GM, Honda & Fuel Cells

So far Honda looks like doofs in the hybrid marketplace with 3% share.

 

Sucks seeing car companies waste all their resources into this fuel cell sink hole. Doesn't help that CA is rewarding them for this behavior, and now EV development is going to be slowed because of this (just look at Toyota's RAV4 EV, outside the Prius Plug-in, no other EVs are planned after they finish building the 2600 RAv4 EVs).

Frustrating for sure!

 

This is great news...!!!

 

The concern I have for EV's, fuel cells and hybrids going forward is whether there are enough natural resources for batteries and fuel cells for a true mass market of a billion cars.

I see direct burn natural gas and then hydrogen as more likely. Natural gas due to the current and future supply coming online over next 25 years and hydrogen as it can be made easily via solar and water, floating solar hydrogen plants on rising oceans.

 

You could ask the same question about the raw materials needed to make a hydrogen fuel cell. And fuel cell cars will need a battery as well...because a fuel cell takes time to warm up and no one is going to what to wait 5-10 minutes before they can drive away or get on the freeway at 65 mph.

I agree that NG cars should be promoted.

Mike

 

I did ask that question, I don't think there are the natural resources to build and EV or fuel cell transportation system.

Direct burn of natural gas and hydrogen in the way to go.

 

It's a bit of a challenge because it's not (yet) efficient to use fuel cells because of the energy required to convert hydrogen. Hopefully technology continues to progress to the point where they can do this. Great post!

 

yep . . . made easily via solar ... and never mind that the same electricity it'd take to distill the hydrogen would get an EV down the road 400% farther.
As to floating hydrgen plants on oceans ... I'm more in favor of constructing a huge straw, all the way to the sun, where hydrogen occurs naturally. Of course starting up the siphon may be an issue. But heck, no more insurmountable than the other issues that have made hydrogen impractical for over 4 decades.
.

 

Hydrogen has been very practical for fuel cells in space craft for 5 decades at least.


Those damn environmentalist are stopping the good folks at the hydrogen lobby in california from building a straw to the sun. The chinese have tried it but the thing keeps melting.

 

Fuel cells have the same problem as batteries, they are expensive to build and there are not enough of the scarce resources needed to replace curret car population with fuel cell or battery powered cars.

Hydrogen would, like natural gas, be direct burn. Much more efficient.

With natural gas about to take over from gasoline in cars, trucks and heavy equipment, it will provide a model of fuel distribution that will set the stage for being replaced hydrogen.

More than a bit ironic to hear the hybrid car owners repeating the same lines about hydrogen that people used to use vs. hybrids.

 

Not an exact irony, but I do note how the auto industry pooh pooh'd PHEV's for the longest time. Then along came Dr Andy Frank (made a suburban into a phev) and companies like Plugin Supply that made phev kits ... without the advantage of mass production pricing ... pretty much lighting a fire under the auto industry.

If the day ever comes when your skilled shade-tree mechanics can build hydrogen fuel stacks (w/out costing 5 figures as a consumable) .... high pressure hydrogen tanks (that also have to be replaced), fuel lines impervious to hydrogen embrittlement, etc ... maybe then too, the auto industry can me shamed into doing the same. Before that day comes though, IMO it'll be more likely we'll use matter/anti-matter fuel, ah la star trek's USS Enterprise.

.

 

True more hypocrisy than irony.

Oh yeah...like "shade tree" mechancis work on any modern computerized vehicle including current Prius...the hypocrisy of hybrid car owner mouthing the identical criticism raised over hybrids by people with an emotional investment in older technology.

 

If by being expensive, yes - they have the same problem. It's a difference in degree. A fuel cel car cost is WAY more huge then batteries in hyprids / phev's / ev's. The prayer/hope/dream of manufacturers is that "IF" they can get fuel cel car manufacturing into the 10's of thousands of units (or over 100k units?) - then "MAYBE" that will get the cost down into the 50 thounsds.

Reality is best exemplified by the Volt's $40K price in that scenerio. Most can't afford a $40K Volt, even with incentives ... and if government incentives knocked a fuel cel down into the (mid?) $40k price - sales would be lower than the Volt. Those best case "if" scenerios are somewhat poor to hang our hats on. As for directly burning hydrogen ? (as opposed to making electricity) ... who's even trying to do that. The whole point of the (honda & toyota) fuel cel is to turn hydrogen into electricity ... run on electricity, and ( interimly) store some in batteries ... not burn hydrogen like gasoline. Yea, you could, but whey do you think that this is not what's being attempted?
In reality, fuel cel cars' power is a process where you drill for natural gas, distill the hydrogen out of the natural gas, then drive on electricity (while storing some in batteries). Why not avoid the conversion loss, forget the cel, and use the natural gas?

But HERE'S the real clencher. Whether there's really as much natural gas in the world, or the U.S. to run the future. Some in the industry are starting to admit that fracking/production claims were over stated, just to get investment money:

Fracking: The next bubble? - Salon.com
so I don't get the "hypocracy" thing.
.

 

I agree with you mostly, but you are forgetting ideas like the picken's plan.

Shift transportation to natural gas from oil, shift electricity from coal and natural gas to renewables. the beginning of the transition (40 years) more natural gas may be used as renewables are built. This is exactly what plug-ins and potentially fuel cell cars could do. Eventually fuel cells will get fueled partially by renewably produced hydrogen (and this will take more electricity than plug ins for the same miles).

Natural gas doesn't need to survive heavy use for 1000 years, it needs to provide more power for the next 50, then its use can decrease. The other problem is people claim that companies are losing money natural gas is so cheap. This is true in the short term. Then prices will rise, profits come back, exploration occurs, and more natural gas keeps prices from rising as fast as oil.

Or if we don't build renewables or nuclear, the bevs and fuel cells will run on coal in 100 years. I'm betting it doesn't go that way, but 100 years from now, I expect very few vehicles that run only on gasoline. They will at a minimum run on biofuels, electricity, or something else. I would think ammonia would be most efficient in an hybrid or phev ice configuration.

 

EVs and their variants (PHEVs for the transition) will ultimately win over fuel cells due to the basic fact that EVs can be plugged in anywhere (essentially) and the power source can come from numerous sources (coal, NG, hydro, PV, wind, nuclear, etc). All the various fast and faster charging is great...but as a fallback everyone can just use 120v available everywhere.
Fuel cells need a specific fuel, such as hydrogen, delivered in a specific way (depending on the tank design). How you get the hydrogen and the cost of it is trading one fuel monopoly (oil) for another (hydrogen) from the point of view of the driver. Sure you can generate hydrogen multiple ways...the cheapest is from NG. The price cap on hydrogen is based on electrolysis from electricity -- which is 4x to 5x as costly as just using electricity directly in an EV.

Mike

 

Natural gas vehicles are as inexpensive to build as current gasoline vehicles. Not $5,000 in batteries etc which is the basic cost disadvantage of hybrids.

Hydrogen direct burn have the same engineering and financial advantage over hybrids, EV's and fuel cells.

There is an oversupply of natural gas and consequently low prices. Typical boom and bust commodity issue. But the facts of the gas supply are that US Dept of Energy puts US recoverable reserves at high enough levels for US to be energy independent in 20 years. I don't like the idea of fracking, an environmental disaster, but it is unstoppable at this point and will likely knock off hybrids, EV's and fuel cells in cars.

The only good point is lays the foundation for a switch in future from natural gas to hydrogen gas fuel.

 

A hydrogen ICE produces about half the power than when compared to a similar engine burning gasoline. At least with dual fuel engine. An engine made for hydrogen should do better. However, you can directly convert a piston ICE for it. It requires a major redesign or using a rotorary. "It turns out there are two excellent technical reasons for fueling a rotary with hydrogen, both based on combustion dynamics. "With a rotary's hmmmm, as opposed to a conventional reciprocating engine's boing boing, note that a rotary's engine's intake port is nowhere near its combustion chamber." Thus, unlike in a recip engine, the intake charge isn't subjected to hellacious heat of the previous combustion.
This is of particular importance with hydrogen, because the stuff is 10 times more flammable than gasoline. A major challenge in hydrogen recip engines is "flashback," essentially preignition of the H2 encountering hot surfaces. A rotary engine sidesteps this completely."- Mazda Hydrogen-Powered RX-8 – Technology News - Road & Track

A car fueled by it will also have a shorter range than the gasoline one whether or not the ICE can efficiently use it, because of hydrogen's lousy volumetric energy density. Which is heighten by the fact the bulky and heavy tanks can't hold much of it. The Honda Clarity FCV is rated 60mpge and holds about 4 kg of hydrogen. If we use a rotorary ICE, an engine design not known for fuel efficiency, instead of the fuel cell, we might get 30mpge. The RX8 was rated 19mpg combined. So it goes from a 240 mile range to 120 mile. I don't think the Clarity has the highest pressure tank, so we might get another kilogram into there for 150 miles. The tank is already over 200 pounds, so we really can't make it much larger.

Which raises another point. People talk about the expense and the materials used for a fuel cell car, but the tanks for gaseous H2 are another drawback for them. They are big and heavy and expensive and still relatively a new technology themselves in terms of consumer use. Industry had more experience mass producing batteries before the BEVs reappeared in car show rooms than it does in making these 10,000psi tanks.

CNG tanks have some of the same issues in terms of size and weight. There is more experience with them because CNG is a great fuel for indoor applications like forklifts. But the experience and knowledge doesn't help much when it comes to H2 tanks for the most part. CNG tanks only see 3600psi, and NG doesn't adversely affect metals like steel and titanium. The latest CNG tanks also have a shelf life of twenty years. 15 is more common. I wouldn't bet on H2 ones being certified for as long.

 

I think you are confusing the energy density of liquid hydrogen with the power of the engine output. All the other items are equally confused.

The running contradiction to all the musings is the BMW750h hydrogen vehicle. As "powerful" as a gasoline engine, in fact it is a slightly modified gasoline engine.

Direct burn is much more efficient than running it through a fuel cell and then to electric motors.

Only thing correct was that CNG is much cheaper NOW. Issue of course is that CNG is only 10% better than gasoline as far as green house gases and with science showing accelerated eco disaster looming, need to move to hydrogen is