Honda FCX concept fuel cell car in depth, Pt. 1 - The new fuel cell stack
In June of 2005 Honda became the first car company in the world to lease a hydrogen fuel cell powered car to Jon Spallino, of Redondo Beach, California. During the 2005-6 auto show season, they showed off a concept version of their first purpose-built fuel cell powered car. Earlier this year they announced that the car would go into low volume production in 2008 and yesterday they allowed a group of journalists to drive the first two prototypes at the Laguna Seca racetrack along with the two of the current generation FCX cars. I was there.
The day began with a technical presentation of where Honda's fuel cell development has been and where it's going. Unlike most other car-makers working on hydrogen power, Honda is designing and building their own fuel cell stacks. The previous generations of stacks have been laid out much like the ones from companies like Ballard where the gases flow horizontally through the stack. This horizontal flow is what has led to one of the problems with fuel cells in cars, cold weather performance.
(Continued after the jump)
In a horizontal stack, the hydrogen and oxygen produce electricity and water, some which condenses and sticks to the plates in the stack and eventually drips down and is drained out. The plates have horizontal channels which can make the drainage problematic, sometimes leaving liquid water in the stack which, if allowed to freeze, can damage it. The horizontal layout was chosen because of the size of stacks and the need to keep the center of gravity of the car low.
The major innovation of the new FCX concept is the new V-Flow fuel cell stack, where V stands for vertical. In this stack, the hydrogen and oxygen enter from the top and flow down through the stack. The channels in the plates are now vertical, and allow the water to flow out much more freely. Water on the plates reduces the electrical generating capacity and makes it inconsistent. In the new stack, the lack of standing water on the plates allows for much higher and more consistent power generation, and the better drainage means much lower operating temperature capability.
Honda R&D Americas VP Ben Knight discussing the evolution of the Honda fuel cell stacks.
Executive Chief Engineer Yozo Kami discussing the new V-Flow stack.
The end result is a power generation unit that has a power/volume density ratio 50 percent higher than the previous generation introduced in 2003 and a 67 percent improvement in power/weight ratio. Compared to the unit from 1999 those numbers are up by a factor of four. So they now have a stack that is small enough and powerful enough to fit upright in the center tunnel of the car.
This desich allows the floorpan and seats to now be moved much lower, allowing for vastly improved design flexibility. The current generation FCX is based on the design of the EV+ electric car built in the nineties, making it a tall four seat hatchback with the ultra capacitor (instead of a battery) sitting under the floor. The new FCX has the fuel cell mounted in the center tunnel between the driver and front passenger seat, and is a remarkably sleek-looking four door, four passenger sport sedan. The two cars are like night and day.
(Click for Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4)
The Spallino family, first retail fuel cell customers with Yozo Kami and Sachito Fujimoto, Executive Chief Engineers and the old and new FCX models.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Brad 9:25AM (4/05/2008)
Every few years fuel cells make the headlines with the promise that 'this is the power of the future, but, they're still a fews years away yet'.
Trouble is, they have been saying that for 30 years now. It's like having a big carrot on a string in that we just don't seem to be reaching the commercial viability of this technology.
Whether hydrogen or battery as a means of storing energy, I look forward to the day that my car is pushed along with an electric engine.
Reply
EdTheHat 9:11AM (4/16/2008)
#56 "Trouble is, they have been saying that for 30 years now."
Well yes they have, but as far back as 1806 the internal combustion engine was developed by Francois Isaac de Rivaz a Swiss engineer (which incidentally ran on hydrogen and water). Yet Motorwagen, invented in 1885 by Karl (or Carl) Friedrich Benz, was the first commercial automobile. That is a wait of 79 years.
One of the first commercial Hydrogen Cars was the 1991 Mazda HR-X Hydrogen Wankel Rotary only. Some of the first working prototypes were made by Roger E. Billings in the 1960s. I think this shows that you have to persist in order to improve.
Reply
Don Hermio the Provider 8:59PM (5/08/2008)
Biomass Gasification (e.g. from Pine trees) to produce Hydrogen is a safe, established technology, perfectly carbon neutral, with no processing waste and is energy-producing, not consuming. The only stupid thing about Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars are that they're not mass-produced now. Personally I think it's pretty cool the cars of the future will be run on pine trees...
Reply
Buddy 8:37PM (3/14/2009)
Dear fellow intelligentsia,
My name is Buddy Rojek from Melbourne Australia.
I have a proposal. Forgive me if this idea exists on the internet.
The main obstacles we need to overcome I see is "ease of use/refuel" for long haul traveller, distribution of energy from source (Solar wind, geothermal, coal or nuclear), then the efficiency/power to weight obstacle.
We have the problem of higher petroleum costs ( or diminishing future reserve) and a stagnant world economy. People just don't have the money to buy new vehicles, or many in the third world need a cheaper long run cost vehicle (Factor in fuel use over 20 years of the life of a vehicle and this is the real cost). So they will make do with existing vehicles. At this time in the history of man, we need to rebuild the economy through jobs and find a way to get from a-b with the least amount of costs, to avoid taxing the environment.
My proposal is a uniform approach world-wide, via uniform world government directive to produce a vehicle for the people. We can have different models produced to satisfy consumer wants but the technology/production platform will be the same. This will ensure economy of scale and technology (human capital expertise) sharing.
We need any new vehicles to be lighter. We need to build the frame from Aluminium.
We need to build a battery electric vehicle to provide the best power to weight to space ration.
We need a vehicle that has a removable battery from the bottom of the cart, so that the battery can be removed at a "refuelling station" and replaced, if the user needs to do long haul trips.
The car need to be recharged at ease by the user parking at home, over a "charging point" without the need to attach. These recharging points can be found at parking lots, and the user charged by credit card for "Refuiling"
Everything has to be simple and seamless to ensure the consumer does not need to be "inconvenienced" This will ensure uptake.
This will reduce our need for foreign oil. With use of green electricity generation this will reduce carbon pollution.
The benefits are a reduction in noise, need to get oil changed, or car serviced, replace mufflers etc. Lowering the long run cost of repair.
We have the ability to retrofit motors batteries and charge points in existing vehicles as a transition stage for people unable to afford brand new cars.
What we need is the "Refuelling" infrastructure rolled out.
I am considering developing a company based o this model, and would be interested in hearing from investors or fellow business people. I don't have the capital but I have the dream and energy to lobby this model. I can be contacted at birojek@hotmail.com
Your response, negative or positive would be appreciated.
Buddy
Reply
Chris M 10:09PM (3/14/2009)
Somebody beat you to it. Do a web search for "Project Better Place", they are already lining up manufacturers for EVs, and they plan to install lots of charging places in various parking lots, and they are also planning to lease specially designed batteries that can be easily "swapped" in drive-through swap stations, for travellers that need a quick "refill".
There is some debate over whether or not it will work, Project Better Place will have to keep lots of extra batteries on hand, that adds to the cost of operation. On the other hand, "electric fuel" costs a lot less than petrol or diesel!
Tim 4:17PM (11/15/2006)
The “Hydrogen Economy” is simply a stall and diversion away from the far more efficient “Electric Economy.” Hydrogen production, storage, transportation, storage, fueling, storage only to make electricity in a fuel cell to power an electric car is very inefficient. We can use wasted grid electricity or make our own electricity with solar & wind etc. Series PHEVs with bio-diesel (we can make that too) auxiliary power units are far more efficient than hydrogen will ever be and are carbon neutral to boot. These series hybrids were ready years ago and so was the infrastructure. http://www.autoworld.com/news/GMC/Series_Hybrid.htm. http://ev1-club.power.net/newsltr/vol2_1.htm. New battery and capacitor tech only makes them better.
Reply
KC 4:38PM (11/15/2006)
Hydrogen fuel cells will be one of the main options for clean automobiles in the future. EVs are great, but I live in Canada and have family that I visit several times per year that are 1200Km away from where I live. Hydrogen would allow me to make that trip in one day just like I do now with gasoline powered vehicles. EVs can't do it. I would have to make it a two day trip because I'd have to stop and charge several times for several hours each time. I don't care if EVs are more efficient, I need the ability to refuel quickly on long trips which I make frequently.
Anyway, in one of the next parts of your story could you compare your experience with the FCX Concept to your experience with the Ford Focus FCV. I know the focus is a retrofit FCV on an existing platform and the FCX Concept is engineered from the ground up as a fuel cell vehicle, but it would still be interesting to hear thoughts on how the two of them compare and differ.
Reply
pkuhl 1:11AM (11/16/2006)
I agree with poster 1. Unless you get your hydrogen from a clean renewable source, and I don't count bio-diesel or ethanol, then this is a dirtier and costlier method than even our basic gasoline technology. If you do get your hydrogen from a clean source, why not just skip the inefficient conversion steps with hydrogen and just use a battery? Only if battery technology stagnates, or becomes too costly because of demand, would any of the competing technologies make sense, and it would have to get *much* more costly.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 10:05PM (11/15/2006)
"Hydrogen fuel cells will be one of the main options for clean automobiles in the future."
Wrong. Hydrogen is a grossly inefficient pollution amplifier. It is not green in any meaningful sense of the word.
Using hydrogen to power a car is insanely stupid.
Reply
MikeW 11:19PM (11/15/2006)
It is nice that they are trying.
Infrastructure?
Reply
caveman_dick 7:27AM (11/16/2006)
As always there is for and against on all topics, but one thing about hydrogen, thoeretically it can be easy to transport.
We all know that natural gas is running out, what do we do will the millions of miles of piping that will lay redundant? Pipe the hydrogen along it? This will then enable all houses to be fitted with Fuel cells and generate the electricity onsite.
This will then eliminate the Unsightly and grossly inefficiant method of transporting electricity to the home: Electricity Pylons! (transmission towers in the US i believe)
The other advantage would be there the power stations can be switched off once they have a sufficiant store of hydrogen. This is untill renewable sources can replace them.
Reply
AES 7:34AM (11/16/2006)
I think it's silly to portray EVs and hydrogen as being diametrically opposed from one another. Conceptually, It's perfectly possible to incorporate both technologies within the same vehicle.
If battery technology is able to overcome its current limits (i.e. slow recharge times), then the hydrogen portion might become less useful. But as a recent Scientific American article on power grids pointed out rather well, free electrons are a rather transient commodity, and finding a way to chemically store them - hydrogen or otherwise - is going to be important for any infrastructure that revolves around electric motors. The only thing worse than a 4 hour charge time would be a fuel/power station that can't charge simply because of a downed powerline. At least gasoline can be poured or pumped by hand...
Reply
Peter G 1:28PM (11/20/2006)
Basically they are both electric cars with different energy storage methods. Though we currently have an infrastructure for delivering electricity, there is none for hydrogen.
If something like flywheel energy storage were to become practical or ultra capacitors, hydrogen would be dead in its tracks. An electric car that could be charged quickly with batteries that last a lifetime would be the end of the fuel cell.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 8:27AM (11/16/2006)
"If battery technology is able to overcome its current limits (i.e. slow recharge times), then the hydrogen portion might become less useful." --AES
Rapid-charge LiOn is already available.
http://www.altairnano.com/documents/NanoSafeBackgrounder060920.pdf
Using hydrogen to power a car is insanely stupid, and was so even before AltairNano introduced the NanoSafe battery.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 8:37AM (11/16/2006)
"If something like flywheel energy storage were to become practical..." -- Peter G
Flywheel technology is a non-starter for cars. It has some limited applicability for large installations that don't move, but the required mechanisms to stabilize a high-energy gyroscope in something that twists and turns is way beyond impractical.
"An electric car that could be charged quickly with batteries that last a lifetime would be the end of the fuel cell." -- Peter G
As mentioned above, the rapid-charge battery is available. But the hydrogen fuel cell is a really bad idea even without it. Hydrogen is a massively inefficient, hazardous, uneconomic, pollution-amplifying technology. Even ethanol (which is not a particularly good fuel) is better than hydrogen.
Reply
Tiago do Vale 10:03AM (11/16/2006)
"Hydrogen is a massively inefficient, hazardous, uneconomic, pollution-amplifying technology."
1. It's less hazourdous than gasoline... Less flamable.
2. Why is it inefficient?
3. Uneconomic, pollution-amplifying? It depends on the technology you use to produce it. And you don't know what technology will be used in the future to produce it... Maybe algae "fields" can produce it... Water electrolise by wind power? It will for sure be better than fossil fuels.
We are still in an exploratory fase: there is potencial there, so let's see were this will go...
Reply
JP 10:52AM (11/16/2006)
"Wrong. Hydrogen is a grossly inefficient pollution amplifier. It is not green in any meaningful sense of the word.
Using hydrogen to power a car is insanely stupid"
I get a kick out of those who are so blinded by their beliefs that they refuse to ever look at opposing ideas objectively. Like how this person can't even understand that hydrogen can be produced without pollution from non fossil-fuel sources.
All he can do is label things as "stupid" and "insanely stupid".
Reply
JoeChuck 9:42PM (1/13/2007)
Transitioning to using hydrogen fuel cells will enable us to transition from the use of fossil fuels to produce the hydrogen to the use of greener production methods. This is a source of useful versatility.
Batteries tend to use toxic materials which present disposal problems. In addition it might be argued that the process of creating the batteries (and of course subsequent disposal) is an energy inefficient and filthy process.
Hydrogen may not be the only solution but it has the potential to be a a pollution free (assuming produced from non-polluting source) - its end product is only water too.
Efficiency is not everything as long as it is useful, affordable, and gets the job done. Does it accomplish the goal?
The end result should be to enable development of our own fuel supply which is versatile and easy to use. This would have the effect of freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil. This dependence is dangerous as many of the oil producers are crazy and will use this carrot to eventually make us do their will.
Hydrogen fuel cells - no-brainer!!
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 11:51AM (11/16/2006)
"It's less hazourdous than gasoline... Less flamable." -- Tiago do Vale
What color is the sky on your planet? And just how did you managed to post here from an alternate universe, anyway?
"Why is it inefficient?" -- Tiago do Vale
That has to do with the laws of thermodynamics, physics, and chemistry. In *this* universe, that is.
"Uneconomic, pollution-amplifying?" -- Tiago do Vale
Yes, much more polluting than fossil fuels. The only economical way to produce hydrogen by electrolysis is with nuclear power, which has its own problems (non-renewable, waste-disposal, etc.) -- and it's far more economical (safer, greener, etc) to just use the energy directly instead of wasting it by generating hydrogen, regardless of the energy source. All other means of production are uneconomical, polluting, and/or completely impractical, including and especially wind power (aka "bird-slicers"). Again, that may only apply in *this* universe.
"I get a kick out of those who are so blinded by their beliefs that they refuse to ever look at opposing ideas objectively." -- JP
Precisely, JP. Look in a mirror sometime, should be good for a real kick.
"...hydrogen can be produced without pollution from non fossil-fuel sources." -- JP
Name one source of economical commercial quantities of hydrogen with no pollution. Even if biological production of hydrogen becomes feasible (unlikely), that doesn't do anything for the inherent hazards and other difficulties associated with hydrogen.
Wishful thinking of future possibilities involving repeal of physical laws or invention of entirely new technologies don't count.
Reply
Alfred 10:02AM (11/17/2006)
I personally like the idea of having a solar panel on my roof that splits water into hydrogen and stores it in a tank at my house. Then I can use it to generate electricity (Fuel Cell) Heat (Burn it) or use it to power my car. (Any gasoline powered car can be converted to run on Hydrogen)
It seems to me to be not the perfect source of energy per se: but the perfect method to store or bank that energy.
Fuel cells will get cheaper and solar cells will get better... so maybe it is a moot point?
Reply