While I have been quite skeptical of hydrogen fuel cells, I have to admit that, to be the contrarian, I’m actually starting to think that Hydrogen actual might have a lot of promise when combined with li-ion batteries.

The reason for this is I see a Hydrogen fuel cell as a great complement to a Range-Extended Electric Vehicle, like the Volt.

The problem that I see right now is that, while I would love to see 300 mile range EVs with 10 minute recharge times, I’m starting to see fault with this. First a 300 mile EV would likely require a massive battery pack that right now would cost a lot of money, and even with massive improvements, would still likely be decades off from making them cheap enough to build a mainstream car. Also you would carry around close to 1,000 pounds of batteries that you would rarely use a fraction of for most driving.
Let’s do some math:
Let’s assume that due to mass production, the cost of a Li-Ion pack falls by ~400% is $250/kWh (which is only 2x what PbA is). For an EV with a 250 mile range, the cost of the battery pack is still over $15,000 (assuming 250 Wh/mile). (And the battery pack for the Volt would be $4,000).
GM’s fuel cell cost target is $50/kW. So to replace the Volt’s gas engine with a fuel cell would cost only $2,500. (Assuming 50kW, as the 71hp engine will likely be throttled less than it is rated to operate as efficiently as possible)
So if battery costs fall by 400%, I can build:
A 40 Mile Hydrogen REEV for $6,500
–or—
A 250 Mile EV for $15,000 (Or more than double the price)
Remember hydrogen haters, in this scenario it’s not Hydrogen vs. Battery Instead It’s
Hydrogen vs. Petroleum
Hydrogen vs. Biofuels
Hydrogen vs. Synthetic fuels (CTL/GTL)

So in this case from a carbon free perspective, its hydrogen produced from gasified biomass, or cellulosic ethanol. Pick one.
Also having the EV range would dramatically reduce the need for hydrogen infrastructure, as most people would need to fill up infrequently, so for fueling stations a few in town and along stops on the interstate would be sufficient.

Reply

↓↑report

Even if the remaining - and far from trivial - technical and cost issues of FCVs were to be resolved in the foreseeable future, there is still the huge issue of how the hydrogen fuel is to be produced at industrial scales.

Renewable sources will remain prohibitively expensive for many years to come, steam reforming from natural gas generates a lot of well-to-wheel CO2 emissions and, the nuclear industry hasn't solved the essentially political issues related to the logistics, reprocessing and permanent storage of its highly radioactive waste. That leaves magic pixie dust.

I'm not holding my breath for FCVs, the odds against them are much longer than those against improved ICEs incl. clean diesels, various hybrids, NGVs, sustainable biofuels and reduced annual mileage.

Reply

↓↑report

Well, if they're talking with Shell, you know they aren't serious as they claim to be on making electric vehicles.

Reply

↓↑report

@Mike Z
Yeah, Mike, the only problem I see with your argument is that hydrogen fuel cells cost more than big battery packs. And then there is the whole infrastructure problem. GM's $50/kWh yarget is just that, a target. There is no indication they will ever reach there, so you can't do calculations based on expectations. And li-ions, esp commodity ones don't need to decline 400% in cost. Just the fact you listed the Volt's cells at $4000 already disproves your numbers. $4000 for 8kWh (pack is actually 16kWh but GM is only using 50%) means $500/kWh; you can see from there that you can get to the $250/kWh point if you sacrifice some of the battery life and GM even said battery prices would likely lower once they get going on building it in volume. Tesla gets 221 miles on their 52kWh pack and it's been widely reported to have costed $20k. That's $350/kWh.

Since we are all playing the guessing game, what I propose is not to build the cars with so much range. Maybe around 100 miles. That would put the cost at $6250 with $250/kWh cells. Then build EV quick charging stations like the ones in Hawaii that charge in 10 minutes for 100 miles: "having the EV range would dramatically reduce the need for (quick charge) infrastructure, as most people would need to fill up infrequently, so for fueling stations, a few in town and along stops on the interstate would be sufficient."

Reply

↓↑report

Mike Z: One problem with your argument is you are comparing price per Kwh to price per Kw. It's like confusing distance (miles) with speed (miles per hour). Another is the $50 per Kw figure is what GM hopes to someday achieve. Current fuel cells cost $5,000 per Kw, and that's after 50 years of research to reduce costs. You also didn't include the cost of H2 fuel storage, those high pressure carbon fiber tanks cost almost as much as the fuel cells!

So, where are the breakthroughs that will make fuel cells and H2 storage affordable? Nothing in sight. But we're already seeing several breakthroughs in battery technology that can increase capacity, reduce costs, improve lifespan and performance.

Will there be enough billionaires and governments with money to burn to buy a thousand H2FC vehicles by 2012? Well, maybe. But there sure as heck won't be enough rich spendthrifts to pay for "hundreds of thousands" let alone a million, within a decade.

There are already more freeway capable electric cars than H2FC cars, and production is ramping up fast. Then add in several plug-in hybrid models arriving soon, and I really don't see H2FC as having any chance of success at all.

Reply

↓↑report

Not to play Futurist, but I do see a place for both Fuel Cell and pure EV in the world.
Both have strengths and weaknesses.

EV has power, distribution, cost and complexity.
FC has range, flexibility, impact and the technology is still in its' infancy.

I see EV or Series hybrid being the primary vehicle for most people in most places.

When it comes to trucks, or applications that afford to create the infrastructure, the choice will be FC.

Virgin Atlantic will build a refueling depot just for the Airports, cargo companies will upgrade truck stops with on site hydrogen production, buses same thing. Yes it will expensive but when you need range that batteries cannot provide, I think FC will be the choice.

I can even imagine that most households will have multiple vehicles: One or Two EVs and a FC for long trips. Yes they will have to plan a route along the known refilling points but the range of the tanks will allow them to do so. And refilling will be gas-station quick.

Also I see FC's have the ability to go longer (in years or miles) without an overhaul, an advantage in commercial applications.

In some places where hydrogen can be cheaply made FC's will rule.

For the bigger cities I do see EV/Hybrid being the winner.

In the end it will not be a universal solution or a cost based analysis. It will be a personal, local or geographic choice, and isn't having a any type of choice better than a big oil company saying: "We Say So"?

Reply

↓↑report

2012? That guy is on drugs

Reply

↓↑report

@ Mike Z
you cannot make a comparison if you fail to point out the cost of the fuel cell. The cost of the fuel cell currently is over $500,000. They won't last 100,000 miles due to corrosion.
Fuel cells have the current advantages over BEVs:
1) fast "recharge" Just fill up the hydrogen tank to recharge the "battery".
2) ... wait... I'm thinking...

BEVs have the current advantages over HFC:
1) smaller energy loss than hydrogen (40% higher)
2) higher performance (fuel cells can't push enough electricity without using super capacitors)
3) current technology is cheap enough to make a sub $40,000 small car. (the EV1 was a $35,000-$40,000 car, even with NiMH batteries)

The advantages they both share is the ability to design the car around the source of energy, this targets where the weight is distributed. Generally the electric motor is a non issue in comparison to the weight of the vehicle itself (I think the tesla motor weighs in at 17 lbs)

Reply

↓↑report

At this point a battery pack that can power a EV for 300 miles and recharge in 10 minutes, and a fuel cell for $50/kw are both merely predictions about the future. In that regard we should treat them both as such.

Also I'm speaking specifically of a Range Extended EV where instead of a ICE generator, a Fuel Cell is used.

Reply

↓↑report

The fuel cell idea is DEAD after 2009 when Toyota brings out a next gen synergy drive, that will stay in ELECTRIC ONLY mode up to 45 mph. The cost of an infrastructure change to Hydrogen becomes pointless after that point. Period.

Reply

↓↑report

@Mike Z
The rapid charge in 10 minutes for 100 miles of range is not in the future, it's here RIGHT NOW in hawaii and it works; just google it. Sure, you would likely need 30 minutes to charge for 300 miles, but if we build 100 mile EVs it won't be a problem and the battery pack would be cheaper. Your $50/kw figure as Chris pointed out is different than $50/kwh that I thought you were referring to. The quick charge systems already exist, but cheap prices for fuel cells still don't, and that is the major difference. Like laughingtoohard I can see the possibility of fuel cells on trucks or maybe buses; but I don't see how they are viable for common passenger vehicles in the near future (as this article predicts) without being either leased or heavily subsidized.

Reply

↓↑report