Grab our RSS Feed

AND

GM Unveils Second Generation Hydrogen Fuel Cell System

September 24th, 2009 | Posted in: Hydrogen

General Motors has been working on hydrogen fuel cell technology for a long time, and over a billion in research dollars have been spent on it.

Presently they have a fleet of hydrogen fuel cell Chevy Equinoxes in public hands. These vehicles have been on the roads over a year and have collectively logged over 1 million miles.

Now GM has unveiled its next-generation fuel cell system

The new system is 220 pounds lighter than the one currently found in the Equinox, and uses half the amount of precious metals. It contains GM’s fifth generation fuel cell stack and is small enough to fit under the hood of a sedan occupying as much space as a conventional 4 cylinder engine.

GM says it could commercialize the system by 2015, if the country is willing to set up the infrastructure necessary to support hydrogen vehicles.

“GM has invested more than $1.5 billion in fuel cell technology and we are committed to continuing to invest, but we no longer can go it alone,” said Charles Freese, executive director of GM Fuel Cell Activities. “As we approach a costly part of the program, we will require government and industry partnerships to install a hydrogen infrastructure and help create a customer pull for the products.”

For its part, Germany and Japan have both agreed to build up to 1000 hydrogen fueling stations by 2015.

“Failure to act will insure the U.S. cannot meet its long-term fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction objectives,” Freese said. “We know what needs to be done. Now is the time to get started.”

According to Volt spokesperson Rob Peterson GM still has no plans to put this system in future Chevy Volts as the range extender.

“Our focus remains solely on an internal combustion engine-generator for the Voltec system at this time,” he said.

Peterson also wouldn’t comment on the cost of this new fuel cell system. “As a matter of course, we do not provide cost estimates on our technologies,” he said.

Is it do or die time for hydrogen? Most people are betting on batteries as A123’s rousing IPO performance today suggests. The Massachesetts-based lithium-ion battery producer’s stock (AONE) began trading on the NASDAQ today, and soared over 50% from its opening price of $13.50 per share.

Source (GM)

Posted by: Lyle

130 Responses to “GM Unveils Second Generation Hydrogen Fuel Cell System”

+1 carcus1 Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 4:11 pm

meh…

(Quote)
+1 MikeD Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

Too little, too late.

(Quote)
+1 Jaime Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 4:24 pm

“GM has invested more than $1.5 billion in fuel cell technology and we are committed to continuing to invest, but we no longer can go it alone,”

Now I’m not saying hydrogen is a bad investment, but just because you’ve already spent a lot on something is no justification to continue. Knowing when to cut your losses is one of the best traits of successful business.

(Quote)
-1 Jason M. Hendler Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pm

The US should build out a 10 kpsi hydrogen filling system for a couple reasons. First, long haul trucks require it for zero emissions hauling. Second, we should put all our eggs in one battery basket.

(Quote)
Ignatius Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

Okay, here’s the issue. The way to get around the US in a gasoline/diesel powered car is through using the 115,000+ or so stations that exist in the US.

There is all of maybe four dozen hydrogen filling stations in the US, if not the entire world.

Good luck getting around with a hydrogen-powered vehicle. Those stations need BILLIONS of dollars to even exist, let alone producing hydrogen without using fossil fuels and making it affordable.

… and then you have to make the cars themselves affordable.

(Quote)
+3 Jason M. Hendler Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Crap, I meant we should NOT put all our eggs in one battery basket.

(Quote)
Frank D Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 4:47 pm

I understand GM’s need to diversify it’s portfolio, but we have seen the electrification of the automobile by most major car companies is a signal that this technology is a viable solution to many problems with transportation. GM should take this positive trend and be visionary. Focus on electrification, worrying about pleasing everybody got them into their major mess.

(Quote)
-6 Jason M. Hendler Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 4:51 pm

A good way to roll out hydrogen is to add 10 kpsi systems at all truck stops and gradually convert our long haul trucks to fuel cells or hydrogen ICE.

Eventually, fuel cell SUV’s and other large or high performance passenger vehicles would gain acceptance.

(Quote)
solo Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 4:53 pm

I”m not giving up on hydrogen yet. I know hydrogen is not a fuel in and of itself, but neither is the energy in a battery. Both require electricity generated in very conventional ways to work.

Batteries have an advantage because they are cheaper (today) than a hydrogen fuel cell. Hydrogen has an advantage in refuel-ability (is that a word?) quickly on the highway, and it is lighter than a battery powered car of the same capability, (read that range).

I know a lot of people here on this web sight think BEV vehicles will soon rule the world but the reality is the next winner in automotive power systems has not been determined. Batteries can’t be recharged fast enough and are currently very heavy. Hydrogen cannot be purchased anywhere by the automotive public (yet). I do think that batteries and hydrogen will be the 2 front runners in the long term, followed by natural gas in the mid term (and gasoline/diesel/alcohol) in the short term.

(Quote)
+4 Herm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

1.5 billion $$.. my god!, imagine if they had invested this in battery research.

Still no mention of what it would cost if mass produced..

I still think this was mostly government money.

(Quote)
Jon Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

Dont forget to add that fuel cells are much less efficient than batteries. For a given amount of electricity, you will get much more out of storing it and using it in a battery than you will using it to generate hydrogen, compressing/liquefying the hydrogen, running it through a fuel cell, storing the electricity from the cell in a battery (yes, FCV’s need batteries too), then using the electricity.

(Quote)
Herm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:09 pm

We have perfectly good enough batteries right now, and they will only get better.. No more excuses!

Pure BEV is the long term for private cars, EREV is the long term for commercial vehicles and long distance haulers. Pure hydrogen EV will be reserved for aviation if they can ever make a miracle material high pressure tank… it will always be expensive when you have to waste so much energy to use hydrogen as a fuel.

I can see fuel cells powering commercial vehicles but it will not be from high pressure gaseous hydrogen..

(Quote)
LRGVProVolt Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:10 pm

The United States will watch and see what other countries like Germany and Japan, mentioned above, end up doing as well as monitoring progress made in fuel cell design and cost. It is significant that GM has cut in half the use of precious metals. Plus a weight drop of 220 lbs shows that the technology is moving ahead.

What will be needed is a government project like Eisenhower’s highway system. There are several major projects facing the nation: infrastructure for the Smart Grid and EV charging stations to replace the existing +116,855 gas stations. If it turns out that fuel cell technology advances quickly where they are affordable replacements for gasoline tanks, then that might also be a national project. If it is a mix of electric and fuel cell, it will be a problem deciding which national project should take a priority position. The whole issue of rare and precious metal sourcing throughout the world will play a major role in which direction we end up going.

As for the investment of $1.5 billion by GM, we can begin to see the total picture with respect to GM’s financial position. Over a billion dollars on the Volt plus other design projects, and this research into fuel cells show me that GM is well positioned to move into the future with the new technology that the world will require to solve the problem of global warming, peak oil, and supplies of necessary rare metals, etc.

P.S.” …. one gas station every so 2500 people”!

(Quote)
Herm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:21 pm

That picture looks like an electric motor with a fuel cells stack stuck on top.. you can see the shaft of the motor at the bottom, along with some cooling fins on the front.. intended for a rear wheel drive vehicle and we are looking at the back of the “engine”. Looks very professional.

The black thing with the two large black hoses looks like some sort of high pressure blower.

It would have been a better investment to have built a stand alone 50kw range extender for the GM parts bin.

(Quote)
+11 gsned57 Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:21 pm

Rehash of my last hydrogen post – 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 get solar on my house and fill up for free as long as my car is running.

If every ICE car in the USA were to magically change to an EREV overnight, nobody would be left stranded any more than they would have the day prior. If every car were to magically convert to hydrogen we’d all be screwed.

(Quote)
LRGVProVolt Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:26 pm

I agree with your statement about batteries except for one factor; the cost and suply sourcing of the exotic metals required to make them. similar problems exist with the fuel cell. the availability of the materials used to make each and what country controls the supply of them.

(Quote)
Herm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:28 pm

You can see the future in the Mitsubishi iMiev, 100 mile range and you can recharge to 80% in 20 minutes.. just a couple more steps in the evolution and you will get 200 miles and 10 minute recharges.

Then invest that federal money for fast charge stations lining the highways in-between cities… if you have some money left over put a few charging stations in the cities themselves.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:29 pm

“occupying as much space as a conventional 4 cylinder engine.”

OK, i’ve seen 1.4L 4cyl and 2.5L 4cyl. Still don’t have a clue on the size. I’m gonna say 2.5L size.

““As a matter of course, we do not provide cost estimates on our technologies,” “

Well,this version took “$1.5 billion in fuel cell technology” to get to this point. Technically it’s no where close to production anyway so any figure would be a SWAG anyway.

(Quote)
LRGVProVolt Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pm

I agree with you on this issue. If we reduce our foreign oil consumption significantly, the government will be able do the infrastructure projects we need. I agree that battery technology is enabling. However, I think we also will have to consider hydrogen technology in the future and may have to consider it around 2020! It all depends how fast the world supply of petroleum declines.

(Quote)
+4 CaptJackSparrow Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:35 pm

agreed.

(Quote)
+3 Rashiid Amul Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:48 pm

Ditto.

(Quote)
-1 pdt Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:51 pm

I can’t believe I am going to say this, but I actually think hydrogen for long haul trucking in the long term might be a reasonable idea.

(Quote)
+2 Koz Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:52 pm

It’s not really a battery vs fuel cell question. Roughly the same batteries used in ICE EREVs will be the same ones used in FEVs. It is also not a question of BEV vs FEV. For those that a BEV is sufficient, the BEV is a no-brainer better solution than FEV and ALWAYS will be. As batteries improve, the percentage of the population that BEVs work for will continue to increase.

The real question, as far as personal transportation is concerned is fuel cells vs ICE range extender. Either way, it is a market doomed to shrinkage from the start. Why develope a whole new infrastructure, power system, storage system, delivery system, and production solutions when we have one that workds? Will it be less expensive in the long run? Will it be more green than biofuels? NO! It is a frigging waste of a lot of money and time to develop FEV for personnal transportation.

(Quote)
LRGVProVolt Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:52 pm

GM does say they are ready to commercialize it in 2015. Of course, a BIG IF regarding the infrastructure. Does this mean they can sell these vehicles at credible pricing in 2015. Most likely like the Volt; about $50,000 to start.

(Quote)
+5 Rashiid Amul Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:57 pm

Here we go again. This freaking fuel cell thing just won’t die.

We have to build a complete infrastructure. That is not going to happen by 2015. $1.5 billion dollars would have went pretty far making better batteries.
But nooooooo. Let’s blow it on something completely impractical for today or anytime in the near future to near distant future. Hydrogen is a complete waste. Where is the common sense in pushing this overly expensive, non infrastructure based technology now? We need the batteries now. We have the infrastructure for EREV. We have the refueling stations EREV. Think EREV. Think tomorrow. Not 10-50 years down the road when they finally make an infrastructure that we don’t need because we will have better batteries by then. Give me a break.

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 5:59 pm

Let’s hope so. Both a BEV/EREV or Fcell car will work fine for everyone.

(Quote)
+3 Herm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 6:10 pm

I shudder whenever I think of 10,000 psi tanks.. but apparently they can be made safe. Still takes a lot of energy to compress the gas to 10k psi… this is what kills it as an economically viable fuel.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/hydrogen_storage_testing.html

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/hydrogen_storage.html

(Quote)
CaptJackSparrow Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pm

I dunno a whole lot of fuel cells/hydrogen, so imma let you guys pull each others hair out on this one while I have a few beers.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 6:28 pm

Wouldn’t it be cheaper to have fuel cells in a stationary format running 24/7 to augment the grid for quick charge bays at a few area gas stations? As an alternative to having an exotic hydrogen delivery and storage system and a fuel cell/storage system onboard millions of electric vehicles. (Fuel cell vehicles are EV’s with small batteries and a FC stack range extender.)

(Quote)
+1 Herm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

Many conspiracy buffs think that the Hydrogen push was economic and highly effective in killing the California ZEV mandate of the ’90s.. CARB really went crazy on hydrogen.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/solutions/advanced_vehicles_and_fuels/californias-zero-emission-2.html

http://gm-volt.com/2008/03/29/california-drops-zev-requirement-to-7500-cars-from-2012-2014/

(Quote)
Noah Nehm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 6:32 pm

I’m really not terribly interested in the Hydrogen (gas) fuel cell. I think either the direct ammonia or direct methanol fuel cell has the potential to be a disruptive technology, but anything that requires compressed hydrogen gas storage, or hydrogen reforming (either ammonia or methanol), or God forbid liquid hydrogen storage won’t make it out the door.

1.5G$ sure would have bought a lot of battery research…

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 6:34 pm

Jaime, it’s true sunk costs are no basis for future investment. Though in this case however, I believe GM is saying, We’ll build the cars, but we don’t do no dang infrastructure.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

I agree, the electricity to compress hydrogen would kill it as an economically viable fuel…if it were actually an economically viable fuel after conversion to pure hydrogen, and prior to compression. Alas, it has not been.

(Quote)
Herm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 6:42 pm

There are no rare or exotic metals used in the current generation of lithium batteries.. you are probably thinking of nimh as used in the Prius, and nickel is not really that exotic either… or perhaps you are thinking of cobalt as in the old lithium batteries?

There are rare earth ores used in permanent magnet traction motors but even that is going away due to AC motors.. but they will probably be used for windows and windshield wipers and so on.

(Quote)
Anthony Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 6:47 pm

I’m still coming around to the idea of a Volt+FC as the ultimate solution for 2030. Unless there is some huge breakthrough in battery tech, we’ll still “only” be at 350Wh/kg, so a Volt battery goes from 160kg to 50kg. A 100 highway mile BEV SUV will be possible, and a 250 highway mile small car (at affordable prices – not roaster prices). But it still doesn’t solve the charging issue (50kW is about 80 minutes for that 65kWh battery, you need 500kW to recharge it in 8 minutes, plus any CC/CV and battery abuse issues charging it at that high rate).

The idea of a fuel cell in a E-REV solves a number of problems that ICE extenders have (vibration, noise, kW output, fill-up time). H2 is still more efficient than burning gasoline both in terms of total energy consumption as well as GHG. Its not the perfect BEV solution, but I don’t think we’ll get a BEV that we can treat like a normal gasoline car for a long long time… (think 2050).

(Quote)
Herm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 6:51 pm

Hard to say from the picture but it looks like a very tall module for the engine compartment of a small sedan.

(Quote)
-4 Jason M. Hendler Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 6:59 pm

Sniff, oh pdt, you’ve made me so happy …

(Quote)
+1 jeffhre Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 7:00 pm

“It’s not really a battery vs fuel cell question.”

That’s true, since ER-EV’s, EV’s and FCV’s are each electric vehicles, it’s more of a range extender question. If you need longer range than a city car BEV – What range extender today makes the most sense for highway driving. ICE’s, diesels, bigger Li Ion batteries, ultra caps, fuel cells, wankels, gas turbines?

Application matters too. Bigger vehicles, trucks, weekend boat haulers, SUV’s what are the best range extenders for heavy vehicles?

(Quote)
+1 Johannes Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 7:01 pm

Jeez, even if the vehicles were able to cut their precious metal use to zero, the problem of creating hydrogen in the quantities we now consume gasoline is dazzling. We will be looking at an increased consumption of energy that are magnitudes over an eventual increase due to BEVs.

Besides, hindenburg anyone? Hydrogen is still crazy volatile and explosive. Hydrogen is a last-stand option, a band-gap if gasoline magically disappears tomorrow, not the longterm solution.

(Quote)
-2 Jason M. Hendler Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

I also the a fuel cell Volt would be a long term solution. It allows the automaker to cut the size of the fuel cell in half, because you only need 70 hp continuous, while the batteries provide instantaneous power.

(Quote)
blakem Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 7:10 pm

You are exactly right. In fact if you look at the major players, they are moving in this direction. Ballard sold off their automotive fuel cell business. UTC Power does the space shuttle fuel cells, a few demo cars and busses but their main products are stationary fuel cells. Interestingly enough, almost all of the stationary fuel cells run off natural gas.

(Quote)
+5 Volt 45 Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

If diesel-electric series hybrids are effective for railroad locomotives, then why not for long-haul trucking?

(Quote)
+3 Dave K. Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

It’s been quite a week. Hydrogen fuel cell systems, a 6 cylinder Corvette, EEStor rumors (again), $500 electric scooters at Best Buy, and A123 going public.

The upcoming heavyweight fight between the NGMCO (Volt), and Fisker (Karma, Sunset) will soon dominant the news.

BYD China will remain at ringside for a time with their $40k all electric sedan. The goal of BYD being to develop a pure BEV by placing the majority of resources into extension of battery range. 20% owner of BYD, Warren Buffet, is known as an investor with a view of the long term. His bet is that a 400-500 mile battery in a Chinese car will outsell the American EREV. The eventual EV market share winner being the one which can post a reasonable sticker price combined with very high volume output.

Q>Who will shop for a Volt?
A>In time, nearly everyone.

NGMCO has stated, “The Volt is our halo car”. The Volt will make NGMCO look good and also provide a CAFE counter balance to the fleet. The Volt will be a big sales boost to the new Cruze. 30% of potential Volt buyers may go with the lower priced Cruze. Another 10% may go with the 29 mpg (highway) Camaro. It’s all good.

Then there is the match between a “tax credit” vs an “instant rebate”. GMAC Financial Services and the U.S. Government MUST find a way to change the tax credit (idea) to an instant rebate reality. Call it an upfront $7500 GMAC interest free loan to the buyer with the tax credit going through GMAC. The Volt must sticker closer to $32K and further from $40k for high volume success. The rush of interest during the cash-for-clunkers program and the H&R Block instant cash system are successful models.

=D~

.

(Quote)
Volt 45 Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 7:15 pm

“… worrying about pleasing everybody got them into their major mess.”

EREV full on pick ups and muscle cars would go a long way to pleasing everybody.

(Quote)
+5 carcus1 Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 7:28 pm

I’ve been envisioning a nice little grid tie solar system on my energy efficient house.
I’ve been envisioning a nice little electric car in my garage.

2 nice little eggs in one nice little basket. Problem solved.

Nice.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 7:41 pm

Hey CaptJack,

It’s time for some trailer park relaxation.

Warning. This is a guilty pleasure vid. (You’ll have to say about 20 “hail mary’s” afterwards.)

Drinkin’ beer with Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp02VTNhBMU

(Quote)
+6 CDAVIS Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

_____________________________________________________
From Lyle’s article:
“GM has invested more than $1.5 billion in fuel cell technology…As we approach a costly part of the program, we will require government and industry partnerships to install a hydrogen infrastructure…”

—–
So GM has spent $1.5B on Hydrogen Fuel Cells and they have not yet approached the costly part of the program? GM wants a bunch more of OUR money to throw at it??? GM also wants the Government (taxpayers) to spend billions/trillions on building a national hydrogen infrastructure….an infrastructure that every serious study has declared both technically and financially impractical compared to other alternative options such as BEV/EREV.

Dear GM,
Have you guys lost your minds or is this a back door strategy to get more bailout dollars channeled to you without calling it a bailout? Please STOP!!! No more of my taxpayer $$$ toward Hydrogen Fuel Cells. Shut down that division TODAY!!! Send out the pink slips without delay. Don’t spend any more of my $$$ on Hydrogen Fuel Cells until such time after you have both paid back the money you borrowed from us and can afford to play with Hydrogen Fuel Cells on your own dime. Please invest my taxpayer dollars on getting down the cost of the Voltec platform and Voltecing more of your model portfolio because that is your only chance of your surviving the Electric Car Revolution of which survival is required in order for you to pay me back the money I lent you.

Yours Truly,
American Taxpayer (your bank & shareholder)

______________________________________________________

(Quote)
-1 Jason M. Hendler Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:00 pm

… Just don’t try to evacuate south Florida in one of those during a hurricane. 200 miles will only get you to central Florida, then you park for 8 hours while you recharge.

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:01 pm

I have been babbling on and on for anyone that will listen… fuel cells can be good (if made affordable). It’s hydrogen that is the boondogle. What about natural gas fuel cells? We do have a mature NG distribution system in this country. And fuel cells could be made flexible to alternately run off of propane for rural areas with no NG connections. America has TONS of natural gas…. hundreds of years worth.

(Quote)
+4 carcus1 Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:06 pm

As opposed to what? A fuel cell equinox which goes 160 miles and then can’t recharge at all?

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:07 pm

Why can’t the range extender be a natural gas / propane fuel cell? There is much existing infrastructure for those fuels, and America has enough NG to last us generations. The Marcellus Shale formation recently tapped in Pennsylvania alone is estimated to have as much as 200 years of NG supply at projected usage rates. Obviously our usage rate would go up if we started using it for transportation.

(Quote)
+6 Dave G Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:24 pm

Yes, all excellent points.

And I’ll go one further: If the USA magically grew a complete hydrogen fueling infrastructure overnight, it still wouldn’t make any sense.

Why a hydrogen economy doesn’t make sense
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)
-1 koz Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:26 pm

As apposed to all the dead ICEs on the highways around Houston like a bunch of dead cockroaches trying to escape a the hurricane headed there a few years ago. 200 miles gets you plenty far if the highway capacity lets you get that far. I still ultimately would prefer:

2 BEV + 1 Gen trailer

(Quote)
+1 koz Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:36 pm

I think what there actually thinking is:

“If you cut my hydrogen freebie funds, I’m not going to develop it any further on my dime, but we can just say that because we’ve been talking it up for so long. Plus we don’t really want to drop it because it is such a fantabulous smoke screen. Instead we’ll try a liitle subtle blackmail on our sugar daddy.”

/shout out to our resident Op-Eder

(Quote)
Mark Z Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

This thread put me to sleep in a cafe! Normally the topics are like caffeine, but hydrogen has so many problems, it’s difficult to get excited.

(Quote)
+3 Texas Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:38 pm

Or the gas stations are empty and you can’t even get gas?

How about we stick with reasonable design requirements for now.

Notice GM cannot give out the price of the system. It’s because the cost is still around a quarter of a million dollars.

GM said they can no longer do it alone. Are you kidding me? Most of that R&D has been funded by the U.S. government. The question is, should we keep pumping money into this?

I say yes, but switch the focus from passenger cars to trucks and other forms of transportation that require higher energy density systems.

Don’t kill the EV by favoring one over the other (like what happened before – EV1 era anyone). The EV has so much promise while the hydrogen car is but a dream.

Dear U.S. government, please continue to fund but try to be as fair as possible. I know the EV does not look that good from a tax revenue generating point of view but the efficiency of that type of transportation system will spill off in untold ways. Mostly in our ability to compete in the global market. Yes, it’s hard to tax electrons and the fuel can come from just about anywhere, even from peoples’ personal solar panels. Relax, it will not be a problem.

(Quote)
+1 harrier1970 Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:39 pm

That is a lot of common sense for one post… can’t you spread the wealth a little brother? You need to hit one of these every day!

Great post and great points.

(Quote)
+2 Texas Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:42 pm

Here is what I posted in the forum:

What’s the price of that system? I was looking into a company that is currently making 1kW ceramic fuel cells that run on home NG. They are hoping to get the price of that system down to $8000 after economies of scale hit. That’s only 1 kW! The Volt’s generator pumps out around 50 kW.

Also, the fuel cell stack has to be replaced every 5 years. Plus we will need NG infrastructure installed across our nation (more than we already have, which is a significant amount).

To summarize:

1) Still a non-renewable fossil fuel.
2) Needs more infrastructure put in.
3) Will be subject to the carbon taxes that are coming.
4) Currently extremely expensive technology.
5) Needs filters for the NG.
6) Fuel cell stack will need replacing every 5 years or so.

It sure is not sounding like the silver bullet solution. I guess the more options we have the better.

(Quote)
Texas Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:44 pm

Yes, this is the concept of sunk costs.

On the positive side, much of that money was spent on the electrification of the platform which has been transfered to the EV and hybrid platforms. It’s all good.

(Quote)
+3 Herm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

we dont have diesel-electric semis because of the losses in the electric drivetrain.. it would not save you money on fuel. Diesels in semis are very efficient.

The reason for series electric locomotives was the huge torque available even with primitive ’20s tech.. and the reliability.

(Quote)
koz Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:52 pm

True but let’s use the tools at hand to solve what we can now. No more perpetually waiting around for tomorrow’s solution for all needs that nobody really know if/when it will come. We need to use the tech we have now and start on the path to significant improvement. PHEV, EREV, and BEV all do this.

While higher weight vehicles need more average power for their range extension, the problem is a bit overblown, IMO, except for tractor-trailers. Pickups and SUVs don’t need nearly as much extra average power for range extension (highway driving) as many people think. Taking the next step to encorporate these vehicles into plug-in electrification won’t be that difficult once we start on the path.

(Quote)
Texas Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 8:53 pm

Maybe a Better Place-like company will be started by a Shai Agassi-like guy for the hydrogen economy. It will require the same kind of scope – huge infrastructure AND vehicle investment.

So, if the EV market is now getting done by a private company why not the hydrogen market? Where is Shai Agassi II and his hydrogen plan?

Should the government take this on because there is nobody else around that wants to invest their own money and time? That should be the question everyone is asking.

How about the head hydrogen guy at GM? Why not do what Shai did and start Better Hydrogen Place or something? Heck, even the government is willing to throw in several hundred million dollars.

(Quote)
koz Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 9:01 pm

Finance the battery separately with a one time early payoff allowance and let taxpayers assign the rebate to a third party. Viola, $29k MSRP Volt and $3k for the battery.

(Quote)
Herm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 9:01 pm

I think the previous thread, “chat with the EDTA president” really did it for me.. Lyle did it on purpose to gin up interest in this hydrogen plea

(Quote)
+3 Texas Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 9:05 pm

Don’t forget the great stopping power of electric motors! Those huge mining trucks also use a diesel / generator drivetrain. They have to drive for extremely long distances going deep into the pit. You would be burning out the brake disks every day if it were not for the electric motors being used to slow the vehicle down. The sad part is all that energy is simply turned into heat and vented away! If only there was a great battery to store that energy and then reuse it. I’m guessing they are working on that as we speak, just like they are doing with trains.

In Japan they are starting to put not only batteries on to trains to capture this regen energy but some designs can put the power right back on the grid (overhead power line) to power other trains. One train stopping is powering the other train starting. Now you have to admit, that’s beautiful.

(Quote)
Volt 45 Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 9:06 pm

But Daimler has sold 3000 diesel electric busses, right?
I know diesel engines have been successful for trucks and all,
but who is crying the loudest when petrol prices go up?
It’s the truckers, and for good reason.
If the point is to electrify, then at some point when battery tech
becomes more economical, then diesel electric hybrid tech for trucks
becomes more efficient and economical, to boot. No?

(Quote)
+2 Texas Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Yup, that and other losses. That’s why the system is four times less efficient than a BEV. You read that correctly.

(Quote)
Texas Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 9:17 pm

Yes, EVs can be recharged as quickly as the hydrogen vehicle. Since both require infrastructure that issue is a wash. How can the EV be recharged quickly?

Better Place – Swap stations. Just go to their website and watch the system work. It only takes two minutes, the batteries are safely charged in the battery bays and you don’t have to deal with 10,000 psi tanks located a few inches from your loved ones. Better yet, the model matches the convenience of a modern ICE vehicle, the cost per mile is less and will continue to get cheaper every year and most importantly, it uses current lithium-ion technology at current market prices. No new technology or development is needed. That’s hard to beat.

Hydrogen does have a much higher energy density. That is why it might win for applications like trucks, planes and ships. For passenger cars? It’s a very complex and expensive system fueled by a very complex and expensive infrastructure that is backed by a very inefficient energy system and no company is willing to put their own money into it.

Well, punk, do you feel lucky? Where would you invest your money if you had to choose the next transportation system?

(Quote)
Jerry Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 9:18 pm

Yeah, more hydrogen talk, yipee!!!!!!!

(Quote)
Anthony Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

It could be. As long as it satisfies the five main factors needed for a range extender (sufficiently small, fill-up time, range, quiet and few moving parts) and is cheap and practical to mass produce, it’ll fit just fine. I’ve driven CNG vehicles myself and the only gripe I had was that it didn’t have much of a range (200 miles vs 350-400 of a regular gasoline car). And this was many years ago (2002) so its possible things have changed since then.

(Quote)
Texas Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 9:28 pm

… A man walks into a psychologist’s office and claims he has never opened up before. Forty years of issues. The psychologist tells him to just go ahead and tell him everything…

(Quote)
Herm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 9:48 pm

but a bus drives in stop and go traffic, and you dont put an 18 gear transmission on a bus either (what makes a semis efficiency possible), the driver would not like it.

Also, are you sure a diesel electric bus is more economical than a regular diesel bus?

(Quote)
Herm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

An article on another popular green website states its smaller than a 2.4l Ecotec engine, with 93kw output… lots of neat pictures also.

(Quote)
Xiaowei1 Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 10:08 pm

“I say yes, but switch the focus from passenger cars to trucks and other forms of transportation that require higher energy density systems.”

I absolutly agree.

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 10:09 pm

Pure hydrogen EV will be reserved for aviation if they can ever make a miracle material high pressure tank…

I disagree. My prediction is that fossil fuels will rise in price, and be displaced by nuclear electricity for power generation, space heating and most transport needs. When this happens, fossil fuel usage will drop precipitously, and the price will plateau. Demand for liquid fossil fuels will be much lower than it is today, and the price will be stable at perhaps $10 per gallon excluding taxes for gas, diesel and Jet A.

At this point, fossil jet fuel will still be the cheapest alternative because of its high energy density. To fuel a plane on hydrogen would require excessive tank space.

At some point, possibly centuries in the future, even the small demand of avaiation will exhust crude oil supplies, and the replacement will be bio-Jet. Bio-Jet is pretty much the same stuff as bio-diesel, which exists today.

Bio-gas and bio-diesel will never be big buisiness because electric cars and trucks will be a better solution. But we will not have electric airplanes. In an aircraft, energy density is crucial.

(Quote)
+2 Tom Harwick Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 10:18 pm

The United States will watch and see what other countries like Germany and Japan, mentioned above, end up doing…

Well maybe. But here is a list of techological innovations and the countries which lead the way:

Japan
none

Germany
automobiles
chemical dyes

UK
Steam engine (1700s)
Railroad (1800s)

The USA

telegraph
telephone
electrical power distribuition
phonograph
motion pictures
sound motion pictures
Popular photography
electric light
television
atomic weapons
atomic power
computers
PHEVs

(Quote)
Slave to OPEC Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 10:18 pm

Congrats ! You’ve progressed the buggy whip…

(Quote)
+2 CorvetteGuy Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 10:22 pm

I would like to second that…. 680 million times!

(Quote)
+1 CorvetteGuy Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

I could use a quick review:

How much is a ‘fill up’ of hydrogen?
How far can I travel on a full tank?
Will I be spending more or less than I now do on gasoline?

Thanks for the recap.

(Quote)
Tom Harwick Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 10:39 pm

Isn’t the point where some yobo suggests that with sufficient investment of government research subsidies, scientists could invent a fireproof form of Hydrogen?

(Quote)
Red Hat Gnome Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 10:47 pm

Ahhhh…so we see a little more why the Obama administration thought it right to help bail out GM….maybe, just maybe there are some good things to come in this hotly debated power system.

(Quote)
Herm Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 10:55 pm

Even after surface transportation stops using oil, industry will continue to suck up all available production.. even food can be made directly out of oil.

You probably dont believe in miraculous materials to make airplane hydrogen tanks out of, do you?.. hydrogen is light, if you dont count the weight of the tank hydrogen is 1/3 the weight of gasoline for the same energy content… but unfortunately it also has 7 times the volume in gas form.

(Quote)
-1 EVNow Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 11:15 pm

This is not the first $1.5B GM has wasted. Hope it is the last.

(Quote)
Texas Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 11:52 pm

We have to keep talking about hydrogen, the technology environment changes daily. One day hydrogen is silly but tomorrow? Who knows? If we get a super clean and easy way to make and store hydrogen then great!

Fact is, we don’t know what technology will pull ahead: EVs, biofuels, hydrogen, (air car – cough -), etc.

That is why we have to keep evaluating, discussing, researching and developing. It’s a never ending cycle of life.

(Quote)
Texas Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 11:59 pm

From what studies posted on the Internet show, the diesel electric buses are economically and environmentally more effective.

Many cities are doing pilot tests right now. The preliminary data looks good. Re-gen and electric motor braking is very nice.

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 12:50 am

“What will be needed is a government project like Eisenhower’s highway system.”

Too bad Eisenhower didn’t invest in an air cushioned vehicle technology national transport system. Can you imagine instead of concrete topped freeways a national vehicle parkway system topped with landscaping that matches the natural landscape and absorbs vehicle noise, the suns glare, carbon dioxide and rainwater, while making oxygen and breaking down the oil and grease that gets spilled. Well, it makes a nice daydream any way

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 1:08 am

Edit: Just a toy ( http://www.alibaba.com/product-free/105949948/Theme_Park_Speeder/showimage.html )

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 1:14 am

Jason M. Hendler, “A good way to roll out hydrogen is to add 10 kpsi systems at all truck stops and gradually convert our long haul trucks to fuel cells or hydrogen ICE.”

What trucking company is willing to pay that fuel bill?

(Quote)
jeffhre Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 1:23 am

Any updates on Volt IVERS?

(Quote)
+1 jeffhre Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 1:26 am

You forgot internet poker!!!!

(Quote)
+1 jscott1000 Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 1:30 am

I prefer gasoline as my fuel of choice for range extenders. When the hurricane comes true you can’t evacuate in a BEV or Hydrogen car and gas is not available…but I have 10 gas cans I can put in the back of my truck. Problem solved.

(Quote)
Herm Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 2:00 am

You could just burn the cng in a dedicated genset to generate the electricity.. efficiency may approach that of a fuel cell if the genset is designed properly.

Again you need to compress the natural gas and that is expensive.. good solution for fleets and 18 wheelers, as long as the truck stops have the facilities.

(Quote)
jake Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 2:16 am

In a Katrina type incident both BEVs and hydrogen cars will be equally useless. Even gasoline cars will have diminished utility given gas stations will likely have no gas and highways might be backed up with people trying to escape. The good thing about liquid fuel is you can carry it in canisters in huge quantities. The same can’t be said for BEVs or hydrogen (which needs to be compressed and it isn’t easy to fuel one without a special pump). In that kind of scenario you would still be better off with a gas generator. The Genset trailer is still the most useful given it can provide power for the home when stationary, and also power for the BEV when on the move.

Looking far into the future, I expect most personal vehicles powered by another energy source and we will have plenty of gasoline left for emergencies.

(Quote)
Keith Tomilson Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 4:18 am

I just received this in a mail a few minutes ago from EV WORLD.COM news letter

The link to the story:

http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1756

The Remarkably Efficient Natural Gas Fuel Cell Car

By Thomas Blakeslee

Three developments could make ceramic fuel cell electric cars more practical than plug-in models

Open Access Article Originally Published: September 23, 2009

The hydrogen initiative is stalled. The hydrogen fuel cell cars work fine but no good solutions have been found to the problems of where to get the hydrogen, how to deliver it and how to store it. 95%< of our hydrogen is made from natural gas, which is abundant on earth and already distributed at 1/3rd of the price of gasoline. Three recent breakthroughs have made natural gas a very interesting fuel:

1. Ceramic fuel cells that can make electricity from natural gas at 60% efficiency.
2. ANG: Adsorption stores natural gas at low (500 psi) pressure in compact tanks.
3. A glut of cheap natural gas caused by new shale drilling/extraction techniques.

The fuel cell breakthrough is particularly important because it means a car can generate its own electricity more efficiently than a massive power plant! Big plants typically average 30% efficiency, so a 60% NG fuel cell hybrid is twice as efficient as an electric vehicle charged from the grid. That means half as much fuel is consumed.

Twice as efficient as an electric car is saying a lot because electric cars are already three times more efficient than conventional cars. This is because internal combustion engines are less than 30% efficient verses 90% for electric motors. Natural gas fuel cell cars are thus about six times more efficient than today’s cars. Using 1/6th as much fuel means pollution is also 1/6th . But NG is inherently very clean. and has 30% lower carbon content and virtually no sulfur, mercury, volatiles, and Nox so pollution is way less than 1/6th.

Since NG fuel cells have a warm up time, the hybrid batteries must have enough capacity for all-electric operation until warm up is complete. After warm up, the fuel cell keeps the batteries charged and the batteries provide power for peak loads and acceleration and recapture energy on braking. A Prius uses 16.8 kW for continuous 70 mph driving on a level road. The fuel cell must be able to supply this much power for steady driving.

Natural gas is already distributed by pipeline to homes all over the US, so home refueling is possible. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is already used to run five million vehicles worldwide. Pump prices for CNG are about one third of the price of gasoline in spite of the expensive ($350k), 3600 psi pumps and fittings currently used for delivery. The pipeline cost of natural gas is only 1/4th of the cost of crude oil with the same energy content. If much simpler, 500 psi Adsorbed Natural Gas refueling is adopted, prices could be reduced even further.. Cost per mile for a NG fuel cell hybrid would currently be only 1/18th of present cars but could be reduced even further with low pressure ANG refueling!

ANG fuel tanks contain activated carbon “sponges” that adsorb 160 times their own volume of natural gas. They can be made from Corn cobs , which have a network of nanoscale passageways that remain after carbonization. One gram of this material has as much adsorbing surface area as a football field. When natural gas is adsorbed on a carbon surface it ceases to act like a gas. Dense storage at low pressure makes it possible to hide the much smaller tank inside the car’s frame. Even if we kept the existing CNG high pressure storage, the tripled efficiency would allow fuel cylinders only 1/3rd as large as present CNG tanks.

So an NG fuel cell hybrid is a lot like a Chevy Volt with a fuel cell replacing the range extender (engine/generator) and a much smaller battery. Its battery only needs to be large enough to run the car during warm-up of the fuel cell, currently about 15 miles. The Chevy Volt’s 40-mile battery is rumored to cost $5000, so the NG car’s 15-mile battery would cost $3125 less. Incidentally, at these battery prices a 400-mile range pure electric car would need $50,000 worth of batteries! Clearly, small batteries with range extenders are the way to go until we have a significant battery breakthrough. Pure electrics have other problems too: A 110v, 20A household plug can only supply 2.2 kW which means that, unless you add 220v service, 10 hours of home charging will only take you 10 x 2.2 x 4 mi/kW = 88 miles.

Natural gas today is primarily a non-renewable, fossil fuel. But people have already begun selling renewable gas into the pipeline. Landfills, manure piles and sewage plants that used to release significant amounts of methane into the atmosphere are now selling it as green gas. Biomass< and garbage can also be gasified to add to the supply. The energy balance of grass biomethane production is 50% better than annual crops now used.

Though the US power grid uses significant hydro power and other renewables, CO2 emissions are still almost twice as much per kilowatt-hour as a 60% efficient NG fuel cell. In 2007 the US power grid emitted 605 grams/kWh. A NG fuel cell emits only 327 grams. At 4mi/kWh that translates to about 151 grams per mile for a grid charged car verses 82 for the NG fuel cell car.

Someday the grid could be cleaned up so that electric cars charged from it are cleaner than NG fuel cell hybrids. EIA data makes it easy to track our progress towards this goal: In 1996 we emitted 627 grams of CO2 per kWh and by 2007 this was reduced to 605 grams. That’s a 2-gram per year decrease. If we continue at that rate, it will take 139 years to equal what we can do now with a NG fuel cell. Recent years show even less progress. There was no improvement between 2006 and 2007. Plugging into the grid is, unfortunately, a bit like plugging into a lump of coal.

There is more to this article , just go to the link I provided to read the rest .

We all like knowledge and to be informed .

(Quote)
Gsned57 Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 5:06 am

Third

(Quote)
+1 Bob Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 5:48 am

Like I said before, build hydrogen pumps at dealerships. People can gas up at the place they bought the car until there are enough hydro cars to make it profitable for gas stations to add a hydro pump next to the diesel pump.

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 6:00 am

Perhaps the story is a final set of disclosures regarding the 1.5 billion study into hydrogen.

Time to move on and do our best with Voltec, it seems to me.

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 6:03 am

Someone here posted a link a few days ago that I found very interesting as regards hydrogen storage in portable cylindrical tanks roughly 12″ dia x 30″ long. The tanks contain materials called Hydrides that absorb Hydrogen like a sponge absorbs water. Typically, the tanks are filled with granulated Hydrides, and Hydrogen is pressurized into the material. Hydrides have many advantages over liquid & gas Hydrogen storage. One is that the density of the Hydrogen stored in a Hydride tank can be GREATER than that of liquid Hydrogen. This translates directly into smaller and fewer storage tanks. Four of these relatively small, portable tanks contain enough Hydrogen to give a Corvette V8 (modified to burn Hydrogen) a range of about 300 miles, or so United Nuclear in New York claims.

I strongly recommend clicking the link below for an intriguing description of what might possibly be a practical way to use the “Better Place” approach to “filling up” —by simply swapping out 3-4 empty Hydrogen Hydride tanks for filled tanks every 200-300 miles……

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm

(Quote)
nasaman Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 6:16 am

PS: Sorry, United Nuclear is in Laingsburg, Michigan (not New York). Also, I want to add that the ‘94 Corvette they’ve converted to run on Hydrogen may be much less efficient than GM’s 5th generation fuel cell. Does anyone here know more about Hydrogen storage in Hydride tanks?

(Quote)
Sheltonjr Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 7:31 am

If there was a big breakthrough in batteries and the price premium for an EREV was only 10%, I believe most of our passenger car/van/trucks would switch over to EREV in the next 10-20 years. I wonder how our fuel infrastructure is going to react to that kind of change.

Due to the low demand for gasoline, prices should be lower. I cant see how our current fuel infrastructure can stay in business. The big 8-12 stall super gas stations has put all the small gas stations out of business in my rural town. Once EREV come on the scene in force, each gas station may only see a dozen cars a day????

Highway intersections may be the only location to see any type of real volume of customers.

Is this a problem we have not discussed yet? Is it a problem?

(Quote)
+1 Jason M. Hendler Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 7:32 am

Texas,

All GM is saying is that they need the commitment from federal, state and local governments, along with fuel providers, to build an infrastructure to go along with the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles that they developed. GM has logged 1 million miles on their vehicles, so the ball really is in the infrastructure court.

Thankyou.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 7:34 am

… tsk, tsk, still relying on old numbers …

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 7:35 am

There are many corporations looking to green their image – Coca Cola, WalMart, etc.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 7:41 am

If you use 10 kpsi natural gas systems first, then that infrastructure can be reused for a 10 kpsi hydrogen system.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 7:41 am

That’s a good suggestion.

(Quote)
Nick D Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:36 am

I dont forsee this as a problem any time soon. Most gas stations make very little to no profit on the gasoline. They make most of their money from selling soda and candy bars, car washes and beer.

My uncle owned a small gas station and his gasoline generated only a few pennies per gallon to keep up with the other stations gas prices. All of his money came from the convienence store.

(Quote)
+1 nasaman Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 8:59 am

Very interesting article, Keith. And I agree that 10 kpsi NG systems should be compatible later for 10 kpsi hydrogen systems, Jason. But I’d also encourage everyone to consider much lower pressure room temperature H2 storage …..in Hydride tanks that are lightweight, easy to handle & comparable to (or better) in volume of H2 stored than even liquid H2 storage. See my comment under post#4 here at 6:03am and the fascinating link below…..

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm

(Quote)
Loboc Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 9:52 am

You need 4×4 off-road to get away from a disaster area. All the little cars with their little trailers will block the main roads.

(Quote)
Loboc Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 9:54 am

This 1.5b for fuel cell research and the 1.0b for voltec are water under the bankruptcy bridge.

(Quote)
Loboc Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 9:59 am

If you’re going to burn NG anyway for stationary generators, get a Capstone turbine. Even the current ICE NG generators make more sense than fuel cell.

(Quote)
+1 Texas Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 10:09 am

Jason, you are the one always saying the government should stay out of the way. What about Germany? What about stimulus packages? You seem to like the government’s help when it suits your needs. Funny, eh?

Of course the government needs to be involved. They need to set the stage and let the companies do the dance. All I’m saying is there’s a good fight going on right now and they should not decide what technology is used. If they are going to help, help out in a fair way.

We don’t want them telling us we are going nuclear, driving hydrogen cars and that is that. do we? No, that would be bad.

If the government crushes someone’s dreams by funding the competition too much is that right? No. I feel the EV is going to win this fight. However, if the government puts in a complete hydrogen infrastructure, I have to help pay for a technology I don’t agree should be the winner. The winner should win because it’s the best, not because the government decided.

(Quote)
Sheltonjr Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 10:45 am

Yeah, I thought of this.. But I think it may still be a problem.

Gas is loss leader/break even leader to get people into their store. Without gasoline to pull people into the parking lot, I dont think they will make enough money to stay in business. The 7-11s in our area that dont have gas are going out of business.

I personally rarely go into the convienence store at a gas station because their prices are higher because of the convienence.

(Quote)
+1 N Riley Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 11:08 am

I must say that I pretty much agree with you. I could support the government helping create a hydrogen infrastructure for big trucks at truck plazas along interstate highways. We need to spend more time and money developing fuel savings for big rigs such as 18-wheelers, buses and local delivery trucks.

I don’t see hydrogen as a good fuel for personal cars and trucks anytime in the near future. Maybe in 50 years, but not anytime soon. I believe the best source of power for personal cars and light duty trucks is electrical power stored in on-board batteries recharged from the power grid or from personal power generation facilities. GO VOLT!

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 11:14 am

Again, I agree with you, Texas. More research is definitely needed. Just because battery technology is being looked at as our current favored means of transportation doesn’t mean that something better will not come along later. At this time hydrogen is really expensive to produce, transport and store. Not counting the expense of the hardware needed to power the vehicles. Test more. Research more. Think more. Hope for new findings that will make everything come together and be the answer. Gravity drive, anyone?

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 11:22 am

I can’t truly say GM has “wasted” the money. They have advanced the technology much farther than it was a few decades ago. So has Honda and some others. I don’t want to see any wasteful spending, but there is always going to be some. Just look at our government. We see reports that up to 10 to 20 percent of federal tax dollars are wasted. I personally think the figure is closer to 50%. Just look at the waste put out by our congressmen and senators annually. We are never going to be able to remove wasteful spending in government sponsored programs as well as private funded programs. It is just the private funded programs aren’t directly costing taxpayers.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 11:26 am

I think the new research should be about using methane as a fuel source. It is abundant everywhere. Just think of harvesting it from all the garbage dumps around the world. Burning methane is much cleaner than gasoline or diesel. So, let’s change the subject from hydrogen to methane.

(Quote)
Bradyb Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 11:32 am

Clean nuclear energy would be just about the only way to make this happen. Think 100% complete 0 emission technology. Increase production on Nuclear power plants, cut the red tape and build them correctly for minimal environmental impact. Fission or Fusion is the key to reliable energy.

Hydrogen is great stuff but it is stupid to produce it from fossil fuels. It needs to be created via electricity but that electricity needs to be cheap enough to do so. Electric cars could really use a higher energy density then expensive batteries. If that’s cheap hydrogen or capicitors, I don’t really care.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 11:33 am

I am not in agreement for using natural gas for vehicle transportation. We need to use it as a home heating fuel primarily. It is one of the best methods of home cooking, heating and producing hot water for home use. Plus fast food companies and restaurants use natural gas almost 100% of the time for cooking. Yes, North America has a lot of natural gas, but using it to fuel millions of vehicles would waste it in the billions of cubic feet per year. It would not be very many years before we were looking for another fuel source. Use methane instead. It is cheap and abundant plus clean burning. Just like natural gas and it is crated daily from many sources. So, stop all this natural gas nonsense. Right now. Hear me now!!!

(Quote)
Cal Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 11:48 am

As I said in the past, we already have the infrastructure for gas and electricity. It doesn’t make sense to generate electricity to generate Hydrogen and then, with a very expensive fuel cell, convert it back to electricity(Rube Goldberg design). On top of that we have to build a whole new infrastructure. Hydrogen is just a way to store electricity. The better investment would be to put the money into ultracapacitors/batteries that use nanotubes etc. for better storage.

(Quote)
SteveF Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 11:59 am

It would be interesting to know how a NG Fuel Cell compares to a NG ICE with generator. What is the efficiency of a NG ICE with generator to a NG Fuel Cell? If it is close to same, in short term a NG ICE could be provided in the Volt, which would be more efficient than a gasoline ICE.

(Quote)
Mark Wagner Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

Both plug in EREVs and EVs and hydrogen fuel cell cars are essentially electric cars — the difference is the fuel storage (batteries vs fuel cells). And the fuel storage is where the technology development is happening.

I think hydrogen should continue to be developed until one technology solves all the issues. (Battery technology needs to both get cheaper and allow quick and convenient recharging or both fuel cells and hydrogen infrastructure need to become economically viable and mature. I personally think battery technolgy is already much further along, has fewer unknowns, and will be the better solution long term too.

(Quote)
jeff j Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Me and the boys at my shop are building a dyson sphear to trap a micro black hole that will give you unlimited power for the next two billion years of course this is a long term project and we are always looking for investors and government funding . Please contact http://www.MBHSSTOR.org or my cousin at http://www.esstor.com

(Quote)
Bob G Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

I agree that home heating/cooking/water is the “killer app” for natural gas. But I don’t understand the distinction that you are making between natural gas and methane. Aren’t they the same thing?

(Quote)
Bob G Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 3:50 pm

“Pure hydrogen EV will be reserved for aviation if they can ever make a miracle material high pressure tank…”

I agree. With hydrogen’s extremely high pressures and cryogenic temperatures, it would take a miracle material to create a fuel storage and delivery system that could reliably and safely withstand the extreme aerospace environment (let alone the cost, weight, and size constraints). Maybe you could start small with a hydrogen-powered APU, and after many years of service experience, convince the FAA to scale it up to main propulsion.

The only way that I can see hydrogen making sense for aviation is if the cost of fossil fuels gets *extremely* high and bio-fuels are not available as substitutes. But by then, all-electric flight might be a safer and more cost-effective alternative.

(Quote)
DaveP Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 5:08 pm

Totally agree. Pursuing hydrogen is totally barking up the wrong tech tree. We need results as soon as possible and we had better pick a technology that doesn’t require technological miracles at every step of creating, delivering, storing, using, etc.

The physics simply can not be ignored. Hydrogen is a totally lousy carrier of energy. It’s only plus side is that when it burns it only makes water. Everything else: totally lousy.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax

(Quote)
EVO Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 5:09 pm

@ Tom Harwick

We already have electric airplanes. Just sayin’:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft#Production_aircraft

Keepin’ it real…

(Quote)
Kurt Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 11:36 pm

All good points gentlemen, great thread.
I tend to be a bit more positive than most about hydrogen, because I believe it can be part of the solution for cargo vehicles – planes, trains, trucks, ships. Infrastructure at their limited contact points will be much easier to implement, and the government wouldn’t have to be so worried about taking over an entire network of auto companies.
I’m sure battery/capacitor technology will be fine for cars within a generation or two, and fuel cells may exist in a niche market for racing, etc. so we don’t need the fuel everywhere. BTW – anyone know offhand how much oil is wasted on a single NASCAR race?
It seems like with the leaps and bounds fuel cells are making, and in using less/no platinum, we should be ready for prime time anytime.
To carcus1 – nice little solar Stirling electric system to your grid-tie, a turbine-free wind generator splitting H2O molecules for H2 production, and PV panels on the top of your car (and in the windows) for a during-work top-off. Those are some fresh eggs in a clean basket!

(Quote)
Sean Says:
September 26th, 2009 at 2:28 am

Why not mention hydrogen cars to Obama at Whitehouse.gov I think it would be a great idea anyone agree? Let’s do it guys!

(Quote)
Sean Says:
September 26th, 2009 at 2:45 am

I’ve also heard that hydrogen cars might be able to use electricity as well not just water by using both technologies you could get further range in miles than a standard electric car. It could happen you never know?

(Quote)
Latest hydrogen generation news – GM Unveils Second Generation Hydrogen Fuel Cell System | GM-VOLT … Says:
October 26th, 2009 at 3:47 am

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009
This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]
BigCityCat
Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009
I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]
omnimoeish
First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009
The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]
admin
Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009
- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]
Texas
New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009
Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]
srschrier
New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier

GM Unveils Second Generation Hydrogen Fuel Cell System

130 Responses to “GM Unveils Second Generation Hydrogen Fuel Cell System”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts