GM Volt Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
Fuel cell applications in some things other than automobiles might make sense. However, I still don't understand the fascination with fuel cells that some auto manufacturers (Honda) have. GM has dabbled in this for about 50 years and it hasn't really gotten out of the lab. I like the line about "other" and "military" applications. That's where you might see some reasonable applications. As far as automotive use, people have discussed this question endlessly and it appears that a pure BEV with current battery technology is the way to go. Given the advances in battery technology it would appear IMO that BEV's will always been one step ahead of fuel cells for the foreseeable future. Ad to this the problems to build a usable fueling infrastructure for such a limited range vehicle and you have a clear winner and its not Hydrogen fuel cell range extended BEV's (that's what they really are). As one man who is much smarter then me once said--"Hydrogen will be a future fuel---always".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,009 Posts
10000 psi in a tank under your butt, parking in a lot for a week and you come back to an empty tank, and having to go to Cali to refuel are all showstoppers for me. Plus, I think the new Honda FCX Clarity introduced in dec 2016 is fuglier than the Murai. What are these designers snorting? Put these drivetrains into an Accord/Camry/Civic/Corolla platform already and stop trying to make it so different.

I can just predict when Toyota and Honda decide to electrify the Tundra/Ridgeline, they are also going to be Fugly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
They only make sense for urban buses that do not exceed 55mph and have government assistance. But CNG is far cheaper.

GM holds most the patents and working design data.

A stupid expensive but novel approach would be an H2 Volt. Shipped with a 60 mile EPA range on EV, with a 200 mile 50kW FC array, it would weigh 3900 lb. MSRP would be about $42k but would qualify for higher gov't incentives.

But I think H2 lends itself better to heavy vehicles where a large tank and fleet refueling is not as much an issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
438 Posts
They only make sense for urban buses that do not exceed 55mph and have government assistance. But CNG is far cheaper.

GM holds most the patents and working design data.

A stupid expensive but novel approach would be an H2 Volt. Shipped with a 60 mile EPA range on EV, with a 200 mile 50kW FC array, it would weigh 3900 lb. MSRP would be about $42k but would qualify for higher gov't incentives.

But I think H2 lends itself better to heavy vehicles where a large tank and fleet refueling is not as much an issue.
I agree and disagree. Buses especially urban and suburban lines make a great deal of sense as well as interstate connections with buses. I could also see it in long haul trucking, which is where the money and infrastructure should be spent on as well as freight trains. (and if your worried about these huge explosive tanks on a train, keep in mind they carry everything from nuclear waste to gas to some very nasty chemicals) Do to the nature of long haul trucking using interstates the need to place refueling stations would be essential thus creating the infrastructure and bringing down the price of Hydrogen and giving more choices on how one fuels up.

As for CNG being better alternative or being cheaper, that may not always be the case once hydrogen fueling stations start to open up and use renewables in the creation of the hydrogen. It is not inconceivable that plant and fueling depot could all be located at the filling station.

There will hopefully be a time in this country that will have multitude of clean energy choices and not one size fits all, which was fossil fuel model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,521 Posts
I agree and disagree. Buses especially urban and suburban lines make a great deal of sense as well as interstate connections with buses. I could also see it in long haul trucking, which is where the money and infrastructure should be spent on as well as freight trains. (and if your worried about these huge explosive tanks on a train, keep in mind they carry everything from nuclear waste to gas to some very nasty chemicals) Do to the nature of long haul trucking using interstates the need to place refueling stations would be essential thus creating the infrastructure and bringing down the price of Hydrogen and giving more choices on how one fuels up.

As for CNG being better alternative or being cheaper, that may not always be the case once hydrogen fueling stations start to open up and use renewables in the creation of the hydrogen. It is not inconceivable that plant and fueling depot could all be located at the filling station.

There will hopefully be a time in this country that will have multitude of clean energy choices and not one size fits all, which was fossil fuel model.
It seems that municipal bus services will be able to go fully electric, along with passenger transportation and small urban delivery.

But things get hard for BEV when you need to travel long distances fast, move heavy freight and move bulky items.

Unlike many other advocates of electrification I refuse to dismiss HFCV until the combination of BEV, PHEV, plus other biofuels and synfuels can allow us economically to have a clean and sustainable transportation system. But for HFCV there are significant technical and cost challenges that remain to be solved. (When an industry is talking about mass production in 7 years, you know that it's not just a matter of building a factory).

On top of that, a large barrier for HFCV is (somewhat ironically) the filling stations. HFCV depends on there being convenient filling stations where the vehicles are used. No filling station, no sale. Infrastructure can be built out quickly, but the filling stations are currently extremely expensive, the hydrogen is currently expensive and with every passing year the number of plug-ins will increase. By 2025 how many of the Innovators and Early Adopters who'd even care to move away from petroleum will be plugging in (or parking over a wireless charger), wondering why manufacturers think they'd want to buy an expensive car with mediocre performance, using relatively expensive fuel that can't even be refueled at home.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top