Kia: Mass-produced fuel cell cars would cost $50,000 today
Kia Borrego FCEV - Click above for high-res image gallery
Let's face it: Hydrogen technology still has a ways to go before there's any real chance that we'll all be driving fuel cell cars in lieu of electric or fossil fuel-burning machines. Chief among the issues confronting the widespread adoption of hydrogen for automotive use is cost, though that obstacle is currently being worked on. According to Byung Ki-Ahn, general manager of Kia's Mabuk-ri site, "Even if we were producing 50,000 fuel cell cars a year, they would currently have to cost $50,000 each."
While it would be easy for hydrogen proponents to latch on to this statement as good news – and, if true, that pricing is considerably better than we would have predicted – there's more to overcome than just the pricey fuel cell stack. For instance, even if Kia were indeed building 50,000 fuel cell cars per year, there would need to be an adequate infrastructure to support those vehicles. Further, a low cost and eco-friendly process for capturing, storing and transporting large amounts of hydrogen still needs to be developed.
Regardless, it's clear that Kia, along with corporate cousin Hyundai, believe these issues will be worked out in time. When asked where the Korean automaker currently sits on a production-ready hydrogen vehicle, Ki-Ahn said, "On a scale of one to 10, I'd say we we're at six or seven. Before 2020, many people will be hearing about fuel cell vehicles made by Hyundai-Kia."
Gallery: Kia Borrego FCEV
[Source: Galway Independent via Hydrogen Discoveries]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tim 1:05PM (7/23/2009)
What would the fuel cost per mile as compared to alternatives?
I'd bet that H2 has the highest cost per mile driven and electricity has the lowest.
So, H2 is the most expensive technology requiring a whole new $Trillion infrasture with the most expensive fuel!
Good luch with that...
Reply
paulwesterberg 2:07PM (7/23/2009)
This article is more hydrogen propaganda from our favorite industry shill Greg Blencoe.
Tim 2:12PM (7/23/2009)
I was wondering why it smelled of rotting fish...
Serge 3:43PM (7/23/2009)
Great job on checking your sources, Jeremy, following right in Sebastian's footsteps. A known propaganda outlet republishes from some obscure blog.
Who is this "Byung Ki-Ahn" and what the heck is "Kia's Mabuk-ri site". Good luck finding some answers.
Chris M 4:55PM (7/23/2009)
Well, considering the current retail cost of H2 ($8 to $10 per Kg) and the efficiency of H2 fuel cells, I'd say the fuel cost for H2FCVs would be higher than the cost of equivalent "gassers", and about 5 to 6 times higher than the equivalent EV. Of course, if gas prices were to rise, those ratios could change a bit. The H2 hypers claim that H2 prices will plunge to very low prices with mass production - except, inconveniently, H2 is already being mass produced for other purposes.
Interesting, doing a google search on "Kia Mabuk Fuel cell" brought up lots of news articles, most of which seem to reference back to Blencoes "hydrogen discovery" site! Oddly, I wasn't able to find any official press release direct from Kia, so I suspect that either this was an "off the record" comment by someone at Kia, or it is a fictional account. Knowing Blencoes desperation for maintaining the Hype, a fictionalized account is entirely possible.
Tim 5:03PM (7/23/2009)
"...a fictionalized account is entirely possible."
Strike the last word and replace it with "probable".
ShaunneyCakes 1:12PM (7/23/2009)
Look, I work in marketing and I can tell you right now, America will NEVER except an inferior technology.
The vehicles need to equal current offerings.
The EV or Hydrogen Vehicle would HAVE to meet the following criteria:
- 300+ mile MINIMUM tank/ battery range
- 150,000 mile lifespan MINIMUM (current BEV's don't come close, the Tesla Roadster only lasts 100,000 miles right now or 10 years)
- under $30,000 for 300+ mile range (for this price NO EV's have this range)
- Recharge/Fill in under 8 minutes WITHOUT added equipment (no fast chargers, no requirement to have a outlet facing your driveway, no special outlets (and yes, any voltage over 140v is NOT a standard outlet!)
Don't kid yourselves, a 70mile range will cover 90% of commutes out there, but any old beat up GEO can do that, you need something that people can take on weekend trips to the mountains or beach. Not EVERYONE in America has two cars.
If you have to say "I can have my commuting car and my long distance car" you are simply coming up with a reason to make an inferior product look better.
If every one of these criteria are not met, the vehicle may still have a niche acceptance, but will never be a big selling item.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 1:40PM (7/23/2009)
I refuse to believe that we are stuck with the current gasoline based transportation structure for ever. For one thing, oil is going to get much more expensive. For every new barrel of oil we find, we take 4 out of the ground. That is not sustainable.
People are more accepting to change than you think.
Sean 2:26PM (7/23/2009)
The day your criteria are met is the day the ICE dies, which will be many years after widespread EV use (I consider a few million EVs in america widespread). "Not EVERYONE in America has two cars." but EVs can still sell tens of millions even if they are only sold as second cars.
" Recharge/Fill in under 8 minutes WITHOUT added equipment (no fast chargers, no requirement to have a outlet facing your driveway, no special outlets (and yes, any voltage over 140v is NOT a standard outlet!) " I was not aware you could refill you ICE car in your driveway without special equipment. This point should be refill in 10 minutes with special equipment or overnight without (which car on the road today can do)
When you drive your ICE car you are only paying part of the cost. It damages the environment and we pick up the tab for your consumption. We need a Carbon tax so that the people consuming the resource have to pay for it. That way EVs and ICEs would be on a level playing field.
Today, even by a fair comparison, EVs are probably still more expensive than ICE cars like the Corolla or Civic, but that won't be true for much longer. Evs have a much lower operating cost, so they can afford a larger cost to produce.
Throwback 2:16PM (7/23/2009)
We don't have to have a "gasoline" based transportation structure. However, expecting people to spend more money for a car that does not meet or exceed the performance envelope of their current car is silly. Most people will buy the vehicle that fits what they expect and want their cars to do. EVs and H2 cars have a long way to go in that regard.
paulwesterberg 3:27PM (7/23/2009)
Apparently though Americans will except inferior grammar.
Serge 3:36PM (7/23/2009)
In that case Americans will never accept hydrogen fuel-cell ER-EVs, because that is THE inferior technology.
jake 3:58PM (7/23/2009)
Seems like criteria specifically targeted to give a disadvantage to EVs. And hydrogen isn't going to be much better too, since as Kia said the it'll be $50k with 50k units when Tesla might be selling something for $50k with 10-20k units. And don't think fuel cells are that durable, one of the reasons why they were deemed not ready is because they are not durable enough. The current durability target by the DOE is only 2000 hours or ~60k miles. 5000 hours or ~150k miles is a target for 2015, and there are already batteries that can exceed that target (a123, altairnano for example). Most talks about hydrogen fuel cells don't focus on durability (unlike talks about plug-ins) so the general public tends to think they last forever, which they don't.
And not needing special equipment? Hydrogen stations cost $4mil to build according to CARB's est., 2x as much as a gas station, while for EVs if you can deal with the slow charging you can even use the existing plugs in your home (even for 220V, dryer plugs are standard outlets you know). And a rapid charger costs around $100k (even less for the lower power ones), so you have can 8 (akin to an 8 pump station) for about $1mil; if you add the other miscellaneous stuff, you'll still be under $2mil, so the same as a gas station. http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/10/08/rapid-charging-electric-cars-from-oahu-to-you/
Also a normal hydrogen fill-up takes about 25 minutes (found that out from Leno's test of the Equinox), only if you have special compression tanks do you get filling in a couple of minutes. And for early adopters of hydrogen, they might need a home fueling station, which I bet will cost more than a plug. How is that not special equipment? And don't forget even if you factor in added efficiency of hydrogen and consider volume production, it'll cost $4-7 a gallon equivalent. At current electricity prices, factoring in EV efficiency, it's less than $1.50 a gallon equivalent for electricity.
And don't forget plug-ins like the Volt which could get the ball rolling and people to accept EVs (and the idea of plugging in where you go vs visiting a station every week); they are even more practical than hydrogen cars since they can refuel anywhere for long trips. Who says EVs have to target everyone as soon as they launch. They can start off with people for which it is convenient, ie those with garages and second cars or those that can deal with renting a car for long trips.
So I wouldn't be so sure people would automatically go to hydrogen even if the vehicle costs are the same. On the article itself, I'll believe it when I see it, but I suppose it is good news for hydrogen if Kia can really hit that target.
Dave 4:03PM (7/23/2009)
@ShaunneyCakes
"- 300+ mile MINIMUM tank/ battery range"
This could be done now, but the battery pack will weigh over 1000 lbs. And when your average trip is 1/10th that distance, why bother carrying around all that extra weight?
"- 150,000 mile lifespan MINIMUM (current BEV's don't come close, the Tesla Roadster only lasts 100,000 miles right now or 10 years)"
The Tesla pack will last 10 years/150k, but capacity will have gone down by then. And that is using the last generation of Lithium cells. Current generation are better, and the next generation (2-3 years from now) will be even better than that. Of course, tradeoffs for performance and energy density will made for lifespan once they exceed 10 years / 150k miles.
@Throwback
"However, expecting people to spend more money for a car that does not meet or exceed the performance envelope of their current car is silly."
You're right. But unfortunately, most people's view of "performance" doesn't get any farther than the tip of their nose. How the vehicle performs in terms of impact on the environment and local economy is important. As long as we continue to burn fossil fuels and import foreign oil like there is no tomorrow, it is evident that at some point the consumer will have to be trained to look last the tip of their nose. Hopefully that happens before it is too late.
Chris M 4:27PM (7/23/2009)
What narrow criteria you have, Shaunney! But if you're right, then H2FCVs are in big trouble, as they barely meet just one of your criteria.
There are a few H2FCV prototypes (and EV prototypes) that have exceeded 300 mile range, but none are in production. The FCX Clarity gets only 270 miles, not much more that the 244 miles for the Tesla Roadster, and less than the 300 mile option on the Tesla Model S. Of course, plug-in hybrids have no trouble exceeding that figure.
While the Tesla Roadster has a 100,000 warranty, that exceeds the longevity record for H2 PEM fuel cells at 80,000 miles. GM plans to a 150,000 mile warranty for the PHEV Volt.
But your last criteria is so narrow it excludes ALL vehicles! Even gassers require "added equipment" - a fuel pump and nozzle, or at the very least, a gas can with a spout. But the "added equipment" cost for EVs and PHEVs is considerably less than for H2FCVs. Charging outlets are cheap enough that the average homeowner can easily afford it, not so for a "home sized" H2 steam reformer and very high pressure H2 pump.
Conclusion - EVs are much closer to meeting those criteria than any H2 vehicle.
polo 4:50PM (7/23/2009)
"Look, I work in marketing and I can tell you right now, America will NEVER except an inferior technology.
The vehicles need to equal current offerings.
The EV or Hydrogen Vehicle would HAVE to meet the following criteria:"
Seriously, who gives a f#ck where you allegedly work? On the internet you have no more credibility than a bum sleeping on the sidewalk.
"- 300+ mile MINIMUM tank/ battery range
EVs aren't designed or intended to be topped off once-a-week. Their drivers will charge them while parked at home, the office, or at a public parking spot. This is not just to charge it but to capitalize on its benefits as a potential backbone to the electric grid - and some utilities are even considering leasing EVs specifically for this reason. You don't even seem to have an elementary understanding of the tech.
"- 150,000 mile lifespan MINIMUM (current BEV's don't come close, the Tesla Roadster only lasts 100,000 miles right now or 10 years)"
I wouldn't compare the roadster to any other of the EVs coming out unless you're talking about high-end electrics intended to compete on the same track as a 911. To arbitrarily blatantly make up something like that and then attribute it to every car with an electric powertrain just shows we're dealing with a 14year old who fawns over his uncle's corvette and not someone of any kind of credibility.
"- under $30,000 for 300+ mile range (for this price NO EV's have this range)"
This assumes that EVs will never sell as premium or luxury models, something which pretty much every automaker coming out with one one disagrees with, and again for those with range anxiety they can go for a PHEV, but most will prefer pure electric with half the range.
"Recharge/Fill in under 8 minutes WITHOUT added equipment (no fast chargers, no requirement to have a outlet facing your driveway, no special outlets (and yes, any voltage over 140v is NOT a standard outlet!):"
Easily the most idiotic of your "criteria". What does it matter if an EV charges in 8 minutes with a fast charger?? You're just trolling around some anti-EV talking points and you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about. Were you typing this in the computer lab during recess?
"Don't kid yourselves, a 70mile range will cover 90% of commutes out there, but any old beat up GEO can do that, you need something that people can take on weekend trips to the mountains or beach."
A 40mile range would cover 90% of the commutes out there, and most of the automakers are starting at 100miles with upgrade packages. And for the 5% that make extended weekend trips, they can buy the larger battery packs, rent a car for infrequent trips, or just buy a PHEV and use the gas tank only when going out of town.
Interesting how the trolls have devolved into smug middle schoolers who know everything and get everything wrong all in the same post.
meme 2:06PM (7/23/2009)
Of course, if you're going to look at mass-produced FCVs, you need to compare to mass-produced EVs. Mitsubishi expects EVs at, what, $22k when they hit volumes of 30k/year?
Reply
Bix 3:19PM (7/23/2009)
What power that only FCEV 50K$ has? You know what - it's not too difficult to slash costs by putting small fuel cell which would take you at 30mph at best. At what kind of range that cheap FCEV would get?
(wasn't there shown a fuel cell bike with performance not really better than a bicycle, not that long time ago?)
It's easy to proclaim that "if mass produced it'd be 50k$" but please give some specs at least. Otherwise we can say alike: "if mass produced (over 50.000 units per year) then Tesla Roadster would cost 5.000$!".
If so then show us - just "mass produce" that damn thing in the first place.
Chris M 4:11PM (7/23/2009)
Good point, Bix, it could end up being a "neighborhood hydrogen vehicle" like the Riversimple. Of course, with limited power and range, a "NH2V" at $50K wouldn't sell very well, thus not meet "mass market" targets, thus would have higher production costs, thus would cost even more.
David Martin 2:04PM (7/23/2009)
Shauney Cakes said:
'I can tell you right now, America will NEVER except an inferior technology. '
You need to make your assumptions clear.
Number one would seem to be an infinite supply of oil at around current price.
Number two would be that the economy does not get still worse, throwing vast numbers of people out of work and meaning that many will be lucky if they can ride a bike.
The third assumption would be that finance recovers, as the vast majority of new cars are financed not bought for cash.
If any of the assumptions you are making is faulty, Americans will do the same as everyone else, and manage with what they can afford.
My own guess is that many will be lucky if they can afford some kind of NEV, and the cruising and luxury cars of the present are likely to be out of reach for all save the very wealthy for many years.
Reply