Test Driving the Fuel Cell: Chevrolet Equinox

[91 s-10baja]

http://blog.gmnext.com/?p=202

[dindak]

I actually saw one of these on the road. Very cool.

Too bad they are are 5-10 years off commercial sales.

[suckstobeyou]

Wayne State has the A-class fuel cell cars from Benz, very nice rides. THe police uses them to patrol the campus.

[edsuski]

Can someone help me understand the Hydrogen Fuel Cell model?

By most estimates - the needed infrastructure is eight to ten years away (converting a significant number of today's gas stations into Hydrogen refueling stations).

The energy required to produce H2, compress, cool and store it would result in more driving range if the energy were simply used to charge a Li Ion battery (such as those used in the Tesla and Volt). The basic physics does not seem to make sense (?).

I fear that Hydrogen fuel cells are simply a diversion from the real and technically feasible PHEV's. In many ways it looks like gasoline (it would likely be delivered by trucks and stored in tanks and distributed through hydrogen "gas" pumps etc.) so it would re-use the current business model of gasoline stations but, you would still need to visit the station to refuel.

The needed infrastructure to refuel PHEV's is essentially 100% deployed to virtually every home in America. For longer trips you would have to rely on some other type of fuel such as gasoline or E85 etc. but, the infrastructure for, at least gasoline, already exists. And remember – 78% of America commutes less than 40 miles per day so the consumption of gasoline “could” be reduced to far below what we can supply domestically when enough PHEV’s were in service.

As for Hydrogen being the most "prevalent" molecule in the universe (something usually stated to “justify” the use of H+ fuel cells), one needs to keep in mind that the electrons used to charge a PHEV are also endless. You simply have to make them move in one side of the charging circuit and out the other. Of course, the power company has to generate the power - but MORE power is needed per mile to create Hydrogen. What, if anything, am I missing here? Seriously - hydrogen seems to make no sense from a physics stand point - much less an infrastructure stand point.

I'm not saying that we could not make hydrogen fuel cells work in automobiles - but rather why should we? They would require more energy per mile than PHEV's and a HUGE investments in infrastructure to make them feasible. Of course, until we actually start – it will always be nearly a decade away. And until the infrastructure is significantly in place, we will continue to buy huge amounts of oil from the Middle East and continue to make the current energy companies record profits (I may have answered my own question here). Help me out – why use Hydrogen fuel cells?

[MisterMe]

After Alan Shepherd's first suborbital flight in 1962, President Kennedy announced a national goal of sending a man to the Moon and returning him safely to Earth by 1970. Despite the two-year delay due to the Apollo 1 launch pad fire, Neil Armstrong stepped on the Moon on July 20, 1969. That was 4.5 months ahead of schedule. If NASA had not been forced to redesign the Apollo capsule, then we could have done the deed at least a year earlier.

Most of the technology to put a man on the Moon was developed during the seven years following President Kennedy's speech. OTOH, the biggest hurdle facing hydrogen is mass storage. That's not a huge problem. Hydrogen's other challenges are mainly tweaks to existing technologies. It is nowhere near as daunting a challenge as putting a man on the Moon.

Originally Posted by edsuski

Can someone help me understand the Hydrogen Fuel Cell model?

Hydrogen is not a fuel. It is an energy storage mechanism somewhat like batteries and tanks of compressed air. Unlike batteries, hydrogen storage does not lose capacity over time.

Originally Posted by edsuski

By most estimates - the needed infrastructure is eight to ten years away (converting a significant number of today's gas stations into Hydrogen refueling stations).

Whose estimates? There was a time when service stations sold two or three grades of leaded gasoline. We have deleted lead, added diesel to passenger car pump stations, and added various formulations of MBTE, and now blends of ethanol. Do you think that any of these changes required eight years?

Hydrogen generation requires water, which every service station already has; electricity, which every service station already has; an electrolysis station; hydrogen compressors; and hydrogen storage tanks.

Originally Posted by edsuski

The energy required to produce H2, compress, cool and store it would result in more driving range if the energy were simply used to charge a Li Ion battery (such as those used in the Tesla and Volt). The basic physics does not seem to make sense (?).

As I said above, batteries lose capacity over time. Hydrogen tanks do not. As for energy use, all energy systems suffer losses. It is called the "Second Law of Thermodynamics." Look it up.

Where do you get the notion that a Li+ rechargeable battery would result in greater driving range than hydrogen storage tank? To be a general replacement for gasoline, the vehicle should get at least 300 miles (500 km) on a fuel-up. Lithium batteries are much less massive than lead batteries, but they are still batteries and are still massive. The only way to increase the range of a battery is to increase its mass. OTOH, if you use compressed hydrogen, then you increase the range by increasing the amount of hydrogen. Most of the mass is in the storage tank. Increase the amount of hydrogen by increasing its pressure. The mass goes up only slightly. If you want a higher capacity tank, then the increase in mass scales slower than the increase in capacity.

Originally Posted by edsuski

I fear that Hydrogen fuel cells are simply a diversion from the real and technically feasible PHEV's. In many ways it looks like gasoline (it would likely be delivered by trucks and stored in tanks and distributed through hydrogen "gas" pumps etc.) so it would re-use the current business model of gasoline stations but, you would still need to visit the station to refuel.

You make a lot of assumptions that simply are not true. First off, there is no conflict between plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) and hydrogen. Hydrogen does not imply fuel cell. It can be burned in an internal combustion engine (ICE) much like natural or compressed petroleum gas. BMW's hydrogen-powered 7 series uses a V-8. Like the BMW, hydrogen can be used to power the chemical engine of a hybrid. As I have stated above, hydrogen does not have to be transported by large trucks. It can be generated by the filling station on site.

Although hydrogen can be used in ICEs, it is most efficient in fuel cells. Try as I might, I do not see hybrids as anything other than a transition technology. They have the mass of an ICE, the mass of electric drive motors, the mass of storage batteries, and the complex electrical and mechanical systems required to manage their two drive systems. With added mass comes added inefficiencies.

Originally Posted by edsuski

The needed infrastructure to refuel PHEV's is essentially 100% deployed to virtually every home in America. For longer trips you would have to rely on some other type of fuel such as gasoline or E85 etc. but, the infrastructure for, at least gasoline, already exists. And remember – 78% of America commutes less than 40 miles per day so the consumption of gasoline “could” be reduced to far below what we can supply domestically when enough PHEV’s were in service.

The PHEV is at its best if the owner has a solar-powered recharging station. However, solar power can also be used to generate the hydrogen required by a hydrogen-powered car. Of course, a hydrogen generator, a compressor, and a storage tank will be required. Do you expect that the costs of these home additions will be out of line with home additions of the past such as central air conditioning?

Originally Posted by edsuski

... They would require more energy per mile than PHEV's and a HUGE investments in infrastructure to make them feasible. ... Help me out – why use Hydrogen fuel cells?

I just don't see the requirement for your HUGE investments in infrastructure. We won't build the infrastructure by the end of the week, but I believe that it can be done within five years. That would be about the same time that it would have taken us to get to the Moon if the Apollo 1 capsule had never burned.

[D C]

Originally Posted by edsuski

Can someone help me understand the Hydrogen Fuel Cell model?

Water is NOT required for hydrogen production, only a compound containing hydrogen. Water is not typically used for producing hydrogen in the US today.

A significant portion of the hydrogen produced in the US today is a byproduct of oil refining (how ironic).

The current cost of a kilogram of hydrogen is somewhere in the $5-6/kg range (current prices are tough to come by). A kg of hydrogen has approximately the same energy as a gallon of gas. But where a gas engine is maybe 25% efficient, a fuel cell is more like 50% efficient. So that $5-6/kg of hydrogen is like $2.50-3.00/gallon of gas equivalent.

For a small fleet and relatively small geographic area (like LA) the logistics aren't too bad.

[EricR42]

I am one of the NY Project Driveway drivers. I can say that the fuel cell Equinox is a fantastic vehicle. Smooth, snappy acceleration (I timed 0-60 in the 9.5 second range) and very quiet. This is to be expected from an electric powertrain.

Regarding the "why hydrogen?" question, the main reasons are 3 minute fillups and scalability to different size vehicles. PHEV is great if you don't plan on exceeding your charge during the day and are satisfied with a relatively small car (the relationship between battery weight and vehicle size reaches a point of diminishing returns) . Gasoline range extenders like in the Volt are a great mid-term solution. But hydrogen is truly renewable, and can be made in a truly renewable manner. With gas prices the way they are currently, hydrogen is cheaper on a cost per mile basis than gasoline, even when generating hydrogen in the least efficient manner (water electrolysis).

To illustrate with my experience, over the course of my last fillup, I averaged 54 miles per kg of hydrogen. This was combined stop-and-go, highway and city driving. My understanding of the cost of hydrogen via water electrolysis is about $8/kg. The gasoline Equinox gets about 19 or 20 mpg. So, although a kg of hydrogen costs twice as much as 1 gallon of gas, the fuel cell variant gets more than twice the mileage. Generating hydrogen from steam reforming natural gas (the most common means of generating hydrogen), the cost per kg will be between $3.00 and $5.00.

With regard to scalability, a fuel cell stack can be used to power everything from portable electronics to a large ship. The one in the Equinox is GM's 4th generation. The Provoq has the 5th gen which is half the size, and 80% the power. And the 4th gen powertrain generates 236 pounds of torque.

One big impediment to widespread commercialization of fuel cells is that local municipalities don't know how to permit the refueling stations. I am working on this issue now with my town, but it will take a serious grass-roots efforts to help (or convince) the municipalities to create the permitting process now, so that these processes will be in place as vehicle production begins to scale up.

- Eric

[AndrewGS]

Originally Posted by EricR42

I am one of the NY Project Driveway drivers. I can say that the fuel cell Equinox is a fantastic vehicle. Smooth, snappy acceleration (I timed 0-60 in the 9.5 second range) and very quiet. This is to be expected from an electric powertrain.

Regarding the "why hydrogen?" question, the main reasons are 3 minute fillups and scalability to different size vehicles. PHEV is great if you don't plan on exceeding your charge during the day and are satisfied with a relatively small car (the relationship between battery weight and vehicle size reaches a point of diminishing returns) . Gasoline range extenders like in the Volt are a great mid-term solution. But hydrogen is truly renewable, and can be made in a truly renewable manner. With gas prices the way they are currently, hydrogen is cheaper on a cost per mile basis than gasoline, even when generating hydrogen in the least efficient manner (water electrolysis).

To illustrate with my experience, over the course of my last fillup, I averaged 54 miles per kg of hydrogen. This was combined stop-and-go, highway and city driving. My understanding of the cost of hydrogen via water electrolysis is about $8/kg. The gasoline Equinox gets about 19 or 20 mpg. So, although a kg of hydrogen costs twice as much as 1 gallon of gas, the fuel cell variant gets more than twice the mileage. Generating hydrogen from steam reforming natural gas (the most common means of generating hydrogen), the cost per kg will be between $3.00 and $5.00.

With regard to scalability, a fuel cell stack can be used to power everything from portable electronics to a large ship. The one in the Equinox is GM's 4th generation. The Provoq has the 5th gen which is half the size, and 80% the power. And the 4th gen powertrain generates 236 pounds of torque.

One big impediment to widespread commercialization of fuel cells is that local municipalities don't know how to permit the refueling stations. I am working on this issue now with my town, but it will take a serious grass-roots efforts to help (or convince) the municipalities to create the permitting process now, so that these processes will be in place as vehicle production begins to scale up.

- Eric

Good to see you post again, Eric. The more I read about hydrogen the more I wish I could drive one and show off the technology. It must be amazing to get to do this with the Equinox and not even have to pay for it, unlike the Honda FCX Clarity.

Have you taken any photos of it yet?

[jm5877]

That Equinox doghouse styling should have been incorporated into the current Equinox's MCE, It's 50,000 times better looking than what is on dealer lots. I know this comment counts as missing the point of the post, but I felt it needed to be said.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by MisterMe

After Alan Shepherd's first suborbital flight in 1962, President Kennedy announced a national goal of sending a man to the Moon and returning him safely to Earth by 1970. Despite the two-year delay due to the Apollo 1 launch pad fire, Neil Armstrong stepped on the Moon on July 20, 1969. That was 4.5 months ahead of schedule. If NASA had not been forced to redesign the Apollo capsule, then we could have done the deed at least a year earlier.

Not sure what this has to do with the discussion, but I agree that we as a country could do a lot if we have the will and the "right" leadership. Unfortunately, we have not had a serious energy policy since Jimmy Carter and his was largely conservation and not alternate energy sources.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Most of the technology to put a man on the Moon was developed during the seven years following President Kennedy's speech. OTOH, the biggest hurdle facing hydrogen is mass storage. That's not a huge problem. Hydrogen's other challenges are mainly tweaks to existing technologies. It is nowhere near as daunting a challenge as putting a man on the Moon.

Again - comparing this to a nearly decade campaign to put a man on the moon seems irrelevant. As you know, fuel cells were used on the Apollo missions and I'm sure the effort to put men on the moon helped move along the technology. However, we are talking about some high fraction of nearly 200,000 refueling stations that will have little economic incentive to be built in the early years. This is likely to prove much more difficult to do than you are thinking.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Hydrogen is not a fuel. It is an energy storage mechanism somewhat like batteries and tanks of compressed air. Unlike batteries, hydrogen storage does not lose capacity over time.

I beg to differ. All fuels are energy storage mechanisms (as are compressed air and hydraulic systems). The definition of Fuel is "any material....burned to supply heat or power.". When you burn something you oxidize it. When you operate certain types of hydrogen fuel cells you combine the hydrogen with oxygen and the result is electrical current and water. Assuming that hydrogen does not leak, it can be stored for long periods of time but Li Ion batteries have very low losses in "stand-by" mode. They can also be set to complete charging whenever you want. The "typical" operation would be to have them charged within hours of needing them. Most of us leave for work at approx. the same time each day. The loss over even days would amount to only a few cents worth of power.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Whose estimates? There was a time when service stations sold two or three grades of leaded gasoline. We have deleted lead, added diesel to passenger car pump stations, and added various formulations of MBTE, and now blends of ethanol. Do you think that any of these changes required eight years?

According to the Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham in a presentation given on April 28, 2003:

“The vision of the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy is that a participating country’s consumers will have the practical option of purchasing a competitively priced hydrogen power vehicle, and be able to refuel it near their homes and places of work, by 2020.”

That implies 17 years to develop the infrastructure.

According to the CEO of Honda in a Wall Street Journal article:

"WSJ: So how many years away are we from having hydrogen refueling stations for fuel-cell vehicles?

Mr. Fukui: That’s not going to happen really quickly. It’s happening in California, and may eventually happen in several other states, and also Japan and Europe. We are working on the technology where we can charge hydrogen into fuel-cell vehicles at homes. So probably in the next 10 years we will get some level of infrastructure in place.”

“Some level of infrastructure” in the next ten years.... I have yet to see any estimates that it will happen in less than 8-10 years and that is only if we start in enerest today.

In stark contrast - the electrical infrastructure is deployed to nearly 100% of the homes in America TODAY to refuel PHEV's.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Hydrogen generation requires water, which every service station already has; electricity, which every service station already has; an electrolysis station; hydrogen compressors; and hydrogen storage tanks.

Actually, as another contributor has already pointed out - water is not the most likely source of Hydrogen. Of course, it could be, but only at a very large cost in energy to strip the Hydrogen molecules from the water. Again - more energy than it would take to charge a battery to travel the same distance (i.e. not as efficient as simply charging a battery - even with the small discharge that would happen over a few hours or even days.).

Originally Posted by MisterMe

As I said above, batteries lose capacity over time. Hydrogen tanks do not. As for energy use, all energy systems suffer losses. It is called the "Second Law of Thermodynamics." Look it up.

My Dear Sir - you have absolutely no idea of my background in physics and engineering so I will overlook your comment. I have fully understood the second law of thermodynamics since before high school and have applied it to earn numerous patents and develop technology for over 20 years now. You continue to make statements without answering the question - why Hydrogen?

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Where do you get the notion that a Li+ rechargeable battery would result in greater driving range than hydrogen storage tank? To be a general replacement for gasoline, the vehicle should get at least 300 miles (500 km) on a fuel-up. Lithium batteries are much less massive than lead batteries, but they are still batteries and are still massive. The only way to increase the range of a battery is to increase its mass. OTOH, if you use compressed hydrogen, then you increase the range by increasing the amount of hydrogen. Most of the mass is in the storage tank. Increase the amount of hydrogen by increasing its pressure. The mass goes up only slightly. If you want a higher capacity tank, then the increase in mass scales slower than the increase in capacity.

You have totally missed the most important point. My point was that the exact same amount of energy needed to produce a kg of hydrogen would result in more range if that same energy were simply used to charge a battery. Do you understand the difference in the efficiency of a battery-electric motor system vs. a Hydrogen fuel cell-electric motor system?

Originally Posted by MisterMe

You make a lot of assumptions that simply are not true. First off, there is no conflict between plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) and hydrogen. Hydrogen does not imply fuel cell. It can be burned in an internal combustion engine (ICE) much like natural or compressed petroleum gas. BMW's hydrogen-powered 7 series uses a V-8. Like the BMW, hydrogen can be used to power the chemical engine of a hybrid. As I have stated above, hydrogen does not have to be transported by large trucks. It can be generated by the filling station on site.

Again - it is less efficient, purely from an energy in vs. range out perspective, to produce hydrogen to be used by a fuel cell or burned directly in an ICE. Why go to all of the trouble to produce the infrastructure needed to use hydrogen when you could use less energy to charge a battery? Yes - the initial batteries will give you a range of only 40-200 miles. A 40 mile range would satisfy 78% of Americans daily commute to and from work. 78% of the population using zero oil to commute to and from work would be a great start.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Although hydrogen can be used in ICEs, it is most efficient in fuel cells. Try as I might, I do not see hybrids as anything other than a transition technology. They have the mass of an ICE, the mass of electric drive motors, the mass of storage batteries, and the complex electrical and mechanical systems required to manage their two drive systems. With added mass comes added inefficiencies.

In fact, PEHV's such as the Volt have no linkage between the ICE and the wheels. They can be built with no transmission (due to high RPM of electric motors and high torque at zero RPM). The ICE in the Volt will turn only a generator that will power the drive motor. Actually, serial PHEV's such as the Volt are much less complicated mechanically as the so called dual mode or parallel hybrid vehicles (i.e. Toyota Prius).

Originally Posted by MisterMe

The PHEV is at its best if the owner has a solar-powered recharging station. However, solar power can also be used to generate the hydrogen required by a hydrogen-powered car. Of course, a hydrogen generator, a compressor, and a storage tank will be required. Do you expect that the costs of these home additions will be out of line with home additions of the past such as central air conditioning?

The one demonstration hydrogen generating station I have seen that used solar cells to generate the energy needed to produce hydrogen had solar collectors that covered the whole area of a "typical" gas station and was able to produce only 12 kg of hydrogen per day. Do you have nay idea what the efficiency and/or cost of such solar cells are? Even if it were possible to use enough area to produce more energy - it would result in greater range if you used that same energy to charge a battery. Are you getting the common theme of this yet?

Originally Posted by MisterMe

I just don't see the requirement for your HUGE investments in infrastructure. We won't build the infrastructure by the end of the week, but I believe that it can be done within five years. That would be about the same time that it would have taken us to get to the Moon if the Apollo 1 capsule had never burned.

What could be done and what makes sense to do are often entirely different. As for your estimate of 5 years - the Secretary of Energy and the CEO of Honda do not agree with you.

I don't mean to stifle discussion. The bottom line is that it would take more energy to drive a mile on hydrogen that it would to simply charge a battery. Battery charging infrastructure is 100% deployed (11-13 amps at 120V). Long trips would require another energy source such as gasoline, E85 or even a hydrogen fuel cell. If we simpy relied on gasoline or E85 – then the infrastructure for it exists today. It simply does not make sense to use the hydrogen fuel cell when 78% of the commuting in the United States could be accomplished with zero oil using a battery with only 40 miles range. The small amount of travel that would require an alternate source (when the batteries die) could easily be handled by domestic production.

Why Hydrogen?

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by EricR42

I am one of the NY Project Driveway drivers. I can say that the fuel cell Equinox is a fantastic vehicle. Smooth, snappy acceleration (I timed 0-60 in the 9.5 second range) and very quiet. This is to be expected from an electric powertrain.

Eric,

Glad to hear you are enjoying the Equinox. Keep in mind that no one is claiming that hydrogen fuel cells are not "capable" of driving a car. I am only questioning the logic behind trying to develop the needed massive infrastructure to support such a technology and the efficiency of using power to generate hydrogen when the same amount of power would result in more range in a PHEV. Especially since the infrastructure needed to recharge a PHEV is 100% deployed to virtually every home in America today. A small fraction of the existing gas stations could be used to support longer trips. Infrastructure done!

Originally Posted by EricR42

Regarding the "why hydrogen?" question, the main reasons are 3 minute fillups and scalability to different size vehicles. PHEV is great if you don't plan on exceeding your charge during the day and are satisfied with a relatively small car (the relationship between battery weight and vehicle size reaches a point of diminishing returns) . Gasoline range extenders like in the Volt are a great mid-term solution. But hydrogen is truly renewable, and can be made in a truly renewable manner. With gas prices the way they are currently, hydrogen is cheaper on a cost per mile basis than gasoline, even when generating hydrogen in the least efficient manner (water electrolysis).

3 minute fill-ups take how long? You drive to a station (if you are lucky it is on the way home) and stop and connect the car to the pump and then process the payment and then fill the tank and then disconnect the filling hose from the car. Is it safe to say we are a little over 3 minutes? Not to mention that there are exactly how may filling stations that you can use? I am guessing that you were selected for the trial because you are close to the only station within many miles. You get my point. PHEV are simply plugged in at home each night (with a little luck you will simply drive it into a docking station similar in some was to what your notebook computer uses). The car will be charged during off-peak time and be full every morning. You may never have to visit a "gas" station again. In fact, GM estimates that 78% of Americans drive less than 40 miles to commute to and from work each day. That is within the range of the upcoming Volt PHEV.

As for scalability - Busses and even trains use electric motors. In the case of "bullet" trains the power is drawn from a "wire" so there is little or no battery needed but they are in a sense "plugged in". Diesel electric trains have existed for many decades. In this case, the diesel engine runs at it's most efficient speed and drives a generator. The energy is used to drive the electric motor. I'm not sure the scalability argument is valid – but I will give it more thought.

Originally Posted by EricR42

To illustrate with my experience, over the course of my last fillup, I averaged 54 miles per kg of hydrogen. This was combined stop-and-go, highway and city driving. My understanding of the cost of hydrogen via water electrolysis is about $8/kg. The gasoline Equinox gets about 19 or 20 mpg. So, although a kg of hydrogen costs twice as much as 1 gallon of gas, the fuel cell variant gets more than twice the mileage. Generating hydrogen from steam reforming natural gas (the most common means of generating hydrogen), the cost per kg will be between $3.00 and $5.00.

A Chevy Volt will travel 40 miles on approximately $1.60 worth of electricity at California's ridiculously high rates ($0.20 per KW/hr). That represents 40 miles for less than $0.80 in most of the rest of the country. Using your low cost of $3.00/kg/54 miles you are getting 1 mile for 5.5 cents (15 cents per mile at $8/kg). The Volt, even in California, will cost only 4 cents per mile. 2 cents per mile in most of the rest of the country (or less). Again - with 100% of the recharging infrastructure in place today - and, conveniently, in peoples homes.

Originally Posted by EricR42

With regard to scalability, a fuel cell stack can be used to power everything from portable electronics to a large ship. The one in the Equinox is GM's 4th generation. The Provoq has the 5th gen which is half the size, and 80% the power. And the 4th gen powertrain generates 236 pounds of torque.

Of course you realize that the torque is a function of the motor used and the current the fuel cell can deliver. As you know, even the simple lead acid battery in your car can deliver 300-600 amps for short periods of time so I suspect that a battery design could ultimately deliver as much or (considerably) more current than a "typical" fuel cell resulting in even more torque (depending on the internal resistance of the battery).

Originally Posted by EricR42

One big impediment to widespread commercialization of fuel cells is that local municipalities don't know how to permit the refueling stations. I am working on this issue now with my town, but it will take a serious grass-roots efforts to help (or convince) the municipalities to create the permitting process now, so that these processes will be in place as vehicle production begins to scale up.

- Eric

I think you are right. It is likely to take a decade or more to get a significant number of the 200K gas stations to offer hydrogen and then at a tremendous cost. This begs the question - why? Especially when 100% of the needed infrastructure exist today to recharge a PHEV.

I really would like to understand the reasoning behind the huge investment the government and car companies have put into hydrogen fuel cells. If there is any way I could ask this question to your "Project Driveway" team? I would really be interested in understanding their reasoning. I’m not trying to simply argue, but rather understand.

Ed

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by D C

Water is NOT required for hydrogen production, only a compound containing hydrogen. Water is not typically used for producing hydrogen in the US today.

A significant portion of the hydrogen produced in the US today is a byproduct of oil refining (how ironic).

The current cost of a kilogram of hydrogen is somewhere in the $5-6/kg range (current prices are tough to come by). A kg of hydrogen has approximately the same energy as a gallon of gas. But where a gas engine is maybe 25% efficient, a fuel cell is more like 50% efficient. So that $5-6/kg of hydrogen is like $2.50-3.00/gallon of gas equivalent.

For a small fleet and relatively small geographic area (like LA) the logistics aren't too bad.

DC,

Thanks for the explanation. However, for $1.60 (in Southern Cal.) I could recharge the Volt and drive 40 miles. If you assume a 20 mpg efficiency for the "average" car (likely less) then that would represent $0.80 per gallon. Less than 1/3 the cost of Hydrogen. That is why I don't understand the big push. Especially since the needed infrastructure to support Hydrogen is likely a decade away and will require a huge investment. The infrastructure to recharge a PHEV is 100% deployed to virtually every home in America today. A small fraction of the existing 200K gas stations could be used to supply some type of fuel for longer trips. Infrastructure done! I don't get the attraction to Hydrogen.

Ed

[E-Flex]

Originally Posted by edsuski

Why Hydrogen?

You almost wrote it yourself:

Originally Posted by edsuski

The bottom line is that it would take more energy to drive a mile on hydrogen that it would to simply charge a battery. Battery charging infrastructure is 100% deployed (11-13 amps at 120V). Long trips would require another energy source such as gasoline, E85 or even a hydrogen fuel cell. If we simpy relied on gasoline or E85 – then the infrastructure for it exists today.

Fossil fuel may be available much longer than we are expecting today, but we keep exploiting it much faster than it can ever regenerate, so it definitely will disappear some day. And we should have a substitute ready by then. Another issue are the toxic emissions we cannot get completely rid of as long as we keep burning fossil fuel.

As far as I know, emissions produced by burning E85 are even more toxic (There is not only CO2!), and food prices are already exploding because farmers are producing E85 instead of food. This may be not a big issue in the US or the EU, but third world countries are running into a really severe problem.

Hydrogen fuel cells do not produce any toxic emissions, hydrogen does not compete with food for farming ground, and hydrogen is renewable in the sense that it is still contained in the steam emitted by the fuel cell.

Originally Posted by edsuski

It simply does not make sense to use the hydrogen fuel cell when 78% of the commuting in the United States could be accomplished with zero oil using a battery with only 40 miles range.

This is ok as long as you are not using your car for anything else that getting from home to work. After work, you cannot visit granny in the neighbouring town becuase you first have to recharge your car for several hours. The journey to your holiday resort in Florida will take five times as long because you must recharge several times.

This may change as soon as really strong batteries (400 miles per charge in real life) or faster recharging (max. 15 min) are possible, but I do not see them appear at the horizon.

[Z16monte]

Originally Posted by E-Flex

You almost wrote it yourself:



Fossil fuel may be available much longer than we are expecting today, but we keep exploiting it much faster than it can ever regenerate, so it definitely will disappear some day. And we should have a substitute ready by then. Another issue are the toxic emissions we cannot get completely rid of as long as we keep burning fossil fuel.

As far as I know, emissions produced by burning E85 are even more toxic (There is not only CO2!), and food prices are already exploding because farmers are producing E85 instead of food. This may be not a big issue in the US or the EU, but third world countries are running into a really severe problem.

Hydrogen fuel cells do not produce any toxic emissions, hydrogen does not compete with food for farming ground, and hydrogen is renewable in the sense that it is still contained in the steam emitted by the fuel cell.



This is ok as long as you are not using your car for anything else that getting from home to work. After work, you cannot visit granny in the neighbouring town becuase you first have to recharge your car for several hours. The journey to your holiday resort in Florida will take five times as long because you must recharge several times.

This may change as soon as really strong batteries (400 miles per charge in real life) or faster recharging (max. 15 min) are possible, but I do not see them appear at the horizon.

The majority of electricity in the US is generated by fossil fuels,either oil or coal.Mostly coal.Neither battery/electric or hydrogen powere car are going to help in that situation.
Ed