Hydrogen may vault past BEV's, until batteries develop quick recharge capability at an affordable cost.
Toyota introduces advanced FCV.
Toyota introduces advanced FCV:
Link
Please forgive the author's ignorance of hybrid vehicles. The author tries to compare a parallel hybrid to a fuel cell vehicle, and totally botches it. It's best to stick to the first couple paragraphs.
The race for fuel cell vehicles is on.
Link
Please forgive the author's ignorance of hybrid vehicles. The author tries to compare a parallel hybrid to a fuel cell vehicle, and totally botches it. It's best to stick to the first couple paragraphs.
The race for fuel cell vehicles is on.
61 - 80 of 87 Posts
Koz, I couldn’t agree with you more on the subject of hydrogen. Jason, what's killing me is that your head is thicker than the carbon fiber tanks! Seeing the costs come down? What are you talking about? To me they are only science projects at this point. Far behind the BEV or plug-in hybrid. However, like I always have to say... We will see in five years.
That is certainly a plausible outcome if it were this two hourse race, but they both have to overcome the ICE component of the EREV. Under what circumstances can hydrogen be seen to overcome the ICE when domestic production of oil and renewables easily fill demand? The only scenario that I can imagine this happening is if there is a huge breakthrough in energy production that creates a large inexpensive surplus.Hydrogen may vault past BEV's, until batteries develop quick recharge capability at an affordable cost.
CA already has a zero emissions mandate, which will only grow larger and larger as the years go on. Additionally, there are several states that try to copy everything CA does, so this mandate will spread. I believe air motors will succeed in meeting this mandate, but the big automakers will prefer to deliver fuel cells, as it is the future.That is certainly a plausible outcome if it were this two hourse race, but they both have to overcome the ICE component of the EREV. Under what circumstances can hydrogen be seen to overcome the ICE when domestic production of oil and renewables easily fill demand? The only scenario that I can imagine this happening is if there is a huge breakthrough in energy production that creates a large inexpensive surplus.
You have lost your mind! lol. I wish that you would print out what you just wrote and paste it on your wall. Then read it in a few years. My one thought is how are you going to justify your obvious error? Will you say that X technology came out and that's why hydrogen didn't make it or that Z technology made the air motor not cost effective. I doubt you will say, "Those guys were right and I was so wrong. I'm ashamed." lol. No way. We placed our bets. What was that, one crisp dollar? I want to collect on it! Date - Summer of 2013 - Volt club meeting.I believe air motors will succeed in meeting this mandate, but the big automakers will prefer to deliver fuel cells, as it is the future.
Wow, Quantum Tech has already delivered one of those mobile hydrogen generation trailers to a customer:
Link
Link
Actually, the California mandates have only grown smaller as far as zero emmissions go. Not that this is a bad thing, rather I think they are more realistic now and will actually encourage development instead of polarizing everything. The do still favor FCV over BEV for some bewildering reason. This part of the mandate should be made as tech neutral as possible as long as the affected technologies provide the desired results which involve the full life cycle of the vehicle and it's related energy source life cycle as well. The latest encourages EREV's as well and manufacturers can produce them to meet the mandates. Since the goal is to reduce emmissions as much and as quickly as possible, it is logical that if the first EREV's prove viable in the market their development will be even further encouraged. Of course, car manufacturers can't assume future logic on the part of regulators but since they would be wise to work with the regulators as much as possible to not only encourage effective legislation but also to be better positioned to react to changes in legislation. For the end user and for the manufacturers, the cost differential in producing, purchasing, and supporting BEVs versus FCVs that meet the current mandates favors BEVs tremendously.CA already has a zero emissions mandate, which will only grow larger and larger as the years go on. Additionally, there are several states that try to copy everything CA does, so this mandate will spread. I believe air motors will succeed in meeting this mandate, but the big automakers will prefer to deliver fuel cells, as it is the future.
I assume a logical response might be, "why then are manufacturers developing FCVs". I would reply that this is where the bulk of the federal monetary assistance is focused and wrongly so, IMO. This is as poor a policy choice as ethanol from corn.
Cetainly, the history of the ZEV mandate has been one of decreasing and delayed numbers, but now I sense we've seen the bottom. GM, Toyota and Honda are all developing FCV's and PFCV's to meet the CA mandate, which they will easily meet, making way for increasing targets in the out years.Actually, the California mandates have only grown smaller as far as zero emmissions go. Not that this is a bad thing, rather I think they are more realistic now and will actually encourage development instead of polarizing everything. The do still favor FCV over BEV for some bewildering reason. This part of the mandate should be made as tech neutral as possible as long as the affected technologies provide the desired results which involve the full life cycle of the vehicle and it's related energy source life cycle as well. The latest encourages EREV's as well and manufacturers can produce them to meet the mandates. Since the goal is to reduce emmissions as much and as quickly as possible, it is logical that if the first EREV's prove viable in the market their development will be even further encouraged. Of course, car manufacturers can't assume future logic on the part of regulators but since they would be wise to work with the regulators as much as possible to not only encourage effective legislation but also to be better positioned to react to changes in legislation. For the end user and for the manufacturers, the cost differential in producing, purchasing, and supporting BEVs versus FCVs that meet the current mandates favors BEVs tremendously.
I assume a logical response might be, "why then are manufacturers developing FCVs". I would reply that this is where the bulk of the federal monetary assistance is focused and wrongly so, IMO. This is as poor a policy choice as ethanol from corn.
I don't agree that FCV development is about federal funds alone, if at all. FCV's are a good bet until cheap batteries are developed that can last 10 years. The E-REV concept skirts the life issue, by using only a small range of a battery pack's potential to extend its life. Eventually, the range extender must be replaced by something - either cheap, long life, rapid recharge batteries, or a fuel cell.
Cost of fuel cells decreased by 10X in three years
Just in case someone misses the other post by this title, I added this for completeness to this discussion:
I did a Google search for the cost of fuel cell stacks and I was getting numbers from $4500/kW (October 2003)
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...s_Struggle.htm
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsst...2003/story.htm
to projections of $176/kW. This wide discrepancy cleared up when I came across this 2008 article:
Reposted This Link
http://www.gm.com/explore/education/9-12/fuels_energy/hydrogen_challenges.html
We are truly in the midst of rapid advances in energy technologies. I am thrilled that our technology innovators are rising to the challenges of the end of our cheap oil era.
Just in case someone misses the other post by this title, I added this for completeness to this discussion:
I did a Google search for the cost of fuel cell stacks and I was getting numbers from $4500/kW (October 2003)
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...s_Struggle.htm
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsst...2003/story.htm
to projections of $176/kW. This wide discrepancy cleared up when I came across this 2008 article:
Reposted This Link
http://www.gm.com/explore/education/9-12/fuels_energy/hydrogen_challenges.html
We are truly in the midst of rapid advances in energy technologies. I am thrilled that our technology innovators are rising to the challenges of the end of our cheap oil era.
Tom, the link to GM site is broken. Can you repost that one? Thanks.
120 mi's simply isn't enough for me. My daily commute is 160 mi's. You might think that's a special case, but around here, many people commute from distances 40 mi's or more out. That's what living in the suburbs has done to this area. You might say that we will just have to live in closer to the city, but I say that if the technology is available, which it is in hydrogen, then we shouldn't have to. It may take three generations or more for Battery tech to reach the expected 200-300 mi range of today's gasoline vehicle, but the Hydrogen powered ICEs and FCVs can already provide this at comparable costs. It is still two years away before we will see the Volt on the road or any of the other promised EREVs from other companies, non at a price that many will be able to afford. The Honda FCX Clarity will be for lease in California for ~$600/mo this summer. The BMW Hydrogen 7 is already in the hands of some people, but it's more of a publicity stunt because the storage tanks on it are old tech and can not hold much H2. There are already Hydrogen fuel stations beginning to show up in various parts of the country. The infrastructure on how to charge electric vehicles when away from the home is still being debated.You or I must be viewing an altered state of reality. I just can't see Hydrogen as a "transition" to anything else on the horizon, including BEV. First of all, I recall anouncements for 120 mile BEV's and they are at "reasonable" pricing. These are first generation vehicles. I don't see much of leap for them to be 200+ mile vehicles in the 2nd generation and 250+ in third generation. I see this from the recent past battery development progression (especially Li) and the current frenzy of developments. Secondly, who wants to invest the trillions of dollars in hydrogen infrastructure as an interim industry?
What am I missing about EREV development? 40 miles AER developed today reduces gasoline usage by 80-88%. I see developments of 2nd generation EREV's reducing usage to 5-10% of todays cars. Please explain why we should be bothering with Hydrogen for cars.
I'm not saying it is a bad idea to research and develop hydrogen for all applications. It already has some today and there will be more tomorrow. We should encourage development of the technology. It may end up being a home energy storage solution, an airplane energy carrier solution, a trucking energy carrier solution, and even a utility grade energy storage solution. I just do not see any way that it can be a practical solution for light duty vehicles in this country unless other forms of combustion are outright banned. Countries such as Iceland that have an overabundance of energy may move to hydrogen use in cars but they will be wasting a LOT of their energy with this choice.
For these reasons, I see a FCV or H2 ICE car being available on a mass produced vehicle before a BEV that can compare to today's vehicles.
One of those companies, IIRC, is Shec-Labs, aside from Nanoptek. I wondered what happened to Shec-Labs. They used to have a demo of solar hydrogen in Southern California. Then there were several turnover of CEO and board of directors, and I was suspecting some third party investors of Oil companies, and pfftt... they're off the limelight...
Mark of SHEC Labs called me about an hour or so ago and told me that they are very much alive. He called me from Spain and reminded me of the excellent progress they're making. They need investors to go full scale, so there's hope:
http://www.shec-labs.com/
Hydrogen is a high loss tech replacement for gas
ITS Crap, I spoke with a GM Tech on the equinox fuel cell and he said
it must be hand built and cost $400,000 dollars. Only with a 4 billion investment in a
fuel cell production machine line can it be mass produced. the precious metals alone cost 90k per unit. I think the 20k or less Li ion battery pack is a better choice cause its cheaper and the electricity used to make a gallon of equivalent hydrogen is $2.13 a gallon and $2.50 for fossil fuel/gas to extract the hydro. SO to the guy above, Big Red Fed you must be dreaming if you even remotely consider this a real
alternative. It only a real alternative to Big oil, whom which you will still be paying the rest of your life to buy this crap. I would rather just buy the $2.13 worth of electricity and put it directly in a battery to drive my electric car, oh no I dont even have to do that cause I spent 2.5k on a solar system. It should be against the law for Honda and GM to advertise their fuel cell car the way they do. They should market the TRUTH
By saying
Look at our new electric car with a active hydrogen battery that supplies electricity to the motor with only pure water emissions.
The average person in the USA does not know this car is just a electric car with a hydrogen electrolyte type battery. The government
sponsored program is working as they planned, isn't it.
ITS Crap, I spoke with a GM Tech on the equinox fuel cell and he said
it must be hand built and cost $400,000 dollars. Only with a 4 billion investment in a
fuel cell production machine line can it be mass produced. the precious metals alone cost 90k per unit. I think the 20k or less Li ion battery pack is a better choice cause its cheaper and the electricity used to make a gallon of equivalent hydrogen is $2.13 a gallon and $2.50 for fossil fuel/gas to extract the hydro. SO to the guy above, Big Red Fed you must be dreaming if you even remotely consider this a real
alternative. It only a real alternative to Big oil, whom which you will still be paying the rest of your life to buy this crap. I would rather just buy the $2.13 worth of electricity and put it directly in a battery to drive my electric car, oh no I dont even have to do that cause I spent 2.5k on a solar system. It should be against the law for Honda and GM to advertise their fuel cell car the way they do. They should market the TRUTH
By saying
Look at our new electric car with a active hydrogen battery that supplies electricity to the motor with only pure water emissions.
The average person in the USA does not know this car is just a electric car with a hydrogen electrolyte type battery. The government
sponsored program is working as they planned, isn't it.
Jeremy,
The fuel cell wasn't even $90K back before GM announced a 10X decrease in the fuel cell's cost, so I am certain they are now cheaper than a battery pack. One article about GM stated that their fuel cell was now only 3X or 4X the cost of an ICE, which is $1,500, so the real cost is between $4,500 and $6,000.
Fuel cells will be successful in a plug-in vehicle set-up like the Volt, where you can recharge, if you have the time, or fill up with hydrogen, if you don't, but you're clean and green either way.
The fuel cell wasn't even $90K back before GM announced a 10X decrease in the fuel cell's cost, so I am certain they are now cheaper than a battery pack. One article about GM stated that their fuel cell was now only 3X or 4X the cost of an ICE, which is $1,500, so the real cost is between $4,500 and $6,000.
Fuel cells will be successful in a plug-in vehicle set-up like the Volt, where you can recharge, if you have the time, or fill up with hydrogen, if you don't, but you're clean and green either way.
A Cost Comparison of Fuel-Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles
3. Conclusion
We use widely-cited government
studies to directly compare the costs
associated with producing and refueling
FCVs and BEVs. The analysis is based
on an automobile model (similar to a
Honda Civic) that is representative of the
largest segment of the automobile
market. A comparison is important since
the government and industry are
devoting increasing amounts of resources
to the goal of developing a marketable
ZEV and the BEV and the FCV are
currently the only feasible alternatives.
We find that government studies
indicate that it would be far cheaper, in
terms of production and refueling costs,
to develop a BEV, even if we do not
consider the substantial cost of building
and maintaining the hydrogen
infrastructure on which the FCV would
depend. Specifically, the results show
that in an economy based on renewable
energy, the FCV requires production of
between 2.4 and 2.6 times more energy
than a comparable BEV. The FCV
propulsion system weighs 43% more,
consumes nearly three-times more space
onboard the vehicle for the same power
output, and costs approximately 46%
more than the BEV system. Further, the
refueling cost of a FCV is nearly threetimes
greater. Finally, when we relax the
renewable energy assumption, the BEV
is still more efficient, cleaner, and vastly
less expensive in terms of manufacturing,
refueling, and infrastructure investment.
http://www.metricmind.com/data/bevs_vs_fcvs.pdf
3. Conclusion
We use widely-cited government
studies to directly compare the costs
associated with producing and refueling
FCVs and BEVs. The analysis is based
on an automobile model (similar to a
Honda Civic) that is representative of the
largest segment of the automobile
market. A comparison is important since
the government and industry are
devoting increasing amounts of resources
to the goal of developing a marketable
ZEV and the BEV and the FCV are
currently the only feasible alternatives.
We find that government studies
indicate that it would be far cheaper, in
terms of production and refueling costs,
to develop a BEV, even if we do not
consider the substantial cost of building
and maintaining the hydrogen
infrastructure on which the FCV would
depend. Specifically, the results show
that in an economy based on renewable
energy, the FCV requires production of
between 2.4 and 2.6 times more energy
than a comparable BEV. The FCV
propulsion system weighs 43% more,
consumes nearly three-times more space
onboard the vehicle for the same power
output, and costs approximately 46%
more than the BEV system. Further, the
refueling cost of a FCV is nearly threetimes
greater. Finally, when we relax the
renewable energy assumption, the BEV
is still more efficient, cleaner, and vastly
less expensive in terms of manufacturing,
refueling, and infrastructure investment.
http://www.metricmind.com/data/bevs_vs_fcvs.pdf
Texas,
Once again, you use metrics like efficiency, size and weight, when the number that consumers look for is upfront costs. For a BEV, the upfront cost of the battery pack is $20K, whereas I've seen figures for the GM fuel cell that puts its cost between $4,500 and $6,000.
Once again, you use metrics like efficiency, size and weight, when the number that consumers look for is upfront costs. For a BEV, the upfront cost of the battery pack is $20K, whereas I've seen figures for the GM fuel cell that puts its cost between $4,500 and $6,000.
Texas,
Once again, you use metrics like efficiency, size and weight, when the number that consumers look for is upfront costs. For a BEV, the upfront cost of the battery pack is $20K, whereas I've seen figures for the GM fuel cell that puts its cost between $4,500 and $6,000.
Please give us any reference at all. Any. "I've seen figures" doesn't hold much water. I hope you agree. Please don't forget to include the cost of the storage system. If it’s a high pressure system don't forget to include the testing and required replacement costs (DOT currently requires any high pressure tanks carried on the road to be tested every 5 years and replaced every 10). Nobody knows what the new laws will be but I hope people can agree that a testing and replacement policy is a good idea. Imagine a 15 year old 10,000 psi hydrogen tank that has never been tested and is in very poor condition. Slightly dangerous?
If the consumer is only looking at the upfront costs then why are they not out buying huge SUVs and trucks? You can pick one up anywhere at half the price they were last year. Nobody wants them. Why? Because they are not afraid of the upfront cost. They are afraid to go to the gas station and pay for the fuel.
The way consumers think about vehicle costs is going to change. The technology is changing and the cost of fuel has now become a major point. Fuel costs in the past were not considered because they were such a small percentage of a drivers budget. I think we can all agree that situation has changed. What has also changed is that drivers have no idea what the cost of fuel will be in the next few years. When the BEV and hydrogen car hit the market the consumer is going to be well aware of the operating costs. The BEV will be several orders of magnitude cheaper to refuel and maintain. We will find out soon enough.
Texas,
Unfortunately, the article didn't have searchable terms that I could effectively use on Google without getting a million hits, it merely stated that today's fuel cells cost 3X to 4X that of an ICE, so feel free to search anything in that last phrase, and see what comes up.
You are forgetting about the PFCV configuration, in which people will be using hydrogen far less frequently than they are using gasoline now.
Moreover, the value of rapid refill will far outweigh any fuel cost concerns, especially when their first 40 miles is cheap.
Unfortunately, the article didn't have searchable terms that I could effectively use on Google without getting a million hits, it merely stated that today's fuel cells cost 3X to 4X that of an ICE, so feel free to search anything in that last phrase, and see what comes up.
You are forgetting about the PFCV configuration, in which people will be using hydrogen far less frequently than they are using gasoline now.
Moreover, the value of rapid refill will far outweigh any fuel cost concerns, especially when their first 40 miles is cheap.
Texas,
Unfortunately, the article didn't have searchable terms that I could effectively use on Google without getting a million hits, it merely stated that today's fuel cells cost 3X to 4X that of an ICE, so feel free to search anything in that last phrase, and see what comes up.
You are forgetting about the PFCV configuration, in which people will be using hydrogen far less frequently than they are using gasoline now.
Moreover, the value of rapid refill will far outweigh any fuel cost concerns, especially when their first 40 miles is cheap.
Well, I couldn't find any good reference on what you claim. Everything I see points to hydrogen being very expensive when compared to BEV technology.
I'm not forgetting about the PFCV. It is basically an advanced hybrid solution that requires not only plugging in but also trips to the non-existent hydrogen refueling stations.
It is my contention that the quick-charge BEV will beat the hydrogen car and it's required infrastructure in the market place. Of course we both know each other's position on this subject. I will be looking forward to collecting my dollar prize.
From my experiences with hydrogen generation it isn't practical in any form to use in our cars. It takes far more electricity to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen than the energy the hydrogen can produce. Further more you then have to compress this gas to extreme levels to transported it. The refilling stations will cost an obscene amount of money. Just a diesel air compressor that I have seen used to fill paintball tanks cost anywhere from 8,000 to 12,000. I hate to see what you'll need to fill 25,000 pounds of hydrogen. Then there is the fear of having that compressed hydrogen in your car.
Here is the practical outlook on the situation. If the volt and the many cars to follow with this tech can deliver 40 miles on a charge. Then for 25 days of the month I and most American's will not use a drop of fuel. It will be straight from our country's electric grid and into my car. Last time I checked electric to electric conversion is rather efficient. Then on those few days that I use 5 miles worth of gasoline, ethanol, diesel, the 2 dollars a month for gas isn't going to bother me at ALL. So, why waste all this energy to produce, transport and store hydrogen when we can easily meet the supply and demand of this small amount of fuel using home grown bio fuels. Hydrogen is a waste of time. Until we figure out cold fusion....I am not that interested in it.
My bet is on ethanol to be the support for our electrified cars. Then having a "green" electric grid within a number of years running off of tidal, solar, wind, geothermal energy sources.
This is the independence that the American public should demand and is what the American nation needs. Neat, tomorrow is the 4th. "No, transportation without electrification" Yea, I just quoted myself right now at this moment. So, who wants to place their bets against me?
Here is the practical outlook on the situation. If the volt and the many cars to follow with this tech can deliver 40 miles on a charge. Then for 25 days of the month I and most American's will not use a drop of fuel. It will be straight from our country's electric grid and into my car. Last time I checked electric to electric conversion is rather efficient. Then on those few days that I use 5 miles worth of gasoline, ethanol, diesel, the 2 dollars a month for gas isn't going to bother me at ALL. So, why waste all this energy to produce, transport and store hydrogen when we can easily meet the supply and demand of this small amount of fuel using home grown bio fuels. Hydrogen is a waste of time. Until we figure out cold fusion....I am not that interested in it.
My bet is on ethanol to be the support for our electrified cars. Then having a "green" electric grid within a number of years running off of tidal, solar, wind, geothermal energy sources.
This is the independence that the American public should demand and is what the American nation needs. Neat, tomorrow is the 4th. "No, transportation without electrification" Yea, I just quoted myself right now at this moment. So, who wants to place their bets against me?
61 - 80 of 87 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
GM Volt Forum
A forum community dedicated to Chevy Volt electric car owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about hybrid performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, reviews, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
