very strong for 6 to 8 years.
2019 is sure to introduce the age of either pure BEV with solar assist or as many here champion the hydrogen power era.
=D~
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Dan, you have a good point. I don’t think this has ever been brought up. That would suck ass if the waranty for tha battery included genset miles. This would mean if I drov 80 miles every day, at the end of the warranty the batt pack was only used 50% of the time but will be out of warranty. Seems rather bullsh|tty to me.
For GM’s sake, it had better log miles for AER seperate from “Cumulative”. I’ll be damned if a battery warranty expires prematurely because I was running 50% of the time or mostly in “Charge Sustaining” mode.
Not that I could afford Gen 1 anyway.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Post Script.
I would want a
“Just replace it” clause, where at near the 8th year, a new battery would be installed at customer option. However, unless there might be stress or unknown risk imposed upon other systems and components, why not have a clause that lets us very careful drivers use the battery down to whatever efficient low AER end the battery can safely provide, (say, about 30 miles), then come in for the second battery we already paid for, even if it is in the 8th year? This would ensure the resale value for a Voltec vehicle for far, far longer it would seem to me. And, it might have the effect of reducing warranty replacement events for other powertrain components and electronics if there is motivation for owners to be very conservative on the accelerator pedal.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Let’s not forget that only 50% of the actual 16KWh batt pack is actually used. Which means the 50% we “think” we used is actually 25% of the 16KWh batt pack. This would yield even a less utilization of the batt pack.
There’s some formula you can use the get the actual use during time somewhere but I don’t what it is. You have to also account for dipping into the reserves during time.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Dan, I highly doubt that if someone spends $43,000.00 on a car they wouldn’t expct to have to feather foot it all the time. If that’s the case then why not just buy a Prius. Besides, it has been touted to feel like a car with a V6 with torque.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
As we all know, up-grading America’s grid is of the utmost importance going forward.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Is it official? Mr Stephens labeled the Volt a HALO car in the video.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Jack,
Very true.
(Begin Data Stream Wish List:)
It would be nice to have GM’s transparency also to display various datastreams for Calculated Engine Load, (which already exists and is of critical importance in ICE diagnostics), as well as “Calculated Battery Load (contribution)” and “Percentage of Motor HP output”, “Extender Kilowatts Output (contribution)” “Regenerated power percent back to battery %”, and on and on. That could be so much fun, to poll from a “custom data stream” library to display on the screen just like the OTC Genisys Scan system can do. These and many other Parameter ID’s would be an absolutely astounding center display function for when someone does “need” to “merge with traffic” (ahem). And, especially when you want to impress the heck out of everyone. (Esp. the competition). Don’t forget to let me record and graph them all like I can in the Genisys (System 3.0 version 3.03).
(End Data Stream Wish List).
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Sigh, another hydrogen thread…..sweet!@#!$#%#$^%$^
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 7:39 pm
How about pixie dust power inversion fusion-dynamics?……Ok, I just made that up.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:10 pm
You guys bring up an interesting point about counting the number of AER miles seperate than ICE only miles. If using the battery pack for a large percentage of miles on the odometer reduces its life, it should logged seperately. If not, how can an accurate pre-owned value be assigned to the vehicle?
Example:
Someone just buys the Volt because they like the idea of owning something different, but never plugs in. Will the battery pack have significantly more expected life than others with same number of miles and age? A different effect on the battery for AER miles and ICE miles could be significant enough to warrant logging the miles seperately.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Just to be a little more pedantic, let me say that according to the physics and chemistry classes, energy can be neither created nor destroyed. (Though you can sometimes turn matter into energy and vice versa, but that’s not happening here.) So, energy required to do the split water into hydrogen and oxygen cannot possibly ever under any circumstances be less than the energy you get back when you put the hydrogen and oxygen back together later. Any inefficiencies that he’s talking about are above and beyond this.
Of course the situation is different if you get your hydrogen from natural gas or something like that — the energy was put into that compound sometime back in geologic time and you could think of reforming the natural gas as kind-of half-burning it into CO2 and 2H2. Then you burn the H2 later and extract the rest of the energy. Or you could just burn it all at once (with the combustion products being CO2 and water, just like my furnace and my car) and run off of natural gas, but that doesn’t look so sexy in a grant-proposal, now, does it…..
P.A. That little comment about the main components of my car’s exhaust should set off some alarm bells in the reader’s head. Everyone knows that car exhaust is a cocktail of noxious fumes (though my nose suggests that the amount of noxious fumes seems to have been reduced a great deal since I was a kid) — but it’s true that the primary components of burning hydrocarbons are CO2 and water. But this simplistic analysis doesn’t cover that — and it suggests to me that the hydrogen advocates are doing high-school stoichiometry, rather than measuring the exhaust pipes on hydrogen-powered vehicles. I’d expect there to be some other stuff in there — the atmosphere is about 70% nitrogen and is full of all kinds of other interesting stuff, so there’s bound to be something other than water coming out of the tailpipe of a hydrogen vehicle.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Oh darn. Is that an indication that General Composites Corp and General Motors Corporation will never get anyone confused as being the same entity?
You’re expecting an awful lot of the folks at our once proud and newly re-formed General !!!
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:24 pm
LRGVProVolt Well said:
I don’t know if peek oil has been reached, will be reached in in 2012, or 2112 but I do know that the price of oil will never be cheap enough again to allow the world economy to use it exclusively as a transportation fuel. Think what you want about Hydrogen and its inefficiencies, It is one of the few (only?) transportation fuels that can be made from electricity and electricity is the only form of energy that can be generated with ’sustainable’ methods, namely solar, wind, and hydro.
All forms of energy must be perused at this point and hydrogen has some distinct advantages over batteries in cars. Hydrogen cars can be refueled on the fly today and near the speed of a gasoline or diesel car, batteries cannot be recharged quickly with today’s technology. Given the nature of batteries, they may NEVER be able to be recharged quickly. While there isn’t a hydrogen infrastructure yet hydrogen can be made locally at gas stations using electricity and water. While the equipment is surely not cheap, it is available now.
I wouldn’t badmouth ‘big oil’ for trying to come up with alternatives such as hydrogen. They are after all, corporations (or other entities) that are trying to find new markets and new products that consumers need and want. Regardless of what you think of them, the petroleum industry has helped advance mankind in a huge way. Without easy access to their products, you would need to kill off 4 billion or so of the 6+ billion people on earth. The remaining 2 billion better learn fast how to breed, train, and care for horses. After all Without big oil, there is no big farming, no method to transform and process crops into food and get it to markets around the world, etc. If you live in a big city, you are going to need to re-train yourself very quickly. In the pre-industrialized world, the largest population a city ever reached was about 1 million inhabitants. That was ancient Rome and about 1/3 of those inhabitants were…… slaves.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:29 pm
By that analysis, the hydrocarbons that I burn in my car produce only CO2 and water. It’s true that there’s a lot of CO2 coming out of that tailpipe, and I’ve had had liquid water pour out of my tailpipe when the thing was cold… But, seriously, I wouldn’t even consider drinking it, especially before the catalytic converter heats up.
And, yes, the fact that my car requires a catalytic converter means that the simple stoichiometric analysis above doesn’t tell the whole story.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Lets look at it from the OEM point of view, to inform what limits may be placed on a warranty.
If I was the guy at GM ponying up 12 grand for each new customer battery, I would want parameters on genset hours and charge cycles. Leaving these measures up to the vagaries and wims of the roadside Gods of propulsion would cause me to lose a lot of sleep at night.
As far as a replace it at X years clause, I’m sure that’s do-able, with a nominal fee of course. Lead acid 12 volts and tires are pro-rated, why wouldn’t propulsion batteries be also?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I dig cool tech more than most people, but what problem does using reformed gasoline actually solve?
I’m still putting foreign (or possibly peaked) oil in my gas tank…
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:08 pm
jefre,
It is NOT ONLY the cost of the extra cells as you discussed. It is something else entirely. Bob Lutz once revealed that GM was afraid that no battery would last 150,000 miles. So to meet the CARB warranty provision they included an entirely second and new battery in the cost of the warranty.
Yes, you are correct that there are some extra cells, as many as 75 in each battery . But the entire second battery priced into the warranty is what is driving up the cost of the VOLT. If you want to include the 75 extra cells to ” baby” each battery along, then the cost is further compounded and not at all what I was saying.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Even then, you can have see whether H2 is the most economical energy carrier.
I’m sure by the time Fusion gets working (in 50 years !) – batteries will be cheap and powerful.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:21 pm
What are the efficiencies for those other methods ?
Remember Prof Bossel is one of the foremost experts on fuel cells – though the paper is from 2006.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Show me a car that warranties the engine for anywhere near 150,000 miles. You can find some commercial truck diesels that do, I know.
But for LDV fleet there are exactly, zero. If CARBite idiots came along and demanded the auto makers provide 500,000 mile engine warranties would you complain if the auto company salvaged the intake manifold and didn’t give and install you a new one, when it provided each new “free” short block?
TAANSTAFL. The cost of those “free” short blocks are included in the original price you paid for the car.
Doesn’t happen, my friend. We are talking about an auto subsystem that is used all the time, in both charge depleting and charge sustaining mode. You are probably lucky that they don’t dock you for the wear and tear of charge increasing mode, ie, plug in charging time. That wears the battery too. If you went to the number of hours of operation like aircraft engines are measured, that WOULD happen. You don’t really want to go there.
Electrons are flowing into or out of the battery for every mile of the car’s life, so the vehicle mileage is the criteria. not which charging mode you were operating on.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Hydrogen from natural gas is more carbon friendly than gasoline.
NG reformation isn’t a solution, but in the short term it won’t hurt
to use NG to get hydrogen.
What does offer a solution is using wind and solar power to produce hydrogen via electrolysis. There is enough renewable energy to do this, it is just a matter of political will.
What this article does not say is that $30k is the price bar for 2015.
The cost of the platinum in a catalytic converter is going to be the same as the cost of the platinum in a fuel cell, if there is any at all
in it.
The technology Toyota has is good enough now and only needs to
get cheaper, which it is. GM is behind if it doesn’t see a way to successfully commercialize fuel cell vehicles by 2015.
Another option to get hydrogen by the way is to use bacteria and this is being researched at Oregon State University.
GM was supposed to have fuel cell technology ready by 2010, which is less than a year away.
THE ONLY WAY TO ADDRESS THE OIL CRISIS IS TO RENEWABLY PRODUCE ENOUGH HYDROGEN TO REPLACE
ALL OF THE GASOLINE/DIESEL THAT IS CURRENTLY IN USE.
BATTERIES ARE POPULAR RIGHT NOW, BUT PLEASE ADMIT
THAT EITHER A YOU ARE SAYING THAT BATTERIES WILL
STORE ENOUGH ENERGY CHEAP ENOUGH SOON OR B
THAT YOU THINK THEY ARE GOOD ENOUGH ALREADY.
Fossil fuels are a carbon sink and as such they should not be
burned because that releases the carbon. Only fuel cell cars
at this point in time address the problem adequately. The Nissan
leaf doesn’t have the range to replace the conventional car/truck/SUV and there is no retirement plan for it when the batteries have to be recycled or disposed of. Using less gasoline
does not save the nation from OIL wars, though admittedly people
we are fighting the Taliban and Al Queada because they hate the West in general.
What battery advocates on here will not admit or what they will repeatedly sugar coat is that batteries have low energy density
in addition to a tendency to lose capacity over time. This wouldn’t
be so bad if batteries were really really cheap and made using local
raw materials. They aren’t super cheap and the Lithium used in batteries is NOT a local resource.
There is no point in me commenting on here at all because I know
that here as on auto blog green that nobody will argue with me using accurate facts. Nobody on here will ask Toyota for example
what it thinks about hydrogen and fuel cells going forward. Toyota
has succeeded in the hybrid market, if an extended electric range
hybrid were the ultimate way to go I’m sure that Toyota would have
gotten out of the hydrogen R&D business a long time ago. Or ask
Honda why it produced the Clarity and what the plans are going forward for it.
Another type of fuel cell is a natural gas fuel cell and absorptive natural gas tanks can now store an adequate amount of NG at
500 psi. These NG fuel cells are not zero emissions, but switching to NG over gasoline/diesel would still be better for the environment.
Electric is not clean if you don’t use hydrogen, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear with proper waste management, or some other clean method of producing electricity. Hydrogen is touted as being only
an energy carrier, but that depends a lot on how you get it. If you
produce hydrogen using sunlight and bacteria, no electrical power is being used. If we start producing hydrogen at dump sites and
waste water treatment plants by reforming say the methane…
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 9:47 pm
jeffhre,
That is precisely what GM decided to do, and included the cost of the battery in the cost you pay for your VOLT, day one. I want to get that out of the cost of the VOLT day one, by reducing the battery mileage warranties down to somewhat the equivalent ot an ICE engine’s warranty.
And I want to to beef up the warranty for a Tesla or Leaf buyer, eg, to get a new battery the second day he owned it, as there was an internal short in the battery that burned it out. Right now as far as I know, he is SCREWED.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Hydrnol is being developed but the current generation requires 200-300 degrees C to release the hydrogen and worse than that it takes 50 gallons of the stuff to go 300 miles. The first generation hydrnol will probably be used to hydrogen boost semi trucks. If Asemblon succeeds in dropping the amount of hydrnol it takes
to go 300 miles to say a more reasonable 15 gallons, I hope
they solve the problem of hydrnol needing to be heated to
200-300C that prevents using it with fuel cells. If hydrnol were
reformed at the fueling station and compressed to 10k PSI, that
might be a cheaper way to distribute hydrogen than building pipe
lines. Pipe lines aren’t terribly expensive though at $500k a mile
compared to say high voltage electric lines. Mind you, pipe lines
aren’t cheap cheap. They can be hidden underground though.
People say no to hydrogen on the premise that there is no infrastructure for it and that the cost of producing one is too
high. Well, there is currently very little green energy compared
to the amount of coal based energy in the current electrical
power mix. Hydro power is clean, but it negatively impacts fish.
GM has said that the electrical infrastructure in the U.S. is largely
not to code and worse than that, you need non standard outlets
if you want to quick charge a battery electric vehicle obviating the
argument that the infrastructure already exists for them. People
who live in apartments or dorms without garages that have to
park on the street are going to be without a place to plug in.
Hydrogen gas was delivered to fuel cell vehicles going through Oregon where I know for a fact that there are 0 hydrogen filling stations. The vehicles made it to Canada. For fuel cell vehicles, the range starts on the low end at 150 miles, more than the Nissan Leaf mind you, and on the high end the Toyota FCHV adv can go at least 450 miles on 10k PSI hydrogen tanks. The Tesla roadster can go 200 miles on a single charge, but it’s a 2 seater people and I doubt very much that it has the same amount of trunk space that the Toyota FCHV adv does.
It will be expensive to build a gaseous hydrogen distribution infrastructure, but that doesn’t mean that this isn’t the way to
go. When fuel cell cars drop to $30k or lower MSRP, it won’t
be too problematic to tack on $2k more to the first 10k cars
sold for the construction of a hydrogen filling station. The
cooperative, people who paid for the station, pay a lower
price than everyone else for hydrogen from it. Handling hydrogen
as a gas has been done safely for over a century and it is the most
straightforward way. Hydrides and organic liquids move the complexity of handling and using hydrogen to the vehicle which
has to release the gas. It isn’t clear whether in the long run it
makes more sense to handle hydrogen as a gas, in a liquid, or
in a solid of some kind. There are advantages and disadvantages
to all of the approaches. The fuel cell cars that are commercialized
in 2015 will need gaseous H2 that is compressed.
Before we assume that the current infrastructure is adequate,
some considerations should be taken as to how much pollution
is acceptable and what needs to be done about sub code wiring.
The price to expand the distribution system for H2 gas compared
to the cost of importing OIL where 30% of that Oil is used for making transportation fuel needs to be considered. I think $700
billion or so a year is being spent to import OIL. If hydrogen is
produced domestically, that money stays in the country.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:43 pm
“Electrons are flowing into or out of the battery for every mile of the car’s life, “
That’s where you’re wrong. When in charge sustain mode electrons will flow primarily from the genset at 30% SOC or 336VDC. WHEN the genset is rev’d up for higher voltage output it will force electrons to be used from the genset. The only time electrons flow from the batt pack is when batt pack voltage >= genset voltage out. It has already been calculated in the past that the Volt only needs 22KW to maintain 60-65mph highway so 22KW is no sweat for a 53KW genset. Only when hard accel will electrons flow from the batt pack due to natural voltage “sag” on high drain rate and only for a few seconds at the most.
Now counting the miles driven in charge sustain mode at 22KW from a genset against the batt pack is just wrong. To top it off, isn’t a second batt pack in the cost as well?
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Off topic,
2009 Frankfurt show, cnet tv:
Toyota Prius Plug in Concept
http://cnettv.cnet.com/toyota-prius-plug-concept/9742-1_53-50077161.html
VW L1 concept
http://cnettv.cnet.com/vw-l1-concept/9742-1_53-50077151.html
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:33 pm
“Game On” for Camaro Z/28 according to GM
BEAUTIFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Warrantees are like insurance and gambling. Statistically they are never a good thing for the consumer. They are setup so the consumers as a whole pay more than the manufacturer, unless somebody makes a mistake.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:51 pm
“Lead acid 12 volts and tires are pro-rated, why wouldn’t propulsion batteries be also?”
I will be shocked if they aren’t pro-rated.
(Quote)
September 21st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Tesla has a battery warranty. It’s easy to find on their website.
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 am
Metering the battery has been brought up several times but I don’t recall seeing GM address this issue and how miles for the battery warranty will be counted.
IMO, it should be an “x’ year or “y” battery kwh delivered warranty. Miles driven or KWH delivered by the genset should not count.
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:22 am
As soon as I get word we can take orders, I’ll let you know!
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:25 am
Why? What can’t burning cellulosic ethanol do for us that hydrogen can do better?
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:52 am
ITER a success? There is no chance ITER will ever be a success.
So what does have a chance? I like Polywell Fusion.
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:54 am
Fuel cells are a boondoggle used to confuse the rubes.
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:20 am
Excellent point, one worth passing along to GM if nothing of the sort has been mentioned before.
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:53 am
Cruze mule ~ Ampera (w/ Euro hood)
http://garfwod.250free.com/Cruze%20mule%20-%20Ampera.jpg
=D~
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:59 am
This is the part that bothers me:
“…it is essential to develop every form of energy including hydrogen. Right now the technology for hydrogen fuel has not…”
Hydrogen is not a fuel. It is a fuel carrier. In other words, you need some other type of fuel energy to create hydrogen.
And since hydrogen is so inefficient, it would actually waste fuel. For example, compare the following 2 scenarios:
1) burn coal or natural gas to make electricity to crack water to make hydrogen, and then compress that hydrogen, transport it to a hydrogen filling station, transfer it into the car, and then convert it back to electricity to drive an electric motor.
2) burn coal or natural gas to make electricity, carry the electricity over transmission lines, charge a car battery, and then discharge the battery to drive an electric motor.
#2 would drive the car 3 times as many miles with the same amount of coal or natural gas.
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:11 am
Well said, my friend.
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:15 am
Comcastic,
Hydrogen cars actually produce more CO2 emissions than regular gas engine cars.
With the current mix of fuel used to produce electricity in the U.S., making the hydrogen from electricity and water produces more CO2 to drive a fuel cell car 100 miles than would be produced by a regular gas engine car to go the same 100 miles.
By contrast, EREVs and BEVs produce much less CO2 than regular cars:
“studies show that powering cars with electricity from today’s mix of power plants could reduce greenhouse emissions by about 40 percent. Further reductions are possible if electric power gets cleaner.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/tm/3507.html?site=22&pl=wmp&rate=hi&ch=5
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
You’re getting a little mixed up here, Dan.
A yellow flame on a natural gas burner is an indication of improper fuel-air mixture (equipment is dirty or out of adjustment). This could result in excessive amounts of CO (carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide — CO2)
Carbon Monoxide and You
http://www.nasdonline.org/document/925/d000766/carbon-monoxide-and-you.html
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:50 am
Interesting observation , I live in China , I have never seen anything on TV or read anything in the newspapers about BYD Hybrid cars F3DM .
After seeing something here some months ago I asked a BYD dealer at an auto show about the hybrid and he didn’t know anything about it .
It seems that it is a secret in China .
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
We need some terms defined. Let us say Charge sustaining SOC maximum is the set-point when the charge sustaining level of the battery has been reached, say 30% SOC. It is the new definition of fully gen set-charged battery at which set-point the gen set will turn off, when the gen set has been working to achieve charge sustaining mode. Charge sustaining SOC minimum is the set-point when the gen set is engaged to provide electricity to drive the traction motor in most steady state situations. It is also the set-point at which the battery must be re-charged to reach to charge sustaining SOC maximum.
That is a somewhat lower level of SOC, let us say 20% battery SOC. When battery SOC drops below that limit, for SOC minimum depletion set-point, the gen set comes on to do two things. 1) To provide the majority of primary energy for the traction motor, and to re-charge the battery SOC, to the safe charge sustaining SOC maximum depletion point of SOC. Say return the battery SOC from 20% to 30%, at which point the gen set is switched off and the car uses the battery until the battery depletes to 20% SOC again, and the same cycle is repeated.
In either case some electrical energy is flowing into or out of the battery. IOW the Battery is being “worked” When SOC safe maximum depletion point has been achieved, the Battery needs no more re-charging but the car traction motor needs its supply. The Gen set is designed to be able to supply that much steady state electricity during the interval between sharing the two set-points, but no generator can match instantaneously the demand that accurately. Physically, a generator has a mechanical inertia, so in any moment the generator will be instantaneously providing slightly more or less electricity, than desired. The battery acts as the buffer, absorbing/delivering the electricity to match delivery and demand.
Electrons are not just dumped on the floor or not available, if there were momentary over or under supply, such as a slight grade or brakes being applied and regen braking is creating a current supply, as the gen set was also momentarily supplying too much electricity. Were that the case the car would be jittery, slightly speeding up and slowing down in a herky jerky manner. The battery acts as the instantaneous buffer. So the battery is always there, and always working, even if there is not a lot required of it.
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Fine. What is it? And I’ll wager it is NOT 150,000 miles.
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
M C R,
You are obviously not a technological trained man with your absolutist assertions and ready condemnation of other people,as if the world were a gigantic Conspiracy.
First of all, who ever said the Wind or Solar are Pollution Free?
They aren’t. If you did not know. Solar is a very poor, very inefficient, generation method with a 10-12% efficiency at best. The extra 88-90% waste energy goes into something that is called “Thermal Pollution”.
Plus the PV solar cell is an inherently Albedo Reducing device that changes the measure of reflectivity of the Earth from 70% on average to as near 0% as the engineers can manage to obtain. That extra 30% of absorbed Solar energy is the source of the PV cell energy thermal POLLUTION that is waste heat that goes into Anthropogenic Global Warming!
At a rate about 900 to a 1000 times worse than mere CO2 GHG. And it is cumulative. Every square meter of PV cells created and installed, adds to the several hundred thousand square kilometers already produced, and all add to the extra heat absorbed by the Earth attributable to to Man; the very definition of man-made global warming.
Or hadn’t you ever heard of that. You Will. Sooner if not later,when th warts start to show.
In the meantime the enviro knot-heads and know-nothings haven’t yet discovered that form of pollution yet. But it is there.
Secondly, who ever told you that hydrogen creation is cheap or efficient or unlimited. It is costly if by electrolysis, and worse than petroleum if derived from fossil fuels. Where is the benefit there?
If you want to discuss the drawbacks of harvesting the energy in Wind, I could do so, but suffice it to say, they are there,as well. It is simply that the Warts haven’t been readily visible to the green know-nothings yet, either. Suffice it to say the delivered cost of electricity from these two wunderkinds of energy are the highest in all the choices available,so there must be something wrong with them.
Do you think there might be a reason for that?
i would be glad to enter a philosophical discussion of why Scientists and Engineers say “Efficiency is its own Reward” but in general the more inefficient a process, the more potential side effects there are from that process from the waste. The larger the side effects, the larger the chance of inimical side effects . And both Solar and Wind possess these in Spades.
(Quote)
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
We’ve clearly crossed a line where oil has become attractive because it is OIL as opposed to being a cheap fuel source. Look at the tar sands. Nobody would even bother with it if it were just for energy, it even looks less attractive than coal!
The point is, why is oil so incredibly attractive? Because it’s a fuel that is liquid at standard pressures and temperatures and has a dense energy content. Hydrogen has none of those properties. As such, it is quite simply a tremendously lousy carrier of energy. But it doesn’t stop there. Everything about hydrogen is lousy; from the production of it, the storage of it, the transportation of it, the utilization of it… All of it. Incredibly, incredibly lousy. The only thing it does well is turn into water when reacted with oxygen. Everything else: lousy. Here’s a pretty good summary:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
Now, does that mean that there aren’t problems with our electrical system and our cars and our liquid fuels? No, not at all. There’s certainly lots of problems there. But as an engineer, I have to pick maybe the top few solutions to put my effort into solving to get a product out the door and make an impact on the bottom line. Similarly, we have to pick the top few solutions to put our efforts into to make in impact on your choice of global warming, terrorist funding, economic destabilization, etc. and using hydrogen just isn’t among the top candidates.
The thing that really makes me upset about hydrogen is that for every incredibly smart engineer or researcher trying to make hydrogen work that is one less incredibly smart engineer or researcher trying to make one of the realistic candidates for immediate change work.
So, yeah. I suppose it’s possible hydrogen could be made to work, eventually… But we really don’t even want to bother. We can get off oil much faster if we focus on something else. Practically anything else at this point.
(Quote)
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
@Luke
It is actually not as simple as you say. In electrolysis, some of that electricity used to crack water is turned into heat and lost. In other words the electrolysis process is not 100% efficient (very few processes are). When you combine the hydrogen and oxygen again, there is also a lot of energy loss to heat in the fuel cell while only a portion is made into electricity. So the energy is still conserved but a significant portion is not useful energy.
Example:
10 units of energy -> 3 units lost to heat in electrolysis -> 10-3=7 units left inside hydrogen -> 3 units lost to heat in fuel cell -> 7-3=4 units left for the electric motor.
So you lost 6 units in total to heat and have 4 units that actually got converted to useful electricity at the electric motor. Total energy is still 6+4=10, so energy is conserved, but only 4 is useful. That is why cracking water for hydrogen is inefficient.
(above I didn’t look up any efficiency numbers so the relative sizes of the numbers don’t mean anything; it is just an example to illustrate the point).
(Quote)
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Right now, I think automakers are still on board because they did get quite far on the research and they don’t want to dump it in the trash after all that work. In particular, Honda (and Toyota somewhat) remains convinced hydrogen is the ultimate way to go (it makes sense since Japan is one of the few countries along with German still planning to expand hydrogen infrastructure) and remain very skeptical about plug-ins. Toyota’s attitude seems to be that they want to continue to make profits on the hybrid and plug-ins will impede on that. The others all seem like they have shifted most of their attention to plug-ins (esp in terms of getting some form of production vehicle on the road in the near future), though they still have hydrogen car programs.
The main issue I think is hydrogen lets them delay until the market conditions are ready (they still have to wait for non-existent infrastructure, which is a valid excuse for hydrogen), plug-ins can pretty much be made and sold today, which means no waiting around. Both types are much less profitable than conventional cars (and maybe even results in a net loss) so I can see why they want to delay as long as possible.
(Quote)