GM Delivers Fuel Cell Equinox to EPA for Testing

[johnstarnes]

Originally Posted by edsuski

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.

I am glad you subscribed but as I said, compressing and cooling are no longer needed due to some remarkable materials that absorb and hold an astonishing amount of hydrogen without compression or cooling. I am amazed at the ingenuity of some researchers! I subscribed to spacedaily years ago and love seeing the newest developments in solar and bio and hydrogen as soon as the news breaks, news that would never show up on CNN, etc.

[fp115]

Originally Posted by johnstarnes

I wonder how close GM is to selling these all-electric fuel cell powered Equinoxes?

They are built production ready. The steps to building an Equinox by hand (as it is currently done) conforms to very strict production guidelines. GM could sell these in no time if required. The cost won't too extreme though the next generation fuel cell is much cheaper.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by fp115

They are built production ready. The steps to building an Equinox by hand (as it is currently done) conforms to very strict production guidelines. GM could sell these in no time if required. The cost won't too extreme though the next generation fuel cell is much cheaper.

The real problem is that the needed infrastructure to make it viable will cost billions of dollars and take 10 - 20 years to deploy (according to the DOE). It isn't a question of whether or not we can make fuel cells work in a car - the question is - does it make sense to develop a completely new infrastructure that will cost many tens of billions of dollars (probably hundreds of billions) when 78% of us could buy ZERO gasoline to commute to and from work today using technology that will hit the market in the next couple of years? As the technology matures - the 78% number will continue to increase and more and more of us will be able to buy ZERO gas. Doesn't it make more sense to develop the solution that is here today (next couple of years) and does not require a completely new infrastructure?

[rig.jockey]

Hydrogen always sounded great, until you break down the steps. To me it seems like a very stupid option to even consider it for automotive use.

Hydrogen

1- Generate clean electricity (kinda defeats the purpose if we use coal for example )
2- Use electricity to process hydrogen ( Energy conversion & massive natural loss )
3- Store hydrogen on site
4- Transport hydrogen to a fueling station( via tanker is most viable, just like liquid O2 - now we're using diesel fuel, or perhaps hydrogen fuel in the truck)
5- Store hydrogen at fueling station
6- Consumer must drive to fueling station to fill their fuel cell ( onboard storage)
7- Hydrogen is used to produce electricity to drive an electric motor ( 2nd conversion loss )

EVs

1- Generate clean electricity
2- Transport electricity via existing power lines ( Some transmission loss )
3- Consumer charges car at home ( onboard storage )
4- Electricity is released from batteries to power that same electric motor

So if we go with EVs, we're skipping that 10-15 year wait time for a viable solution, we're cutting out the massive amounts of energy lost during the production, transportation and the final conversion back to electricity. We're skipping a good deal of polution involved in the transportation and manufacturing of tanks and new refinaries etc. And we have the convenience of home charging over night instead of everyone still driving out to a gas station.

I look at it like this. If I want a glass of water on a hot summer day, I go to the sink, turn on the faucet and voila ! I have water coming out of existing pipes. That's like the Electric car solution. The Hydrogen solution would be for the utility company to take that same water out of the lake, freeze a tanker worth of it, ship it in a refridgerated tanker to keep the water frozen and have it delivered to my local 7/11 where I can get my glass of ice and wait for it to melt back into its original state... I'll take door number 1, Bob!


That old saying " Keep it simple stupid " comes to mind

Edit : Just thought I'd add this for anyone that's curious. Highschool students are building practical EVs out of old beater cars. The EV has been around since before the Model T.

http://smarttchallenge.com/about/ev_short2.wmv
http://smarttchallenge.com/

And anyone with an S10, here's an easy conversion kit
http://canev.com/KitsComp/S10Kit/S10-Kit.html

[MechEng]

Investing in hydrogen and battery technology is not like investing in all stocks all the time. It's like an investment portfolio. GM and other companies are not investing in all technologies (because there are literally thousands of ideas right now). They are taking the ones that have potential and investing in them.

When people invest their money do they take all of their money and put it into just one stock? ... No they invest in a portfolio so that if one stock does bad the other picks it up.

I'm a strong proponent of investing in both battery and hydrogen technologies.

The problems with EV's.

1. An EV with an advanced Li-PO battery that can go 300 miles on a charge would have a battery that weighs 3000lbs and costs $50000.

2. To charge an EV with a 300 mile range with a standard 120V outlet would take ~50 hours.

3. Current battery technology does not exist to rapid charge a battery in a reasonable amount of time. And even if it did you would then have to retrofit your entire home's electrical system to supply either extreme high voltage or high current system to charge it.

Problems with Hydrogen

1. Not currently mass produced (new technologies can make hydrogen clean but are not in mass production ... yet)

2. Cost. Fuel cells are still expensive. But this is changing very fast

3. Infrastructure. This is chicken and egg. When business sees a demand for hydrogen then local businesses will build the infrastructure. It will cost billions maybe even trillions. But how much is spent every year on gas stations alone (answer billions). It's a business investment. People will make that money back. It's called CAPITALISM.

I think GM is on the right track with E-Flex. It is the best of both worlds.

[rig.jockey]

The problems with EV's.

1. An EV with an advanced Li-PO battery that can go 300 miles on a charge would have a battery that weighs 3000lbs and costs $50000

Honestly, how many people need to go 300 miles ? This line of thought is one of the problems with getting people to buy EVs in the first place. I can travel 600 miles on a tank of gas in my van, but I don't. Where the hell would I be going ? Fact is average joes are building EVs at home with lead acid batteries and getting a range of 50 - 80 miles out of a charge. That's from joe public who's tired of getting raped by big oil. The whole " oh it would cost too much and weigh too much " is bs started by nay-sayers and individuals with money invested in oil.

2. To charge an EV with a 300 mile range with a standard 120V outlet would take ~50 hours.

Again, how many people honestly need to travel 300 miles on a single charge? I'm sure there's lots of people who THINK they need to. Plugging in your car every night also reduces the need for a long distance car. If I filled up my van every night I wouldn't need a 95L tank. A 10 or 20L tank would do nicely, and I'd be saving money by not hauling around extra fuel that wont get burned until next week or the week after.

Current EVs take 8-10 hours to charge with 120v. 4-5 with 240v. If you get a 60A 680volt line installed, guess what ? You could have that car charged in 2 - 3 hours. Surely you sleep 2 - 3 hours a night ?

3. Current battery technology does not exist to rapid charge a battery in a reasonable amount of time. And even if it did you would then have to retrofit your entire home's electrical system to supply either extreme high voltage or high current system to charge it

4 - 5 hours on a 240v line is reasonable to me. 2 - 3 hours on a 680v line is excellent IMO. In most north american cities, the power lines that come off the street to your home are carrying 2400 volts, which is stepped down to 240 volts at your meter. There's no retrofitting of your entire home, there's no extreme voltage and there's no need to get dramatic. Getting groceries supplied to your grocery store is more complicated in all honesty.

[96_impala_ss]

correct me if im wrong people but i thought fuel cell was hydrogen powered and hydrogen is water.

[PontiacBixler]

Originally Posted by 96_impala_ss

correct me if im wrong people but i thought fuel cell was hydrogen powered and hydrogen is water.

Water is partially made of Hydrogen, but no, Hydrogen is NOT water.
There are TWO hydrogen atoms connected to a single Oxygen atom that makes the molecule for water... hence the H2O.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by rig.jockey

Hydrogen always sounded great, until you break down the steps. To me it seems like a very stupid option to even consider it for automotive use.

Hydrogen

1- Generate clean electricity (kinda defeats the purpose if we use coal for example )
2- Use electricity to process hydrogen ( Energy conversion & massive natural loss )
3- Store hydrogen on site
4- Transport hydrogen to a fueling station( via tanker is most viable, just like liquid O2 - now we're using diesel fuel, or perhaps hydrogen fuel in the truck)
5- Store hydrogen at fueling station
6- Consumer must drive to fueling station to fill their fuel cell ( onboard storage)
7- Hydrogen is used to produce electricity to drive an electric motor ( 2nd conversion loss )

EVs

1- Generate clean electricity
2- Transport electricity via existing power lines ( Some transmission loss )
3- Consumer charges car at home ( onboard storage )
4- Electricity is released from batteries to power that same electric motor

So if we go with EVs, we're skipping that 10-15 year wait time for a viable solution, we're cutting out the massive amounts of energy lost during the production, transportation and the final conversion back to electricity. We're skipping a good deal of polution involved in the transportation and manufacturing of tanks and new refinaries etc. And we have the convenience of home charging over night instead of everyone still driving out to a gas station.

I look at it like this. If I want a glass of water on a hot summer day, I go to the sink, turn on the faucet and voila ! I have water coming out of existing pipes. That's like the Electric car solution. The Hydrogen solution would be for the utility company to take that same water out of the lake, freeze a tanker worth of it, ship it in a refridgerated tanker to keep the water frozen and have it delivered to my local 7/11 where I can get my glass of ice and wait for it to melt back into its original state... I'll take door number 1, Bob!


That old saying " Keep it simple stupid " comes to mind

Edit : Just thought I'd add this for anyone that's curious. Highschool students are building practical EVs out of old beater cars. The EV has been around since before the Model T.

http://smarttchallenge.com/about/ev_short2.wmv
http://smarttchallenge.com/

And anyone with an S10, here's an easy conversion kit
http://canev.com/KitsComp/S10Kit/S10-Kit.html

Thank you.

Hydrogen has never made sense to me because of the huge infrastructure needed. I continue to try to come up with scenarios that make sense - like buses that return to a central location each night etc. but the basic physics does not seem to make sense.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by MechEng

Investing in hydrogen and battery technology is not like investing in all stocks all the time. It's like an investment portfolio. GM and other companies are not investing in all technologies (because there are literally thousands of ideas right now). They are taking the ones that have potential and investing in them.

When people invest their money do they take all of their money and put it into just one stock? ... No they invest in a portfolio so that if one stock does bad the other picks it up.

I'm a strong proponent of investing in both battery and hydrogen technologies.

The problems with EV's.

1. An EV with an advanced Li-PO battery that can go 300 miles on a charge would have a battery that weighs 3000lbs and costs $50000..

78% of Americans drive less than 40 miles per day. Not everyone - just 78%. If you decide to go further than 40 miles in a Chevy Volt - the internal combustion engine kicks in and you burn some type of Flex Fuel -including plain old gas to go as far as you want. Again - 78% of the people using ZERO gas (with the rare long trip thrown in).

Originally Posted by MechEng

2. To charge an EV with a 300 mile range with a standard 120V outlet would take ~50 hours..

The Volt - which I hear will satisfy 78% of Americas needs, will charge in about 6 hours using regular old 110V from an existing outlet in you home/garage/carport. If you really can't get access to a plug - maybe PHEV's are not for you.

Originally Posted by MechEng

3. Current battery technology does not exist to rapid charge a battery in a reasonable amount of time. And even if it did you would then have to retrofit your entire home's electrical system to supply either extreme high voltage or high current system to charge it..

True - only 78% of us will be able to charge our cars in 6 hours - over night during non-peak hours using a standard everyday 15 amp 110V plug. For those of you who have to have 300 miles per day - good luck.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by 96_impala_ss

correct me if im wrong people but i thought fuel cell was hydrogen powered and hydrogen is water.

What many people do not realize is that it takes a lot more energy to remove the hydrogen atom from the water molecule than it would to simply charge a battery. Also, current generation fuel cells are only 50% efficient so after you expend all that energy getting the hydrogen atom - you throw away half of it in the fuel cell that simply acts like an (inefficient) battery for the electric motor.

The idea that "my car can run on water" has really been misleading and probably cost us billions. In reality, you car could run on a single grain of sand (E=mc^2) but lets not try to build nuclear powered cars just yet.

[D C]

Originally Posted by rig.jockey

Again, how many people honestly need to travel 300 miles on a single charge? I'm sure there's lots of people who THINK they need to. Plugging in your car every night also reduces the need for a long distance car. If I filled up my van every night I wouldn't need a 95L tank. A 10 or 20L tank would do nicely, and I'd be saving money by not hauling around extra fuel that wont get burned until next week or the week after.

So you NEVER have to drive 300 miles without an overnight stop? Seriously?

So if we use Detroit as a home base (since this is GM), someone would have to stop for a period of HOURS in order to travel to Sault St. Marie in the upper peninsula. They'd have to use an entire charge to get TO Chicago. More than a full charge to go see the Indy 500.
You're right. There's no need for a car that can go 300 miles on a single charge.

Sorry, but plugging in your car every night INCREASES the need for a long distance car. Otherwise, you've got a short leash on where you can go. Kinda defeats the entire purpose of the interstate system, doesn't it?

[fp115]

Originally Posted by edsuski

The real problem is that the needed infrastructure to make it viable will cost billions of dollars and take 10 - 20 years to deploy (according to the DOE). It isn't a question of whether or not we can make fuel cells work in a car - the question is - does it make sense to develop a completely new infrastructure that will cost many tens of billions of dollars (probably hundreds of billions) when 78% of us could buy ZERO gasoline to commute to and from work today using technology that will hit the market in the next couple of years? As the technology matures - the 78% number will continue to increase and more and more of us will be able to buy ZERO gas. Doesn't it make more sense to develop the solution that is here today (next couple of years) and does not require a completely new infrastructure?

Very well aware of that. But in markets such as China which are investing more and more into hydrogen, this technology is worth getting into, even if the home country does not plan to adopt it.

[MechEng]

Originally Posted by edsuski

78% of Americans drive less than 40 miles per day. Not everyone - just 78%. If you decide to go further than 40 miles in a Chevy Volt - the internal combustion engine kicks in and you burn some type of Flex Fuel -including plain old gas to go as far as you want. Again - 78% of the people using ZERO gas (with the rare long trip thrown in).



The Volt - which I hear will satisfy 78% of Americas needs, will charge in about 6 hours using regular old 110V from an existing outlet in you home/garage/carport. If you really can't get access to a plug - maybe PHEV's are not for you.



True - only 78% of us will be able to charge our cars in 6 hours - over night during non-peak hours using a standard everyday 15 amp 110V plug. For those of you who have to have 300 miles per day - good luck.

I'm not disagreeing with the Chevy Volt. It's an excellent vehicle. And perfect for a fuel cell in the future.

But if so many people don't have the need for a car that has a range of 300+ miles than why do the automakers keep making them?

Why does GM feel the need to add a range extender engine to the Volt so that it does have a range greater than 300 miles?

In Europe short range electric commuter cars are widely available and yet how many people buy them?

I think that all the automakers (not just GM) understand the market better than you.

I normally travel 30 miles round trip to and from work and that makes up 90% of my driving. But I take at least one weekend trip to Toronto or to visit my family (120 miles and 300 miles [round trip] respectively) which makes the Volt the perfect vehicle for me. And I will try to buy one in 2011.

But E-Flex as it is now is not the ultimate solution. But it can be adapted to be. It's either a bigger battery, a fuel cell or a carbon neutral mass produced alternative fuel.

Now if vehicles in the future are like the Volt EREV with a fuel cell not as much hydrogen is needed (people would only need it for range extension [and it doesn't have a shelf life like gasoline]).

I'm not saying electric cars are bad and are not the solution.

But pure electric only vehicles will not have mass market appeal if the range is less than 300 miles. And there are currently more technological hurdles to large capacity cheap batteries than there is to using hydrogen.

I just watched a documentary today about an oil platform in the North Sea (Norway) This platform alone cost 16 Billion dollars to build.

If we took the money that goes into expanding our oil extraction for just one year we would have a basic hydrogen infrastructure set up in just a few years.

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by D C

So you NEVER have to drive 300 miles without an overnight stop? Seriously?

So if we use Detroit as a home base (since this is GM), someone would have to stop for a period of HOURS in order to travel to Sault St. Marie in the upper peninsula. They'd have to use an entire charge to get TO Chicago. More than a full charge to go see the Indy 500.
You're right. There's no need for a car that can go 300 miles on a single charge.

Sorry, but plugging in your car every night INCREASES the need for a long distance car. Otherwise, you've got a short leash on where you can go. Kinda defeats the entire purpose of the interstate system, doesn't it?

Listen - if you regularly travel more than say 100 miles per day - then a serial plug in vehicle might not be for you. If, like 78% of America, you generally travel less than 40 miles per day - then you could do so on ZERO gas. We are talking about saving about $300 per month and helping the country free it self from foreign oil. If you travel more than 40 miles per day - no problem - the internal combustion engine will come on and drive a generator to supply power to the electric motor. You fuel mileage will be some blended value between the first 40 miles being fully electric and the next however many miles being on the generator. If you want to travel from coast to coast in a Volt PHEV - you can. No problem. If that is what you do weekly - you might want to choose another vehicle since you will not be able to take advantage of the electric motor.

Get it? What do you think? Will that work for you?