Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles may take 20 years to catch on, but hybrids will bloom until then
The Japan Information Network Business News put a good news, bad news type of story up this weekend. The good news, they claim, is that hybrid engines will be quite standard in automobiles in the next two to three years. The two main reasons for this are, first, that hydrogen fuel cell technology – often seen as the next gold standard for environmentally sound automobiles – is nowhere near ready for the market and, second, that hybrid technology is about to become much cheaper. The price of installing Toyota's hybrid technology into a car will drop by about $2,700US per unit to about $700US, and Toyota is talking about allowing other carmakers to buy this technology for their own models. This will make it much more tempting for more people to insist on the fuel-saving engine, and Consumer Reports and Walter McManus will have to refigure their forecasts. Always in motion, the future is.[Source: JINBN]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
GMONI 8:24PM (5/08/2008)
Hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles are the future, and they are the best all around ZEV (zero emission vehicle.) Toyota, Ford, and even GM don't have nothing on HONDA! They are the only company with affordable Hyrogen Fuel cell vehicles on the road today! Spread the word, and don't beleive the lies, they will be the vehicles that all the others will follow! I have attached the link to the HONDA CFX Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle for all to see! GO HONDA! Remember if they can make a Robot names Asimov, they can definitely make a good Hydro cell car! Here's the link
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
Reply
Glenn A. 2:28PM (5/08/2006)
Toyota already are allowing the Hybrid Synergy Drive to be used by Ford (though Ford insists that much of the tech is their own - but if so why did Ford & Toyota "trade" patents to allow no hassles between them - and wasn't it Toytota that introduced this tech in 1997 with the first generation Prius in Japan? Answer - yes).
Nissan have licensed the HSD from Toyota without even blushing, though claim to be developing their own tech. (They'll never catch up IMHO).
The next gen Prius III to come in late 2009 is going to get 100 mpg (US gallons), per Toyota. And yeah, the price difference is going to come way down.
Yeah, Toyota has the lead, all right.
Reply
md 9:03PM (5/08/2006)
Ford developed the technology independantly, but their designs were very similar so to cover the legal grounds, Toyota licensed their hybrid technology and ford licensed some of its diesel tech that Toyota had developed similar technology too. It was independantly developed by both parties, it was just the lawyers covering the companies' respectives butts.
Two to three years is unrealistically optomistic. Hybrid technology's biggest barrier is still public perception. People think that the Prius is just completely problem plagued, which is simply not true. There is also the image surounding hybrid (especially Prius drivers) of being arrogant and smug about there vehicle choice.
Once the prices come down, and the technology is expanded to be usuable in any type of vehicle (smaller batteries), perception will change. I believe people will take to hybrids once they become a simple check box option when ordering a vehicle. Not everybody wants a goofy-looking vehicle that screams hybrid, most will just want a regular style vehicle that gets good gas mileage. Remember the best selling vehicles in America are the most boring ones on the road. Most people just want an appliance in their vehicle, not a statement. Honda and toyota are starting to do a good job of this, and GM is working on implementing the technology in their trucks (where it does the most good IMO) which is a huge market, so it is becoming more available in vehicles people allready want.
Reply
inboxnews 10:31AM (5/09/2006)
What about E85? E85 cars run on 85% ethanol/15% gasoline and any car can be converted to run on 85% ethanol, which is basically corn.
Reply
Tyler Lemke 10:49AM (5/09/2006)
I am waiting for an E85/FlexFuel car that is also a Hybrid car.
If a FlexFuel car cost the same as a non-flexfuel car, then a FlexFuel/E85/Hybrid should cost no more than any other hybrid car.
Reply
Traveller 10:51AM (5/09/2006)
With this technology having been developed and my multiple companies at that, this article is now behind the times. Hydrogen can be transported safely and distributed in small lightweight packages that would easily replace existing gasoline fuel.
It's inexcusable that the public is being fed this kind of foolish crap. This could easily be 5-10 years away not 20.
Reply
Scott Jamar 10:58AM (5/09/2006)
I think the assumptions that fuel cell powered cars being 20 years off is incorrect. While working for a US fuel cell manufacturer last year, I was invited by the Japanese government to vist Nagoya during last years Expo, and toured many of their fuel cell initiatives. All Japanese car manufacturers are very far along in developing fuel cell powered vehicles, demonstrated fuel cell powered busses during the expo, and are generally (IMHO) within just a few years of mass produced fuel cell vehicles.
The primary issue is hydrogen delivery. Many are working on on-board reforming technologies that eliminate highly pressurised hydrogen storage requirements.
The technology for on-board reforming (creating hydogen on demand from a variety of materials and methods) is already well under development both here and in Japan. However, the companies developing the technology in the US are underfunded, and need help from the government to take it to the next step, final testing and mass production. (I prefer not to name any companies, but do a google search on "on board hydogen generation or reforming and you will find more than a few)
Hydrogen is the most abundant resource in the universe, the US government just has to help those who are on the leading edge of development and deliery systems. However, based on the current administrations performance and (sorry to say) personal ties to the oil industry, I don't see this happening until we get a more technologically savvy group in the White House who are serious about reducing our "addiction to oil"...
US Politics and/or big oil are the only things stopping (or slowing) mass commercial availability of these vehicles due to hydrogen production and delivery systems.
Until we stop paying lip service to fuel cell technology and do something about it, its not going to happen soon. However, I think 20 years is still a bit pessimistic. Many 5-10, once we get someone with a brain behind the desk in the oval office.
Of course, that's just one man's opinion, I may be wrong.
Reply
Michael M. 10:58AM (5/09/2006)
Thhis advance in fuel cells should come way before 20 years... Our environment is near to collapse from all the contamination, not only from CO2 emisions from vehicles, but also from the huge damage that oil companies are leaving when extracting oil... For example, like it's happening right now on Ecuadorian rainforest (they are supposed protected areas) where oil companies are devastating the environment.
Reply
Rob Perry 11:25AM (5/09/2006)
Didn't GM lobby back in 2000 to commit to the Fuel cell in 8 years? Then they had their average mpg limit dropped thus dropping the Metro and Prism line. (Sold at a lost to sell more SUV's) So isn't it convenient that it is going to be 20 years off and I'm sitting with $2000 toward a new GM car that I will never cash in. Loved getting new Metro for $5,000. Now I have to pony up $25K for the Prius. :(
Reply
Steve the Engineer 11:36AM (5/09/2006)
You are all jumping the gun.
In research, you can predict whatever you want, but reality is that a 20 year project could easily become 50 years or not in our lifetime. It takes special inspiration to solve some problems, and this is something that defies predictions. It is irresponsible to suggest that x or y is around the next corner when this is not remotely the case.
As for 100 US mpg for a car (more than doubling the Consumer Reports rating of 44 mpg), I will believe it when I see it. Using regeneration to improve fuel efficiency is a good idea, but there will always be tradeoffs made. Weight is a major consideration, and current battery technology produces heavy batteries.
I own a car that is nearly 20 years old. I get about 30 mpg in the city. You don't need a hybrid to get good gas mileage. Technology will not solve all our problems.
Reply
jason hyatt 12:33PM (5/09/2006)
Why is there so many people ready to jump on the hydrogen band wagon. I'm yet to see complete and fully thoughtout numbers on the effects of the change. Sure it will reduce the emissions from your tail pipe but there is the effect of processing storing and transportation. Also how much water can we remove from the ecosystem before it has an effect.
Reply
Toby 12:58PM (5/09/2006)
Hybrids are not exactly a panacea. What's the environmental impact of producing hundreds of thousands of tons of NiMH (or Lithium ion) batteries? I don't see hybrids as being primarily about fuel economy (most of their efficiency stems from aerodynamics, narrow high-pressure tires, etc. - all of which can be applied to gas or diesel vehicles), but about reducing emissions in urban traffic (which is a good thing, but shouldn't be confused with fuel economy). Regenerative braking is a reasonable improvement, but it doesn't capture all that much previously wasted energy.
Hydrogen isn't terrifcally appealing, either. It provides a plausible way to chemically store renewable energy, but we don't even have the energy half of that equation in place yet, so I have to assume that if we have fuel-cell vehicles on the roads in 20 years, they'll be full of hydrogen generated from fossil fuels (and likely generated using electricity that was also produced from fossil fuels).
All of which isn't to say that we should just give up and drive SUVs into the sunset. These are all improvements, but none of them are magic bullets. Driving less (and using trains, bicycles, etc.) is much more straightforward, but instead we're putting massive R&D budgets into making small improvements. I personal cycle more than 5,000 miles a year, and rarely if ever need access to a motor vehicle (hauling lumber by bike is tricky, admittedly).
postscript - the 100mpg (US) car is quite attainable, I'd think. The VW Lupo already manages around 80mpg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo
Reply
Rich 2:45PM (5/09/2006)
Just a couple of comments:
1. Sounds like PR hype to me. If it sound like it, then it probably is. That means: don't take the reading material on its face value. Do some research elsewhere.
2. E85-style hybrid, as a couple of commenters suggest, is a good idea, but still needs work. Ethanol turns to a gas nearly instantly (better have a good gas cap) and is a natural cleaner. Hence, all of the buildup that have come about in your engine (the valve heads themselves, which need this build up) as well as all of the build up in the lines in your car, the pipe lines from Texas outwards, the lines at the filling stations, etc, will all be washed spotless. Now, where will all of the crud go? It will gunk up injectors in your car (better change that fuel filter more often), force more maintenance on the pumps in the pipelines, etc (Ethanol will create a jelly like substance with that goo in the lines).
3. Hydrogen is considered the "Holy Grail" of fuels for a reason: it is a basic building block. Prototypes show that the only residual from Hydrogen (from the vehicle perspective) is water vapor and oxygen. It's not removing water from the ecosystem as one comment suggested, but it is adding to it. Now, that could pose another problem down the road, but who can see *that* far?
4. Hybrid electric cars usually leave out one fact when estimating their fuel economy: the numbers are based around a "no load" system. In other words, it is just the engine. The Radio isn't on (using electricity), the A/C isn't on, the heat (using a LOT of electricity) isn't on, the wipers are not on, the lights are not on, etc. Turning on any one of those, or a combination of them all, will greatly reduce the reported mileage. (My co worker, who owns a Prius, pointed this out to me).
5. Another comment someone had hit the nail on the head with design. The Prius, as an example, does not have that appeal. I personally include the look/design of the vehicle in to the equation I use when buying a new vehicle. In other words, if the body styling is awful to me, I'm already moving on to look at the next vehicle. For hybrids to catch on, they needs to have vehicles with stylings that appeal to the masses.
6. Despite what people *want* to believe, one way or another, you cannot make a 100% environmentally friendly solution. Yes, the end result will be a repositioning of where the pollution is concentrated, what the output of the vehicles are, etc, etc. There is no "golden bullet" here. People need to accept that.
7. Mass transit doesn't exist everywhere and it can't. It's not a viable all-in-one solution. Well, not yet. When we're all living on top of one another, that's another story. ;)
The only way you could increase the research/adoption of an alternative fuel like Hydrogen or E85 or some combination thereof would be from the top. People have said that, similar to American sending men to the moon, National backing is necessary. Up to now, it has only been floundering and half hearted.
Reply
Matt 3:49PM (5/11/2006)
> 2. Ford developed the technology independantly,
Do you have a citation that supports this? Sounds like spin to me...
> Hybrid technology's biggest barrier is still
> public perception. arrogant and smug about there
> vehicle choice.
Yes, yes we are smug... with good reason. We know that your typical car puts 5 tons or more of greenhouse effect causing CO2 in the air per year. And we know that our car isn't, regardless of how low our MPG dips. There's two parts to our smugness -- high MPG, and near zero emmissions. Visit the grand canyon sometime, and once you see the beauty of the canyon veiled in smog, you'll wish more people in LA were smug Prius owners...
> Not everybody wants a goofy-looking vehicle that
> screams hybrid... most people just want an
> appliance in their vehicle, not a statement.
A significant number of people pick their vehicles to make a statement -- that's why you find politicians driving fleets of the largest black SUV's they can find. It says 'we're important enough not to worry about gas prices'. Making a statement with your vehicle choice is the American way. The 'goofyness' that's making a statement in this case results in a lower coefficient of drag, and higher gas mileage, so form = function.
E85 made with corn produced ethanol is a questionable net energy gain over the oil used to produce it. Ethonol production from a biomass crop such as Miscanthus becomes inarguably a net energy gain. However even then Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) is still horribly inefficient and dirty compared to EV's, and ethonol is less energy dense than gasoline, so it has to be significantly cheaper per gallon for the consumer to buy into it at the pump. Price-at-the-pump is a huge psychological war.
The next iteration of hybrids will allow plug-in with decently sized battery packs to allow in-town all electric range, with an ICE that runs only to charge the batteries, so that it runs tuned at its most efficient RPM (every ICE has a 'sweet spot' RPM where it runs the best, you just can't do that on a normal car). That's how you get 100mpg.
Reply
Dave Fenner 10:47PM (5/21/2006)
What people are missing, who are exhorting the hybrid cars is that they do exactly the opposite of what they are being purchased for. They consume more energy to build than a gasoline powered car, they cost more, and then there is the production of heavy metal batteries required. What I've read is that the batteries will have to be replaced after a life time of only 10 years or less; then will cost an additional $10,000 to replace. Can you picture the disposal sites of these millions of old batteries once that starts to happen... even if one chooses not to replace the batteries, you've then got a car that is pretty much a problem for the environment...
Reply
Helen Price 4:45PM (8/28/2006)
Dave I think you are absolutely right. The way to the noble aim is not so clean and clear. i don't think the cost of having newly powered vehicles should be that high. Unless there is a new way found the production should be banned.
Reply
jake 1:02AM (11/02/2006)
Just wanted to clear some things up about the next gen hybrids (ie 2009 prius). 1st they will probably be plug-in hybrids, meaning they will be able to run 40 miles without having to charge, so 100mpg+ in real driving (not just EPA) is very pausible. 2nd they will definitely rely on l-ion batteries, which are almost completely recyclable, and even in a landfill it only contains cobalt, copper, nickel and iron, which are all non-toxic metals (but recycling is still way smarter, b/c u can use it to make new batteries, lowering costs). Also plug-ins charge overnight on off-peak power, so no new powerplants needed, and actually saves power. For u hydrogen pp, 20 years is the most optimistic prediction you can find, why? b/c hydrogen cars are even harder to push than hybrids because of infrastructure, R&D, and high cost. If plug-in hybrids got 1/2 the funds given to hydrogen r&D(3billion now), it can easily dramatically decrease oil dependency now. I am not calling to end hydrogen research, but to give equal opportunity to the plug-ins, because we have the tech to make them now and they can solve problems for now in the short time, and extend the time we have to develop hydrogen technologies. Do some research on plug-in hybrids, and see both sides.
Reply
Steve Savage 8:49PM (11/12/2006)
Fuel cells will never end up in cars. They are too expensive, too dependent on specific operating temperatures, and the only reason the Bush administration is funding it is to hold off electric cars with batteries as a source of power, thus ensuring the public will be using gasoline for the next 50 years.
Fuel cells used to cost millions back in the 1960's during the Apollo program, and they cost millions now.
The oil industry feared electric cars because it essentially is handing over their profits to coal companies.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 12:33PM (11/13/2006)
"Hydrogen can be transported safely and distributed in small lightweight packages that would easily replace existing gasoline fuel." -- Traveller
Just out of curiously, Traveller, what color is the sky on your planet?
Reply
Petri Pihkala 5:47PM (11/14/2006)
If people are wise and can see what is best for them, they will go to http://www.cheniere.org/ and demand that devices based on that real electromagnetic theory are put to use in everywhere, including cars and other automobiles. And that means electric cars. And stopping that polluting burning of fuels, including oil and coal. Current FC cars and EV's are good in a way. They bring us nearer to a car that has (advanced) electrical motor. But until they have COP>1 motor (see Kawai patent: U.S. Patent No. 5,436,518, Jul. 25, 1995 http://www.cheniere.org/misc/kawai.htm ) and COP>1 generatore like MEG http://www.cheniere.org/misc/meg.htm ) in them, they are not that usable. But when you can get those under the hood, you never want to drive todays old fashioned fuel-gustling cars.
If this message is too powerful for you, then go to http://www.teslamotors.com and see their well-to-wheels calculations made today and you will understand why electric car is the future winner. And having something like MEG (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator) even in your car will make the choice a no-brainer. When that advanced EM theory can supercede current EM theory, it will change the world more than did the Einsteins relativity change physics when it was shown to be superset of Newtonian gravity theory. Why? Because everybody will be generating their own energy they use, whether used to make light, to heat for instance houses or to powering their cars and cell phones. But don't expect oil companies to like this change in energy use.
Just got to http://www.cheniere.org/ and see why using 20 Maxwell equations is better than the current truncated 4 we currently think are the 'whole EM theory'.
Here's the shortcut to Maxwellian truncation:
http://www.cheniere.org/references/maxwell.htm
Why our current EM theory sucks:
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/34flaws.htm
Still doubt this change? Go to http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx and see them bringing this same message. They have made this notion independently and are trying to get the world to accept their 'incredible' message of free, clean energy. Basically they just have discovered one of those COP>1 motorgenerators. (COP=Coefficient Of Performance, energy output divided with (payed) energy input). For example for Kawai's motor 19.55W in and more than 60W out makes COP=60/20, which is roughly 3. No this is not perpetual motion, there is source for that excess 40W you get out, so the efficiency is still under 100%. Don't confuse these things together.
Can't figure the difference? Consider Solar (photovoltaic) Cell. You put in 0W electricity and you get out say 2W. Then your COP will be 2W/0W which is, yes, infinite. So devices are allowed to have COP>1. That is the output divided with (payed) input energy. Of course Solar Cells efficiency is nothing nearing 100%, since they waste more than half of the solar power radiated to them. Similarly MEG or other COP>1 EM machine will use only part of the energy they are trying to tap to our visible world.
--Petri
Reply