GM lent me a Fuel Cell Chevrolet

People don't care whether a car has batteries. The anti-EV crowd wants a car you fill up at a gas station rather than at your home outlet. Why is this? Because people are stupid.

This is because BEVs are so superior to FCVs in every possible way, that weight is the only thing they can criticize about the BEV.

To be fair to the FCV, I honestly believe that with mass production they could get the price down to $500,000. A BEV with a 200 mile range would probably cost around $80,000, and with batteries at their present weight, I think that's about the limit for a sedan. A roadster with zero cargo space and only two seats is another matter; and an SUV like your RAV4 is also another matter. A 500-mile SUV BEV would probably cost around $150,000.

But I only need 100 miles max for anything other than road trips. For road trips I'd need a fast-charging infrastructure, which does not yet exist on the Spokane to Revelstoke, B.C. or Spokane to Golden, B.C. or Spokane to Jasper, AB corridors, so in the near term I'll have to keep my Prius.

Note that there will without doubt be fast charging on those corridors before there is hydrogen refueling. And I don't expect ever to be able to afford a $500,000 FCV.

 

I think this is a great discussion. I am not calling BEV a hoax and FCHV does not deserve to be called as well. Both have advantages and disadvantages as pointed out.

I came for the defense of FCHV because inaccurate, outdated and unfair (worse case scenario) information were stated. To maintain a balance view of all new technologies and progress (as Prius Chat is known for) I think this discussion is productive.

I want to post excellent document from Toyota of the state of their FCHV and goals. It addresses hydrogen well-to-wheel efficiency, CO2 output from various sources, durability and price.

Not all FCHV are SUVs since Honda Clarity is a car that really looks like a Prius. When the first mass produced FCHV become available, I want it to carry Prius badge. After all, Prius means to go before (first to be on the block). For BEV, Nissan will be taking that "Prius" title.

 

Actually I'm trying to avoid just that.

My point that you missed: I don't care how much a battery car will weigh to have the range of the FCV that you're talking about.

Comments like this I don't get. So great... we can have lighter tanks in the future. You don't suppose battery tech will keep advancing at an ever-increasing rate? Batteries of the future will be lighter as well. And cheaper. We know that the future will be better for technology. Let's talk about a technology that can get us off of gasoline today! Ten years ago, even! Nobody argues that the tech to fit the bill yesterday and today is BEV. We can argue about the future, but the past and present are quite obvious.

You seem to believe that energy density (and range) rules all. If that's true, then we stick with gasoline, don't we? And that's what *I* am trying to avoid. I hope that this doesn't again make me ignorant. My contention is that energy efficiency will eventually have to rule all. And by that measure, gasoline loses, FCV loses... and battery - at least right now - wins. Which figures am I ignoring? The ones that matter or the ones that don't? We have everything we need to drive on battery power RIGHT NOW. We had it 13 years ago. Instead we burned gasoline waiting for FC tech to be practical.

In my world, there are many, far more important considerations. Let me say it again: If energy density is the winner - then stick with gasoline. You'll never get there with Hydrogen! And look... we HAVE stuck with gasoline. Good on us.

I can't tell if this comment was pointed at me. I have never said this nor implied it. What I HAVE said is that waiting for the promise of hydrogen has kept us burning gasoline... and oil. This is no guess. I lived through the process of the car makers claiming that they would have millions of FCVs on the road in ten years if only they could be relieved of the burden of making BEVs. Well... that was ten years ago, and we're finally getting back to making the BEVs much like we had 10 years ago. And still no FCVs on the market. In the meantime what did we burn? Hydrogen? Nope. Oil and gas. You feel that your knowledge and perspective are somehow above mine, and you are welcome to you opinion of course.

I've encouraged that from the beginning. But that's not what has been happening over the past 10 years, has it? FCVs counted as multiple BEVs for clean air credits that the car makers so desperately need (in other words, a car maker could build ONE FCV for demo use, or put ten BEVs on the road to count for the same number of clean air credits). And the FCVs didn't even have to be privately owned or even driven! Just built. You knew this, of course. The system has been gamed for years... and now we should level the playing field and see what happens? Well, it is happening at the end of this year. We'll again have BEVs, and no FCVs to buy. Big surprise.

Thanks for the civil discussion.

 

ya know. there are other battery chemistries with much higher charge densities than Lithium. they do have life cycle issues at present so not a current viable option despite a better than 4 to 1 charge to weight ratio advantage. but those issues are being addressed.

but i think we have to look at simply a change of habit. what we fail to face is that our current system of moving our fat lazy asses around is simply NOT WORKING.

the oil based automobile industry is a failure that has been disguised by significant advances in performance that has greatly increased the mileage we get out of a gallon of gas over the past 40 years. but the easy improvements are gone. there is only so much we can do when we have to work with a system that immediately takes 80% of the available power and throws it away.

its like paying for a 5 course meal but only getting to eat the appetizer. that is what gasoline is all about. the rest of it gets thrown away. we really have not figured out how to save some of that food from the garbage can... we, actually we have, but we cant afford to pay someone to salvage the food nor can we recover the lost energy of an ICE and still sell an affordable car at a profit.

problems with wasting gas is that after its wasted, its gone. cannot be recovered and there is a finite amount of it. yep big ball Earth is, but it will eventually go dry.

electricity's only real drawback is how to carry a bunch of it with us. we can EASILY provide all the power we need to charge a half billion EV's. there is not a technical hurdle to providing this. not really a financial hurdle either. the effort to provide the power will create a taxable economic stimulus that would pay for a big part of the investment cost so no, money is not the problem.

the only real hurdle we have is the basic human spirit. its not rocket science. we simply hate change. people dont want to learn new things. we went to school!!! we did our time!! we dont want to learn new things!!. we just want all the cool stuff placed in our lap with some one to do it for us.

who wants to get up in the morning and have to figure out a different way of doing ANYTHING? even little minor disruptions in our daily routines throws us in a tizzy.

from July 1-3rd, the railroad crossing on Henderson Blvd in good ole Oly was being worked on causing me to have to detour on my way to work. the conversations overheard by my co-workers one might have thought that they had outlawed pavement or something. amazing how upset people were. but then again, it did require probably an additional 5 minutes of commute time. didnt require thinking though as signs clearly redirected the detour routes so at least there was not too much change to deal with at once.

i really applaud Nissan for the guts they are displaying by their all out effort to move EV's to the front. the status quo they are bucking is tremendous and no major American company would have ever tried it. but Japan does not have the oil lobby controlling or maintaining the oppressive laws, regulations and the anti-green dogma like we have to put up with.

we are moving into an exciting time. i am excited. things will change... but then again, we still have the oil lobby so it will take another 10 years, but at least i can actually see some light

 

With all due respect, fuel cell cars ARE a hoax: They are being touted as something they are not: a clean replacement for gasoline. The cost is astronomical, the life of a fuel cell stack is short, and there is no infrastructure. But worst of all, FCV = oil. Yes, it does, because H2 is merely a carrier of energy, not a source, and today in the U.S. hydrogen is made from natural gas, a fossil fuel produced by the oil industry. (Which, obviously, is the reason the oil industry loves it so much!)

As for the Nissan Leaf being the Prius of BEVs, that's just silliness. There were electric cars on the road owned and driven by ordinary people, a hundred years ago! Darell was driving two of them a decade ago (one owned, one leased because the dark lords of Mordor at GM intended to take it back from the moment they began designing it).

And while the Tesla Roadster may be small, uncomfortable, and expensive, it has beat the Leaf to market by a goodly time span, clearly depriving the Leaf of "prius" status.

 

I disagree Daniel. I think the Leaf MAY be the Prius of BEVs. Not because it is first, but because it may be the first BEV that becomes mainstream.

 

Rather a weak claim to "first," if you ask me. Especially since BEVs were mainstream before electric starters eliminated the need to hand crank gas engines, and when it was nearly impossible to operate a gas car without getting greasy. In fact, that was a big selling point for electric cars at a time when gas engines had progressed enough to compete.

 

Daniel,

I too respectfully disagree with you. H2 is a great energy carrier just like the battery, either you like it or not. Electricity are being generated by fossil fuel as well. BEV may have an edge when it comes to solar and wind but H2 has an edge with Natural Gas. H2 can be generated in more ways than electricity. Therefore FC is more flexible than BEV.

If you read Toyota FC document in my previous post, you'll see FCHV can be cleaner and more effcient (well-to-wheel) than HSD hybrids!

As far as the cost, BEV has an edge with short range because its range pretty much directly proportional to the cost (majority of the car). Fuel Cell has advantage in a vehicle without range compromise of gasoline vehicles (about 500 miles).

FC fuels much faster than BEV. Maybe OP can fill in how long it takes to fill up H2. For BEV the faster you charge, the lower battery life. BEV life for Lithium has not been proven for durability as well. Leaf has not annonce the warranty yet and Tesla has 5 years warranty.

Sure it takes energy to compress H2 for storage and transport. Electricity also loose charge (about 7% in US) during transport on the AC power lines. Battery looses charge over time but H2 tank does not.

Taking everything into account, I think both are viable techs and neither deserves to be hated. You can hate the company and government that hyped and broke the promises in the past. Calling something all major car companies are working on (even today) as a hoax is not acceptable, IMHO.

 

I don't think anyone here has expressed a hatred of fuel cells. Fuel cells are pretty amazing, and in some cases have been the best possible technology for the application. I wish they would get cheaper so I could use one on my boat for electrical generation.

The disparaging remarks have been directed at auto companies and other related parties that have used the concept of FC automobiles as a smoke screen, allowing them to continue business as usual making gasoline cars. I'm all for continuing to improve fuel cells, but I don't want to see them be a distraction or used as a charade.

Tom

 

Tom, I totally agree with you on that.

 

You're correct in the second assessment. There are misconceptions about methanol though. The current use of alcohol based fuel is government mandated to come from corn, which was part of a huge lobbying effort. Corn is subsidized and thus the ethanol is also subsidized by you and me. There are much more energy efficient ways of producing methanol and ethanol, but we don't do these in the united states. There are some methanol based vehicles, and these include race cars. Methanol can be produced from the stems and stalks that are often just wasted. Today because of the low relative price of natural gas the majority of methanol is produced from it instead of in a renewable way. Some of the material that could be used to create methanol is just burned producing no energy.

I don't think he was insulted, and none was meant.

I've got a power point were I have some cool slides about how all that fossil fuel really came from dead animals fed by plants grown with solar energy created by fusion of hydrogen. I never was confused that hydrogen is energy, or that it was even energy storage. I did point out that if you convert electricity to hydrogen then use it in a fcev you will likely use 4 or 5 times as much energy as used in a bev. Now as for the chevron hydrogen station in LA that produces it from natural gas on site you use less energy than if you converted the natural gas in a typical peak power plant and charged an ev's battery. I think I did make it clear that this only works if a small percentage of cars on the road use hydrogen.

That is much more clear. I was trying to drop knowledge on those that do care. Please ignore any of my comments that you don't care about. It also is helpful when you correct mistakes I make, and make points about total weight, range, etc.

Actually range and power to weight are just some factors, and I have been quite clear on that. By discussing the realities people are more apt to come up with good solutions. If you notice daniel and daveinoly started a side discussion on how to make these things better with in a ev cars, and I will not pretend that any of this discussion is new. If you are arguing with that guy pushing FC 13 years ago it was not me, and I doubt it was anyone one on this board. My main points are that it is too early to eliminate any of the alternatives.

The two best uses of hydrogen fuel cells today are city buses and fork lifts. These have the over riding consideration of not putting out pollutants and refueling time trumps efficiency. I would not want to stop hyundai from pushing the frontiers forward. The best numbers I have for cost estimates are $300K for the clarity jamie lee curtis is leasing for $600/mo in LA. Hyundai seems to think its costs in 2 years will be down to less than $50K for a vehicle. A hydrogen tank to hold 6kg of h2 made out of carbon fiber weighs about 70kg. A 100kw fc also weighs about 70kg. Outside of LA and Mexico City I don't see many fuel cell cars and trucks hitting the road in NA. Germany will have hydrogen stations all through the country by 2017 and with their higher cost of gas it makes more sense there.

For interstate trucking I'm with Willie and think biodiesel holds the biggest promise, but t-boone might be right and natural gas might be better in the intermediate term. In the next few years for cars extended range ev's seem to hold the most promise, but I'm sure because the first one comes from GM most on this board hate the idea. I most definitely don't want to discourage anyone from buying an ev, or ask for more government money for fcv. Just give each technology a fair shake and understand where advantages and disadvantages exist.

I agree with everything here.

I am completely in agreement. If we look at the car that convinced the doubters about hybrid technology its the prius. The Tesla did the same thing to misconceptions of a BEV. The leaf is being marketed as the the most popular BEV, built from the ground up like the prius. This claim can only be substantiated in the future with historical perspective, but for me the tesla is the important vehicle today.

Finally I'd like to thank those EV advocates that put there money where their mouth is and helped advance the market. Have a great 4th of July.

 

Natural gas is a fossil fuel. This in itself is a reason to move away from using it. But beyond that, it makes no sense to make H2 out of natural gas, and then use the H2 to run a $500,000 car, when a couple of hundred dollars will convert your present gasoline car to run on natural gas directly!!!

And unlike FCVs, there are natural gas cars on the street today, and at least a rudimentary distribution system. No "development" is necessary for us to convert to natural gas.

It is a boondoggle to spend trillions of dollars developing a half-million-dollar car to run on hydrogen made from natural gas when you can run a conventional ICE car on natural gas today with just a minor modification which already exists and is cheap.

Darell, who has more experience and knowledge of BEVs than anyone here, says the opposite is true. With all due respect, his credentials and "street cred" exceed yours. So I'll believe him rather than you on this point.

I take long trips. Sometimes up to a month and a wee bit more, during which time my cars stay parked and unused. I unplug the EV's charger. I have never seen a noticeable loss of charge in either my Prius traction battery (NiMH) or my Xebra battery (LiFePO4). If there is loss out beyond a month, it hardly seems relevant to the discussion, since storing any car for long periods presents problems. I cannot speak to lead batteries, but they are no longer relevant when speaking of BEVs.

Maybe not acceptable to you, but when all those companies are using government money, given to them as the result of lobbying by the oil companies who love the idea of selling us hydrogen made from natural gas, then calling it a hoax is acceptable to me.

Not wasted, but plowed into the ground where they add humus to the soil, giving it structure, increasing its ability to hold water, and feeding its microorganisms. Soil is a living thing, and it needs that plant material to remain healthy.

A popular misconception! It actually came mostly from lignin, which during the carboniferous period did not break down because there were no living organisms that could digest it.

But the real point is that it took millions of years to form, and once we've burned it all, there will be no more for us to burn, or to use in the manufacture of plastics, medicines, or any of the other critical materials an industrial economy depends upon.

But if you burn the natural gas in an ICE you will probably drive twice as far as if you use the natural gas to make hydrogen to put in a fuel cell car.

The scream queen! HOT HOT HOT!!! Jamie Lee Curtis could convince me of anything. But she'd have to make the argument face to face.

You're welcome. My little three-legged electric clown car has been MUCH more fun to drive than the Prius ever was, even if it has its limitations.

 

Dave...

This is a fabulous post. I wish I could nominate it to be posted as a sticky. I tried not to quote the whole thing.... but man - truly fantastic. Thanks for writing it.

 

I had a HUGE post typed up. But I'll save you from it. You can thank me later. Let me be as concise as possible (added later: way shorter... but still way too long, sorry! I can't help myself):

H2 is a poor energy carrier compared to just about every other energy carrier we've ever used. I've not seen its greatness demonstrated.

I can only assume that you typed this wrong. There is nothing more flexible than electricity - from making it to distributing it. Seeing as how electricity can be made from H2... how could H2 possibly be generated "in more ways" than electricity? I can turn a little crank on my flashlight and make electricity! I can pedal a generator and make electricity. I can burn anything (wood, methane, garbage, gasloline, NG, H2) and make electricity. How can H2 possibly be more flexible or generated "in more ways?"

Not universally true. Though as with everything, there are limits in both directions.

Right. And I need to point out that the Tesla exists in private hands. On the roads. Right now. Not keeping us on gasoline. FC cars are not out in the real world in private hands in any number or in any "unlimted use" way. FC can claim any durability it wants. Tesla is out in the real world bolding demonstrating it. Just a point I like to remember when we compare a future tech's promise with a present tech's reality.

I have no crystal ball. It may not be a hoax in the future. It was inarguably used as a hoax in the past. The evidence is all around you on the freeway... cars that burn gasoline. We had perfectly viable EVs 13 years ago. We threw them away because "all the major car companies" promised they would have millions of FCVs on the road by 2010. The car companies testified that if they only weren't forced to build BEVs, that they could concentrate on the REAL solution - FCVs.

I don't hate H2, nor do I hate FC's. H2 FC's have some fantastic uses. The space program comes to mind.... I personally happen to think that FCs are a poor way to power private automobiles, however (I should point out that Mr. Ballard shares my belief). And I hate that FCVs were used so effectively and unapologetically to dismantle the modern EV rollout. I even looked up "hoax" to make sure I was definining it correctly. Yup. It was most definitely a hoax.

In the end, all I want is transportation that doesn't use fossil fuel. That doesn't pollute. That is far more efficient than our gasoline vehilces. I happen to have that transportation parked in my garage. In fact, I took a little break from writing this to drive my familiy down to watch the fireworks this evening. We drove our EV that was created for the 1997 model year. Neat that we're finally getting back to building them after the ten year "FCV Vacation."

I would rather my tax money were spent on developing a technology that we know works. And is cheaper. And more efficient. And cleaner in all practical ways.

-= Darell =-
http://EVnut.com

 

I presume that usb was claiming H2 can be generated in more ways because it can be made from natural gas, whereas electricity... eeerrmmm... well... I guess I don't know what what he was talking about... sorry.

Let's see. In the real world we make electricity from wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear, as well as by burning coal, natural gas, oil, and garbage. All the heat-based generating methods also produce low-grade waste heat, which can be captured for other uses, from water and space heating to industrial processes.

In the real world we make hydrogen almost exclusively by reforming natural gas, though in theory we could use plant-based methanol; and a very small amount is made (extremely inefficiently) by electrolysis from electricity. As I've noted elsewhere, oil companies absolutely love FCVs because FCVs are a market for their natural gas.

Of course, natural gas can be burned directly in an ICE, but the whole point of fuel cells was to distract public attention away from electric cars. IOW, fuel cells were a scam, a hoax, and a boondoggle from the very start, because their PURPOSE was to help kill electric cars, not to provide a viable energy alternative, since the source of hydrogen, natural gas, was already a viable motor vehicle fuel without fuel cells.

 

Darell, a great passionate post.

H2 can be made with electricity. On top of that you can brew it with bacteria (like beer ). You can also let virus do the work splitting H2 and O from water. I don't think virus and bacteria can generate electricity.

In what circumstance is the fast charging prolong the battery life compared to a normal charge? That was my original point about refueling time of H2. Fast charge = heat and battery does not like heat. It doesn't matter the chemistry NiMH or Lithium.

I am aware and agree with the past hydrogen hoax from the previous hoaxer (ahem.. administrative). I am glad our current secretary of energy put our money into battery. However, continuing to call fuel cell technology as a hoax, come on! We made progress with those money we invested. I know Hyundai is reaping free reward of it by playing catchup. I don't think Toyota and Honda got our tax payer hydrogen funding and they made progress too. Do you consider them part of the hoax too?

Regarding the transportation that doesn't use fossil fuel, how can you be sure Toyota did not use fossil fuel during manufacturing? There is a very good chance they did.

 

Majority of the electricity is still coming from fossil fuel. We don't have the infrastructure (solar panels, wind turbine, hydro generator, etc...) to generate electricity from renewable source. To build all that probably require as much money or even more than hydrogen highway. So a question came to mind... Is pure renewable BEV for mass market a hoax? We know Darell has done it but for mass market, not everyone know how their electricity got generated and not everyone will have a home with solar panel installed.

Do you prefer combustion rather than electric propulsion? Do you rather have pollution in the city (from tailpipe) rather than in controlled "H2 factory"?

To me, you are as guilty as those fuel cell hoaxers. You are trying to distract public attention away and kill fuel cell. Electricity (like H2) does not exist by itself. You'll have to create it. Electricity is easier to create but harder (more expensive) to store. H2 is harder to create but easier to store.

Why do we need BEV if we have Steam (Coal) engine, gas engine, CNG engine, Diesel engine, etc...? Do you see how silly that logic is?

 

Me too. Greater efficiency and fewer emissions are the key to sustainability.

 

It is true that most electricity is generated from fossil fuel, at least at the present time. Your comment about building a hydrogen highway misses the mark, though. One of the complications with hydrogen is that you have to build the hydrogen highway, *and* expend energy to create free hydrogen. Hydrogen presents all of the same energy problems of electricity. Neither of them are available free in nature in any useful quantities. From a practical standpoint, they are both are the result of energy conversion: You start with some other form of energy, extract work from it, and create free hydrogen or electricity.

Hydrogen and electricity each have their own advantages and drawbacks. We've hashed them over enough previously that I won't bother to list them again, but suffice to say that hydrogen and electricity are both secondary forms of energy, and in that respect they share the same fundamental problem of needing a primary source of energy.

Tom

 

Thanks. "Passionate" is a generous description.

It would be a very long list indeed if I typed up every way of making electricity. And I'm just talking about the easy, time-tested ways of doing it! And for the record, electricity CAN be made with viruses and bacterial (by using a fuel cell, of course!). I can rub a balloon in my hair and make electricity. Should I go on? So to be clear - you DID mean to say that H2 can be made in more ways than electricity - thus making H2 a more flexible fuel? In all my years of following this stuff, this is the first I've heard anybody make that claim.

Serious heat is only generated at the end of the charge. You can fast charge both chemistries to about 80% without generating damaging heat. Fast charging makes it more likely that the car will be kept at a higher SOC than slow charging (every time the car is plugged in, the SOC is brought back up higher before the next drive). Driving around on either chemistry at the lower end of SOC shortens the life of the battery. Most people will slow charge all the way to 100% when the car is sitting - and damaging heat will be created. If a fast charger were available, and it was only charged to 80%, the SOC would likely stay higher during driving, and the heat wouldn't degrade the batteries as fast. Mitsubishi has done - and is still doing - extensive testing on battery degredation from various charging rates. So far the evidence points to a longer lasting battery with appropriately controlled fast charging.

I don't have enough information to call it a hoax going forward. The only thing I have to go on is the fact that we have great BEVs that the car makers said they didn't want to make. We do NOT have FCVs that the car makers said that they really REALLY wanted to make INSTEAD of the BEVs that they could make.

I'm sure they did. I'm sure there were fossil fuels used in making my solar panels too. And my bicycles. The one-time usage like that makes little difference in the grand scheme of things. It is the on-going, daily consumption of fossil fuels that we need to curb. I haven't had to dump fossil fuels into my cars to have driven them 100,000 miles. After my hardware was created and paid for - there is no further need for fossil fuel input. I've been doing this for ten years. Will I soon be able to drive around in a FCV that can make the same claim?

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Everything we do has negative effects. Our job is (at least should be) to find the solution that does the least damage. We'll never find one that's perfect. Making energy will always be destructive in some way if you crawl back up the supply chain far enough.