OEMs go all out to defend fuel cells... but hide hydrogen angle
Hydrogen cars in Vancouver - click above for high-res image gallery
When you're down and out, that's when you find out who your real friends are. While there are calls for a more grassroots approach to hydrogen infrastructure development, the real pushers are the big automakers and the government. And, now that H2 funding is under attack but also back in the mix, eight major automakers (or partnerships) – Daimler, Ford, GM/Opel, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Renault/Nissan and Toyota – have issued a joint press release saying they all "Stick up for Electric Vehicles with Fuel Cell" by signing a Letter of Understanding that they will work together on the development and market introduction of electric vehicles with fuel cells, especially from 2015 onward.
Note the change in message here. No longer does the word hydrogen have top billing. Instead, these H2 cars are now electric vehicle that just happen to have fuel cells instead of batteries. Of course, this has always been the case, but it's clear that hydrogen is now seen as a hot button term, and the eight automakers involved in this press release are backing away from it. Read the whole thing after the jump.
Gallery: Vancouver Fuel Cell Vehicles
Photos copyright ©2009 Sebastian Blanco / Weblogs, Inc.
[Source: The eight automakers listed]
PRESS RELEASE:
Automobile Manufacturers Stick up for Electric Vehicles with Fuel Cell
Stuttgart, Sep 09, 2009
*Letter of Understanding on electric vehicles with fuel cell development and market introduction signed
Stuttgart – Today, Daimler AG announced that the leading vehicle manufacturers in fuel cell technology - Daimler AG, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation/Opel, Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Hyundai Motor Company, Kia Motors Corporation, the alliance Renault SA and Nissan Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Corporation - gave a joint statement to the development and market introduction of electric vehicles with fuel cells with a Letter of Understanding (LoU). These companies have built up remarkable know-how in fuel cell technology and thus, the signing marks a major step towards the serial production of such locally emission-free vehicles.
The signing automobile manufacturers strongly anticipate that from 2015 onwards a quite significant number of electric vehicles with fuel cell could be commercialised. This number is aimed at a few hundred thousand units over life cycle on a worldwide basis. As every vehicle manufacturer will implement its own specific production and commercial strategies as well as timelines, commercialisation of electric vehicles with fuel cells may occur earlier than in the above-mentioned expected year.
Road traffic has been steadily increasing in recent years and vehicle ownership is expected to grow. As a result, there will be increased priority on low and zero emission vehicles and an increase in overall CO2 reduction goals. Over the last decade, governments, car manufacturers and the energy sector have given special attention to the introduction of hydrogen as a fuel for road transport as a priority option to reach several goals associated with emission management and CO2 reduction. Current demonstration projects involving fuel retail companies, utility providers and engineering companies have shown that the production, storage, transportation and deployment of efficient equipment for hydrogen as a fuel are technically feasible.
In order to ensure a successful market introduction of electric vehicles with fuel cells, a hydrogen infrastructure has to be built up with sufficient density. The network is required by 2015 and should be built-up from metropolitan areas via corridors into area-wide coverage. The signing manufacturers strongly support the idea of building-up a hydrogen infrastructure in Europe, with Germany as regional starting point and at the same time developing similar concepts for the market penetration of hydrogen infrastructure in other regions of the world, including the USA, Japan and Korea as further starting points.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Eletruk 8:00PM (9/09/2009)
And maybe eventually they will drop the fuel cells entirely when batteries continue to advance and eliminate any minor advantage Hydrogen has over EVs. As batteries continue to improve, distance goes up, charge time goes down. The main advantage Hydrogen can claim is greater distance and faster fill time, at great expense. The economics of Hydrogen will eventually force big oil to face the fact that they missed the boat. If they wanted to maintain control of transportations energy supply, they should've been building Hydrogen filling stations, not waiting for government subsidies to pay for it. Now with public opinion against them, as well as the majority of the scientific community and just economics in general, I don't think Hydrogen really has a chance any more.
Reply
jtak 8:26PM (9/09/2009)
Thanks for accurately commenting on the advantage that fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) have over battery electric vehicles (BEVs). BEVs also have advantages. The parallel assumption to your statement that batteries will improve over time is that fuel cell and hydrogen technology will too.
Ignatius 9:07PM (9/09/2009)
However, electricity is easily harnessed and stored.
Hydrogen isn't going to change that much and the storage limits aren't going to be very pleasing. What was GM's fuel cell vehicle pressurized at? 10,000 PSI? Ever seen a 3,000 PSI oxygen/nitrogen tank explode?
Just wait for a car accident...
jake 9:36PM (9/09/2009)
@jtak
I don't doubt fuel cell vehicles will improve just like BEVs do, but how far can they improve? The laws of physics dictate that fuel cells will always be less efficient when running on renewable energy (our ultimate goal with these vehicles). This is because of the extra step of electrolysis and the limits of efficiency on fuel cells. This means we will need more renewable energy if we go with fuel cells vs going with BEVs. And the biggest problems aren't even necessarily the vehicles (if the automakers aren't lying about the possibility of "shocking" affordable fuel cell vehicles), it's the fuel.
As the press release mentions, an extensive hydrogen infrastructure needs to be built before they can even be used by anyone. So far no one seems to want to build it unless the government provides huge subsidies. Why? Because it is very expensive, unlike charging stations for plug-ins, which even small businesses and individuals can afford. So far it seems like a lot of extra expense when we can accomplish pretty much the same thing with BEVs and plug-ins for a lot cheaper.
@Ignatius
To be fair, there are some pretty spectacular accidents that happen to gasoline vehicles (huge fires), so I don't think the hydrogen is necessarily that much worse (though I wouldn't mind some verification). Some types of batteries can catch on fire too (ie laptop cells), but on the whole, they do seem safer. I think the infrastructure is a much bigger problem for hydrogen.
Ignatius 9:48PM (9/09/2009)
Well, actually, the lithium-ion polymer batteries that A123 has been pioneering has almost solved the explosion problem, it merely releases steam and gas, from what I've seen.
I have seen what happens after a scuba tank explodes, it's not pretty and that's much smaller. A car accident can be pretty crazy, but 10,000 PSI is a LOT of pressure, that's 5 tons per square inch pushing outward.
Gasoline and battery fires wouldn't be great, but an accident that would rupture a hydrogen tank under that enormous amount of pressure... I'd be scared to see a crash test video over that. It might just be paranoia and baseless fear, but I'd feel a little more confident if there was such a video depicting no issues...
letstakeawalk 10:52PM (9/09/2009)
@ Ignatius
Hydrogen storage tanks are quite safe. They've been tested by the military with .50 ammunition, and no catastrophic failure occurred. Their safety in a typical consumer application will be assured.
"The QUANTUM team successfully fatigue-cycled and hydroburst-tested high
performance prototype hydrogen storage cylinders and achieved the new
performance record of 13% hydrogen storage by weight at 5,000 psig (350 bar).
This tank will be optimized for an aerospace application currently under
development by NASA and AeroVironment, with the final product targeted to
achieve even higher storage efficiency and high cycle life.
QUANTUM's TriShield(TM) hydrogen storage tanks are uniquely designed and
manufactured with a one-piece permeation-resistant seamless liner, a high-
performance carbon composite over-wrap for strength, and a proprietary, tough
impact-resistant shell. The tank is designed to meet all applicable
regulatory and industry standards as well as customer-specific validation
tests."
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-11-2002/0001761919&EDATE=
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/iiia1_sirosh.pdf
Oh, yeah, those were the tanks they were making almost 7 (!) years ago...
Ignatius 11:34PM (9/09/2009)
As seen on Mythbusters though, a bullet hole does not create a tragic failure, it creates a rocket. If they did test more than just .50 caliber ammunition, did they manage to make it fail at all?
What would this do in a 40-50MPH crash against another heavy vehicle, against a semi-truck, against a small car?
Most of us have seen those videos of a rocket-powered train slamming right into a casket containing nuclear waste and it was indestructible, while that is a worst-case scenario, I haven't really seen any crash test videos that would make me feel safe with a 10,000 PSI tank underneath my seat.
meme 11:41PM (9/09/2009)
Oh, don't give me this "hydrogen tanks are safe" garbage. They use the same sort of carbon fiber tanks that CNG cars do (except pressurized to even higher pressure and containing an even more explosive gas). Ever seen what happens when a CNG tank fails in a real-world (i.e., non-rigged) situation?
http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7555
I've seen bombed cars in Iraq that look better than that.
letstakeawalk 12:03AM (9/10/2009)
@ Ignatius
LOL, moving the goal posts... classic!
"The final project, now completed, consisted of two phases. In Phase I, tests were aimed at generating data on the properties of the tank containing high-pressure gas. The energy required to penetrate the filament-wound composite vessel was determined and examined with current modeling predictions on composite vessels. Phase II of the project addressed the effects of a hydrogen release from a high-pressure tank and the impact of an ignition of the escaping gas plume. The results of Phase I demonstrated that there is a critical flaw size for these vessels above which catastrophic failure will occur. The results also showed a linear dependence of
penetration energy on the penetrating rod diameter and thus a relationship with the shear strength of the composite vessel lay-up.
The results of Phase II show that ignition of a hydrogen gas release from a high-pressure tank, with a credible release rate, is no worse than other fuels, such as gasoline or propane, and may be less damaging to nearby personnel and equipment."
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/30535bd.pdf
Not the specific test done on the Quantum tanks, but a good test anyway.
There are newer tests being proposed. No storage container is completely safe, whether it is your typical gas tank, a Li-Ion battery, or a hydrogen tank. All of these are susceptible to fire (it already being established that a simple puncture will not cause the catastrophic failure of a hydrogen tank).
"The composite material of the tank ignited approximately 45 seconds into the test.
After 6 minutes and 27 seconds, the cylinder catastrophically failed (see Figure 2).
The type-4 tank is a very good thermal insulator, so the pressure and temperature
internal to the tank increased by a negligible amount. That is one reason why Pressure Relief Devices need to be thermally actuated - not pressure activated. The tank failed because it was weakened by the fire exposure."
6 and a half minutes isn't too bad. How long would a Li-Ion battery last in direct contact with flame?
http://www.mvfri.org/MVFRI_reports/ICHS%20Piza%20-%20Stephenson%20Sep%202005.pdf
Doug 12:23AM (9/10/2009)
I work in a lab and have a lot of experience with both cryogens and compressed gasses (most often N2 and He). These are not things I'd like to drive around with. It's of course possible to handle them safely, but if something goes wrong a compressed gas cylinder can become like an unguided torpedo. Just something I'd rather not have outside of a controlled environment. Most people just have no sense of the power of compressed gasses.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6784/is_2009_July_25/ai_n32339548/
letstakeawalk 12:37AM (9/10/2009)
@ Meme
That's quite a photo show. I don't suppose anyone would be safe if an arsonist decided to intentionally set your car on fire... It reminds me of all the FUD spread regarding EVs and how firefighters wouldn't touch them because of the risk of electric shock from shorted power cables carrying high voltage.
Those Hondas use a Type 3 tank, and that was an extremely rare failure. There have been many incidents where the tank and the PRD performed as intended, and the tanks survived fires. Hey, you win some, and you lose some. Not every pressurized gas storage tank is a ticking time bomb.
http://www.cleanvehicle.org/technology/CNGCylinderDesignandSafety.pdf
This report mentions the Seattle Civic, and gives recommendations for the future:
"The cited accounts of CNG Type 3 and Type 4 cylinder failures from fire exposure in
the area away from the PRD demonstrate that an additional thermal barrier is needed for these cylinders. The need for such barriers is not accounted for in the current standard bonfire tests, because the exposure flame extends over too large a length of the cylinder. It is necessary to revise or augment the current bonfire test with a more local exposure fire, such as a jet fire, that only heats a much smaller area of the cylinder.
Two vehicle manufacturers have decided to use vehicle installed thermal insulators to
provide cylinder protection for fires originating within the vehicle. Another approach
would be to use thermal coatings or wraps for the cylinders themselves. Many different
types of intumescent and spray-applied coatings are available commercially and used for protecting metal tanks and structures."
http://www.mvfri.org/Contracts/Final%20Reports/CNGandH2VehicleFuelTankPaper.pdf
meme 2:34AM (9/10/2009)
Nice equivalence there, but you can see exactly what a normal gasoline car looks like when someone sets fire to it right next to the CNG car (several burned gasoline vehicles, actually). They looked like burned cars. The CNG car looks like a bomb went off. Because, quite literally, one did -- the bomb that powers the vehicle. How are photos of what happens when a CNG car burns "FUD"? It's *literally what happens*. There's no uncertainty or doubt here, and the fear is quite justified. That explosion looks like it could have killed an elephant.
Dave 8:28AM (9/10/2009)
"Electric Vehicles with Fuel Cell" is carefully worded for several reasons, I suspect:
1 - It differentiates this effort from (conspicuously absent) BMW's efforts to run an ICE on hydrogen.
2 - It is an honest depiction of the fuel cell as a range extender.
3 - It is an attempt to show the uninformed and easily confused public that these companies are not killing electric cars - they are working on making them viable.
Batteries are too expensive, heavy, and large and possibly always will be. ICE gensets are expensive and dependent on fossil fuels. Fuel cells are in their infancy and, have potential as a range extender.
letstakeawalk 12:10PM (9/10/2009)
@ Meme
I was referring to the FUD that emergency responders would touch EVs, but your reference to the storage tank as a "bomb" would certainly qualify.
People carry hazardous batteries around all the time, but we don't refer to every laptop or iPhone as having a "bomb" inside of it. You are trying to make it look as if the Seattle incident (only one other recorded failure like that - for a total of two) is what happens every time. That's FUD.
In almost every case, the PRD operated properly and the storage tanks survived without incident. Newer PRDs are being developed, and being placed in redundant locations to make them more sensitive to thermal issues. The tanks themselves are being designed better. Improvements are continually being made. Just like the are with Li-Ion batteries which are prone to thermal runaway, and gasoline fuel tanks that have vents and flame arresting features.
meme 12:52PM (9/10/2009)
"I was referring to the FUD that emergency responders would touch EVs, but your reference to the storage tank as a "bomb" would certainly qualify."
Explain to me what's not bomb-like about those pictures. As mentioned, I've seen cars bombed in Iraq that suffered less damage than that civic did when its tank exploded. And they were destroyed by literal bombs.
"People carry hazardous batteries around all the time, but we don't refer to every laptop or iPhone as having a "bomb" inside of it"
1) That's because even the cobalt cells don't explode. They can burn vigorously and ignite relatively rapidly, but they have no concussion.
2) Almost all EVs avoid cobalt cells and instead use the insensitive phosphate and even less sensitive manganese cells, so that's a pathetic straw man attempt on your part.
3) Even the couple EVs that do use cobalt cells (Tesla-based) isolate each individual cell inside a can to prevent damage propagation and properly vent the flames in the event of an accident, do pack cooling, and all sorts of other things that laptops and cell phones don't do.
If that's seriously the best you can manage -- a half-assed straw man to defend H2 -- you might as well just leave now.
"In almost every case, the PRD operated properly and the storage tanks survived without incident."
There is only one natural gas car available in the US: the Honda Civic GX (the number of hydrogen cars are so tiny they're not even worth mentioning, except for the fact that they use the same kind of tanks -- except that they're even higher pressure and with an even more explosive fuel). There are, what, 3,000 or so of them on the road? With the average age being perhaps a year and a half old? Even if this was the *only* exploded Civic GX, that would mean an explosion rate of a little over 1 per 2000 per year. With the average person living 76-ish years, that would mean you'd have a 4% chance of having your family car (assuming only one car) *explode* on you in your lifetime. *Assuming* this is the only exploded Civic GX.
Yes, yes, I know: "Well, we'll fix the problem! We'll fix the fix to the fix to the fix of the problem!" But at some point, you're going to have to accept that, like the Ford Nucleon, you're trying to power a car with something that has properties that give it no business being in a moving vehicle operated by ordinary consumers.
letstakeawalk 4:26PM (9/10/2009)
@ Meme
CNG gas has also been used in buses for quite a while.
Must I also remind you that the Civic fire was arson, and that those cars burned for an unknown length of time before there was a fire response?
I might not be able to convince you that hydrogen can be safe. That's my failure. I can accept that. Sorry to have wasted your time, when it's obvious that you are only interested in hearing yourself...
letstakeawalk 5:53PM (9/10/2009)
http://www.inl.gov/hydrogenfuels/projects/docs/h2safetyreport.pdf
meme 11:34AM (9/11/2009)
Why on Earth would you post such a damning report to defend hydrogen? That's the sort of link I'd post to *attack* hydrogen. Heck, right at the top they say it's more dangerous than natural gas, and you just saw the pics of the result of the natural gas explosion! And I love the fact that they're saying that the H2 is "2000 PSI or greater", when a lot of these tanks are now *10k PSI*. And it goes on and on and on about how dangerous hydrogen is -- about 70 pages of "This stuff Is Really, Really Dangerous(TM) -- here's all of the ways it can kill you, here's a litany of times it's killed people, and a whole bunch of other stuff to terrify you". Did you simply post this because the conclusion says that we shouldn't abandon it altogether, that if every owner and repair shop does everything just right and designers find a way to model risks that they currently have no way of modeling, then it won't blow up very often?
If that's your defense of H2... wow.
letstakeawalk 1:25AM (9/13/2009)
I posted it in the interest of honesty. Only by knowing the facts about hydrogen, can we begin to develop safe methods to handle it...
Just like we've developed safe batteries over the past two hundred years.
And how we've developed safe gasoline ICEs in the past one hundred.
Hydrogen IS the power of the future. It is safe when handled with knowledge.
letstakeawalk 1:31AM (9/13/2009)
"Hydrogen is less dangerous than propane"
Did you miss this line?
Have you ever met anyone with a gas grill? How do they get that propane home?
You're a fear monger, Meme.