GM Delivers Fuel Cell Equinox to EPA for Testing

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by 96_impala_ss

i saw one of those fuel cell equinox last week here in alexandria va.

i think fuel cell has a better possibility than a all electric car to replace fossil fuel since an electric car still pollutes in the long run (coal for electricity and other forms of pollution from generating electricity) and will strain the electrical grid.

First, as another member pointed out, Hydrogen does not exist in nature by itself. Energy has to be used to separate hydrogen atoms from the molecules they are so tightly bound to. In fact, it takes considerably more energy to make, compress and cool hydrogen and ultimately burn that hydrogen in a 50% efficient fuel cell to drive a mile than it would to simply charge a battery. Let me say this another way - the exact same amount of energy used to drive a mile on hydrogen would result in more than two miles from a plug-in electric vehicle such as the Volt. Any source of electricity can be used to recharge a PHEV including solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal or even clean coal plants - so it does not have to be carbon producing.

Maybe even more importantly, the infrastructure needed to make hydrogen fuel cells viable for widespread transportation is at least 10-15 years away and would require ten's to hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in an infrastructure that does not exist at all today and is not needed for anything else today. I bring this up because the second part of your statement concerns the power grid.

The Department of Energy predicts that 85% of the passenger vehicles and light trucks in the United States could be re-charged during off-peak time (other that 2:00 pm - 9:00 pm) WITHOUT adding a singe wire or power generating plant to the grid. Off peak charging of plug-in electric vehicles will not be an issue until the number of vehicles exceed 85% of the existing vehicles.

At some point, many years down the road, we would need to improve the electric distribution system - but how is that a bad thing? We already rely completely on this existing infrastructure. We have already invested billions of dollars in it. Why would we even consider building a completely new, currently unnecessary infrastructure to support hydrogen when 78% of us could commute to and from work using ZERO oil in a Chevy Volt that is scheduled to reach production in likely less than two years? Hydrogen fuel cells are a diversion from the solution that is staring us in the face today.

PHEV's first, solar, wind, geothermal and bio-fuels next. Improvements in battery energy density and reductions in charging times will increase the percentage of people who could use ZERO oil to commute to and from work from today's 78% quickly to 80%, 85% and more. We should redirect the money and efforts being directed to hydrogen fuel cells to the real solution - Plug In Electric Vehicles.

[steve333]

Originally Posted by 96_impala_ss

i saw one of those fuel cell equinox last week here in alexandria va.

i think fuel cell has a better possibility than a all electric car to replace fossil fuel since an electric car still pollutes in the long run (coal for electricity and other forms of pollution from generating electricity) and will strain the electrical grid.

And the fact that not all cars have an access to an outlet.

[Carguy]

Originally Posted by nsap

Oh? What will the EPA do with it? They don't even know how to "test" a Volt.

((((AMEN!!))))

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by steve333

And the fact that not all cars have an access to an outlet.

No one solution is for everyone. If you can not figure out how to access a 110V outlet in the United States to save approximately $300 per month (assumes 40 miles per day) then simply continue to spend the extra $300 per month for the next 10 - 15 years until you are able to find hydrogen re-fueling stations across the united states.

Just because some people don't have a plug in their garage or apartment car port or park on the street - does not justify the rest of the country waiting 10 -15 years to become independent from Middle East oil. We need to pursue the most realistic and expedient solutions possible. We owe this to our fighting men and women in Iraq.......

[jorgesalazar521@msn.com]

ya i thought theb stupid epa got a freebie to slam gm on something else. pissed because of volt rating

[ronald mcretard]

Originally Posted by edsuski

No one solution is for everyone. If you can not figure out how to access a 110V outlet in the United States to save approximately $300 per month (assumes 40 miles per day) then simply continue to spend the extra $300 per month for the next 10 - 15 years until you are able to find hydrogen re-fueling stations across the united states.

Just because you can't solve this very simple problem does not justify the rest of the country waiting 10 -15 years to become independent from Middle East oil. We need to pursue the most realistic and expedient solutions possible. We owe this to our fighting men and women in Iraq.......

Very true, we should explore all options, including hydrogen.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by ronald mcretard

Very true, we should explore all options, including hydrogen.

We should explore all options but we should do so using critical thinking. If plug in electric vehicles will allow 78% of the U.S. population to commute to and from work using ZERO oil - we should accelerate our efforts and concentrate our resources in this area rather than invest billions of dollars and delay 10-15 years for a hydrogen infrastructure. Hydrogen does not make sense from a basic energy, investment or time frame point of view. Why Hydrogen?

[plane]

Originally Posted by TJ95GAGT

Yeah. I'm sure they will find a way to get it to post numbers below other fuel cell vehicles.

[johnstarnes]

Originally Posted by edsuski

First, as another member pointed out, Hydrogen does not exist in nature by itself. Energy has to be used to separate hydrogen atoms from the molecules they are so tightly bound to. In fact, it takes considerably more energy to make, compress and cool hydrogen and ultimately burn that hydrogen in a 50% efficient fuel cell to drive a mile than it would to simply charge a battery. Let me say this another way - the exact same amount of energy used to drive a mile on hydrogen would result in more than two miles from a plug-in electric vehicle such as the Volt. Any source of electricity can be used to recharge a PHEV including solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal or even clean coal plants - so it does not have to be carbon producing.

Maybe even more importantly, the infrastructure needed to make hydrogen fuel cells viable for widespread transportation is at least 10-15 years away and would require ten's to hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in an infrastructure that does not exist at all today and is not needed for anything else today. I bring this up because the second part of your statement concerns the power grid.

The Department of Energy predicts that 85% of the passenger vehicles and light trucks in the United States could be re-charged during off-peak time (other that 2:00 pm - 9:00 pm) WITHOUT adding a singe wire or power generating plant to the grid. Off peak charging of plug-in electric vehicles will not be an issue until the number of vehicles exceed 85% of the existing vehicles.

At some point, many years down the road, we would need to improve the electric distribution system - but how is that a bad thing? We already rely completely on this existing infrastructure. We have already invested billions of dollars in it. Why would we even consider building a completely new, currently unnecessary infrastructure to support hydrogen when 78% of us could commute to and from work using ZERO oil in a Chevy Volt that is scheduled to reach production in likely less than two years? Hydrogen fuel cells are a diversion from the solution that is staring us in the face today.

PHEV's first, solar, wind, geothermal and bio-fuels next. Improvements in battery energy density and reductions in charging times will increase the percentage of people who could use ZERO oil to commute to and from work from today's 78% quickly to 80%, 85% and more. We should redirect the money and efforts being directed to hydrogen fuel cells to the real solution - Plug In Electric Vehicles.

Great thoughtful post! On a technical note, the hydrogen is not burned in a fuel cell, but combined with oxygen to create water and release electrons in the process. Since some very low energy input methods for generating and storing hydrogen are coming on line (I love the solar powered biological ones) I agree that fuel cells can be a useful part of a larger matrix for freedom from dependence on fossil fuels and the tragic environmental, political and military fiascos that can result.

[K Dawg ONE]

Originally Posted by PontiacBixler

Does it bother anyone else as much as I that they put the Torrent's headlights on it and still call it an Equinox?

I mean it physically makes me agitated when I see this thing and they call it an Equinox.

You know, maybe its because I sell Torrents all day long, but, i didnt even notice that, lol...now that you mention it, it doesnt bother me, per say, but, it does look kinda weird with Torrent lights and split-grill rather than a kidney grill....

[D C]

Originally Posted by ronald mcretard

Very true, we should explore all options, including hydrogen.

"Exploring all options" is like trying to make money by buying one share of every stock. Senseless. Use what we know to create a manageable list of alternatives and pursue those with the highest potential for a positive outcome.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by D C

"Exploring all options" is like trying to make money by buying one share of every stock. Senseless. Use what we know to create a manageable list of alternatives and pursue those with the highest potential for a positive outcome.

Exactly! Well stated.

"Exploring" may well be relegated to the lab if the solution is not realizable soon enough, relative to other alternatives. The conclusion of the Senate Energy Policy Forum the other night was that we should pursue "all" of the discussed solutions. As I recall, only the Oil representative and Rick Wagner even mentioned hydrogen. Most everyone else "seemed" to agree that plug in electric vehicles, Bio-fuels and nuclear power plants were leading the list (to reduce carbon). Dan Reicher from Google seemed to actually "get it" and was trying to stress PHEV's as priority number one.

I found it interesting that the oil guy was most interested in hydrogen. Maybe because it looks the most like oil – needs to be created (refined), will likely be trucked to stations, stored in tanks and pumped into car tanks? Or maybe big oil just likes that hydrogen will always be 10-15 years off until we actually start pouring billions into the stations? Hopefully we are smarter than that….

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by johnstarnes

Great thoughtful post! On a technical note, the hydrogen is not burned in a fuel cell, but combined with oxygen to create water and release electrons in the process. Since some very low energy input methods for generating and storing hydrogen are coming on line (I love the solar powered biological ones) I agree that fuel cells can be a useful part of a larger matrix for freedom from dependence on fossil fuels and the tragic environmental, political and military fiascos that can result.

When you combine hydrogen and oxygen in a fuel cell it is sometimes referred to as burning or oxidizing. While there is (hopefully) no flame - the process is exothermic.

As for the energy required to make hydrogen - the basic physics of the problem is that it takes more energy to pull the tightly bound hydrogen atoms from their "parent" molecule (fossil fuel, water etc.) then compress the gas to 5,000 or 10,000 PSI (depending on the system) and cool the gas - than it would to simply charge a battery. This is true no mater what the electrical source. The same solar power source would propel a vehicle approximately twice as far if you simply put the energy into a battery. We can’t afford the cost or time it would take to implement hydrogen for widespread transportation use. Maybe there is an argument that could be made for “fleet” use such as busses or delivery trucks – but even then – the energy equations do not make sense….

[johnstarnes]

Originally Posted by edsuski

When you combine hydrogen and oxygen in a fuel cell it is sometimes referred to as burning or oxidizing. While there is (hopefully) no flame - the process is exothermic.

As for the energy required to make hydrogen - the basic physics of the problem is that it takes more energy to pull the tightly bound hydrogen atoms from their "parent" molecule (fossil fuel, water etc.) then compress the gas to 5,000 or 10,000 PSI (depending on the system) and cool the gas - than it would to simply charge a battery. This is true no mater what the electrical source. The same solar power source would propel a vehicle approximately twice as far if you simply put the energy into a battery. We can’t afford the cost or time it would take to implement hydrogen for widespread transportation use. Maybe there is an argument that could be made for “fleet” use such as busses or delivery trucks – but even then – the energy equations do not make sense….

Perhaps subscribe to www.spacedaily.com to stay abreast of some very promising new technologies, some being biological, that address all those short comings you mentioned, including eliminating the need to compress and cool the hydrogen released either biologically or via solar powered electrolysis. I prefer the biological methods as you end up with valuable biomass.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by johnstarnes

Perhaps subscribe to www.spacedaily.com to stay abreast of some very promising new technologies, some being biological, that address all those short comings you mentioned, including eliminating the need to compress and cool the hydrogen released either biologically or via solar powered electrolysis. I prefer the biological methods as you end up with valuable biomass.

I have taken you advice and subscribed - however, the bottom line is that you do have to compress hydrogen gas to fit it into a cars reasonably sized tank (less of a challenge for a bus) and whatever the original source of the energy - solar, wind etc. - it still takes more to make the hydrogen than to simply charge a battery for the same distance of travel.