[ad#post_ad]The hydrogen fuel cell powered car remains an elusive advanced technology transportation strategy that continues to have an uncertain future.
GM has worked for years and has spent over $1.6 billion to develop fuel cells that convert pressurized hydrogen into electricity. Since late 2007 their Project Driveway program has placed more than 100 fuel cell Equinoxes in willing participants’ hands.
Two major problems with hydrogen-powered cars are the exorbitant cost of the technology (the fuel cell Equinoxes are said to cost $1 million a piece), and the lack of hydrogen fueling station infrastructure.
Skeptics argue the conversion of energy into pressurized hydrogen is an unnecessary and inefficient step as the pure electric car simply plugs into the grid for its power. Further it is argued the tremendous cost of building the needed infrastructure isn’t justifiable.
Nonetheless GM continues to work to refine the technology and considers fuel cells the final step in its electrification strategy, even as it readies the Volt’s launch.
Last September GM unveiled a new production-intent fuel cell system that fits in the same size space as a traditional 4 cylinder engine. They claim the new generation fuel cell stack and system is half the size, 220 pounds lighter, and uses 1/3 the platinum as the fuel cells in the current Project Driveway fleet.
On Tuesday they announced that the new systems are already operational and undergoing testing.
“Our learning from Project Driveway has been tremendous and these vehicles have been very important to our program,” said Charles Freese, executive director of GM’s Global Fuel Cell Program.
“The 30 months we committed to the demonstration are winding down, but we will keep upgrades of these vehicles running and will continue learning from them while we focus efforts on the production-intent program for 2015,” he said. “We will continue to use the Project Driveway fleet strategically to advance fuel cell technology, hydrogen infrastructure, and GM’s vehicle electrification goals.”
GM has not announced what if any vehicle the tests are being conducted in, nor its exact 2015 commercialization plans.
GM spokesperson Alan Adler told GM-Volt, “the production intent system is not an extended range Voltec system.”
In 2007 GM showed a variant of the Volt concept in which the gas range extender was replaced with a fuel cell system.
“We are not abandoning the fuel-cell technology,” Freese told Bloomberg. “Through the worst years in this company’s history we maintained the program and maintained the forward progress.”
Freese also told Bloomberg “invested over $1.6 billion in fuel cells. We didn’t do it because people were talking about the technology. We did it because we think it’s one of the right elements to have.”
Lamenting the lack of government-funded infrastructure development Freese added “we have anything but consistent policy in this country.”
Source (GM) and (Bloomberg)
[ad#postbottom]
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 17th, 2010 at 6:24 am and is filed under Hydrogen, Project Driveway. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+48
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:31 am)Sorry, I still don’t get it: why convert electricity into hydrogen (manufacturing hydrogen needs massive amounts of electricity), use trucks to transport it to a few fuelling stations, drive there, put it in your gas tank, and then convert it back to electricity?
When you can deliver that same electricity using the mains wires we already have, to “fuelling stations” (aka wall sockets) we already have everywhere?
+20
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:36 am)Fuel cell cars are coming down from a price of $1000K per car and the infrastructure is not there.
Electric cars are coming down from less than $100K per car and most people have an electrical plug.
With an order of magnitude head start on price and the electrons already flowing around the country on a grid, the electric or EREV cars have quite a head start on Fuel cell cars. It would appear that Fuel cell cars will simply be a government supported science project for the carmakers for at least another decade.
+11
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:41 am)I’m suprised how quickly i’ve turned from a hydrogen supporter to a hydro-hater. Even when i first saw the Volt i thought “wow, drop in a fuel cell instead of that petrol engine, and it’s the perfect car!”
Now would i prefer a FC range extender to a petrol one? Maybe. But probably only if i can generate the hydrogen at home. I’d now rather have a full BEV, but of course with better range than the Leaf…
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:41 am)Voltec is the technology that is attracting owners of Asian makes back to GM. I see “fuel cell” being more an Asian program. Current Honda drivers will buy Honda fuel cell vehicles. In the next 10 years 90% of alternative vehicle purchases will be electric drive battery powered. GM often talks about production being tied to the price of gasoline. They are missing the point. People want off of oil. Whether it’s $2.70 per gallon or $3.70 per gallon.
=D-Volt
+27
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:42 am)Why? This is a waste of time and money. Spend it on making longer range batteries.
+5
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:47 am)Hydrogen-related research projects by gm have a lot in common with hydrogen-related projects at the US National Labs that are related to past and present national defense projects. There is a lot of common technology and interchange. As outsiders, we do not have insight into these linkages, but one can imagine various possibilities, including the post describing the civilian part of a broader transportation project that is mostly military.
/And not transportation by blimp, either
+13
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:47 am)I don’t get it at all. The whole hydrogen fuel cell idea is interesting but I don’t see why anyone other than academics are bothering with it. It’s interesting and nifty; go write a dissertation on it.
If there wasn’t already a fueling infrastructure in place then fine; that makes sense but we already have one.
How far is it right now from where you are to the nearest electric outlet?
Take all that hydrogen fuel cell money that’s been spent over the years and then imagine where we might be on our pure electric (battery/capacitor) tech.
+7
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:00 am)The only point to hydrogen fuel cells is reduced pollution and reduced dependence on fossil fules. But as long as hydrogen is energy intensive to produce and uses fossil fuels as a feed stock, then it is just an energy shell game like corn-based ethanol, producing no environmental benefits when evaluated cradle-to-grave. So regardless of the state of fuel cell technology, there is no point in going to hydrogen unless the process of hydrogen generation itself is revolutionized.
GM would be better served investing in alcohol fuel cells that use biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, which is much closer to commercialization than any “green” source of hydrogen. Fuel cells have a much higher efficiency than ICE’s, and therefore would be a better way to release the energy of biofuels in our EREVs.
Even a NG fuel cell, with double the efficiency of a NG burning ICE, would be a better choice than hydrogen fuel cells.
+8
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:06 am)Fuel cell cars will be here in about 10-20 years… and they always will be.
+5
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:15 am)I’ve posted this in the forum, but mainly for Slide 2. It is a presentation by GM to the CA Energy Commission. It lists the Saturn Vue plug-in 2-mode’s drive system as “Mechanical with Electric Assist”, while the Volt’s drive system is listed as “Electric with Mechanical Assist”.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009-ALT-1/documents/2009-09-29_workshop/presentations/GM_Presentation.pdf
However, this presentation is mostly on fuel cells. Slide 7 in particular shows the cost improvements that GM anticipates.
If you look at the money spent on development, GM has made a big commitment to fuels cells. Do they know something that we don’t?
+12
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:17 am)Like Flaninacupboard,above, I also started on my EV journey as a fuel cell fan, and I’ve since lost my ardor. I agree with the above sentiments: it’s too costly and inherently less efficient.
That said, I am glad that GM is “keeping up with the Joneses,” i.e. continuing to pursue this, because Honda is putting a lot of work into fuel cells. The last thing I want to see is some unforeseen, unexpected development that makes fuel cells practical and desireable — only to have no American company positioned to have a product available.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:19 am)Maybe these new fuel cells work with something even more common than electric plugs. (water?)
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:20 am)Obviously powering a car directly with electricity is the most efficient way to go but there is a problem with BEV’s. To fully replace ICE vehicles with a BEV you will need higher capacity batteries. These will take longer to charge. In order for BEV’s to be feasable they need to be fully rechargable within about 8 hours. A BEV with a capacity large enough to do away with the ICE would require a cable 1ft in diameter and weigh 200lbs to carry enough energy to charge the car.
Hydrogen is less efficient but will have the higher energy density and will support the rapid refuling demands people expect. Personally I think EREV vehicles will be the future with the range extendor being hydrogen. People will still plug their cars in at night and this will meet 80% of peoples needs with hydrogen making up the last 20%. This would require less hydrogen and it would be easier to develop hydrogen distribution for only 20% of people’s needs.
When Henry Ford first started mass producing cars gas stations were not everywhere. Where there is demand there will be supply. If GM builds it hydrogen distribution will follow.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:27 am)“the production intent system is not an extended range Voltec system.”
Gee, an EREV with a fuel cell stack is about the only feasible HFCV system I can envision having any prayer of being a mass market product. This is only because in theory the customer will need a hydrogen fill-up very few times in normal driving. I like the idea of Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars, but pragmatically can’t see a place for them in the near future. These companies like GM and Honda have made awesome strides with this technology, but cheap, abundant, cleanly generated Hydrogen is the key, and that’s just not available–yet. I always wonder if these companies know something the rest of us don’t?
+3
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:38 am)Hmmm….the standard answer used to be production automotive fuel cells are 10 years away. It has taken 10-20 years to get “5 years away”. Maybe we can calculate “fuel cell years” now.
I still think that research dollars should be diverted from fuel cells to batteries. With current tech, hydrogen production is still too energy intensive.
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:40 am)How much of that 1.6 billion was provided by the federal government? I’m not impressed with their commitment if the money isn’t theirs.
-8
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:41 am)Honestly guys, do you really think that a several hundred pound battery powered by a coal-fired power plant is really the BEST solution to human mobility? And that battery has to be charged by a combustion engine, that runs on refined crude oil? REALLY?
If we wish to provide for the world’s seemingly insatiable appetite for energy, we need much more effective energy generation, storage, and use techniques than we have. Voltec is great, it is exciting technology, but it’s a step in the longer process of cheap, available, and non-polluting energy.
What makes this country great is our relentless pursuit of techological progress (and venture capital profit), through science and engineering. Material science, nanotech, genetic engineering, biotec, and IT science are making progress on challenges we have faced for decades.
We are lucky to be alive during a time when so much will change, and we have the ability to pursue that change.
As for the snide comment about “fuel cells always being the technology of the future,” you are mistaken. Fuel cells will be mastered, just as a new technology that does not even have a name yet, comes into view.
+3
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:41 am)Many of us are not experts on the subject, and I trust GM would not spend over a billion dollars on something that will never be viable. Hydrogen fuel cells are only part of the picture for the electrification of the automobiles.
+13
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:43 am)But if we convert to a hydrogen economy think of all the new infrastructure we could create! It may cost Trillions but every gas station converted to hydrogen stations, every natural gas line converted to a hydrogen line. The government should just double our taxes now so we can get the infrastructure %100 in place so that in 10-15 years when these cars come out and are relatively affordable at 100K we’ll all be ready. This could be a whole new industry for the world so congress should start today on regulating hydrogen and the ways we use it. Figure out a way to tax it maybe a dollar per liter of hydrogen. Something like every time you buy a bottle of water (2/3′s of that water is hydrogen) you pay $0.66 in a hydrogen infrastructure tax. We could also tax everyone’s water bills and if you have a well put a meter on that since you are taking water out of the ground.
I’m sorry I know it’s way too early to be this sarcastic but well… sorry
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:46 am)Can these fuel cells run on gas/petrol ? I am sure the fuel cells are comming. Only not sure part is whether they go to grid/home ( like bloombox ) or to car direct.
If a fuel cell is 65%+ efficient and can run gasoline and can be produced less cost ( i remember some hundai guy told they should be able to produce it below 50k per car ) then we will have mpg numbers above 100 (without plug ) and can incorporate a plug also so that fuel cell can be range extender.
Once the hydrogen infrastructure is in place it should be able to switch fuel to hydrogen.
-9
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:50 am)Please correct me if I’m wrong. A hydrogen fuel cell combines stored hydrogen with atmospheric OXYGEN to produce a current. An ICE uses gasoline, OXYGEN and a spark to produce an expansion of gas in a cylinder. My concern is the amount of OXYGEN used in each process. I would be less concerned if I knew hydrogen would ONLY be produced through Electrolysis of water, whereby OXYGEN is released into the atmosphere. My point is our bodies need OXYGEN too. I have read hydrogen is a byproduct when chlorine is manufactured, but I’m not sure OXYGEN is.
When I hear of a new idea I try to look at all possible problems that may occur in the implementation. Fuel cells may not be an issue initially, but after 100 years of use in 100% of vehicles what would that do to the concentration of OXYGEN in our air? I’m always reminded of this quote I once heard, “The Devil is in the details.”
NPNS!
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:56 am)Not being in their labs, we don’t know how hydrogen production and distribution is being envisioned. It is theoretically possible to crack H2O using an unknown catalyst. It is also theoretically possible to create a biological (like algae) that directly converts solar into H2.
We just don’t know enough about production to make the judgment that future H2 production will be the same as the current crack of NG or the current inefficient crack of H2O.
We also don’t know that high pressure H2 is needed. It is possible to use some kind of low-pressures storage such as a platinum (or some unknown material) sponge.
Right now, it’s science fiction. Science fiction has unexpected and unanticipated ways of becoming reality. All it takes is some crazy dude that doesn’t believe in (mostly theoretical) physics.
I remain guardedly optimistic about this path.
-2
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:07 am)Whenever I see that people think how nice it would be that Fuel Cell cars only emit water vapor, I wonder, does anyone know the effects of too much water vapor in the atmosphere? It could be worse than carbon dioxide. At least carbon dioxide gets absorbed by oceans and plants, etc. Would too much water vapor cause constant rain everywhere?
+3
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:14 am)My viewpoint is that this all comes down to the importance of CO2.
I think it has been noted by many that hydrogen by itself is typically not found naturally, and must be made from reforming natural gas, gasifiying coal and using a shift reaction, or using electricity for the electrolysis of water.
All of these processes are energy intensive, therefore, even with the higher conversion efficiencies of fuel cells versus ICE’s, the overall process, well-to-wheels, is not so efficient.
So in the absence of CO2 concerns, the consumer gravitates to the lowest cost alternative (currently ICE and petroleum). I do not forsee fuel cells and hydrogen breaking this barrier for at least 50 years (we will have E-REV and synthetic fuels if oil escalates).
However, if CO2 is determined to be causing great harm to the world’s environment, and legislation is enacted to tax CO2 (or fuels that release CO2), then this could swing the economics in favor of hydrogen.
Even then, due to the efficiency of the direct use of electricity, I see BEV and E-REV still being the most affordable for typical drivers (commuters). While FCV will be for the long range and larger transport vehicles like 18 wheelers, as large battery packs will probably not be very practical for this application.
+3
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:22 am)On hydrogen Fuel Cell vs Battery argument.
Think of a charged battery as a fuel cell with the fuel stored in the electrolyte. As the battery discharges, the waste products accumulate in the electrolyte. As with some true fuel cells (including PEMFCs like GMs, but NOT SOFCs like Bloom), the process can be reversed by applying a reverse voltage. This converts the waste products back into fuel – still in the electrolyte. If you want a greater capacity battery, you need to have more electrolyte to pack the fuel into and store the waste products.
A true fuel cell, on the other hand, is sized by the power requirement, not the energy storage requirement. It can be much smaller because the fuel is stored outside the electrolyte until it is needed.
dag
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:26 am)Fuel cells have one advantage over batteries. You can fill up you car in a few minutes as opposed to hours for a battery. Charging a BEV in 10 minutes will take either a very high voltage or a very high current, or both. However, if you could solve the recharge problem, there is no advantage to a fuel cell. Well, no advantage except, perhaps, weight. The Tesla weighs 1000lbs more than the Lotus it was modeled after.
We might not solve the recharge time problem. In that case fuel cells start to look attractive. Even if the production of hydrogen is polluting, the pollution takes place at a few points where some sort of mitigation can be applied. If you pollute directly in every car like we do now, you have to deal with the pollution directly in every car.
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:29 am)Maybe GM knows something we all don’t?
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:32 am)RIGHT ON !!
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:35 am)Right up front I don’t know enough about this. But it seems like a home unit that could change NG to Hydrogen a fuel cell could provide electric for both your house and to power your EV. Then as the price comes down on a cell it could replace the battery.
NG to Hydrogen at home could change everything.
+3
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:37 am)The hydrogen fuel cell is only usable for the military, or perhaps for power generation at home with gaseous hydrogen.. only advantage over plain old electricity is that you can store hydrogen at a (arguably) lower cost that electricity.. and sometimes that is very helpful.
The military would love hydrogen due to its light nature (might work very well in electric aircraft) and the copious amount of excess power that a nuke powered aircraft carrier can generate. Conventional fuel logistics for the military have always been a headache.
For vehicles, Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) such as the Bloom box seem to make sense.. these fuel cells make hydrogen out of fuels such as gasoline, diesel, ethanol etc and then generate electricity using the hydrogen. Would it make economic sense in a Volt?.. probably not but it may work out for a long distance Voltec semi truck.. Many are promising to reduce the cost of SOFC.
+3
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:39 am)I’m just glad we have a Volt to buy in the meantime!
+3
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:39 am)Unless they can create something like the “Mr. Fusion” adapter for the Delorean motor car in Back to the Future, fuel cells are a costly diversion for GM in my opinion.
It’s been well said previously…. tons of energy to create hydrogen…tons of energy to truck it….store it, redispense it and then convert back to electricity.
It makes no economic sense.
What would make sense is being able to fill up your hydrogen fuel cell car with tap water and somehow it is converted to hydrogen and thus electricity. That makes sense. Nothing else does.
+6
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:42 am)LOL Please don’t give them any ideas.
-2
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:45 am)I have solar panels on my house. Next step is a hydrogen generator at home. I can’t wait to get my Fuel Cell car. Keep going GM on the Fuel Cells. Time will tell what technologies work for which application, but we will never know if we don’t try.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:47 am)What is going to happen to the price of platinum when we start pumping out 100,000′s of fuel cells a year? The same argument could, and has, been made about lithium but there are two major differences. First lithium is primarily used for batteries and so it has an immature mining and production process. Platinum however is currently used in lots of different things and is mined all over the world where it is available. Second Platinum currently costs $1635 per ounce. Increased usage will not bring down the price it will only increase the cost. At that price it is already being obtained where ever it can be.
Fuel cells may have a future but not until they either eliminate precious metals or at a minimum greatly decrease the usage to the point that it won’t have a material effect on supply and price.
+3
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:58 am)Good post, but the fuel you are looking for here is bio fuel. Such as cellulosic. Hydrogen is inefficient to produce. Just producing the hydrogen needed to go 100 miles takes as much coal fired electricity as driving 100 miles in a BEV, and then you’ve got to either liquify to -469F or something or compress to 10,000PSI isothermally. It’s either made with a TON of coal fired electricity, or with a lot of coal fired electricity and a lot of natural gas.
EREV + Bio fuel is the way of the future. It’s feasible and all of our legacy vehicles and gas stations and farm equipment don’t have to be switched over to cryogenic hydogen stations and $1 million fuel cells respectively.
My personal theory is that Fuel Cells are being developed by GM to allow for more stealth military vehicles. I don’t see it ever coming down to the average joe six pack price range, to where you can buy a used one on craigslist for $1,200 like you can an ICE vehicle.
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:02 am)Perhaps carbon capture comes into the equation.
Run a SOFC in reverse to capture CO2 and create CH4
Then use the CH4 in a PM fuel cell to power a car.
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:08 am)Doubling our taxes – hmmmm – to create our hydrogen fuel infrastructure…well, it doesn’t take much to convince government types to raise taxes – or vote in a 3 trillion $ healthcare bill without a majority of the people’s will behind it, nor Congresspersons.
What happened when the Model T first emerged as personal transportation the common man could afford? Did the U.S. government fund every Mom n’ Pop gas pump that popped up?
I like this guy’s thinking: http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/blog.php?b=11
If a 480v transformer with large cables lined up in rows – an electric filling station – is not doable, and rather cheaply, what is?
It seems much more realistic for the common entrepeneur to open his AC filling business on the footprint of a common gas station, than for this pie-in-the-sky hydrogen world where we rely on government to fund a huge infrastructure.
IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME
RECHARGE! James
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:14 am)Fill at home with a NG to H2 converter, fill on the road in less time then it takes now with gasoline and still go over 300 miles, produce nothing but water, what’s not to love? It’s a great dream. Obviously lots of smart people think it has promise. If you notice, it’s not just GM that won’t give up on Hydrogen. I also don’t think that just diverting funds from fuel cells to batteries would make any difference. There are already lots of minds with lots of money working day and night on batteries and capacitors and it’s just a tough nut to crack. Throwing money at a problem doesn’t guarantee a result. The battery of the future is still waiting for that single “Ah HA!” moment by a single mind somewhere in the world that others will build on. That person is already working the problem. In the mean time, it’s good to diversify in case batteries never do go anywhere.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:20 am)So, GM expects the on-board hydrogen storage problem to be solved in 5 years? GM has found a way to make and deliver hydrogen on at least a parity cost basis with electricity? GM is aware of some gigantic, coming effort to provide refueling infrastructure?
I don’t think so.
…unless they know that a major government push, centered on Global Warming is coming, whether all the hydrogen technology is economically viable or not. Let’s see — I think 2015 would come during somebody’s second term…
This is just too depressing. I’m jumping ship before Michael Robinson gets here. See you guys tomorrow.
Maybe.
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:33 am)Maybe Joe, But this seems to lack common sense for the masses. Where is the infrastructure?
-1
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:39 am)How long does it take to recharge a battery in a BEV? How long does it take to fill a FC tank? Now you also know the thing they don’t.
Just a thought.
Fishmahn
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:44 am)(OT)
Isn’t a fuel cell just a battery with replaceable anodes and cathodes? (Hydrogen and Oxygen?) In my (twisted?) way of thinking, these are still battery powered so Research into fuel cells cross-pollinates battery technology.
Storing Hindenburg quantities of hydrogen does not sound like a good idea.
Now is it a fuel cell stack, or just a stack. Fuel stack? Cell stack? Hydrogen/Air battery?
I remember Ford saying that they can run H2 in their ICEs with only some minor(ish) adjustments.
I just want to take a hit of oxygen off my H2 generator. If my home H2 plant uses electrolysis to break water into hydrogen, i plan to use the oxygen too.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:47 am)Slide 5 (I hope that is the right one), is particularly interesting because it shows the steps needed to get to introduction and it shows that the Volt was pretty darn good to get the job done in the time frame that it took>
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:54 am)Yeah, it’s been a pretty “heavy” couple of days. I pretty much thought that yesterday’s comments set *some* sort of record for gravity.
Taking a break is often a good idea, but quitting, well, not so much. This place has too many benefits.
Be well,
Tagamet
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:55 am)This is not so easy as it seems. Early refuelling took over 30 minutes from what I read. It is now quicker but mainly due to some high tech tricks that are used. The extremely high pressures used cause fill times to be a difficult thing to overcome. One of the tricks used now is to have two fill tanks, because as you remove H2 from the fill tank the pressure drops too low. So one tank is used, then swapped to a second to top off. Just getting enough pressure evidently takes a very high powered compressor.
Does this also shed light on #41?
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:57 am)I still think the perfect EREV has a 40 mile AER and then 300 miles on hydrogen. All the NVH issues are solved, the powerplant is quiet, you can use it for emergency power in a confined space, all sorts of good things. The infrastructure is the worrysome part – how do you build out these H2 stations?
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:58 am)This technology may have a very bright future in military vehicles, I just don’t see it happening for civilian vehicles.
GM should look into partnering with a military truck maker (GM abandoned this business a while back) and some sort of hydrolysis ground station. Imagine not having to carry fuel to combat, but making it there from water instead. So long as you have a power source on the ground (which definitely may not always be the case, and it would be stupid to use perfectly good deisel in generators to make H2) this may work although it will certainly be a challenge to implement. May be a stretch, but this is the one application I can think of for H2 where well-to-wheels efficiency is not so important. Maybe some sort of portable solar power could be used for hydrolysis?
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:00 am)Hydrogen and battery vehicles are complementary. Both would have electric drive trains and the designs would be similar — a fuel stack would fit where the cells in the Volt are currently housed. Plus a car powered by hydrogen would need a battery for regen. So you can see the synergies.
The great advantage of hydrogen is that it’s a better store of energy than a battery. BEVs or EREVs work well for short hauls but not long ones. That’s where hydrogen makes sense. Also as has been mentioned the fueling is faster.
Seems like we’re a long way away from commercialization though. Herm mentioned solid oxide fuel cells but they aren’t appropriate for transportation because they operate at extremely high temperatures and need to run more or less continuously. My guess would be that hydrogen would first make sense as a fixed installation which first converted sunlight and water into hydrogen and then later converted the hydrogen into electricity as needed. The only real barrier to such a device is that you need a cheaper catalyst for the cathode. Nocerra seems to have come up with a breakthrough for the anode.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:16 am)Well, I have been skimming to get caught up. I have to agree with Zack, I am disappointed in you guys. The fuel cell thing just makes the Volt look better and better. Maybe one day fuel cells will be good, but NOT by 2015! (Hey I have this bridge to sell…)
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:22 am)I’m happy to see that the first 10 posts “get it”, even if things go a bit downhill after that.
For the slow learners –
* there is no inherent energy provided by the water used — it is not a “fuel”
* the amount of energy you put in to crack the water will always be less than you get back — 2nd law of thermodynamics
* the fact that water and hydrogen are abundant is meaningless — there’s no real reason you couldn’t make a sealed system and keep re-using the same water/hydrogen over and over
* if you consider fuel cells as “non-polluting”, then batteries are also
Not to say that fuel cells are inherently bad, the idea for quiet military vehicles is a good possibility — much tougher to sneak up on an insurgent than someone in another (also noisy) military vehicle. Then again the same can be accomplished with batteries. The only real advantage I can think of is the quick “recharge” time, and I believe batteries will catch up very quickly, with FAR less complexity involved than this fuel cell mess.
Just because something is sexy doesn’t mean it is good. I would much rather see the money put into solar cell research and development. Someone here said that a solar cell “paint” on a Volt could provide 10-12 miles a day for free, on a sunny day of course. I was rather doubtful but ran the numbers and they do add up. If someone could pull this off, it would be a genuine breakthrough, and not just a shell game.
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:22 am)Some batteries will take a charge very quickly. Altairnano has some that will do that now, and new battery technology developed at MIT would allow a cell phone to be recharged in just a few seconds. Of course this would still require a lot of charges since the energy density of the batteries is low, but the energy density and the recharge speed and the need to have special charging stations would be solved if the lithium-air batteries using cassettes became commercialized.
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:23 am)#16 Eco
Sorry about the minus, should have been a plus. I think turning our back on anything that might get us off oil is important even if it seems a moving target.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:25 am)Yay! Someone else gets it.
To understand why automakers (GM in particular) are going the H route, Exxon/GM (Whitacre) just made a big play on natural gas and wind is a 5-10% share away from outcompeting natural gas in every way, although natural gas will then have an opportunity to become a complement (rather than substitute) to wind, thanks to blended compressed air energy storage (yes, yes, and hydro and flywheel, sodium batts, V2G, etc., etc.).
Main obstacle to this approach, what to do with the carbon from using natural gas (NG) (H-C-) to make H? How about every vehicle is primarily carbon fiber to fix the carbon and for weight benefits. Get the costs down. Toyota has an opportunity to return to roots here as they started out as a loom maker. They can change their name to Toyoda, play up the rural aspects of those changes and dominate developed countries with carbon fibre full size hybrid (using nonfood biofuel fuel cell range extenders, etc.) 4WD/AWD/both end drive pickup trucks and CUVs.
Nothing stopping GM from this, either…
Recycle old carbon fibre into millions of less strength critical products, ending with printer toner, etc. Keep on recycling. This assumes carbon sequestration is figured out in the end.
Last, who else wants to see a carbon nanotube statue of Colin Chapman made?
Hey, I can dream…. Yes, I know the devil is in the details….
Everyone, please correct any major misunderstandings I made in connecting the dots…
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:25 am)I believe that’s the idea behind the “Bloom Box” as noted here in a thread a few weeks ago. That idea might hold promise if they can get the cost in-line. See it here:
http://www.bloomenergy.com/
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:37 am)Einstein discovered, “Time is Money” this is a waste of both.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:41 am)There is something else too . Hydrogen is such a small atom that it can easily escape through anything regardless of what it is and how thick it is .
You could place Hydrogen in a solid tank made of two inch steel and it would easily escape .
Park your car at the airport for a few days and it is EMPTY when you come back for it .
Don’t give me this story about Hydrogen being the fuel because it just is not happening .
Some person at GM got into this Hydrogen thing and after spending so much money on it
they would look foolish if they don’t come up with something .
The trouble is that the science is known and the atoms of Hydrogen can easily escape .
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:42 am)#9
Man, I sure hope so, LOL
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:45 am)I believe it was just the roads. Beyond convincing the County to pave a road to their station, they were on their own.
+3
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:46 am)Dude,
It takes 3 to 4 times as much electricity to run a hydrogen fuel cell car as a battery electric car. There is no way you will power a fuel cell vehicle with solar panels.
I have solar panels on my roof. After reducing my electricity consumption by 75%, the solar panels almost make enough electricity to power my home. But there is none left over to power a car.
My 3KW system produces 3000 KWH/year. An electric vehicle uses about 0.2KWH/mile. So If I dedicate a second 3KW PV system to a car, then I can travel 15,000 miles/year on sunshine for an EV. For a hydrogen fuel cell car, I would need a 9KW to 12KW system to do the same thing. It just doesn’t make sense.
Later
John C. Briggs
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:46 am)If they’re looking for cheap fuel cells, why not use a mini Bloom Box? No platinum at all, I’ve read. And economies of scale, if/when Bloom Boxes become widespread.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:50 am)Actually before it does that Congress should raise taxes so that they can pay for the social services that you and voters like you have already voted for themselves. The banality of eating more, exercising less, and then blaming the doctor because you’re gaining weight is sometimes overwhelming.
Taxes are 19% of GDP. Expenditures are 26% of GDP. And that’s not because of the stimulus package or even the Iraq war — it’s pretty much all Medicare and Social Security with a dash of Defense. And who wants these services? You and voters like you. And politicians are all too willing to sell the phony proposition that you can get more of the services — like the expansion of the Medicare prescription drug plan — and not have to pay a penny more in taxes. Right. And no doubt you believe in the tooth fairy. So the problem with deficits won’t be addressed until voters wake up and realize the problem is in the mirror and not “out there” in Washington DC. IOW at this point we the voters are the problem and not the solution, and we aren’t going to be the solution until we accept the fact that to lose weight you have to either eat less and/or exercise more. Or accept the fact we’re going to be very fat.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:52 am)Actually water vapor is a greenhouse gas worse than carbon dioxide. However, I’m not sure how much of it would stay in the atmosphere. We might just have a lot more rain. Which, given looming water shortages, might be a good thing. Or, then again, it might not.
If the hydrogen economy ever becomes a real possibility, someone qualified really should think all this through. And do a cost benefit analysis. Preferably before we invest a lot more money into it.
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:53 am)Are you saying to put the fuel cell stack where the cells are and it still needs a battery? I thought you would say replace the ICE with the stack and use fewer cells for the battery.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:54 am)Why do people assume that Hydrogen is a good store of energy? This has actually been one of the greatest challenges of hydrogen. It has a very low “Volumetric” energy storage density. The hydrogen must be stored in tanks at 10,000psi that are made specifically for this application out of carbon fiber.
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:56 am)#53
I dunno about the rest of it, but +1 for that, LOL.
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:56 am)Yes fuel cell cars need a battery. They are a form of EV. The battery can be fairly small, but it is needed for regen, and also to initially power the car when the fuel cell is warming up.
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:57 am)Roads were and are expensive. But aside from that, there is a huge difference between creating an infrastructure for an totally new product, and supplanting an existing one.
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:58 am)BTW, that water vapor actually represent lost energy in the hydrogen economy. We paid for the energy represented by the water vapor and now that energy is lost. Unless the water leaves that car as a liquid, significant energy is being lost.
Later
John C. Briggs
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:01 am)#1
#1 says it all, IMHO. +11! Nice work Tibor.
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:05 am)I think the only practical way of making this work is either to use a high temperature solid oxide fuel cell, which can use a variety of liquid fuels (but unfortunately is more suited for constant operation), or have a direct methanol fuel cell, or have a built in hydrogen reformer that reforms a suitable liquid fuel (e.g., methanol) into the hydrogen that a low temperature fuel-cell stack needs. That way the liquid fuel infrastructure can be utilized for this mode of operation. Even those options are plenty difficult. Adding the necessary infrastructure for compressed hydrogen is really a pipe dream.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:08 am)Why does everyone always assume hydrogen will be produced inefficiently from electricity? Do you know you produce less CO2 when you power a fuel cell on hydrogen derived from natural gas than you do when you use natural gas in an ICE? Do you know how much waste hydrogen is produced annually at various chemical refineries? In North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, there is a sodium-chlorate plant that produces enough waste hydrogen to fuel 200,000 cars. That is just one plant in one city (http://www.poweringnow.ca/hydrogen-infrastructure/waste-hydrogen-capture/). Right now most waste hydrogen is just vented or burned. Making a long-term quick charge battery is not easy and will probably never work for large cars. People make rash judgments about fuel cells, but have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. In 10 years we will have hundreds of thousands of battery and fuel cell powered cars on the road and the world will be a much better place.
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:12 am)Yes, my question was how will DonC configure his Voltec FC car. And if anyone talks about making hydrogen at home I will refer them to your post at 59, well said.
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:13 am)DonC, I don’t think I’ve ever been called fat after posting so thanks for this first! I think you should have read the entire post or maybe you did and I don’t exactly understand what you were getting at. I was basically saying that I DON’T want this new hydrogen economy service added to my goverment bill. We’ve already got electricity and gosoline and I think we’re on a great path toward eliminating the gasoline side of things over time with the Volt and subsequent products. As for me being fat, I’ve got a little bit of body fat but I run, have employer paid health coverage that I rarely ever use, and am an advocate of personal responsibility and self sufficiency as opposed to government control and handouts. Maybe you were having a worse morning than me but honestly man you called me fat!
+7
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:14 am)Everyone, please forget about fuel cells. We don’t need them since
EESTOR is just around the corner.
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:21 am)Water vapor is only a greenhouse gas when it’s released at very high altitudes. If we were talking about a plane, big problem. If we’re talking about a car, where the vapor is released at ground level, water vapor is not a greenhouse gas. It will never reach the upper atmosphere.
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:23 am)Agreed! Yes, if we’re talking about hydrogen, that’s a very large aside. Unless I misundertand your meaning and the new product is gasoline with the existing one being displaced a mix of oats and hay.
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:26 am)I have also looked at the use of energy by cars with respect to oxygen. A very old book of my father “It’s fun finding Out” stated that a car used up more oxygen by being driven from London to Edinburgh (6 hours) than a person in a whole lifetime. Apparently the oxygen content of the world’s atmosphere has fallen from 30% to about 20% and is still falling. There are considerable benifits for plants and our health of more oxygen and that oxygen deficiency already is a real problem.
Thus I would also suggest that idea of burying CO2 (carbon capture) is fatally flawed.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:27 am)Now you know another reason why this company went bankrupt and is still losing billions in taxpayer dollars every quarter. I am all for R&D but come on even Apple says the reason they are now so successful is because they nix so many promising projects and focus only on a few practical ones. By the time Hydrogen becomes viable the auto landscape will have completely changed, this is just a huge waste of money, better spent on batteries or bio fuels like algae etc.
Really like all the Nissan LEAF ads popping up on this site. Go EVs.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:30 am)Its amazing to watch the automakers push this technology – they started on the Fuel Cell vehicles and continue on them because our Government has given US automakers billions (literally) since the Bush Administration (and Big Oil loves the idea of Hydrogen, cause their the ones who want to sell it to you and it won’t be ready for a long time, Shell has several of the stations in California). Other governments funded their automakers in response (Japan), cause they thought we might be smart – since our automakers created the hybrid vehicle via government funding that way in the US back in the early/mid 90′s and US automakers promptly killed it afterwards of course).
The government hasn’t been funding EV battery technology at all during this time.
The automakers (and probably Big Oil’s) lobbyists and friends in Washington have continued to make sure they are getting money to push this technology. I remember when the Energy department announced it wanted to curtail (not eliminate, but drastically reduce) the payments to US industry for this technology related to transportation uses since it didn’t and wasn’t panning out – and stop flushing money down the drain (over this last year) – congress put it right back in there, obviously someone was pushing them for that.
So a big part of why you see the automakers continue to work on this ready in less than 10 year technology that isn’t ready at all after 10 years (and doesn’t look like it would be on a large scale in another 10 years), is that the government has been giving the industry money to do this and has been giving them lots of it.
Since you can’t just go out and mine or grab hydrogen (its always combined with some other element or combination) and need to use energy to split it/make it (its essentially a energy storage medium, like a battery, not a fuel you pull out of the ground and burn) you take about a 30% hit using energy just to split it (as opposed to just pouring that into a battery) – before you can compress and transport it with/to that big expensive infrastructure (that you’ll pay the costs for in the Hydrogen price) that doesn’t exist yet.
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:33 am)John C. Briggs: Yes fuel cell cars need a battery. They are a form of EV. The battery can be fairly small, but it is needed for regen, and also to initially power the car when the fuel cell is warming up.
…and peak power needs as well.
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:41 am)Nothing to see here. Move along…
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3025us2m.htm
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:46 am)Great observations. Using a high tech fiber Toyoda can return to it’s agrarian roots, sounds like a public relations scheme Toyota could use right now.
A few studies predict that not only will carbon fiber be cost competive with aluminum but eventually with steel also. With cars getting lighter, batteries more advanced and range extenders more efficient HCCI etc, it seems hydrogen will always be about 5 to ten years away from practicality.
The Volt at near $40,000 dollars will be available in the fall. BEVs that go 300 miles and quick charge could be mass produced at just over $60,000 with todays battery prices. And Fuel cell cars seem to have just dipped below a million dollars a copy, with expensive fueling that requires 3 to 4 times the energy expenditure of an EV? With five to ten years of effort fuel cells can catch…oops I’m getting redundant, good place to stop
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:50 am)Hey let’s stay positively charged.
Here’s a look at quick-charge “gas pumps” – and a link to read a most interesting article. I keep saying my area ( metro Seattle area ) is on the cusp of the EREV revolution ( Notice the Volt Concept in the photo – OK, so they’re a tad behind the times… ). GM are you listening? Seattle? Early rollout city…huh? huh?
http://www.cascadiaprospectus.org/2009/08/region_to_benefit_from_24_bill.php#more
IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME
RECHARGE! James
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:52 am)Someone pushes them making this scrap. I don’t know and what rational behind but that is obviously US tax payers money and I don’t see how they will be paid back.
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:55 am)Oh. See that’s why I’m not qualified to do this analysis.
So would we just have a lot more rain? And would that help solve our water depletion issues? Overload our sewer systems? Increase the severity of hurricanes? Erode topsoil?
-1
Mar 17th, 2010 (12:01 pm)I estimate 100 new fuel cell (FC) related patents issue monthly world-wide. Daimler has several productive FC partnerships; one which includes Ford. Of the 50 or so U.S. monthly issued FC patents I’d estimate half are Japanese or Korean assigned. If I were to gage FC EV commercialization on a scale of 1-100- I’d say we’re at the 60%-75% point. (My WAGuess is partly based on “Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell Durability” Buchi et al. 2009 Spinger) Which is not all that far off to commercialization. Yet, US DOE Secretary Chu flat-out doesn’t believe EV fuel cells have any near- future. Accordingly, FY’11 (US fiscal year) has significantly reduced FC funding. So. As it turns out GM carries sole U.S. hope to commercialize a U.S. produced EV FC. (Canada is a very solid FC player. Ballard (BC) is perhaps the leading FC producer of EV FC’s by which Daimler is implementing its FC EV.) Somehow, the GM FC program, which employs 600 has survived all the financial and management storms. GM must not abandon its FC program – no matter what. I’d bet Fiat is close to restarting Chrysler’s FC program which was right up there with all the big guys before being shut down last year.
Mar 17th, 2010 (12:01 pm)LOL. I hadn’t thought of it that way.
But the auto had obvious immediate overwhelming advantages to the consumer. Much more than EVs will. And it still took a couple of decades to complete the changeover. Time that we may or may not have with oil.
Mar 17th, 2010 (12:24 pm)I believe that fuel cells have a place in transportation. Batteries today and in the forseeable future are too big and heavy to make an electric TRUCK practical without an onboard generator. Fuel cells are the ONLY way I know of, short of a nuclear reactor, of generating large amounts of electricity without generating posinous exhaust. Majoy truck fleets like UPS, Fed-X and the USPS could deploy fuel cell/electric trucks and afford their oon filling stations. That would probably account for 1 million vehicles with just those 3 companies – enough to support one vehicle manufacturer.
Mar 17th, 2010 (12:28 pm)The following is not a criticism:
Er, there are still over 9 million horses in the US, so the changeover is still not complete, 120 years after the first production full gassers hit the roads. I parked (and it topped itself off while I ran an errand) my electric motorcycle next to a saddled horse at a hitch in the center of town just the other week. The hybrid market share is 3% after almost 15 years and growing slowly. This tells us that we will be able to easily adjust to optimal electric drive, with various configurations, market penetration in real time, even if we phase out new production of full gassers quickly.
“Time that we may or may not have with oil.”
I don’t understand what that means. The faster we use nonrenewable oil, the more the price goes up. so the more incentive we have to change to various types of EVs. The more EVs we have, the less oil demand, so the cheaper oil gets, which will increase oil demand, for an ever moving homeostatic trend with gradually increasing EV apps. Oil companies are counting on the Jevon’s effect and gasser ICE range and high speed cruising extenders netting to their benefit in the short run as they re-weight towards natural gas.
Whither coal?
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (12:49 pm)I agree! But I doubt either GM, other private firms, or the government labs will agree or admit they may be researching something like direct-to-ethanol (DEFC)*. Why? Because the potentially sensitive nature of the work due to its value to the military could have “driven it underground” into some kind of “skunk works” operation in both private & government labs —if this were the case, it could all be hushed up by a Top Secret or Secret classification prohibiting any published papers —and imposing severe criminal penalties for outside disclosures.
In other words, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if work on hydrogen fuel cells is primarily a cover-up or diversionary strategy imposed by the DOE/DOD/DARPA funding agencies to divert attention from the work on DEFC, which seems to me to have several important potential advantages:
1) Filling stations could easily modify any existing pumps, tanks, etc to dispense pure ethanol
2) Cellulosic ethanol from algae, waste products & plant sources is practical & fully renewable
3) DEFC fuel cells might very well employ nanotechnology to eliminate expensive electrodes
4) The liquid/gaseous effluents of DEFCs are virtually pollutant-free —much cleaner than an ICE
5) EREVs would eliminate any noise, vibration or harshness by using an DEFC instead of an ICE
*For a brief introduction to DEFCs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-ethanol_fuel_cell
Mar 17th, 2010 (12:49 pm)Boy, there is something REALLY missing today. Some balance that is just not here.
Oh, wait, where is Tagamet?
Mar 17th, 2010 (1:16 pm)Just lurking, thanks.
Be well,
Tagamet
Mar 17th, 2010 (1:26 pm)Some questions:
1) Whats the efficiency to split water into hydrogen and then use the hydrogen in a fuel cell?
2) What’s the cost to build a hydrogen generating device?
3) Whats the energy density of a tank of hydrogen that would be used in a car?
4) How will the cost of a fuel cell go down over time vs. Li-ion batteries?
If it becomes cheap to make hydrogen by using electricity to split water, and a hydrogen tank proves to be a better “battery” then Lithium-ion, and if the efficiency losses aren’t too much…. I could see gas stations or homeowners locally producing hydrogen and using it in their cars.
That’s a lot of if’s though.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (1:35 pm)I thought horses were mainly used for sports and horse racing? And, IMHO, for those particular uses, cars don’t have any real advantage. Although, obviously different people have different preference. Personally, I like horse back riding more than driving. Although that might be because I only do it once every couple of years, so it has novelty value….
Unfortunately, the markets generally don’t work that smoothly or that efficiently. There’s no guarantee that prices will rise gradually enough that people will have sufficient time to adjust. Especially given the long time lags in development and investment decisions for auto companies. Although they all know this is coming, no one knows when or how long it will take.
As far as natural gas–I’ve heard numerous complaints about what the new drilling techniques do to the water supply. As it is, many areas of this country are water stressed. And it’s getting worse. Underground aquifers are also a non-renewable resource.
Personally, I think we should move to nuclear power. Preferably the next generation types others have mentioned here.
Mar 17th, 2010 (1:38 pm)It will all depend on where you live, what the weather patterns are like and where the hydrogen is coming from. If the hydrogen is not produced from existing water, you would end up with more clouds, which would likely result in more rain somewhere. Most likely the rain would fall in a place that already has significant rain due to land features and air currents. Keep in mind, there is already significant water vapor in your car’s exhaust. At most you would be looking at double the water vapor, so it isn’t like we are looking at magnitudes more water being produced…
Mar 17th, 2010 (1:44 pm)I just read over at Marketwatch that the Nissan Leaf will sell for “less than $44,300″. If that means, say, $42,000 doesn’t that kind of shoot down any theory that it will be cheaper than the Volt? And wouldn’t that actually put the Leaf at a competitive disadvantage?
Mar 17th, 2010 (1:46 pm)Ditto.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (1:52 pm)I agree with you both! However, it will be a long time before cars are nuclear powered
Mar 17th, 2010 (2:00 pm)That is amazing, if true, but the solution here is obvious — put some industrial-size fuel cells (Bloom boxes, whatever) right there at the plant to capture this windfall, and pump the resulting electricity into the grid. It would be less than the amount of electricity this factory must be using (you don’t just get free hydrogen for ‘nothing’), but at least it wouldn’t go to waste. I would sure hate to pay their power bill!
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (2:10 pm)What GM should do is find a way to downsize one of these to fit in a VOLT:
If they can do that, we can “eliminate the grid” altogether !
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (2:22 pm)OK, I actually have some info that might shed light on things!
I was trying to get a handle on what is the attractiveness of hydrogen, so I was looking for some overview data to put things into perspective. I ran across this in Wiki-pedia: “..the effectiveness of hydrogen fuel to gasoline is …has a higher specific energy than does gasoline, but even in liquid form, a much lower energy density.” What does this mean? It means that each atom or molecule of hydrogen can hold/transfer/give up a lot of power, 143 MegaJoules/Kilogram, BUT it is so light (non-dense) that even in supercold liquid form it only holds 10.1 MJ/Liter, where gasoline holds 34.2 MJ/Liter, diesel fuel (heating oil) holds 37.3 MJ/L, and E85 holds 25.65 MJ/L. And surprize, they even had numbers for EEStor capacitors of 5.7 MJ/L and LION batteries of .83-.9 MJ/L. Oh, and H2 at 10,000PSI is 5.6 MJ/L (just over half of the density needed to become liquid). So, H2 is maybe just a substitute for EESU’s (and ..they’re off…)
Mar 17th, 2010 (2:31 pm)After seeing some silliness today, why not opt for cold fusion?
Mar 17th, 2010 (2:33 pm)Like this one?
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (2:34 pm)Oh no, not more hydrogen!
GO EV !!!
Mar 17th, 2010 (2:35 pm)Please specify what silliness and why. Otherwise no one learns.
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (2:43 pm)Hydrogen is a dead duck. The world does not have sufficient fresh water or platinum for the number of vehicles in the world. Also the well to wheel sums come out at 12.5%. Half of IC engines.
Battery powered vehicles are up at 40% plus. There is a new battery based on lithium and air.
This battery promises to have the same usable energy density of gas used in an IC engine 3Kw/kg. Gas (petrol) has 12kw/kg but IC engine is only 25% efficient so equivalent is 3 kw/kg.
This battery looks like it could be fast recharged with fresh lithium and electrolyte with a cassett system like a lithium fuel cell or a normal recharge from the mains.
So please give up on hydrogen, hard to store & transport, 1/4 of the power density of gas.
Makes metals brittle, costs energy to store as liquid.
When the only batteries where lead acid it looked like it was the only choice but now technology has overtaken it, time to cut the loses and drop it.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (2:44 pm)OK, who spiked the punch?
Be well,
Tagamet
Mar 17th, 2010 (2:52 pm)#74
Yeah and, with apologies to MuddyRoverRob, don’t forget Mr. Fusion. +1
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (2:56 pm)UNLIKE ! Why because to poduce hydrogen you use electricity,to transport the hydrogen to the refuiling station you make carbon and so on ! IT IS THE SAME BIG OIL but now BIG HYDROGEN strategy.
SO GM STOP LOBING FOR THE MONOPOLISTS AND GIVE US 100% ELECTRIC CARS for the FREE PEOPLE !!!
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (3:00 pm)The reason for the push to hydrogen is simple imho, because the powers that be want you to have to fill up.
Mar 17th, 2010 (3:01 pm)Gee, FCEVs are coming down markedly. They now only use 1/3 the platinum. So instead of a Fuel Cell that lasts 2 or 3 years, and costs $750,000 to $1,000,000 dollars, the price is now 1/3; so that only $225,000 to $333,000 for the Fuel Cell. And add the car around it for another $30,000 or so.
What a bargain !?!
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (3:11 pm)hydrogen = Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Yellow Polka Dot Bikini
Mar 17th, 2010 (3:13 pm)And let us not forget the Flux Capacitor!
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (3:37 pm)Think I first pointed this out to someone about 10 years ago. Even to this day you will find technical publications like Chemical & Engineering news talk about hydrogen as a source of energy, instead of a method of energy transmission. I did manage to get a letter to the editor published (mainly touting the benefits of nuclear), where I gave their coverage a quick kick in the head. I think most people have caught on. I know it is painful to think of the money one has wasted, but eventually you have to bite the bullet (GM).
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (3:44 pm)You are HIGHLY overvaluing lithium air batteries. Metal-air batteries are nothing new (hearing aids have used zinc-air batteries since the 70s). However, rechargeable metal air batteries are at least a decade from commercialization. You have no idea how difficult it is to design a reversible air cathode. Do you know what catalyst air cathodes typically use? That’s right, it’s platinum. The cheaper catalysts are much less effective and the lifetimes of rechargeable air cathode batteries is nothing. The high potentials destroy the catalyst support after tens of cycles.
People may not be aware, but rechargeable metal-air batteries are almost the exact same as a fuel cell. However, instead of refueling with hydrogen, you use electricity to reduce the oxides formed. This produces significant heat and degradation, especially when it’s a “quick charge,” which is not as simple as people think.
Just to clear things up. Fuel cell cars do not cost $1,000,000. This number was for first generation cars 5-7 years ago when EVERYTHING was custom. This included $2 production parts that had to be custom made for $1000s at the time. Do you think that 30g of platinum is a deal breaker for a car? You have 3g of platinum in your car’s catalytic converter. That’s in a part that does nothing but clean up your dirty exhaust…
Mar 17th, 2010 (3:59 pm)Holy education needs, batman:
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/5067191.Bettws_man___s_anger_as_police_impound_electric_bike/
My deep thank you to the disabled for showing all of us the way forward, yet again.
Mar 17th, 2010 (4:02 pm)Keep in mind, they aren’t produce hydrogen with electricity, but as a byproduct of a chemical reaction. Their energy bills (I assume you mean electrical/natural gas/etc.) won’t reflect the chemical energy contained in their original feedstock.
Of course, this is definitely an option. The problem is that they could make much more money selling the hydrogen than they could selling the electricity. Grid electricity is MUCH cheaper than oil. I don’t see why people think batteries and fuel cells are competitors. They are doing the same thing, displacing oil. Why do you think the Volt exists? Batteries are decades away from being suitable as the sole locomotive force in a car. Fuel cells are much closer at this point, regardless of what people with no knowledge of the energy sector think.
Look, despite all my fuel cell posts, I don’t really care whether batteries or fuel cells become commercial first. I don’t care which one becomes the dominant technology. I care about cars not polluting the environment. I care about our money being spent domestically rather than in the middle east. I get frustrated because people with no knowledge of either technology decide to bash one of them or the other. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and if you don’t work on both of them you are making a big business mistake.
Mar 17th, 2010 (4:08 pm)Oh yeah, I should have included this. The price of platinum is around $50/g ($1600/troy oz), so the 30g of platinum is a GM fuel cell engine costs $1500. Now do you see that it is ridiculous to think that a fuel cell car still costs $1,000,000?
And fuel cells can and do regularly last longer than batteries, even at their current immature stage. That’s why they are being used as backup power for cell phone towers and to replace the batteries in electric forklifts…
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (4:12 pm)I like this… While GM Spins its wheels and waists it’s time and our money. The pure EV players will gain major market capitalization.
-1
Mar 17th, 2010 (4:24 pm)1. “the fuel cell Equinoxes are said to cost $1 million a piece”
2. “the new generation fuel cell stack and system is half the size, 220 pounds lighter, and uses 1/3 the platinum as the fuel cells in the current Project Driveway fleet.”
so, priced at $333k, how many will they sell?
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (4:30 pm)“The lower 5 miles of the atmosphere transports an average of about 40,000 billion gallons of water vapor over the conterminous United States each day (U.S. Geological Survey, 1984).” (http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/natural/et/)
So if we suppose 100 million hydrogen cars plying the roads of America, and just to keep the math simple let’s say each one emits water vapor equivalent to 10 gallons of water per day, so 1 billion gallons… 40,000 billion divided by 1 billion would be 40,000 so… an increase of 1/40,000th in the amount of atmospheric water vapor over the U.S.
Mar 17th, 2010 (4:44 pm)#106 & #108
I’ll drink to that! +1 to both.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (5:03 pm)$1500 for a single element used as a raw material. Such a deal. I’m going to conclude that there will be some costs involved in shaping those raw materials into fuel cells…and a bit of tooling required to scale them into mass production.
One of the companies making fuel cells for forklifts was discussed on GM-Volt some time ago. They were working on methanol fuel cells as hydrogen was very problematic for their customers needs.
Mar 17th, 2010 (5:11 pm)There is movement in new ways of reforming H2 using various methods. This, along with low cost cathode replacements of rare metals will speed adoption. One interesting reforming method is mixing water and ethanol and vaporizing it. This process strips some of the H2 from the water and all from the alcohol. Thus reforming H2 onboard becomes a possibility. This however will annoy the infrastructure people who want to continue the gas station model and replace gas with H2.
Oh well… progress.
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (5:13 pm)Great find. It really got my brain moving on the subject.
Honda’s Clarity carries 4kg of hydrogen and has a range of 240 miles. 4kg of hydrogen would produce 36kg of water, at standard temperatures and pressures, we can assume that this is 36 liters, or 9.5 gallons. But this is per tank, not per day. What is it, 80% of users travel less than 40 miles per day? By driving 40 miles, you would produce 1.6 gallons of water vapor equivalent. That is less than 1/200,000th of the atmospheric water vapor (0.0005%).
But I wanted to check how much water is produced by a car engine. 1 gallon of gas weighs 6.3 pounds and is 13% hydrogen. Using a similar approach to the fuel cell, you can calculate that 1 gallon of gas produces 7lbs (3.2kg) of water vapor. This works out to be 0.85 gallons of water at standard temperature and pressure. Considering that almost any car would use more than 1 gallon of gas for that 40 miles, a fuel cell produces less than double the water vapor of a car. So the actual increase in water vapor over the U.S. would be less than half of that number or < 1/400,000th (<0.00025%).
Mar 17th, 2010 (5:47 pm)You’d still want a battery for regen. It wouldn’t be nearly as large as what you need for a BEV or an EREV. Think of it this way: the Prius has a battery and it uses an ICE. Adding a battery to an otherwise electric vehicle is just simpler and less expensive than adding one to an ICE vehicle.
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (5:53 pm)If this was economically feasible wouldn’t the hydrogen have been packaged and sold long ago?
I don’t see where adding water vapor would unbalance the water cycle at the earths surface and in the lower atmosphere though. Wouldn’t the water balance remain unchanged unless significant energy inputs were made at the lower atmospheric level to accompany the added water vapor? Thermodymacilly how much water vapor would have to be introduced over what time period to actually alter the ongoing effects of the water cycle anyway? With more water in the air would there be less water gained by evaporation off setting any water vapor released? I haven’t seen any scientists claim that water vapor from industrial and domestic activities makes permanent changes, has anyone else?
Mar 17th, 2010 (5:57 pm)I was confused when you wrote that the fuel cell in a volt would be where the cells are now. Did I misread that? #48
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:03 pm)I don’t know what discussion you are talking about, but I can’t find it. I have worked with all of the major players in fuel cell forklifts (Ballard, Plug Power and Hydrogenics). None of them are looking into Methanol and hydrogen is not problematic for the customers. In fact, all of the forklifts operators fight over the fuel cell units because they can make more money during their shifts. They’re paid based on how much they move. A battery’s output voltage (thus available power) decreases as it’s state of charge decreases (a fuel cell is constant until the hydrogen is gone). It also takes a long time to replace the spent battery pack as opposed to refueling with hydrogen. So the operator can move more product in the same amount of time and bring home a fatter paycheck…
I’ve also worked with companies developing rechargeable metal-air batteries, which are a great technology. But they will take longer to commercialize than fuel cells and will have problems with quick charging for a long time to come. Batteries are great, but you need to realize what they are and what their limitations are. Will I buy a Volt as soon as possible? Hell yeah. But I’ll also be anxiously waiting for GMs fuel cell car a few years later so that I can always drive gasoline free (I’m lucky enough to live in a location where this would be fairly easy)…
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:10 pm)I assume it is a result of there not currently being a huge market for hydrogen, so there wasn’t justification to develop the equipment needed to remove impurities from the hydrogen. However, they recently started a project on this. I believe the end goal is to use a portion of the waste hydrogen to fuel a fleet of 20 fuel cell buses that are in Whistler, BC. As more opportunities open up, I’d expect them to increase their activity in this…
Standard chicken and egg problem. Same reason why there isn’t nearly enough public charging infrastructure for electric vehicles yet.
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:24 pm)That’s good to know, I don’t know about you, but I have a severe dislike for high humidity in the summertime. It makes me want to turn on my air conditioning, even though open windows do a good job of keeping the temperature comfortable in my house.
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:28 pm)#129
There are reports today that San Diego Gas & Electric has finalized a deal to install 2500 electric car charging stations in the SD area. Check it out.
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:30 pm)Excellent thought!
Also, for smaller businesses now using Sprinter vans – I’ve always held that the EREV format was meant for these types of vechicles, just think of the advantages.
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME
RECHARGE! James
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:38 pm)But don’t forget, we’re two years beyond when GM “originally” said the HyWire fuel cell car would be ready to be produced. You know, the works on a skateboard car.
Please remember this information is from the year 2002.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hy-wire.htm
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:43 pm)PSE, a major utility in the Western Washington, Seattle area has committed to purshasing over 1,000 Nissan LEAFS and installing over 2550 charging and 15 minute “quick charging” stations…
My city is better than your cityyyy…nayhhh nayyhhh nayyyhhh… L : L Just kidding. I have to plug Seattle because Cali will already get their Volts!
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME
RECHARGE! James
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:48 pm)(/just got in from a very long workday, and have made my way through all the posts.)
I’m surprised that no-one has a post where they got out a magnifying glass to see the exceptional
statistical differences between the Gen1 fuel cell and the Gen2 fuel cell.
These are incredible improvements that no-one has noticed yet apparently.
I was about to leave to fix dinner when just before not posting anything, I decided to get out the magnifier to closely look at what was being described here, because the thread focus wasn’t referring to anything about these specifications differences/improvements.
I can see that the research capital was well spent and has certainly paid off for what has been accomplished. Just compare how far the stats indicate the program has come between Gen1 and Gen2. (In a different technical arena, biologists are attempting to find out how plants break down compounds into hydrogen.)
GM has stuck by the program because there are clearly very high merits to these many kinds of advancements here. These advancements have changed my viewpoint from being insufficiently interested in Fuel Cell, to having my attention at a sufficient level to keep an eye on GM’s progress there.
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:49 pm)Some BREAKING NEWS. There is a program on a local radio station right now talking about a Detroit based company that proposes to build an International rail network that will be solar powered, net energy exporter (Mulit Megawatts), convert the electricity to hydrogen, pipe it to gas filling stations, and support 200 MPH travel, all with NO government subsidy.
I know “if it seems too good to be true it IS too good to be true.”
Link: http://www.hydrogensuperhighway.com/
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:50 pm)I stand corrected, until maybe I can take a nap and find the energy to recover the quote.
40 bil gallons is what is transported daily through evapotranspiration per(http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/natural/et/).
1) What is the ambient level of water in the atmosphere or the water carrying capability of the air over NA, at less than five miles, under average temperature and pressure resuting in a normal amount of water in the air. More than 40 bil gallons? 2)At any rate 40 bil gallons would intuitively seem like a drop in the bucket wrt all water exchanges, inclusive of that transported across NA through evapotranspiration. Using your 1 bil gallons figure for a 100 mil FC cars doesn’t seem to be significant unless there is a tipping point for water vapor in the atmosphere that has not been publicized.
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:51 pm)Notes on #135. This will be build on the current interstate hiway system. The “railcars” will transport your personal car so that when you get to the destination you are not stranded.
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:52 pm)My last comment didn’t make it past the filter. Strange. But perhaps it was due to it’s gloating nature. : )
I’ll try once again. PSE, a major utility in the Seattle area has committed to over 1,000 Nissan Leafs and over 2550 EV charging and 15 minute “quick charging” stations.
Great to see cities climbing on the bandwagon! San Diego, you already have the sun, and Volts committed to Cali – can we have some too?
IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME
RECHARGE! James
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:53 pm)Good point, but you left out:
EREV cars are coming down from less than $40k per car and most people have an electrical plug and access to a liquid fueling station.
Which of course makes the argument for hydrogen look even weirder.
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:53 pm)Well there you go, what were we worried about? Did they mention needing any subsidies?
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:53 pm)I completely agree, fuel cells have overpromised and underdelivered for years. I have talked to people in these programs and while they will not confirm or deny anything, my impression is this. They have always said “5-10 years” for fuel cell technology. What does that mean? It takes around 3-5 years for a new automobile design to reach consumers. Look at how long the Volt has taken and it was pretty much given a blank check! So when they say 5-10 years it means, we think in 5 years the technology will be where it needs to be. In other words, they are saying “we have no idea.”
That’s why I was so excited when they said 2015. When they say 5 years, that is VERY different timeline. To me that means, the technology IS where it needs to be. In 5 years they will have enough time to integrate that technology into a production automobile.” Seems logical, no?
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (6:55 pm)Spend some of it on partnering the Volt with a Voltec Equinox. A Volt/Equinox EREV combo could secure EV dominance for GM. The Volt, standing alone, will not. The R&D and design work is already done. The testing is done.
There is something missing from the big picture at GM. What is blocking a Volt based small truck? Why give this market to Ford, BYD, and Phoenix when Volt technology may be the best? I’m puzzled on this one. If not now. Why bother later when you’re further behind?
=D-Volt
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:01 pm)Wow, a lot of posts to read, only about half at this point.
2 issues I want to address. Clean source of abundant on demand power, and cheap too.
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/11/thorium-at-googles-tech-talk.html
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/
Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors run on cheap readily available thorium, are safe, produce almost no radioactive waste (and that little bit decays in 300 years instead of 10,000), and can burn existing stockpiles of waste from LWRs. LFTRs were invented in the 1950s but abandoned because they couldn’t be used to make bombs. They had one running for more than 5 years at Oakridge Laboratories and it is a proven technology.
2nd, Lots of people said “maybe GM knows something we don’t”. It is really hard to give up on something you have spent many years on, made great progress, and already invested $1.6B. You want to get your investment back. The other part is that the oil companies (and there is a strong historical relationship here) want to keep us coming to the pumps and buy their product. They realize that they cannot continue selling gasoline, so now want to sell us hydrogen. If the government does not contribute 1 cent to the hydrogen infrastructure, the oil companies will build it anyway. They would just prefer the government build it to their benefit. Price fixing is supposed to be illegal. How come all the gas stations have their prices change 4 times a day synchronized to the same price at the same time? The oil companies, for all their power, cannot control the price of electricity or they would just sell that, but they will be able to control the price of hydrogen and therefore retain their obscene profits into the future. They will do anything to force us to buy fuel cell cars including applying pressure on auto manufacturers to promote FCVs over BEVs.
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:07 pm)I guess the answer is we can only hope. I think that the Voltec chassis might be the real world iteration of HyWire, but I still still can’t go anywhere and buy one. All I hear are promises that in November of this year, some people should be able to.
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:19 pm)#142
nuclearboy gave us a very expert and to the point analysis some weeks ago of why all of these new gee-whiz reactor technologies are unlikely to be built or put into operation in the foreseeable future, probably not in my lifetime for sure. He concluded that current light water technology, or whatever it’s called, is the only thing likely to be permitted any time soon. It had the ring of total credibility to me.
This stuff is just propaganda at the present time. JMHO.
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:23 pm)——
#136
Alas, I can only agree with you last sentence. EEstor, Mr. fusion, Flux Capacitor, and hyWire spring to mind again.
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:25 pm)#142
Amen. +1
My finger is kind of sore from clicking all the +1s today. Nice work bloggers, you’re on a roll for sure.
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:28 pm)Think someone *did* post the improvements.
Be well,
Tagamet
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:32 pm)I *still* love the skateboard car.
Be well,
Tagamet
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:40 pm)(lol) It really was a long workday from 6:30 am seminar to 6:00pm central.
Comparing **all** improvements together as a set, from Gen1 to Gen2 would be the point as far as
the merits of the whole project as seen from an investment worthiness. In short, they all add up to a “light at the end of the tunnel” situation for Fuel Cell tech it seems to me.
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:46 pm)Thanks for the kind words. My analysis was only my opinion of course but it is based on what I hear as a senior level adviser at the NRC so I get to hear some of the issues first hand.
Mar 17th, 2010 (7:51 pm)I think it’s really nice to know someone’s professional background. That adds a lot for the substance of whatever that pro wishes to share. Thanks.
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:00 pm)Besides cost?.. most small truck buyers are price conscious, but some are not. So far we know it adds about $20k to the cost of a vehicle, hopefully it will come down to $10k premium one day. You do the math.
Where would you put the T Pack in a small pickup?.. it may require a new pack configuration and more testing.. or perhaps you could make an El Camino type Volt with a small bed.
The other issue is aerodynamics.. very poor in a pickup truck. I would guess a Volt sized 40 mile pack would only give you about 20 miles range. Improvements in batteries should help with this.
Once battery production kicks into high gear (supply) and cost comes down is when you will start to see niche vehicles receiving the Voltec treatment.
I would like to see a 2 Mode Equinox, 10 mile plug-in range and ditch the turbo/direct injection (for some cost savings).
+2
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:04 pm)Very interesting. To follow up, the .9MJ/L for Li-ion batteries is for the garden variety Li-ion batteries. Lithium-poylmer-manganese like used in the Volt are about 2MJ/L. So for batteries to get to the same volumetric density as 10k psi hydrogen, they need to get about 3 times better. This is very doable, as several research companies have already announced projects to produce cheaper batteries at 2 to 3 times increased ED. OTOH efforts to pack more hydrogen into a smaller volume have driven researchers to explore various hydrides. This works as example PlasmaKinetics, but results in a much heavier package (still about 1/2 weight of equivalent battery), but the point is the differences are becoming smaller. Also hydrides increase the cost of the hydrogen storage, so again more similar to the cost of batteries.
Several people have suggested that H2 power will be best for trucks, if my predictions about 3 times improvement in batteries (that is 3 times energy density AND 3 times cheaper) hits the market soon, then even long-haul trucks will find battery power more cost effective than either diesel or hydrogen. When this level of battery performance is achieved, the hydrogen revolution will be dead.
+3
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:10 pm)Thi$ is stupendous news. Check with us as soon as they can sell all fuel cell components (including storage, etc) for less than $2k, hydrogen is readily available, and we have spare energy to burn.
Commercialization in 2015. Sheesh, what a load of crap! Come on sugar daddy, please keep hitten me with that crack…uhh…I mean subsidies. Oh and keep your eye on my beautiful commercial fuel cell while I play this anti-Cafe standards raising Jedi mind trick.
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:29 pm)I get it. It’s quite simple. It takes 12 hours on a 30 amp circuit to recharge a battery that can only power a super small car(Smart, Mini, Fiat 500) 70 miles. Forget road trips, forget living in the country. Hello public transportation with slimy low-life’s, hello living in a crowded crime filled urban hell hole.
I like Hydrogen. Yes you lose efficiency because of compressing the gas and (possibly) transporting it. However, you can fill up and drive 300 miles, fill up and drive another 300 miles, etc. The engine is super clean and the energy to process the hydrogen is made using far cleaner methods than refining gasoline. As the country builds more and more wind turbines, hydro dams, nuke plants, the evil bad carbon molecules won’t be spewing into the air and the leftist liberals will have to figure some other way to try to force people to live in cramped cities and ride crappy public transportation.
Mar 17th, 2010 (8:36 pm)Agreed! It also breeds civility.
My computer has been locking up repeatedly today, so I’m going to shut it down and remove some of the fur balls tomorrow.
Be well and be good to each other,
Tagamet
/slight format change? (g)
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:09 pm)This is discouraging news, I would very much like to read your arguments. Could you please provide a link? or even send me an email to royharvie@gmail.com Thanks.
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:18 pm)+1 for VancouverJon. # 75 An ah ha moment for me. I have always heard that taking a plane(jet) was equivalent to driving a SUV, alone, to your destination in terms of contributing to global warming. But how could this be when an individual in a jet fully loaded travels between 60 and 90 miles on a gallon of fuel(per calculations on this site a coupla days back)? This post explains the discrepency. It’s the water vapor released at altitude, not the relatively small amount of co2 exhausted, that does majority of the damage.
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:21 pm)Hydrogen sounds like the wonder fuel but the more you look into it the less appealing it becomes. I’m not an engineer or a scientist but I do have a working relationship with a company that is currently working on some cutting edge stuff in energy storage and hydrogen technologies. The engineers that I have talked to doubt if hydrogen can be made, compressed, transported and distributed efficiently and cost effectively for decades to come. Even if there are breakthroughs in technology we are so far from addressing the myriad of obstacles in place for using it as a viable fuel that it’s not realistic to predict anything sooner than 15 to 20 years before we could begin to mass produce and use hydrogen cars, and that’s with the major breakthroughs that may never happen.
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:26 pm)As I recall, you thought it might be possible to get a research program; but an engineering program to actually certify a prototype would be next to impossible (I remembered this so quickly because I was the one who asked you to do the analysis — thank you).
Thorium holds such promise that I don’t see how we can just let it drop. I still think that we (as Americans) should push for the study, and figure out how to get the engineering/certification program later. Let’s worry about one miracle at a time.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:30 pm)Why do people insist that their car should be charged with the same power as a couple of toasters? You install special outlet for your stove, another one for your dryer, and yet it seems too big a project to provide a special dedicated outlet for your electric car! The Tesla Roadster requires about 50kWh for over 200 miles. 50kWh at 240 volts and 70amps, = 3 hours. Even a much larger car with a 300 mile range will be charged in 8 hours. When EVs can be purchased with 500 mile range, those who want to will install even higher power outlets to remain within the 8 hour charge time. Right now your stove plus your dryer add up to a 70amp service at 240 volts.
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:31 pm)“Thi$ is stupendous news. Check with us as soon as they can sell all fuel cell components (including storage, etc) for less than $2k, hydrogen is readily available, and we have spare energy to burn.”
Actually we do have spare energy to burn, and a lot of it. The missing piece to all this is that a lot of electricity goes to waste. We have all of this excess generating capacity that only gets used a few days a year. Overnight, nuclear plants are essentially throwing electricity away because they have no way of storing it. It we are going to build new nuclear plants, this will become an even larger problem It’s not like they turn of the plant a night and all go home. That plant runs 24/7 whether anyone wants the electricity or not. That is the power that needs to be used to create hydrogen.
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:40 pm)Hi Herm #153…
Thanks for your thoughts.
Stock Equinox $28,000 (loaded $32k)
Hybrid Equinox $36,000 (minus $2000)
Voltek Equinox $42,000 (minus $7500)
AMP Equinox $50,000 (full EV ~ minus $7500)
The benefit of going with full Voltec speaks for itself. Great torque, no gasoline use up to 35 miles, smooth quiet dependable drive all of the time, the cool factor, the green factor, a range of over 300 miles. This is a vehicle you can keep for ten years with little maintenance or fuel cost.
________________________
Seems a LEAF-type battery standing on edge behind the cab will work very well. Latest news is Phoenix (Southern California) has upgraded their batteries. The original batteries were similar to the EV-1. Large and heavy (800lbs). Phoenix trucks look good. We’ll see many on the road in 2011.
=D-Volt
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:41 pm)Not so if we were to use LFTRs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk as they are self-regulating to match load.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:54 pm)There was an interesting tangent in the comments earlier, concerning the idea of putting nuclear energy in a vehicle somehow (yes, I realize that all involved were joking).
However, for the purposes of a thought experiment, let’s imagine that a sub-critical Thorium-based fusion/fission hybrid reactor and Stirling generator could be made small enough to put into a car (because we all like hybrids…right? And RTGs are just too d@mn wimpy). Just this act of miniaturization would strain physics and technology (to say nothing of credulity) to the breaking point; I think it would be just too much more to think that the reactor’s output could be quickly throttled up and down in traffic. I expect that you would get a more-or-less constant output at either full-on or standby, with several minutes needed to go from one state to the other.
So now, let’s imagine that you want to go somewhere under nuclear power. You either sized the reactor to produce the maximum power that you might need at any moment intending to waste off excess when traveling more slowly: or you sized the reactor to provide a reasonable average power level for a given 24hrs of driving.
If you’re all about to nod off, here’s the point: Even if you have an on-board nuclear power source, you will need an EREV architecture. Instead of plugging in, you simply park. The reactor will recharge the battery continuously, even when the car is not driven. Let’s suppose that it takes 8 hours for the reactor to charge up a 40 mile battery. You drive to work almost 40 miles, and park. By the time you go out to lunch nearby, you have accumulated 15 – 20 more miles in the battery. Let’s say that you go 10 miles round trip. If it is another 5 hours before you go home, you would have 40 miles accumulated.
Hey wait! Those numbers just don’t add up! That is because, in addition to recharging the battery when the car is stopped, an on board reactor would add it’s power to that available from the battery when it the car is moving.
I would expect that this miracle reactor would need to be sized such that it’s rated output just matches the amount needed to overcome road friction and air resistance at a reasonable highway speed. When stopped, this same output would recharge a battery which would be used for the much higher demands of acceleration in traffic. With reasonable care, your nuclear EREV would be capable of covering almost any distance.
That’s a long trip into scifi / fantasy, perhaps; but it points out how EREV can make even relatively inflexible sources of power usable on the road (and more importantly, it completely ignores Hydrogen Fuel Cells).
In light of this musing, it is interesting that GM specifically stated that the new hydrogen fuel cell would not be used in a Voltec architecture, while revealing remarkably few details about how it would be used.
With every announcement that comes out, it gets harder and harder not to ‘smell a rat.’
Mar 17th, 2010 (9:57 pm)Personally, I think that that really sums it up – on a lot of levels. That’s what haunts me about NASA cut-backs. SO many miracles happen(ed) there.
Let’s pray that our country is still good for them.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:37 pm)Can’t you just convert a volt to run on CNG/LP and Gasoline? A fuel cell volt woulld needs hydrogen as fuel and to get hydrogen the oil and gas industry uses CNG to produce hydrogen, so oyu don’t really need the fuel cell. Plus CNG produces 50% less CO2 as coal and 25-33% less than gasoline and we have a large amount of the stuff under American soil. So you can polute less and make America less energy dependant.
People 6 months to go and then we can act like kids ggoing to Disney World!
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:39 pm)Capacity? Wasted energy is different from wasted capacity. We don’t waste that much more energy at night than we do during the day. Power companiee spend a lot of $ and effort to have generation meet demand. Demand lows are met with baseload sources like nuclear and peaks are met with more transient generation. You could argue that some spinning reserves are wasted which could otherwise be used to produce hydrogen when not needed.
Of course, we could just build a bunch more “magical” sodium-chlorate plants to supply our hydrogen economy (sorry VancouverJon, I couldn’t resist).
/How many biodeisel EREVs can be powered by McDonald’s used fryer oil?
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:47 pm)Exactly. A research program today. A power plant 20 years from now. Of course, by that time Solar or wind might be scalable. But there’s no guarantee whatsoever of that. So as far as I’m concerned, the more research into any and all possible solutions the better.
Just because it’s impossible today doesn’t mean it will be impossible ten years down the line. The sooner we start, the better.
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (10:59 pm)Man, I don’t know where you are getting these ideas. When the load lightens up the power plant is throttled back and pretty quickly (or it will blow up). Yes, a plant will not be shut down 100% because starting from 0% can be complex, but throttling down is definitely done. When throttled down, yes you still have capital tied up (the cost of building the capacity) and that is “wasted” if it cannot be kept at nearly 100% but that is ENTIRELY different.
-1
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:08 pm)I would like to point out that NO power generation method is without environmental consequences. Large scale wind if it truly takes a significant percent of the power of the wind is going to alter climate. Solar also will alter the climate. I’m not claiming these alterations will all be harmful, but they WILL have consequences and they should be studied before altering the entire planet. Same for wave power. The most “natural” energy source is probably nuclear power. I think that space based solar power holds a lot of promise (but not beamed through the air), but that too has to be considered in terms of unintended consequences (maybe every megawatt sent to earth has to have a megawatt of waste energy radiated into space).
+1
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:28 pm)Nice try at changing the subject but I wasn’t calling you fat. (Misguided yes but not fat). My point was that people want government services but don’t want to pay for them. When the deficit comes due they act like it’s the government’s fault. IOW people want to eat as much as they want and not exercise. Then, when they get fat, they act like it’s the doctor’s fault if he or she doesn’t magically fix it.
Same deal with taxes. Your comments about taxes on hydrogen and water were completely gratuitous: no one has remotely suggested such a scheme and you just made something up so you could criticize it. Basically just the usual “Blah Blah Blah” about how victimized the American people are by a government out of control and willing to tax anything and everything to the nth degree. In fact you have it completely wrong. The American people aren’t the victims they’re the perpetrators — of crimes against future generations: They vote for politicians who pledge not to raise taxes while continuing to demand that the government fork over their goodies. I don’t have a problem with people who want to cut taxes and cut benefits. I don’t have a problem with people who want to raise taxes and raise benefits. But I have a big problem with people who want to cut taxes and raise benefits and are shocked — absolutely shocked — that the books don’t magically balance.
The country has a serious problem. Let me repeat the facts. Government services are 26% of GDP. Taxes are 19% of GDP. Do the math and you end up with a 7% gap between the services people demand and the taxes they pay (you say you don’t want the hydrogen highway but I haven’t seen you railing against the $7500 tax credit for the Volt). To close the gap you have to cut Social Security and Medicare and maybe Defense, or you have to raise taxes. That’s the choice. Pretending that everything will be just fine if we just forgo funding the hydrogen highway fits the Kool-Aid narrative but is at heart complete BS.
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:44 pm)I agree completely! And thanks for bringing us back to the topic of fuel cells. Let me refer those who also agree that hydrogen fuel cells still present many difficult, long-term challenges to my post at #90 above on direct-to-ethanol (DEFC) technology and its inherent advantages that IMO could make DEFC a near-term, highly-viable, low- cost, high-efficiency and low-polluting alternative to hydrogen as well as ICEs & gasoline.
Mar 17th, 2010 (11:46 pm)I have spoken to many oil industry people and engineers in hi places at NASA.
Until all the oil money is made and then, next in line for the natural gas money is made there will be very limited energy options. Oil companies will continue to squash cold fusion that is a reality right now and many many other technologies where ohms law does not apply. For example speak to nuclear sub guys.
They had “black boxes” and were told “don’t worry whats inside” while they watched low energy being input with exceptionally hi energy on the output. Forget ohms law they were told.
With the exception of people with amazingly deep pockets like Bill Gates who is pushing the new clean nuclear energy, oil and natural gas are king for the foreseeable future.
There is a guy right now running a boat engine on hydrogen. He replaced the plugs with an electrolysis device and runs it on hydrogen.
There is so much going on that it’s nuts. Forget the “we are working on hydrogen fuel cells”
It’s already there with many other sources that are kept quiet.
Mar 18th, 2010 (12:11 am)I agree that we need to both raise taxes and cut services. (Preferably a consumption tax.) And raising the minimum age for social security. Also find ways to make medicare a lot more efficient. And, yes, that means “rationing” health care. If so-called “early detection” actually results in worse outcomes, there’s no reason for the government to pay for it.
But given the enormous amount of money that the US government spends on defense, I don’t blame people for being resentful. And when we hear about the amount of sheer waste going on, it’s really hard to justify asking people to make any kind of sacrifice. Even though, by the numbers, social security and medicare is where the money is. Or, at least, where it will be.
Mar 18th, 2010 (7:07 am)DonC, I’m still missing how me NOT wanting the hydrogen highway funded by the government and at the same time NOT wanting taxes raised to do it fits into how you are describing me. I acknowlege the money in/out differential and also acknowlege that the last 2 administrations/congresses (voted in by the people) are responsible for it. My post was to state that this is a service I DON’T think we need and expecially at the high cost to our defecit I don’t want. You don’t cut taxes in a time of war, you don’t spend your way out of a recession by adding insane debt to future generations, and you don’t build a new transportation infrastructure when 3 very developed ones currently exist 3 (nat gas, petrol, and electric). I’m not sure why I’m defending myself from your posts accept that your posts are usually pretty good and I just can’t see based on my post how you lump me into a group of voters that wants the government to do everything for them yet not pay for it.
+1
Mar 18th, 2010 (7:48 am)Is there a mandatory class in engineering school called
“if I can’t figure it out, it can’t happen.”?
Mar 18th, 2010 (9:17 am)The only thing is, that already started to happen. It’s called the Lexus LFA. Most folks that hear about the recent past mistakenly think that it’s the future that’s being described.
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/cliff-kuang/design-innovation/video-lexuss-mind-blowing-carbon-fiber-loom
Mar 18th, 2010 (9:18 am)Wouldn’t that be 1000 “Leaves?”
Mar 18th, 2010 (9:24 am)FYI, if you left-click on the lead in picture, it usually opens to a larger image automatically. That way you wouldn’t need the magnifier.
Mar 18th, 2010 (10:08 am)Now you can never be associated with anyone who ever runs for office,ever. Saying we need to raise taxes in any context is the equivalent of stepping on the third rail.
Mar 18th, 2010 (10:46 am)#169
I don’t have a problem with that. So much the better. I’m just warning against placing too much dependence on unproven, long lead time, technologies.
Mar 18th, 2010 (11:39 am)Yes, to a certain extent. It’s called physics.
Mar 18th, 2010 (12:38 pm)70 amps! Many houses in the United States only have a 60 amp panel. I have owned 5 houses in my life. 2 had a 60 amp panel, and 3 had a 100 amp panel. Even with 100 amps, you would have to shut off everything in the house except for the fridge and sump pump for several hours to charge your car. Again even if your numbers are accurate, charging a Tesla at 70 amps still takes 3 hours! You cannot drive this vehicle on a trip anywhere. It is nothing more than a commuter car. A very expensive commuter car. Lyle reports his ’100 mile’ range Mini actually gets him between 55 and 70 miles in real world driving. I doubt if the Tesla can make 200 miles unless it’s drafting a diesel truck.
Mar 18th, 2010 (1:54 pm)Good one, 10X better than what I was about to say. Used to have a physics prof who ended every lecture with “just remember — F=ma, and you can’t push on a rope!”. Maybe some of you recognize this. I’m sure he is long gone now, but I will never forget his saying it.
The primary thing my engineering background often makes me want to say here is, “Show me the numbers”. Sometimes people post things here which just don’t add up. Such as someone recently claiming wheel-in-hub would be x% more efficient than the Volt’s setup. I didn’t run the numbers, but I suspect if it were true, the CV joints on a Volt (or any other car) would have to be glowing red-hot. The energy has to go somewhere, folks. The inputs and outputs have to match up. Similarly you can’t just dump water onto a magic catalyst and have it separate into hydrogen and oxygen, there has to be an energy input somewhere.
I have no doubt that somebody out there is running a boat (or motorcycle or whatever) with hydrogen. But the question then becomes, as always, how was the hydrogen generated, and how much fossil fuel was used in doing it??
Also funny to see us worrying about water vapor as a “pollutant”. In the worst case it would cause a tiny bit more rain/fog/snow. If you are that worried about things, ride a bicycle, or stay in the house. Oh by the way, every breath we take puts out the dreaded CO2, the only solution I can think of for that pollution problem involves a bullet…
Mar 18th, 2010 (5:11 pm)There are a lot homes with 200A service, but you are right there are many with less and even those with more may not have the free capacity to add a 70A circuit safely (per code). You can read numerous first hand accounts of Tesla’s real world range. Basically, you can’t drive 500 miles in a day with the current generation Roadster but you could travel 180 miles to a park with charging and make it back that night. There are lots of scenarios you can drive lots of miles but no you can’t go cross country in 3 days or 350 miles to grandma’s in one shot. The next generation and the Model S will be able to charge a lot faster, making even more trips practical.
+1
Mar 18th, 2010 (10:14 pm)Dear GM, surprised you are still working on making a dead horse more efficient? Hydrogen is a very poor energy carrier that is either made with an highly energy intensive processes or a highly polluting process (steam reformation of natural gas). The well to wheels efficiency of the Volt on battery power is 2 to 3 times as efficient as a Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle, so why play with Hydrogen?
How are you going to protect your fuel cells from Hydrogen Sulfide gas (the rotten egg smell made by simple common bacteria) that can destroy the fuel cells?
I guess you are still getting Government “Pork” from the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Lobby or the Volt program has too many former Fuel Cell engineers. I had hoped this foolishness was over when Frank Weber left. This was the kind of foolishness that drove my GM stock into the ground. Put the Volt on the road and work on better batteries instead, please!
Mar 19th, 2010 (7:30 am)I read that hydrogen stored under pressure is the hardest thing to store. It’s the smallest element so leaks at a very high rate. The Volt will have a sealed tank to stop petrol evaporating out. Hydrogen is 10x worse! The sealants and metals have to be of a much higher grade (expensive alloys) and manufactured to a higher quality than any gas tank just to stop any filled gas leaking slowly into the atmosphere! Also, i prefer carrying a few litres of petrol to hydrogen at an explosive few 1000PSI
Mar 20th, 2010 (8:52 am)GM makes a good portion of money off the powertrain. if the powertrain goes away, and they have to buy it from somebody else, their profit margin goes way lower than it currently is. They can’t afford not to make batteries and the prime mover, whether it’s an ICE or a Fuel Cell.
Mar 20th, 2010 (8:54 am)Hydrogen is a good energy carrier per mass, theoretically, if you can figure out how to store it.
Mar 21st, 2010 (8:32 pm)I’m glad you said, “If you can figure out how to store it (practically)”. To me a good energy carrier is one that is energy efficient, cost effective, safe, and practical to use; Hydrogen is none of the above.
Mar 22nd, 2010 (1:20 pm)A week ago when I was driving home from wherever I was at, I think I noticed one of the shell stations with a big sign up saying they have hydrogen. It was probably something else though, because I live in Everett, WA… which is one of the largest cities in the state, but still a has a pretty low population density.
Mar 22nd, 2010 (6:30 pm)Hydrogen is actually quite a bit safer than gasoline in many instances. It’s light, so when there is a leak, it immediately escapes into the atmosphere. Gasoline puddles and it’s vapors are a danger until it is cleaned up. You can’t even compare the two tanks (sealants and metals). All hydrogen tanks are made of advanced composites that don’t leak or do so VERY slowly. Fuel cell cars have been tested all over the world and the tanks are proven to be extremely effective. They are very extensively tested and are literally impossible to make explode. They can take a direct shot with a gun and all it will due is start a leak. They cost more, but are actually significantly safer, unless you are indoors. A hydrogen leak indoors would be extremely dangerous because it would accumulate at the ceiling until vented…
Mar 23rd, 2010 (5:51 am)Hydrogen at high pressure will self ignite through a pinhole leak, because of friction of the escaping gas. The flame is nearly invisible except for the heat waves. Workers in some areas with high pressure hydrogen present still use the “broom” test. As they slowly walk, they wave a dry grass broom in front of them; if the broom bursts into flame they know they have a leak. Most of the people burned on the Hindenburg were burned by the diesel fuel and the material that made up the skin of the ship, because the hydrogen went up away from the ship quickly as it burned. Hydrogen isn’t a safer fuel the problems are just different. Just imagine reaching for a shutoff valve and finding a invisible flamethrower first with your hand.