This just in: Hydrogen fuel cell cars are still dead
That Saturday Night Live-esque headline was inspired by a story in the Wall Street Journal today:
Really? Hydrogen cars of dubious viability? Who ever could have guessed that in a million years? And electric cars are “a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale”? I’m shocked, shocked anyone could come to that conclusion [pun intended].
Speaking at the Geneva auto show, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz told reporters that recent advances in lithium-ion batteries indicate that future electric cars might be able to travel 300 miles, or nearly 500 kilometers, before they need to recharge, making them much more practical as a mass-market product.
“If we get lithium-ion to 300 miles, then you need to ask yourself, Why do you need fuel cells?” Mr. Lutz told reporters. He added that fuel-cell vehicles are still far too expensive to be considered for the mass market. “We are nowhere [near] where we need to be on the costs curve,” he said.
So who feels stupid about killing the electric car now??? [I can hear Lutz on the new show, Law and Order SUV, “I’m so sorry. It was all a terrible mistake. Yes, I … I … really love electric cars. I always have. I would never intentionally do anything to harm them. You’ve got to believe me…. Of course, global warming is still a crock of shit. But EVs are my life!”]
At a separate event at the show, Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe echoed the concern about the high costs of fuel cells and noted the lack of an infrastructure to produce and distribute hydrogen fuel to a wide swath of consumers. These factors leave him with the impression that “it will be difficult to see the spread of fuel cells in 10 years’ time,” Mr. Watanabe said.
The comments indicate a shift in the auto industry’s tone regarding fuel cells, especially at GM, which has spent the past two years highlighting its fuel-cell technologies as one of many initiatives it is pursuing to reduce petroleum consumption.
Looks like those premature obituaries for hydrogen fuel cell cars weren’t premature:
- BMW Hammers One More Nail in Hydrogen Coffin
- VW: “Fuel cell cars won’t save the world”
- Dream of hydrogen car goes down in flames
- Iacocca: Plug-in hybrids, not hydrogen “the wave of the future”
- Climate Progress Dehypes Hydrogen Again
- The big hydrogen bet — your chance to get in on the action
- The Hype About Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate
March 5th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
geneva show is great this year looking forward to next
March 5th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I am truly amazed at how hard it is to kill the idea that “hydrogen fuel cell cars” are “the” solution to our transportation challenges.
I’ve heard this countless times, from everyone from casual observers to longtime, exceedingly smart environmentalists. I think people fall in love with the whole “it emits nothing but water vapor” part and never examine the incredible hurdles it will take to engineer a fuel cell and on-board storage that will work acceptably well in a car under all manner of conditions, plus the challenge of generating all that hydrogen in a way that makes it a better deal than an EV or PHEV.
And yes, I recommend Joe’s book, The Hype About Hydrogen, every time. It’s still the best treatment I’ve seen on the topic. I also tell people to look up the papers by Ulf Bossel, who has done some very thorough analysis of HFC vs. EV transportation.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
A few things..THE NEAR TERM is the operative phrase , Also IF (a big if) we get 300 to 500 mile range. >
“Toyota plans to have a test fleet of plug-ins by 2010 using lithium-ion batteries that are more expensive than nickel-metal-hydrides and carry more safety and reliability risks.
“We know it needs to be more than seven miles, but it won’t be 40,” Jaycie Chitwood, senior planner for advanced technologies, said of Toyota’s target range.”
So who’s got those batteries???
Pug in hybrids that burn fossil fuels are quick fixes that can easily evolve into FCV.( which is Larry Burns’ postion). But given exponetial function in 15 to 20 years the transportation sector is back to where it is today in terms GHG emissions with hybrids. ALSO the infrastructure .. Let’s imagine that there are long range, large, fast EVs.
90% of European and 60% of North American drivers DO NOT have garages or driveways with easily accesible electrical supplies> infrastucture?? Most commentators extoll plugging in the car overnight>solar power off the table, unless there is some plan to keep the sun up 24/7. or build huge batteries somewhere.
Quick charge??? convienience is a big part of driving. so,the strain on a conventional electrical grid would also require huge infrastructure investments. EG to charge a 35kw battery or cacpacitor in ten minutes would require a 250KW connection. It is possible but also very expensive. Currently things like aluminium smelters are the only concerns so equiped. Then, the question of where all that eletrical energy comes from must be adressed. If its “unreliable” sources like solar, wind or tidal, which are desirable (no GHGs) hydrogen is a much better option as it can be stored and transported . FCV ARE ELECTRIC CARS.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
The previous comment of 3:11 PM shows the kind of cars that the automotive industry thinks people will buy. The only hint of efficiency is in the low profile, but the magnitude of engine power advertised shows such efficiency gains matter very little.
When electric motors are used to power such cars, and the same kind of performance claimed for these models will still be delivered, the switch to electric will be found to mean very little.
As we have discussed before, it all depends on where the energy comes from. My looks at the costs of wind and solar still come out with discouraging answers.
A comment I posted in response to a Financial Times article says more completely what I am trying to say about how dangerous it is to have too much enthusiasm for electric cars, as such.
Green General Motors
by Jim Bullis 04 Mar 2008 07:30 PM
Can GM make a go of greener technology?
Green technology at GM might not be going in the right direction. There is a widely held misconception that electric vehicles are automatically green.
When the main concern was smog in places like Los Angeles, the electric car was a real solution, where power for the car was generated at a power plant outside of the basin. By diluting the combustion products, and scattering them over the world, the situation seemed reasonable. And there are some efficiency advantages for large power plants.
But the efficiencies are not that much better than the automobile engine, and for coal fired power plants, the amount of CO2 due to use of coal means that Green House Gas emissions from electric operation are about the same as gasoline powered cars. And CO2 is now known to be the critical world problem.
But the GM “answer” is to use the “extended range electric vehicle” as a practical way to “shift more energy to transportation.” (See this statement on page 12 of a presentation by Peter Savagian, Engineering Director, —, General Motors at http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/PDF/presentation-sm.pdf )
This would be an ideal plan if electric power were to come from sources such as wind or solar apparatus. With natural gas fueled power plants it would not be a big step backward. But the reality in the US is that coal is almost free compared to other fossil fuels, and the capital investment needed to make wind or solar systems that could carry the added load is not yet economically viable. Like water runs down hill, the economic balance will run down to a comfortable and inexpensive level, where large, inefficient cars, will use electric motors powered from coal fired generators.
Well meaning people will feel green about this, since they will think their cars are “zero emission” vehicles.
Good use can be made of electric motors, as in plug-in hybrids, etc., but these are only “green” if the vehicles are constructed to use a lot less energy.
GM will make a go of green technology when they pursue an approach such as that shown at http://www.miastrada.com. (I have an interest in Miastrada Corp.)
——————
(End of paste)
It remains to be fully considered whether it will be possible to get meaningful government action to ban coal. I think this might eventually be possible if we first cut way back on the amount of energy needed from the sources that would then remain.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I think Lou Grinzo, the first poster, nailed an important point: falling in love with an idea. That’s why a few folks are still toying with cars running on compressed air. That’s why quick, cheap nuclear fusion holds such appeal.
So we point out some pretty obvious engineering problems, and make jokes about perpetual motion machines. And people agree–while thinking to themselves (yes, but . . . )
We can’t be too hard on them, though, because a lot of those “yes, but . . .) notions yielded results in the end. Airplanes come to mind.
That’s why we must keep reporting research efforts in all sorts of funny sounding fields, but it must be balanced reporting, something the mainstream media doesn’t always manage to achieve. Too much boosterism; not enough sober journalism.
That’s why I like this blog (which I just discovered very recently): Sober journalism.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Thank’s Will! Glad to have you on board.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
There will not be a technofix.
Personal transport based on hauling 1.5-3 tonnes of metal to move a 0.08 tonne occupant is DEAD whether it is powered by petrol, electricity, compressed air, corn juice, whatever.
The automotive corpse will twitch for a few more decades until folks realise the simple solution is to contract settlements to enable walking and cycling for 95% of transport.
I’m all for the advancement of technology. Technology such as cars that perpetuate obsecenely low energy efficiency to achieve their objective is evidence of human de-evolution.
Humans should be achieving more and more with less and less energy, the opposite is actually what is happening.
A standard petrol powered car uses ~0.5% of the energy contained in the fuel to move the occupant. An electric car weighing roughly the same might be a little better at ~2%. Surely humans are smart enough to do better than this to move around?
March 5th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
If anyone is interested in a clear explanation of why HYDROGEN, read David Sanborn Scott’s
” Smelling Land:the Hydrogen Defense against Climate Catastrophe”
Written by an actual engineer, not a car salesman or a Journalist or a blogger.
Published by(get this) Natural Resources Canada. Once you’ve read that, look up Hydro Quebec’s production Data, do some Arithmatic and you’ll see where the fuel will come from. Rats, another “Foreign government…”
By the way Elbarto just try and live in Montreal Nov to april without 1.5 tons of heated metal to get around in
March 6th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Besides the inherent inefficiency of hydrogen vehicles, there is the really big problem that impossible to introduce them fast enough to make a difference. We need 80% GHG emissions reductions in the U.S. by 2050. Our population is going to grow by 40% between now and then, which means 86% per capita reductions are required.
Look at hybrids in the U.S. They were introduced in the 2001 model year. They managed to reach 2.1% market share in 2007. The nation’s vehicle fleet won’t seriously be affected until they reach 50% of sales, which might be 10 years from now. This is for a technology that is completely compatible with no barriers to adoption. FCVs and BEVs will find it to difficult to achieve this rate of adoption because they do have barriers to adoption (they might be small in the case of BEVs, but the infrastructure issue is huge for FCVs). Plug-in hybrids could duplicate the HEV adoption curve.
Let’s say the fuel cell lifetime and cost issues could be solved by 2020 (I think the fuel cells are at one fifth of their lifetime targets right now). By 2026 they are less than 2% of the market. They might reach 50% of the market by 2040.
But to alter the 2050 vehicle fleet significantly, we need technology that reaches 50% of the market by 2030. FCVs wont’ do that. HEVs and PHEVs will, and BEVs (which don’t have technological problems to solve like FCVs) will have a place as well.
And if FCVs did manage to achieve 50% earlier than I guess above, their fuel will cost three times as much to drive per mile as a BEV if it is made from renewable energy, which it must if we are to meet our greenhouse gas emissions targets.
FCVs are a lousy bet.
March 6th, 2008 at 1:19 am
@Isaac McIsaac
I read the online chapters 19 and 42 of Smelling Land, and I wasn’t impressed. His argument for dismissing alternatives in chapter 19 is flawed. In chapter 42 he envisions a future that seems to not be consistent with reality. I did not see him address the inefficiency problem of using hydrogen to transmit energy.
I don’t understand the Hydro Quebec comment, as their production numbers aren’t all that large. They could not, for example, produce enough hydrogen to power U.S. passenger vehicles.
April 22nd, 2008 at 10:19 am
It’s good to hear BP & GM talk about alternative fuels, but 50 years to implement is too long.
http://money.cnn.com/ 2008/ 03/ 05/ news/ companies/ bigoil_hydrogen/ index.htm
Perhaps this link will spark more attention:
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
It is GM’s electric concept car the Chevy Volt. If more people begin to demand alternative fuel cars, we should be able to speed the rate at which the technology is developed.
We have started an Investor Forum where Investors can meet and discuss topics like this:
http://investor-forum.thesubway.com/
May 8th, 2008 at 11:56 am
sorry that there aren’t portals yet for ya’ll to actually be up to speed on primary/critical technology research…but for the time being try “Zhang Group” @vt.edu…might start with his 2008 publications….very ‘tranparent’site..20x the energy density of Lithium ain’t nothing to sneeze at…stay tuned this fall for the biorefinery…butanol and/or hydrogen…more later…N2