Dr. Z: BEVs and hybrids for the near term, fuel cells for the long haul
Mercedes-Benz F-Cell - Click above for high-res image gallery
Like pretty much every major automaker, Daimler is preparing to launch battery electric vehicles in the next few years. However, again like many of its competitors, the German automaker remains unconvinced that batteries will see the kind of technical progress needed to make them a truly viable long-term mainstream option. Like Honda, Toyota, General Motors and Hyundai, (and to lesser degrees, Ford, Nissan and others) Daimler sees the hydrogen fuel cell as the best option for the end game.
Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche spoke with Automotive News during the Frankfurt Motor Show and acknowledged that both battery and fuel cell electric vehicles need infrastructure. The fuel cell doesn't have the range or re-energizing time constraints that a battery does. Both directions will require work to get the cost down comparable to existing vehicles, but Zetsche seems unconvinced that batteries will ever get there. Zetsche is also confident that a hydrogen fueling network will be put in place in Europe in the coming years.
Zetsche isn't declaring a winner yet, but highlights the modularization that vehicle electrification brings with it. Because battery and fuel cell vehicles all use the same motors and power electronics for propulsion, it is possible to follow parallel paths while sharing much of the underlying technology.
Gallery: Mercedes-Benz F-Cell
[Source: Automotive News - sub req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Tohe 7:13PM (10/05/2009)
Daimler, another automaker without imagination, what's new?
Reply
Sean 7:27PM (10/05/2009)
The article contradicts the title: "Zetsche isn't declaring a winner yet"
Reply
Mark Kiernan 7:33PM (10/05/2009)
Just keep H2 on the long finger, now work on something near and short term that people can actually benefit from today EVs!
Reply
Serge 8:40PM (10/05/2009)
Back in the day Daimler powered their fuel-cell cars with methanol http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1266831.html.
"The team from DaimlerChrysler opted for methanol as their fuel of choice for this coast-to-coast run for simplicity, convenience and dependability."
Storage Problem - check
Infrastructure problem - check
What happened with those sensible plans? It would be great if ABG looked into this.
Reply
Dave 9:23PM (10/05/2009)
Methanol is easily soluble in water and poisonous in small doses.
MTBE, recently used as an additive in gasoline, was also soluble, and polluted many water sources when underground storage tanks leaked.
Nothing is perfect.
Chris M 9:43PM (10/05/2009)
There is also the point that the reformer reduced the overall efficiency and added to the already high cost. Newer approaches call for fuel cells that can work directly with other fuels, without a reformer needed, these include direct methanol fuel cells and solid oxide fuel cells running on hydrocarbon fuels.
That solves the "difficult to store fuel" problem, leaving only the "very high cost" problem.
Serge 9:47PM (10/05/2009)
Gasoline is more toxic and carcinogenic to boot. However you and I put this stuff in our cars all the time. Unlike gasoline and MTBE methanol is biodegradable. It is also successfully used without many problems in racing circuits such as Indy 500.
In more mainstream use, methanol is part of antifreeze and windshield washer liquids. How often do those get released into environment?
Here we have a solution to fix two problems with fuel cells. Where is the enthusiasm?
Doug 12:56AM (10/06/2009)
Heh, when I saw this comment earlier I was gonna reply as a joke, "But methanol is toxic."
But looks like another beat me to it. Of course the question should be, "toxic compared to what?" Certainly less toxic than gasoline. Alas yes, "nothing is perfect."
As to why the lack of enthusiasm, I don't really know. Certainly the addition of an on-board reformer adds weight and complexity. However, maybe part of the issue is that for the automakers, the hydrogen infrastructure issue provides a delay that can conveniently be seen as someone else's responsibility.
letstakeawalk 5:18PM (10/06/2009)
"...leaving only the "very high cost" problem."
Which is of course solvable with economies of scale. When we commit to building large numbers of fuel cell stacks, the prices will come down. Just as they have consistently come down over the past decade.
FTA:
"Zetsche isn't declaring a winner yet, but highlights the modularization that vehicle electrification brings with it. Because battery and fuel cell vehicles all use the same motors and power electronics for propulsion, it is possible to follow parallel paths while sharing much of the underlying technology."
This just needs repeating.
Serge 5:47PM (10/06/2009)
"When we commit to building large numbers of fuel cell stacks, the prices will come down" - letstakeawalk.
If by "we" you mean MB, Toyota, Honda, Kia, etc. [so you are working for one of these companies after all ;) ] then I am all for it. Come on, auto-giants, commit already and put these hydrogen debates to rest!
Andy 9:39PM (10/05/2009)
And how will we be producing all that hydrogen?
Hydrogen either comes from reformed gas or we use have to use precious renewable energy to make it. It will far more efficient and more feasible to use those renewables to make electricity and plug in BEV's. For long range trips and heavy haulage, we should be looking much more towards electric trains.
This is vested interest propoganda.
Fuel cells and hydrogen infrastructure have a huge capital outlay barrier to market entry. That favours huge incumbent industry players (big oil and big auto). BEV is low barrier to entry hence more competition for the incumbents.
Fuel cells will be a worse deal for consumers, but good business for oil and big auto. In any case, all the big auto's are developing BEV technology despite the constant barrage of noise and misinformation. They are deliberately taking BEV commercialisation as slow as possible to protect current investments.
If all big auto just moved as fast as Tesla, fossil fuel dependence could reduce dramatically within 5 years. It will need the power of the masess and good governance to actually make that happen. Because the oligopoly is trying it hardest not to let it happen.
Reply
augustus 3:55PM (10/06/2009)
And where does the power to recharge everyone's BEV in the evening come from? Natural Gas, Coal or Nuclear. Maybe wind if you live in Texas. Solar is out because you plug your car in at night.
BEV's aren't perfect.
Serge 5:50PM (10/06/2009)
augustus, you are right: plugins aren't perfect, but they are heck of a lot better than HFCVs.
mike 11:16PM (10/05/2009)
what about a range extender compressed air motor?
then you could just stop at any convenience store or gas station and make sure the tires are properly inflated and fill the range tank too.
I'm only half joking actually as I know a number of companies have worked on compressed air vehicles. I wonder how capable those systems are.
Tanks of compressed air can be dangerous - but certainly no more so than tanks of hydrogen.
The infrastructure is very open and adaptable as you could use any convenient local source to compress the air and provide it quickly to cars stopped to refill with naught but some special tanks and high pressure couplings.
So then... EV with range extender motors run on compressed air is what I'm talking about - just to be clear.
Reply
Mark Kiernan 5:48AM (10/06/2009)
Well compressed air is much more cost effective than H2. I remember reading last year that a small company in India managed to build a compressed air car which could run for something like 60 miles. A compressed air range extender would make perfect sense.
mike 7:47PM (10/07/2009)
I could get by quite happily with a 100 mile EV range and a 100 mile extended range from compressed air.
Most of my driving would fit in the EV mode...
But I'd be fine having to stop a couple of times for air on a trip to a city a few hours away too, which happens only on the rare occasion these days.
Still I would not want to preclude the possibility of that and similar trips by having only and electric vehicle, the range of which was incapable of that length of trip.
Besides, then they could have chucks built in to a work hatch and I could inflate my basketball or tires on the car or run a nailer or grinder.
That would be occasionally handy actually.
OH... and pneumatic jacks built in capable of lifting all four tires off the ground at once for service.
That would be AWESOME !
pgrt 7:12AM (10/06/2009)
I think that f-cell's aren't for US citizens in the first couple of commercial generations. But many of the automotive companys aren't US based and so they think of the rest of the world too. I'm from Europe so i give you some pros for hydrogen against bevs. And as daimler has said, electric and f-cell vehicles are essentially the same, just change the "gas tank" and you are ready to go, so same vehicles could be bilt with batteries for US markets.
First, europe doesn't have own large scale lithium mines so expensive battery minerals have to come mainly from other continents. Platinum in other hand has been found in scandinavia and the amount needed for f-cell will decrease in time.
Secondly, the price of hydrogen isn't so big problem as it will be in US. Fuel prices in europe are projected to be in 12USD/gal in 2010 so a increse to switch to hydrogen isn't that bad. Now fuel costs about 8USD/gal.
Third if you add up things i wrote before and even if hydrogen generation has a bad effiency, you still can make it in europe and in your own country. That makes up alot of it's effiency problems and could be supported by local adminstrations because it would create jobs to your country instead of middle east. I understand that goes with electricity also, but if you store it in lithium, you have to rely on other countrys to supply it.
Had something other in mind but forgot it and now one will read topic this old :)
Reply
augustus 4:04PM (10/06/2009)
Also BEV's don't perform as well in cold climates. I hear that Norway is frequently cold although as an American I can't find it on a map ;-) I read recently that Honda has fuel cells running at negative 28 degrees Celsius which is good.
So BEV's for Italy and Greece and Fuel cells for the northern countries. Batteries and fuel cells are just a power supply, the rest of the car is the same.
Serge 5:42PM (10/06/2009)
augustus, no one makes BEVs with lead-acid batteries these days. Lithium-ion batteries do not suffer from cold weather. http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/?p=55
The reason why HFCVs are able to operate in cold climates is because they have batteries that warm up a fuel cell to operating temperature.
Chris M 10:11PM (10/08/2009)
Agustus, some LiIon batteries work down to -34 celsus, so a BEV might do even better itna H2FCVs in cold climes. Also, all H2FCVs use batteries or ultracaps to run the vehicle until the fuel cell can be warmed up enough to run.