Aston Martin dismisses fully electric cars, calls for fuel cells instead
With electric cars and concepts from established luxury and performance car makers like Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi and Porsche, it's at least a wee bit surprising that we've never heard anything about electric vehicles from Aston Martin. Perhaps we now know why. Speaking at the Frankfurt Motor Show to Auto Express in the U.K., Aston Martin chief Dr. Ulrich Bez said:
So, if not electric vehicles, where should we look for lowered emissions? Hydrogen, apparently. Dr. Bez reportedly called for the automotive industry to focus its efforts on the fuel cell and suggests that governments should invest resources for their development.The technology for [electric cars] will not become truly usable until at least 2020. Real-world driving will highlight their weaknesses... It is not something Aston Martin is working on, and it will not represent a true alternative to the combustion engine for a long time.
That's certainly not a new sentiment – earlier this month, a consortium or eight automakers came out in support of hydrogen fuel cells – but it's important to remember that fuel cell-powered cars are really electric-powered cars that use hydrogen to store energy in lieu of batteries.
[Source: Auto Express]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Zeph 7:53PM (9/23/2009)
Another automaker condemning itself to the scrap pile of history.
RIP Aston Martin.
Reply
Rick 9:04PM (9/23/2009)
no - it's a smart move. Let the other automakers spend their money building and selling a few thousand electric cars at a loss and then if and when the time arrives for mass production of ev's - jump in.
In the mean time - just put in some minimal investment so you can quickly take advantage when the time comes.
It's not like bev technology is going to be a secret.
meme 1:16AM (9/24/2009)
You mean the approach that the Big Three took with hybrids? Gee, that worked out well for them, didn't it?
If you're late to the game, your competitors earn the green/high tech reputation, build the green brand names, amass patent thickets, and learn how to mass produce them cost-effectively, while you're left scrounging for the scraps.
Jon 3:17AM (9/24/2009)
"If you're late to the game, your competitors earn the green/high tech reputation, build the green brand names, amass patent thickets, and learn how to mass produce them cost-effectively, while you're left scrounging for the scraps."
This is Aston Martin - none of these issues affect them. Those are the sorts of issues a mass market manufacturer like Ford would worry about.
EVdriver 4:25AM (9/24/2009)
You are absolutely right. Aston Martin is dead.
EVdriver 4:29AM (9/24/2009)
Rick: No, it's a dumb move. This strategy you mentioned NEVER worked (see hybrids).
gorr 8:09PM (9/23/2009)
Im interrested to buy or to rent it for a weekend giving the cost, but with a fuelcell instead of an ice, it must cost half price, drive better with few fuel cost and no pollution and maybe, if they're cool a programmable exterior speaker to modulate engine noise. There are infinite noises that we can programm for a car and maybe in a dedicated internet site we can download and upload sounds.
Reply
Ernie 3:07PM (9/24/2009)
Congratulations gorr, you just made the case for Battery Electrics.
Cheapest possible price for *wholesale* hydrogen (using steam reformation of natural gas, which does the environment no favours): roughly $6 a kilogram, which produces about the same energy as a gallon of gasoline. It goes up from there to around $100 a kilo for greener methods.
Cheapest possible price for a fuel cell: roughly half a million bucks. Nevermind the car to go around it, but at that price, it's like building a bungalow on waterfront property in downtown Hong Kong.
Where research in Lithium Ion batteries has brought prices in the past 10 years: down.
Where research in fuel cells has brought prices in the past 10 years: nowhere.
But hey, if you're willing to put up with that kind of cost just so you can have a car that fills up in minutes instead of hours and has "no emissions"... well actually it doesn't sound like you are.
letstakeawalk 5:34PM (9/24/2009)
Two major errors I'd like to point out:
1. "Cheapest possible price for a fuel cell: roughly half a million bucks. "
"When NASA first started using fuel-cell technology in space, a PEM fuel cell cost about $500,000 per kW. Today that price has dropped to around $500 per kW - but that means that a fuel-cell engine still costs about $25,000, which is around seven times the price of a typical IC engine (about $3500)."
"Fuel Cells Start to look Real" American Engineering Online, SAE International
2. "Where research in fuel cells has brought prices in the past 10 years: nowhere."
"According to two independent cost analyses conducted by TIAX and Directed Technologies Inc., for example, state-of-the-art fuel-cell technology from 2008 could produce power at the rate of $73/kW if 500,000 units were manufactured a year. The estimated figure for 2002 fuel-cell systems is about $275/kW, and the DOE cost goal for 2015 is $30/kW."
"Congress looks with favor on fuel-cell funding", 21-Sep-2009, Automotive Engineering Online, SAE International.
Chris M 1:59AM (9/25/2009)
letstakawalk: Current retail price of actual fuel cells is about $4,000 per Kilowatt, so your "$500 per Kw" figure is a bit off. It's probably based on the wildly unrealistic estimate of the supposed "mass produced" price, a figure that is less than the cost of the materials needed. The "Tiax" figures are totally unrealistic, and besides, they've got it backwards - we won't see production of 500,000 units a year unless the cost comes down to $73 per Kw. The DOE "$30 per Kw by 2015" won't be reached, unless several unexpected breakthroughs occur, really soon.
letstakeawalk 2:55PM (9/25/2009)
Chris M
I don't want to make fun of your reading comprehension, but...
"The "Tiax" figures are totally unrealistic, and besides, they've got it backwards - we won't see production of 500,000 units a year unless the cost comes down to $73 per Kw."
Since this article was edited and published in Automotive Engineering International, I'd assume they stand behind the info. If fuel cells were made in certain numbers, the individual price per unit would decrease.
If you want to argue with the quotes I've supplied, don't argue here, with me. Get your own article published in a leading automotive engineering magazine, and then get back to me.
At the very least, try substantiating your argument with backing information. Provide a source for your positions!
Serge 11:30AM (9/29/2009)
letstakeawalk, thanks for bringing up SAE's "Fuel Cells Start to Look Real" article. http://www.aerospaceengineeringmagazine.sae.org/automag/features/fuelcells/index.htm It's important to look back (it was published in March of 2001); I actually learned quite a few things reading it. If my reading comprehension does not fail me, these now are my favorite hydrogen FCV viability quotes:
"Toyota has set 2003 as its target for market introduction of fuel-cell vehicles."
"Ford's Focus FCV will serve as the base for its first production fuel-cell vehicle, scheduled to go on sale by 2004"
"Larry Burns, GM Vice President for Research and Development, said that GM and ExxonMobil have developed a better way to extract hydrogen from gasoline. 'Our joint progress on gasoline processor technology means that clean, efficient fuel-cell-electric vehicles could be in consumers' garages by the end of the decade,' he said"
"While Honda's management does not expect fuel-cell vehicles to come into the mainstream for 10 to 20 years, the Japanese automaker remains committed to commercializing its first unit in 2003."
"In 2002, DaimlerChrysler will deliver the first city buses with fuel cells, followed in 2004 by the first passenger cars,"
Kaneko expects Nissan to introduce a "market research vehicle" in the 2003-05 time frame, pending development of a fueling infrastructure."
Priceless ...
Nick From Montreal 10:01PM (9/23/2009)
This is why Henrik Fisker had to start his own company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Fisker). He knew they would never get it until it's too late.
The Model S, Karma and Lightning GTS (http://www.lightningcarcompany.co.uk/) will get all the exclusive luxury clients who want to drive in style. And they all look better than Aston Martins.
Reply
wincros 10:14PM (9/23/2009)
Of course that would be their stance considering the need to explode in a fireball in the next James Bond film. You need fuel for people to believe that. Being impaled by battery shrapnel is just not the same thing.
Reply
kert 12:56AM (9/24/2009)
Meh ? Have you seen lithium ion batteries burn ? Gasoline fireballs have nothing on it , Bond would be happy. ( granted, these are mostly cobalt-oxide based li-ion chemistries )
matte 5:35AM (9/24/2009)
Kert,
That applies to most lithium ion batteries, but not LiFePO4.
I've seen LiFePO4 batteries getting a nail through them with just a little bit of smoke.
Dave 10:18PM (9/23/2009)
A 250 mile battery pack for a large heavy high performance car such as an Aston Martin would cost well over $50,000.
It could not be quick charged because quick charging damages batteries.
It could not be swapped, because it would be too large.
It would destroy the car's handling because it would be too heavy.
Range extenders are the only option to make EVs viable. And, eventually, fuel cell range extenders will be cheaper than ICE range extenders as well as being zero emission.
Reply
DasBoese 10:48PM (9/23/2009)
You start sounding like a broken record, Dave.
Although I'm impressed by your near-religious ability to stick to claims that have been proven wrong repeatedly, a little creativity wouldn't hurt.
Sean 11:27PM (9/23/2009)
I agree with your basic point that todays batteries are expensive enough to warent the use of range extenders paired with smaller batteries. You might get a more positive response if you made your point without completely ignoring reality.
"A 250 mile battery pack for a large heavy high performance car such as an Aston Martin would cost well over $50,000"
because 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds is not "high performance" or are you complaining that a 30k battery only gets 200miles in real world usage.
"It could not be quick charged because quick charging damages batteries."
While quick charging batteries does wear them more than slow charging, it is still about as much wear as exposing a fuel cell to oxygen.
"It could not be swapped, because it would be too large."
because no one will ever figure out how to move a large object. I think that battery swapping is a bad idea, but moving a 1000lb is far from impossible if you are moving it slowly (Its called hydraulics). Standardization is a bigger obstacle.
"It would destroy the car's handling because it would be too heavy."
Yeah, the Tesla has terrible handling.
"And, eventually, fuel cell range extenders will be cheaper than ICE range extenders"
That will happen right after the price of platinum drops bellow the price of steel. Seriously, do you have any reason to say this other than the fact that you want it to be true? Toyota in all there optimistic hydrogen PR has never made such a statement.
PopSmith 11:39PM (9/23/2009)
I agree, he's started to sound like Greg, the Hydrogen pitcher.
In response to his claims (even though it will fall on deaf ears):
1) Currently a 250 mile pack for an Aston Martin doesn't exist, this is correct but powering the car via Hydrogen is even more of a far-fetched dream. Aside from the Equinox I haven't seen a large Hydrogen powered vehicle anywhere. There is also very, very, very few places to "refuel" a Hydrogen powered vehicle.
However, outlets to charge a battery are everywhere.
2) What is your definition of quick? Tesla's high-powered charger (240V @ 70 amps) can recharge the Roadster's 250 mile battery pack in 3.5 hours, which equates to 69 miles in one hour (1.15 miles per minute).
3) Swapping isn't a good thing to do due to all sorts of problems from battery abuse to having to store batteries on the swap site to having to pay the employees at the swap station.
4) An ICE, with everything thats required to run it (Battery, Alternator, various pumps, an exhaust system etc. etc. etc.) is decently heavier than a battery pack and electric motor.
5) Tesla's Roadster has pretty good handling and the feedback is great due to non-assisted steering.
6) Range extenders are, at best, an intermediate between a pure-ICE car and a pure-electric one. Range extenders still use oil to lube the engine. They also use oil, in the form of gasoline/diesel, to charge the battery. As better battery chemistry is discovered you'll be able to go as far, or farther, on a single charge in a BEV as you currently can in an ICE.
As a by product of batteries becoming the "fuel" of choice faster charging methods will be discovered. In the (hopefully near) future you'll be able to charge a car in the same time, or less, than you can currently fill up your car.