GM’s Fuel Cell System Shrinks in Size, Weight, Cost (Production-Intent for 2015 Commercialization)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://media.gm.com/content/media/us/en/news/news_detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2010/Mar/0316_fuelcell

GM’s Fuel Cell System Shrinks in Size, Weight, Cost

Testing Under Way on Production-Intent System for 2015 Commercialization

2010-03-16

Burbank, Calif. – General Motors Co. is testing a production-intent hydrogen fuel cell system that can be packaged in the space of a traditional four-cylinder engine and be ready for commercial production in 2015.

The system is half the size, 220 pounds lighter and uses about a third of the platinum of the system in the Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell electric vehicles used in Project Driveway, the world’s largest market test and demonstration fleet of fuel cell electric vehicles that began in late 2007 and has amassed nearly 1.3 million miles of everyday driving in cities around the world.

“Our learning from Project Driveway has been tremendous and these vehicles have been very important to our program,” Charles Freese, executive director of GM's Global Fuel Cell Activities told reporters Tuesday at a news briefing on GM’s fuel cell progress.

“The 30 months we committed to the demonstration are winding down, but we will keep upgrades of these vehicles running and will continue learning from them while we focus efforts on the production-intent program for 2015.

”Some of the 119 fuel cell electric vehicles in Project Driveway will receive hardware and software upgrades and will become part of a technology demonstration program with the U.S. Department of Energy. Others will be driven by businesses and a few will be used to continue showing that, with proper fueling infrastructure, hydrogen fuel cells are a viable alternative to gasoline-powered vehicles.

“We will continue to use the Project Driveway fleet strategically to advance fuel cell technology, hydrogen infrastructure, and GM's vehicle electrification goals,” Freese said.

...

[wtmusic]

1. Hot damn! GM's 'testing a system'!

"At present, prominent car manufacturers are deploying important research and development efforts to develop fuel cell vehicles and are projecting to start production by 2005. "

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v673l319051j8t75/

(If you keep posting GM press-release propaganda as news I'm going to renege on my promise) :crazy:

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Yup, that's me, nothing but GM propoganda

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=236038&mesg_id=236038
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=236039&mesg_id=236039

[bhikkhu]

3. Meanwhile, my $300 bicycle proves much more useful, reliable, affordable

...and better in almost every way.

[wtmusic]

7. +1

My city just repainted a major 4-lane thoroughfare for bike lanes, pulling out one traffic lane and creating a center turn lane. You should have heard the hue and cry from residents: "Traffic will be a nightmare!"

Traffic has not been visibly affected, and I'll be damned if I don't see some of my neighbors, who I've never seen on a bike before, using that brand new bike lane.

[Kolesar]

18. +100 inches of snow in my community...eom

[bhikkhu]

56. cycling in snow is one of the better things in life

...or at least a couple of inches of fresh snow is great. In any case, we get plenty of snow here and I ride every day. Mostly its great, and much safer than driving in the same conditions.

[tinrobot]

4. Nice, but who installs the hydrogen infrastructure?

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. The hydrogen infrastructure is a bit of a canard

The logic follows this line: we will treat hydrogen in the future, just as we treat petroleum today. Therefore, we need large centralized hydrogen production facilities, hydrogen tankers, and hydrogen pipelines to distribute hydrogen to hydrogen filling stations (a "hydrogen infrastructure" to replace the "petroleum infrastructure.")

However, hydrogen is fundamentally different from petroleum. You can generate it anywhere you have electricity and water, or, new research suggests, anywhere you have water and sunlight.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=234625&mesg_id=234625

So, if you like, you can generate it at the corner filling station. Or, you can generate it at home.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/home-energy-station.aspx

[wtmusic]

6. According to Joe Romm, your "bit of a canard" will cost half a trillion dollars

And that's for a minimum of 10,000 stations nationwide.

Who's going to pay for it, drivers who don't have hydrogen vehicles? Or oil companies, who don't have anyone to sell it to?

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. And what does he base that price on?

(Could you give me a good resource?)

http://www.h2carblog.com/?p=100

[wtmusic]

9. A big subject

Since you're a hydrogen proponent, you should read this anyway.

"This technology will include the building of an infrastructure for making and distributing hydrogen that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Romm makes it clear that none of this will happen until hydrogen becomes competitive with fossil fuels in terms of cost and efficiency. Right now hydrogen is most cheaply made from fossil fuels themselves, a process that does not reduce green house gases, and furthermore is much more expensive, no matter what currently-available technology is used, than gasoline itself, and will remain so for many years, probably decades, to come."

http://www.amazon.com/Hype-About-Hydrogen-Fiction-Climate/dp/1559637048

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Be sure to check out the post below

(I was working on it while you were making this post.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=236875&mesg_id=236987

In short, the studies he's working with are 8 years old.

[wtmusic]

13. At this moment, there is no one who is more on top of hydrogen than Joe Romm.

He still considers them a dead end, and snake oil from the oil industry. Which they are (you should also be following his blog at ClimateProgress.org).

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/17/national-research-council-hydrogen-panel-flawed-plug-in-hybrids-report-2/

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. This appears not to be the case

As I've already pointed out, his book is based upon information from 2002.

Second, really, are you saying he's an expert because he disagrees with the http://sites.nationalacademies.org/NRC/index.htm">National Research Council? This sounds like the "skeptics" who parade their experts who are brave enough to speak the truth in defiance of (among others) the National Research Council.

[wtmusic]

17. If you want to discuss why he thinks the NRC report is deeply-flawed

you're going to have to read it first :D

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. I read the NRC report when it was released

I didn't see any deep flaws in it.

(But then I'm not the world's foremost expert on fuel cells.)

[wtmusic]

27. You don't need to be an expert on fuel cells to recognize conflict of interest

The committee was chaired by a former Exxon-Mobil executive? Please.

[OKIsItJustMe]

38. Former Exxon-Mobil "executive"

Well, this is a ad hominem argument of course, but let's set the story straight.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12826&page=90

As I understand you, he should have been disqualified from participation because he has relevant research experience, but has worked for a corporation?

[wtmusic]

41. "Ad hominem" is not the same as "conflict of interest".

"A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other."

Do I need to explain how the interest of presenting an impartial evaluation would conflict with the petroleum industry's obvious interest in promoting the hydrogen economy? I don't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

[OKIsItJustMe]

42. Certainly it's an ad hominem

You've done nothing to refute the argument itself. You've only attacked the man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial

...

Ad hominem circumstantial

Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

Where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.

...

[wtmusic]

45. Oh, but I've only just begun.

Circumstantial evidence, you'll recall, is indeed permissible when backed by factual evidence:

"The NRC report presents an inaccurate overview of both PHEVs in particular and electrification technology more broadly. Specifically, the NRC posits that lithium-ion battery "costs are still high, and the potential for dramatic reductions appears limited." Based largely on this assessment, the NRC believes that the potential for PHEVs to penetrate the overall vehicle fleet is extremely limited.

The NRC study significantly overestimates current battery costs, placing them out of line with published research by DOE National Laboratories, exhaustive research by auto-industry analysts and current industry experience.

* A wide range of technical research has found that the cost/kWh for lithium-ion batteries decreases by as much as 50 percent as the energy-to-power ratio shifts toward higher energy,1 yet the NRC study suggests that a PHEV-40 would have cost/kWh higher than a PHEV-10.
* Fully assembled battery costs for the GM Volt, a series format PHEV-40 with a 16 kWh nameplate capacity (identical to the specifications of the PHEV-40 in the NRC report), have been reported at between $500 and $625 per kWh—significantly less than the NRC’s estimate of $875/kWh.
* Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory recently estimated PHEV-40 battery costs at an even lower $200 to $400/kWh across a variety of battery chemistries."

The battery and vehicle costs assumed by the NRC generate inaccurate estimates of the cost-effectiveness of PHEVs. The flawed cost assumptions also result in subsidy estimates that are widely off-mark.

* In fact, with the existing tax credits provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, both a PHEV-10 and a PHEV-40 would be cost-effective for consumers today.3
* Based on current and expected industry costs, a PHEV-40 will be cost effective for consumers in 2015—without any government subsidy whatsoever.4 In other words, the fuels savings over the life of a PHEV-40 in 2015 will more than compensate for the vehicle’s cost premium; tax subsidies will no longer be necessary.

The NRC study inappropriately discounts future reductions in battery costs derived from technological improvements and scale production.

* A main contributor to battery cost is current lack of production volume, or scale. Data from the Department of Energy suggests a plant that is capacitized to produce 100,000 battery packs per year will have battery costs that are 38 percent to 44 percent less than a 10,000 unit plant.5 The NRC report discounts this factor.
* A recent analysis conducted by TIAX, LLC found future costs between $212-$568/kWh for a PHEV battery with 6.9 kWh of total energy (roughly a PHEV-25). The analysis incorporated a range of variables across four current battery chemistries produced at high volumes—500,000 units per year.6
* The NRC study correctly reports that current PHEV batteries utilize a 50 percent state-of-charge window. That is, a PHEV-40 battery today is designed to require only 8 kWh of its16 kWh capacity in order to travel 40 miles in pure electric mode. This practice comes at significant cost, driving current battery prices higher than technical requirements. In first-generation applications, PHEV manufacturers made the strategic decision to add extra capacity in order to ensure end-of-life performance metrics and meet battery warranty requirements. However, advancements already achieved have reduced the need to over-specify PHEV batteries and expanded the state-of-charge window, thereby reducing costs for assembled battery packs. The NRC study appears to discount this entirely.
* Various lithium-ion battery characteristics differ significantly by chemistry and format. For example, the state-of-charge window utilized by one battery-maker is already as high as 70 percent. The NRC study relies heavily on data and performance characteristic associated with a limited number of chemistries and battery sizes."

http://electrificationcoalition.org/news-response-to-nrc.php

Now, the real question is: do you want to bet the farm against a man like Nobel laureate Stephen Chu? (oops, there I go with those ad hominems again):

“We asked ourselves, ‘Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will covert to a hydrogen car economy?’ The answer, we felt, was ‘no,’” Chu said in a briefing today. He cited several barriers, including infrastructure, development of long-lasting portable fuel cells and other problems."

http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/07/secretary-steven-chu-doe-hydrogen-budget/

[OKIsItJustMe]

46. Much better

I'm not going to take the time to read through all of that just now though.

[wtmusic]

48. Take your time. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

60. OK, I'll need to look into the criticisms more

As for Chu's statement, that seemed reasonable to me when he made it. After all, the companies that are planning to market hydrogen cars are looking to first market them in 2015. Will we convert the entire fleet in the following 5 years? 10 years? (Not likely.)

http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/toyota/toyota-fuel-cell-vehicle-demonstration-151146.aspx

Toyota Fuel Cell Vehicle Demonstration Program Expands

More Than 100 Fuel Cell Vehicles Placed in the U.S. Over The Next 3 Years

DETROIT, January 11, 2010 - - Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. (TMS) announced today that more than 100 Toyota Fuel Cell Hybrid Vehicle – Advanced (FCHV-adv) vehicles will be placed in a nationwide demonstration program over the next three years.

TMS and Toyota Motor Manufacturing and Engineering North America, Inc. will place vehicles with universities, private companies and government agencies in both California and New York. Over the three year course of the demonstration program, as new hydrogen stations come online, additional regions and partners will be added. Toyota’s demonstration program expansion will provide one of the largest fleets of active fuel cell vehicles in the country with the primary goal of spurring essential hydrogen infrastructure development. The demonstration program also will serve to demonstrate fuel cell technologies reliability and performance prior to its 2015 market introduction.

“We plan to come to market in 2015, or earlier, with a vehicle that will be reliable and durable, with exceptional fuel economy and zero emissions, at an affordable price,” said Irv Miller, TMS group vice president of environmental and public affairs. “Toyota will not be alone in the fuel cell marketplace and building an extensive hydrogen re-fueling infrastructure is the critical next step. Hopefully, expansion of demonstration programs like this one will serve as a catalyst.”

...

In late 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, approached Toyota to participate in a collaborative evaluation of the real-world driving range of the FCHV-adv. When the range evaluation was completed in 2009, the FCHV-adv averaged the equivalent of 68 mpg and achieved an estimated range of 431 miles on a single fill of hydrogen compressed gas. To compare, that’s more than double the range of the Highlander Hybrid with zero emissions.

...

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/10/toyota-fcv-200091004.html

Toyota Aims to Reduce Fuel Cell Vehicle Cost to 1/10 of Current By Commercialization in 2015; Reduction to Another 1/10 With Scale

4 October 2009

In a news conference at the Japan National Press Club on Friday, Toyota Motor President Akio Toyoda said that the company plans to begin mass production of electric vehicles in the US in 2012, followed by US production of fuel cell vehicles in 2015. Toyoda positioned EVs for short-distance travel and fuel cell cars for longer ranges. The 2015 date for fuel cell vehicles reinforced remarks made in June by vice president Masatami Takimoto about commercialization prospects.

During his presentation at the recent California Air Resources Board (ARB) ZEV Technology Symposium, Tatsuaki Yokoyama, from Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, said that Toyota aimed to reduce the cost of fuel cell vehicles to 1/10 of the current level by design and materials improvement by commercialization in 2015. Following that milestone, the company is targeting reduction to a subsequent 1/10 through scales of economy resulting from increasing mass production.

...

Why fuel-cell vehicles?

Like the other major automakers, Toyota is positioning fuel cell vehicles as more suitable for longer-range, larger vehicle applications compared to EVs, given the state of battery technology.

This is not an either-or choice between hybrids and electric cars. We (Toyota) will develop a wide range of vehicles to meet the diverse needs of customers. Some will opt for electric cars for shorter distances; others will choose fuel-cell vehicles for longer drives.

...

[OKIsItJustMe]

66. Yeah, these criticisms don't hold up particularly well to scrutiny

Here's an example:

A wide range of technical research has found that the cost/kWh for lithium-ion batteries decreases by as much as 50 percent as the energy-to-power ratio shifts toward higher energy, yet the NRC study suggests that a PHEV-40 would have cost/kWh higher than a PHEV-10.

That's quite a devastating charge. It also appears to be absolutely false:http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12826&page=25


A 2nd example:

Fully assembled battery costs for the GM Volt, a series format PHEV-40 with a 16 kWh nameplate capacity (identical to the specifications of the PHEV-40 in the NRC report), have been reported at between $500 and $625 per kWh—significantly less than the NRC’s estimate of $875/kWh..

(Check the table.)


A 3rd example:

Researchers at Argonne National Laboratory recently estimated PHEV-40 battery costs at an even lower $200 to $400/kWh across a variety of battery chemistries.

(The table says $300/kWh, which is right in the middle of the range.)

One might also note that these figures are DoE estimates, and not something ginned up by the committee. Now, the costs in the table are estimates for 2012 (not 2010) perhaps that's a source of some confusion?

Here's a different table with an estimated price for 2010.http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12826&page=28

Here, the price for the battery pack is thought to "probably" be $14,000, with a "conservative" estimate of $16,000 and an "optimistic" figure of $10,000 (a rather wide range.) This $14,000 matches up with the $875/kWh from the charge, but they really don't acknowledge that there is a range of estimates.

Naturally, everyone assumes that with time, prices will approach the DoE figures. But that won't be the price on "Day 1."

---

So, what will the Chevy "Volt" battery pack cost? (The last I knew GM still isn't saying):
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/01/07/general-motors-builds-first-volt-battery-pack-on-production-line/

...

We asked Grey about the cost of the batteries since this remains one of the big issues in making the Volt a big seller. Many estimates have put the cost of automotive lithium ion battery systems at up to $1,000/kWh. However, Grey echoed what program management VP Jon Laukner told us previously: The current cost of the Volt pack is much lower than that. While neither would be nailed down on specifics, they indicated that the cost was currently around $500-600/kWh, which puts the 16 kWh pack in the $8,000-9,500 range. Grey tells ABG that GM is working closely with suppliers to cost optimize all of the pack's components and hopes to hit the US Advanced Battery Consortium target of $300/kWh by 2015.

...

OK, so, by 2015, GM hopes to hit $300/kWh. Today, apparently they're at about twice that.

[wtmusic]

69. No, your analysis doesn't hold up particularly well to scrutiny

In regard to your first example, you're looking at DOE projections.

Note that for a PHEV-40 battery pack cost per kWh over state of charge variation in 2010 (Probable) is listed as $1,750:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12826&page=23

but the same stat for a PHEV-10 is only $1,650:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12826&page=24

It's not a "devastating charge", so no need to be dramatic about it. Their numbers and your analysis are just wrong.

In your typical style you throw a bunch of accusations at the wall to see what sticks and most of them are faulty. I wish (j/k) I had time to address all of them but I'm not being paid to refute talking points on DU. And you're not either, are you? :shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

70. I thought I made things clear

The difference is between a theoretical price in 2012 and an actual sale in 2010.

The criticisms regard a rather simplistic look at the 2010 figures (i.e. ignoring a range of possibilities, comparing them to "reports" and Argonne research.)

Here, the price for the battery pack is thought to "probably" be $14,000, with a "conservative" estimate of $16,000 and an "optimistic" figure of $10,000 (a rather wide range.) This $14,000 matches up with the $875/kWh from the charge, but they really don't acknowledge that there is a range of estimates.

[wtmusic]

67. Hydrogen cars have been three years away for roughly twenty years.

3-5 years is a favorable psychological window for projections; close enough to elicit enthusiasm, but long enough to make their exact nature painfully hard to recall later.

[OKIsItJustMe]

68. Could you document that?

(You know find me statements from 1990 that we would have hydrogen cars in 1993-1995.)

The important difference at this point is that major manufacturers (ex. Toyota, Honda, GM...) all have fuel cell vehicles on the road, being driven by "real people," and the 2015 figure is common among them.

They're not ready for market today (just as the EV-1 was not in 1999.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. A couple of interesting facts I've been able to glean

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=700

...

In "The Hype About Hydrogen," Romm points to an NREL study of hydrogen production at the local filling station or "forecourt." That 2002 study concluded that electrolyzed hydrogen would cost a whopping $12/kg while hydrogen steam reformed from natural gas would cost $4.40/kg, twice the cost of gasoline in America, at the moment. Since a kilogram of hydrogen is roughly equivalent to the energy content of a gallon of gasoline, you can begin to appreciate Romm's observation. The dream of "green" hydrogen made from wind power or solar electric panels would appear, for the moment at least, to be just that, a dream.

On top of this, an Argonne National Laboratory study placed the cost of the necessary infrastructure for fueling 40 percent of North America's vehicle fleet with hydrogen at a staggering $600 billion dollars.

...

A 2002 study, eh? So, what does NREL say in 2009?
http://hydrogendoedev.nrel.gov/pdfs/progress09/ii_0_hydrogen_production_overview.pdf

...

• Since previous work demonstrated the $3.00/gge cost target could be met from distributed natural gas, DOE no longer funds R&D in this area, and industry will take the lead as the market develops./li]

...

Electrolysis

...

• NREL conducted an independent analysis of distributed and centralized hydrogen production costs. The analysis showed an estimated cost of $4.90 - $5.70/gge for distributed production and $2.70 - $3.50/gge for central production, at the plant gate.

...

As for the Argonne study. It also appears to be from 2002 and it assumes Natural Gas reforming.
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/AF/224.pdf

[wtmusic]

12. What does that have to do with infrastructure costs outlays? nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. They're assuming hydrogen needs to be transported

"With current technologies, the hydrogen delivery infrastructure to serve 40% of the light duty fleet is likely to cost over $500 billion."

It's structured around the idea of needing to build pipelines etc.

[tinrobot]

14. It's still an uphill battle for hydrogen.

The power grid is already in place, so battery vehicles have a much bigger infrastructure advantage in that regard. Electricity is also much cheaper than gasoline or hydrogen, so it has a financial edge as well.

Once batteries get to a certain point (a few hundred miles per charge) there will be little incentive to install hydrogen. We're much closer to the 200 mile battery than the first production hydrogen car. Nissan is already promising a 200 mile range on the next-gen Leaf battery (which should happen in 2-3 years, according to them)

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. Hydrogen fuel cells have a number of advantages over batteries

http://hydrogendoedev.nrel.gov/pdfs/review09/program_overview_2009_amr.pdf

...

• Allow for rapid refueling — much faster than changing-out or recharging batteries (refueling with hydrogen takes about one minute, while battery changes can take 20 – 45 minutes, and recharging can take anywhere from 2 to 16 hours)
• Provide constant power without voltage drop
• Eliminate space requirements of batteries & chargers

...

[tinrobot]

22. Not so sure about that...

Allow for rapid refueling — much faster than changing-out or recharging batteries (refueling with hydrogen takes about one minute, while battery changes can take 20 – 45 minutes, and recharging can take anywhere from 2 to 16 hours)

Think! just demonstrated 440V charging that takes 10 minutes.

Provide constant power without voltage drop

Lithium batteries maintain a fairly constant 3.2-3.4v/cell until 80% DOD.

Eliminate space requirements of batteries & charger

Batteries and chargers take up as much or less space as a fuel cell and a 5000psi hydrogen tank.

But, it's not saying I'm against hydrogen, I just don't see how it's going to prevail against BEVs from an economic and infrastructure standpoint. It really is an uphill battle. Battery cars are becoming a reality this year. The best fuel cells can do is GM's 2015 promise. When it comes to emerging technology, a 5 year head start is way more than enough to make one technology dominant over another.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. There are other advantages as well

Most notably mass.

Check out this recent NASA presentation:
http://event.arc.nasa.gov/Green-Aviation/home/pdf/GreenWorkshop.v8.pdf


If the weight comparison works out well for aircraft, shouldn't it also work out well for automobiles?

[wtmusic]

26. No actually, it shouldn't.

Apples and oranges.

Aircraft require a much more powerful drive system as a proportion of the total vehicle weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-weight_ratio

[OKIsItJustMe]

34. So, weight is unimportant in cars?

The battery pack of a tesla "roadster" weighs about half a ton, charged or uncharged.

Doesn't that seem a tad excessive?

[wtmusic]

36. Now put that evil straw man back to bed.

Of course weight is important in cars. It isn't critical, like it is in airplanes.

Excessive, compared to what? Do we want to compare efficiency between FCVs/BEVs? No, we don't want to go there. :D

[OKIsItJustMe]

39. Sure, go there, so long as you keep the argument honest

(i.e. don't trot out that dog-eared old flowchart of kristopher's.)

I prefer this one:

I do find it amusing though, in another thread, someone is arguing against using hydrogen in cars, due to the excessive weight of the tank. (I won't pretend you're presenting both arguments, I just find it amusing.)

[Statistical]

25. Build a semi truck, cargo ship, or passenger jet than can run on battery power.

Battery has nowhere near the energy density required for heavy transportation.

While H2 might not be the whole solution batteries aren't either.

Think! just demonstrated 440V charging that takes 10 minutes.

Your 10 minute charge is misleading. You are limited in amount of amperage you can safely transfer. The 10 minute charge is a partial charge. As battery packs get larger the amount of time recharged to charge them grows. A quick charge is useful for commuter vehicle but has no use for long range travel.

A EV uses about 3-5 kWh per mile traveled. So as maximum ranges increase the time to recharge vehicle increases also. Traveling 1000 miles by electric vehicle would be a horrible experience.

[wtmusic]

28. My EV uses .5-.8 kWh per mile

and its battery pack is a standard lead-acid pack that weighs 882 lbs. So I don't know what you're basing that stat on.

http://www.aspire-ev.com

There's no theoretical limit to how much amperage can be safely transferred, and a larger battery pack doesn't necessarily imply longer charge times, which are dropping with sophisticated parallel-charging schemes under development right now. IMO in five years travelling 1,000 miles by electric car will be no more "horrible" than stopping to refill twice.

H2 does make more sense than battery power for a wide range of applications. But whether that will make sense from an ecological or economical POV over fossil fuels is still a question mark. Current well-to-wheel efficiency is not even as good as diesel.

[Statistical]

30. Sorry reverse that (typo). Best EV gets 3-5 MILES per kWh (not kWh per mile).

There may be no theoretical limits on safe amperage but there are certainly real world limits.

Most people "casually" fill up their car. They aren't really paying attention. They don't inspect the connector and hose assembly for fatigue or damage. The govt is not going to allow a charge station used by the general public to push 50, 100, 200, 5000 amps. Not only that there are limits in battery chemistry on what rate they can absorb a charge.

There are substantial number of public safety laws that limit peak amperage of consumer equipment (and for good reason).

[wtmusic]

32. Then they probably wouldn't want the public pumping liquid hydrogen

at 700 ATM either (GM Equinox). How is that less dangerous?

[Statistical]

33. I am not a fan of liquid H2.

In the short term compressed H2 can deliver comparable range to gasoline vehicles at much lower pressure and higher temperature.
4kg of H2 in Clarify FCX gives it a 240 mile range and it is fueled in a manner very similar to gasoline vehicles.


It can be fueled in about 3 minutes.
4kg * 143 (MJ per kg) / 3.6 (MJ to kWh) * 0.50 (fuel cell efficiency) = 73kWh (usable) transferred in 3 minutes.

To do the same with electricity at 440v would require
73kWh / 440V = 166 Ah. So it would require 166 amps to complete in 60 minutes:

60 minutes = 166 amps
30 minutes = 332 amps
20 minutes = 498 amps
10 minutes = 996 amps
5 minutes = 1992 amps
3 minutes = 3320 amps

I LOVE EV. I hope to buy one around 2018 (when my current vehicle is a decade old) as a commuter vehicle.
For short range travel, charge overnight, it is simpler, cheaper, and "greener" than combustion engine.

Still there are substantial limits so far on battery energy density and that reduces usefulness for long range travel or higher energy uses. The good news is most people use vehicles for short range and most families have more than one vehicle so that is a lot of vehicles which can be replaced with EV. Still physics are a bitch and pushing 1000 amps in a consumer device is a recipe for killing someone.

[wtmusic]

35. My mistake

Equinox uses compressed hydrogen, but at 700 ATM (10,000 psi) it's in a semi-liquid state at room temperature.

Still plenty dangerous.

[Statistical]

37. I am not sure why GM is going for higher psi.

Honda is doing it at 5000 psi. Maybe GM fuel cell stack is heavier or less efficient? Higher psi means less tank volume which reduces weight so I can see why GM would do it but I think higher pressure is simply a crutch.

Hydrogen fuel cells still need a lot of work mainly in economics. Unless some other future tech comes along H2 is the only thing that will allow heavy and long range transportation break the link to fossil fuels.

Maybe we won't do it in my lifetime however eventually as a human race we MUST. 50 years, 100 years, 200 years. I don't think the planet has that long to wait but something needs to be developed that has high energy density and ability to transfer massive amounts of energy quickly (refueling). So far that looks to be hydrogen.

I am no "hydrogen fanboy". I recognize hydrogen cycle has inherent losses. If you create hydrogen at 70% efficiency at turn it back into electricity (fuel cell) at 50% efficiency it requires roughly TRIPLE the energy compared to a battery. All things equal batteries require roughly 1/3rd the energy. So for most applications batteries will win. Batteries can't do it all though:

ships
aircraft
locomotives
semi-trucks
industrial equipment
long range travel

all these require too much energy for batteries to be functional (even if we could make batteries for free).

[wtmusic]

40. The Equinox is an SUV and the best range they achieve

is 70 miles on a fill (the press releases are BS, according to GM engineers I've talked to one-on-one).

H2 has possibilities but the petroleum industry has a huge stake in it and history reminds us to accept anything they promise with a big grain of salt.

[tinrobot]

29. It's more like 350-500 Wh/mile.

[Statistical]

31. Yeah sorry. Typo. I reversed the figures. 3 miles per kWh (not 3 kWh per mile) n/t

[Nederland]

55. You can recharge at home though

That makes the amount of time it takes to charge a battery a lot less relevant. If you simply plug in your car every night when you come home, you actually end up with more free time than if you had to fill up at a gas or hydrogen station. The fact that it may take all night to charge the battery is irrelevant because it's not taking up any of your free time. The charging time only becomes an issue if for some reason you need to recharge right away--something that should hardly ever happen if you plan just a little.

[OKIsItJustMe]

59. (Unless of course you want to go for a road trip)

In which case, being able to refill a hydrogen tank in a minute or two is pretty handy.

[tinrobot]

62. There are six Tesla charging stations between LA and SF

The Tesla has A 250 mile range.

The Honda FCX has a comparable 225 mile range, but there are exactly zero hydrogen filling stations between LA and SF.

I'll let you the math on who gets to take the longer road trip.

[OKIsItJustMe]

63. There are more hydrogen filling stations

http://www.cafcp.org/stationmap

And, let's talk about those charging stations:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/25/solarcity-charging-stations-on-highway-101-give-tesla-owners-a-l/

... The (apparently free) chargers provide a 240V charge at 70 amps, blowing away Eberhard's RFMC rapid charger and bringing the cars to full capacity in only 3.5 hours. ...

(Compare 3.5 hours to a few minutes to refill a hydrogen tank.)

[tinrobot]

64. Looking at your map...

There's one in Oxnard, and the next one is in San Mateo.

http://www.cafcp.org/stationmap

Now... that's at least 300 miles apart... so how do you take that road trip from LA to SF again?

Here's a map of public EV charging stations. They outnumber hydrogen by quite a bit, and if you add in every building with a 110v or 220v outlet, there's several orders of magnitude more.

http://www.evchargermaps.com/

There will also be significant growth in this number within the next 18 months. More than 6,500 public charging stations will be installed in public and commercial locations in Phoenix, Tucson, San Diego, Portland, Eugene, Salem, Corvallis, Seattle, Nashville, Knoxville and Chattanooga, among others. San Diego will install at least 2500 of these.

[Statistical]

71. Nobody is claiming EV doesn't have a head start.

A map for hydrogen stations today compares to a map of public charging stations 10 years ago.

Still hydrogen offers the potential for vastly higher energy density and faster energy transfer rates (refueling).

That means for heavy transportation it essential to stop fossil fuel use.

If in 30 years semi-trucks are running on H2 then they will need a place to fuel up. That will greatly increase the number of refuel points.


Trucks will NEVER run on batteries. Not in 5 years, not in 50 years. Thus parallel research into Hydrogen will always be valuable. Maybe it will never catch on for consumer vehicles but it is necessary.

[Dover]

19. Does anyone remember the media blitz in 2000 promising fuel cell cars by 2010?

They've been relying on short memories and high hopes.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. Well ... they're available for lease (in limited release)

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

[tinrobot]

43. Only if you live in Torrance, Irvine, or Santa Monica

One of the reasons for this limited initial release is that in order to drive a fuel cell vehicle, you have to be able to refuel it. And since these clean cars do not run on gasoline, you can’t just stop at your regular corner gas station to fill up. Hydrogen fuel stations are necessary to refuel a fuel cell vehicle and, as it stands now, these stations are still quite limited in number.

Therefore, only customers currently residing in the Torrance, Santa Monica and Irvine areas who meet additional qualification criteria were eligible to take an FCX Clarity FCEV home. Honda wants to ensure that FCX Clarity FCEV drivers will be able to take their vehicles in for service at participating dealers and have convenient access to refueling stations.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/drive-fcx-clarity.aspx

Which goes back to the point - who installs the infrastructure needed to make these mass-market popular?

[OKIsItJustMe]

44. Which takes us once again to the fact that an "infrastructure" is not required

(since hydrogen can be generated on site.)

[wtmusic]

47. It can, can it? Where is that happening right now?

:shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

49. For one example, check out segment 2

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/video/watchonline.htm

[OKIsItJustMe]

50. For another example, check here

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_wind_hydrogen.html
http://www.areavoices.com/renewnd/?blog=10613

[OKIsItJustMe]

51. More examples

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/online/news/articles/2009-12/Hydrogenics-announces-electrolyz
http://www.altenergymag.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=07.08.01&article=hydrogen

[tinrobot]

52. Then why is Honda restricting it to only three cities?

If no "infrastructure" is required, they could sell the cars everywhere.

But they don't.

[OKIsItJustMe]

53. It's a limited roll-out

You'll notice they're also not selling them yet, only leasing them.

In all honesty, I believe their fuel cells are probably far too expensive at this point.

If I can say it without raising hackles, compare it to the original leasing programs for EV's in CA. (The companies weren't really getting back the money they put into the cars. Their intention was that in the future, their costs would go down, and they'd be able to sell enough vehicles to make them profitable.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

54. Everything you need to go into the hydrogen filling business for yourself

http://www.hgasstations.com/
http://www.hgenerators.com/

[tinrobot]

57. So, exactly who will be my customers?

The eighteen people in Califonia who own a Honda FCV?

[OKIsItJustMe]

58. Leasing...

But seriously, the point here (and we did have one, now didn't we?) was that the "Infrastructure" canard is just that.

[tinrobot]

61. Not a canard at all... there is currently no infrastructure.

Yes, the infrastructure can be built, and you've certainly given evidence that it can, given the time, money, and effort.

The problem is that you still have to build it, and building it is not cheap. This is where you run into the chicken/egg paradox. You can't build thousands of fueling stations without cars to fuel, and you won't sell tens or hundreds of thousands of cars without the fueling stations. Getting mass adoption will be an uphill climb.

EVs may not currently have the range of a hydrogen vehicle, and they may take longer to fill up, but they already have the infrastructure. It's called the power grid, and we've been investing in it for over a century.

[OKIsItJustMe]

65. Perhaps we need a definition of terms

What do you mean by "infrastructure?"