GM and Toyota: Don't expect fuel cells any time soon
The great hydrogen debate of '08 continues to heat up, with Bob Lutz from GM and Katsuaki Watanabe from Toyota echoing each other's statements regarding fuel cell vehicles for the mainstream market. The general consensus seems to be that fuel cells are still way too expensive for use in automobiles and that, since hydrogen is still not available in most areas as well as being difficult and expensive to capture and contain, what would be the point, really? Additionally, General Motors has made great strides in their lithium ion battery development, leading Lutz to comment, "If we get lithium-ion to 300 miles, then you need to ask yourself, Why do you need fuel cells?" That sounds like a reasonable question. Moreover, Toyota seems to be looking past even lithium ion batteries and into other new battery chemistries.
These new statements from GM and Toyota are in stark contrast to Daimler AG Chief Executive Dieter Zetsche's comment at Geneva that with mass-production, fuel cell drivetrains could get "into the cost range of conventional powertrains." At this point in time, it seems that an agreement is difficult to reach when it comes to the future of hydrogen. For sure, powering electric cars with power extracted from hydrogen is possible, the question is whether the technology will come down in price enough to make using it feasible for our automobiles and whether it is a better solution than just storing electricity in high-tech batteries.
[Source: The Wall Street Journal]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
iDevin 9:17PM (3/06/2008)
Hallelujah! Finally, the end of the hydrogen hype is on it's way. If GM and Toyota are ready to go to bat for electric cars then we're about to see a big shift in the alternative fuels debate.
Reply
Wise Golden 10:03PM (3/06/2008)
Yes. Hydrogen is a future technology. Electricity is a current technology that will provide a bridge to the day when hydrogen will be more practical.
Reply
meme 10:14PM (3/06/2008)
Hopefully it's *not* zinc air batteries. They've got all sorts of major problems. Why go from a hydrogen boondoggle to a zinc-air boondoggle?
Anyways, there are tons of new battery techs out there. There are literally dozens of lithium ion variants. There are sodium-ion batteries (not to be confused with other types of sodium batteries; these are notably higher energy density than lithium ion and rely on the same ion-across-membrane charging mechanism). Lithium-sulphur. batteries. Even ultracapacitors might manage to hit the stage. There are tons and tons of high energy density battery chemistries out there.
But, back to the main subject: Huzzah for the upcoming death of the hydrogen car! :)
Reply
Derek 10:45PM (3/06/2008)
Hydrogen still has one advantage: instant refueling. Unless you want to exchange battery packs along the way, refilling a car with hydrogen will be faster than plugging a battery into the grid.
Reply
GenWaylaid 11:42PM (3/06/2008)
Derek,
Faster than plugging into the grid, yes. The very high power densities of some lithium chemistries suggest a different charging mechanism when one is out on the road, however. Why not fill your battery in minutes from a much larger battery? The charging station's large battery would simply serve as a load buffer and would charge off the grid at a steady pace while you get your energy as quickly as possible and go. It's rather like how you currently fill your gas tank quickly from a much larger tank under the gas station rather than piping it all the way from the refinery.
I recall that AltairNano has already demonstrated some small-scale fast charging on a prototype BEV. The downside to fast-charging a whole BEV pack in minutes is that it requires hundreds of volts and thousands of amps. That means a cable like a firehose. Still, I'd love to see it happen.
Reply
meme 12:00AM (3/07/2008)
[quote]Hydrogen still has one advantage: instant refueling.[/quote]
Most types of modern "automotive" li-ions are capable of fast charging (5-15 minutes, depending on the type). You need a fast charger, but it's a heck of a lot easier than creating a whole hydrogen fuelling station (and you don't need to fast charge at home -- only when on the go for long distances)
Reply
Mike Z 11:50PM (3/06/2008)
Given the the vast majority of typical distances. For the time being I see RE-EV as being a more practical idea for the time being.
After all, you can built the Volt with 40 Mile range, then take it to 60, then 80, than 100 mile EV-Range and it will only use
Reply
Mike Z 11:51PM (3/06/2008)
Given the the vast majority of typical distances. For the time being I see RE-EV as being a more practical idea for the time being.
After all, you can built the Volt with 40 Mile range, then take it to 60, then 80, than 100 mile EV-Range and it will only use
Reply
Mike Z 11:52PM (3/06/2008)
Given the the vast majority of typical distances. For the time being I see RE-EV as being a more practical idea for the time being.
After all, you can built the Volt with 40 Mile range, then take it to 60, then 80, than 100 mile EV-Range and it will only use less than 50 gallons of gas a year. And at that point is it really worth going through all the trouble of rapid-recharge stations to eliminate such a small amount of gasoline?
I'm under the impression that from a weight and total-cost perspective a RE-EV with a EV range of ~80 miles will likely make more sense for the next 10-20 years. Maybe EVs after that.
(Sorry about the multiple posts, fyi the 'less than' sign truncates a post)
Reply
meme 3:13AM (3/07/2008)
"cable like a firehose"
Depends on the battery pack size :) A four-wire split-phase 240V charge at 90 degrees for an Aptera Typ-1e, by my estimate, can be done in 10 minutes over 4/0 guage (just over a centimeter) conductors. Now if you have basically the EV equivalent of a Hummer with a 250 mile range, sure, you'll need a lot of juice flowing there. But that's where things like forced air cooling (or in more extreme cases, liquid cooling) and higher voltages come in. Or, absolute worst case, you use a charging station that your vehicle docks in rather than using a cord. Something like that would probably be needed for electric semis at the very least.
Safety is easy enough. One, you put electronics on the cord to tell the charging station not to start current flow until it has verified a secure connection. Two, you have the cord covered in a wire sheath that, if broken anywhere, cuts off charging. Do those two things, and I think you'd be *at least* as safe as a gas station, and significantly safer than a hydrogen one (sorry, hydrogen fans, but gasoline is a pain to make explode in any condition, while your stuff can leak through almost anything and can explode at anywhere from 4% to 75% concentration.)
Reply
TX CHL Instructor 8:41AM (3/07/2008)
Note to hydrogen delusionists: Reality bites, doesn't it?
Reply
davewin 9:30AM (3/07/2008)
Hydrogen doesn't provide for instant refueling. The safety precautions that go into filling a tanker truck with liquid hydrogen are tremendous.
Not sure how much energy it takes to compress hydrogen to liquid form, but you may as well convert electricity to power a generator to generate electricity to charge a battery. Probably will net about the same output.
And there's no H refueling infrastructure.
Reply
b33gee 1:13PM (3/07/2008)
Hooray! Big car companies want to milk you for all you're worth with interim technology. Seriously, if we get rid of the giant gas guzzling SUVs (with $5/Gallon gasoline around the corner, that should happend automatically) and start driving cars that get 40-50 mpg, current oil reserves should last enough to get us to the Hydrogen economy. Hopefully, a Chinese or Indian car company will decide not to play ball with the big guys and decide to skip the whole EV age.
Reply
psarhjinian 10:25AM (3/07/2008)
If I recall, creating hydrogen in any reasonable quantity is fairly energy intensive (ie, it makes ethanol look positively rosey).
Other then tailpipe emissions, what was the point?
Reply
Lou Grinzo 11:18AM (3/07/2008)
Take a given amount of electrical energy, and use it to recharge an EV's batteries or create, distribute, dispense, and use hydrogen in an on-board fuel cell. The EV travels about 3 times farther for that same investment.
Given that we will be exceedingly hard pressed to minimize our CO2 emissions for decades to come, we have to get as much bang per buck out of our zero-carbon electrons. That makes hydrogen fuel cells, even once we can solve their myriad technical problems, a luxury we can't afford.
I would love to see the US gov't eliminate hydrogen R&D subsidies and put all of that money into battery (including capacitor) R&D. That's our future, and the sooner we get there the sooner we can make serious reductions in our CO2 emissions and oil dependency.
Reply
Hybridcarblog 12:22PM (3/07/2008)
Bob Lutz has never been a big fan of fuel cell vehicles - he wasn't a big fan of hybrids or electric cars not that long ago either, but GM is still very much moving towards fuel cell vehicles That's why the Volt and the next generation GM fuel cell vehicle will both be built on the E Flex Drive.
As for Toyota, in Japan Toyota is moving quite aggressively towards fuel cell vehicles, as is Honda.
Fuel cells are coming, not just because of cars, but because fuel cells will make every electronic device more efficient - such as AC's and refrigerators. That's why Honda and Toyota don't just make fuel cells for cars, but for houses as well.
Bob Lutz has never been an advocate of efficiency (and I won't even get into global warming). He doesn't get it, but the Japanese have built their auto industry around this kaizen philosophy, and fuel cells are simply an extension of this philosophy.
Reply
jake 12:57PM (3/07/2008)
@b33gee
Do you not know the majority of hydrogen today is made from steam reformation of natural gas and that natural gas resources are still limited in the US? This means in the short term we can make do, but in the long term we will just still have to depend on foreign resources. Another thing is there is absolutely no infrastructure at all for hydrogen today. As mentioned, when you look at renewable resources for hydrogen, EVs win all the time because they turn out to use the same resources more efficiently. And another thing: it's too expensive. The "Hydrogen economy" isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Reply
b33gee 1:27PM (3/07/2008)
psarhjinian/Jake,
You dont HAVE to use natural gas for this. There are alternative energy sources available. For example, Norway is testing a Solar powered independent Hydroden Kiosks that use electrolysis to generate hydrogen fuel. All you need is sunshine and a water supply. Lets not get so myopic in our solutions. The preze was babbling on the other day about how we are 'leading' the world in everyting including energy independence ( Sometimes I wonder if this man is even aware of his surroundings), surely we can come up with some other ways to create Hydrogen? Just divert 10% of the Pentagon budget to Alternative energy R&D and I gaurantee that American businesses will be guying out Arab banks and real estate and not the other way around.
Reply
jake 1:27PM (3/07/2008)
@Hybridcarblog
I don't know how far you have bought into the hydrogen hype, but fuel cells DO NOT provide more efficiency, okay. The only reason fuel cells are being used at home/buildings is because they can provide backup power more efficently than other fuel generators. ACs and refridgerators don't magically get more efficent from running on a fuel cell. Think of fuel cells as energy storage, like a battery. And like any energy storage it results in losses. That means besides from the energy losses MAKING the hydrogen you get huge energy losses converting to electricity via fuel cell. 60% is the absolute max number right now just from the fuel cell itself, theoretical is 83%. Comparatively a common battery can can approach 95%.
So why don't we used batteries for backup energy storage then? It is because they don't provide enough energy storage for the same volume. With fuel cells you only need a huge tank of fuel or a fuel line and a fuel cell to store energy. With a battery you will need a VERY huge battery to store the same energy. That means the battery will likely turn out to cost way more to store huge amounts of energy. But in no way is the fuel cell more efficient.
On the other hand, if you go down to smaller scales like in a car the battery itself will be way less expensive than the fuel cell alone. Not to mention the cost of the high pressure hydrogen tanks. The fuel cell (notice this is applying to fuel cells in general not just hydrogen fuel cells) is cost effective when used in large scales like buildings since they will likely replace other expensive generators, but in cars, not so much.
Reply
Miguel 9:50PM (3/09/2008)
The Hydrogen Education Foundation is surprised by the inaccurate elements in the article published in the Wall Street Journal about General Motors and Toyota abandoning their support to develop hydrogen cars on March 5, 2008. At about the same time the Wall Street Journal published their story about General Motors and Toyota, CNN published a story how BP and General Motors believe hydrogen is part of the future: http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/05/news/companies/bigoil_hydrogen/?postversion=2008030507 Plus, GM and Shell recently released a white paper which says "We have thought through many complex issues around sustainable transportation and our confidence in the future of hydrogen remains high." The fact remains that Toyota and General Motors, plus other major autos like Honda and BMW, are continuing with their endeavors to develop hydrogen cars. All are sponsors of the Hydrogen Education Foundation's new education initiative: H2 and You. The hub of the program is http://www.h2andyou.org.
Separate from the frequent emphasis on hydrogen cars, the reality is hydrogen can be used to power many applications. The next cell phone call you make could be powered by hydrogen since fuel cell power supplies support cell phone towers. In addition, the next time you shop at Wal-Mart the box of Oreo cookies and the new Blue Ray movie you purchase could be transported with a fuel cell forklift.
While the transition to hydrogen may appear to be complicated and far into the future, organizations such as Shell, Chevron, and BP are working with the Department of Energy now to establish a hydrogen fueling infrastructure. An initial $10 to $15 billion investment, equivalent to about one month of military spending in Iraq, would establish an initial refueling infrastructure within 2 miles anywhere within the top 100 metro areas and along all US highways. Furthermore, more than 40 billion kg of hydrogen are produced globally each year with production plants located near or within every major metropolitan city in the US - enough to fuel 130 million fuel cell-electric vehicles annually. Since hydrogen is also used to produce gasoline, switching from gas to hydrogen is simpler than it appears.
The Hydrogen Education Foundation appreciates the complexity of transitioning to using new fuels. We invite everyone to learn about what is fact and fiction about hydrogen as an alternative fuel.
Reply