GM shows fuel cell car in China, to launch hybrids in 2008

how? when the cost of the fuel cell stack is 5 times the price of a hybrid are they going to convince people to buy it? Then there's the MTBF problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Frank Hudon @ Nov 13 2006, 11:18 AM) [snapback]348165[/snapback]</div>

Economy of scale. Fuel cell cars are very expensive today, because they are only making handfulls of them. All of the overhead and tooling costs are spread over a small number of vehicles.

GM: Fuel cell cars 'to become cost competitive'

 

how does he propose to address the MTBF problem which is now just slightly more than 2000 hours even at 40 mph that's just over 80,000 miles? then there is the refueling infastructure. I'm looking at this as a way for GM to get the Chinese government to fund the developement and infastructure and them to walk out when it just isn't viable. Call me cynical but I've been following the H2 hype since the early 70's and thru the 80's 90's and were almost thru this decade as well. Exactly what do we have to show for the Canadian government funneling billions of Dollars in to H2? if that had been put into hybrid developement every passenger car on the road today could have been one. Looks like the CRC has a hand full of Ford Focus H2 cars and what 2 maybe 3 fueling stations. I heard someone (government offical) say that it looks like H2 vehicles are still 20 years out. K, I'll be long dead by then.

 

OMG HYBRID TECHNOLOGY IS COMING IN 2008!!!!???? OMG THAT'S SO COOL!!

it will only be ten years old by then and probably on the decline in favour of more fuel-efficient options...

 

Hydrogen infrastructure, hydrogen price, hydrogen efficiency, hydrogen storage, and fuel-cell reliability in a vehicle are all factors that Larry Burns (GM's vice president of research, development and strategic planning) seems to be evading.

Lowering production cost of the vehicle itself is really just one of many steps still needed before mass acceptance. Yet, he is telling us that it will take a build capacity of one million per year to make the technology cost-competitive. So basically, it's a chicken/egg problem.

Ignoring the fact that fuel-cells will be competing with hybrids doesn't help his credibility either. Since GM is making big plans for their two hybrid systems, shouldn't he be explaining why a fuel-cell is supposedly better? What the heck is the benefit of hydrogen? It makes a whole lot more sense avoiding the hydrogen creation process by leaving the electricity as-is and sending it to consumers over the already existing powerlines for use in plug-in hybrids instead.

Promoting fuel-cell vehicles with an unclear purpose is a terrible business endeavor, yet GM continues it anyway. Why?

 

Here's a video of Bob Lutz speaking about fuel-cells & hybrid vehicles...

http://www.carlist.com/video/bob_lutz

 

Fortunately we don't have to worry too much about fuel-cell cars appearing and wasting vast amounts of our precious energy reserves.

PEM fuel cells require about 100 grammes of platinum in the catalyst, at $30 per gramme about $3k of platinum just for the catalyst in each vehicle's fuel cell. But that's not really the biggest problem that GM is quietly ignoring....

Global supply of platinum is currently only 190 tonnes per year. Assuming that 100% of the Earth's entire annual yield of platinum went into making fuel cells for vehicles, it would only amount to 1.9 million cars per year, or 3% of current production.

Right, now that's out of the way let's get back to talking about batteries!

 

Hi All,

A guy at work just got back from a 1 month TOD in China. He said he saw Prii driving around Shanghai.

The volume of material in a FC is much less than a battery. If they could find an economic catalyst the PEM cost goes down with volume. FC vehicles themselves could then become economic. That still leaves out the basic inefficiency from well to tank, however.

I remember a talk from Freeman Dyson about projects I saw once. His advice was not take on projects that could not be completed in 10 years. Based on the present science and technology, and the logical extent it was going to have a high probability to be pushed to in five years, try to do a project with high probability of success in the 10 years.

Here we are 10 years after the first Prius production cars hit the roads in Japan, and 13 from the beginnning of the Prius project in Toyota, and we can see the wisdom of this approach.

The big question is, and I do not have the background to answer it, is if the catalysts chemists can come up with a cheap PEM material, and if there is a way to deliver Hydrogen to the FC in an economic fashion. The Catalyst/PEM issue is one of those "It could take decades" at least with traditional research. But again, things have changed and computational chemistry might provide a quick solution, or a firm answer that it cannot be done in the five years. As far as Hydrogen delivery, my opinion is that can be solved quickly, but probably not by gaseous means. I mean, Prii run allot on hydrogen power right now, burning gasoline. And the hydride fuel tank has been demonstrated on a Prius with an ICE too, with pretty good results.

Another thing that has happened is that the Indian nation research has come up with Biodeasel catalysts that helps form the byproduct glyserol (?) into a burnable oxygenate. This really helps the field to tank efficiency, and some of this same technology might work in reverse to provide a hydrocarbon hydrogen delivery system.

 

Ballard the biggest of the FC builders have burnt thru Billions of Dollars in the research and developement and their still no where near bringing the costs into line with hybrid tech which is as you stated less than 15 years old, at the present level of development and production and the costs and reliability are stable. FC's still haven't gotten the MTBF in line with that standard automobile engine never mind the hybrid ICE lifespan. And no refueling infrastructure. If there was a cheap and reliable proton membrane/caytalist for the stack I'm sure they would have already adopted it. 10 year plan Sorry they are in the high teens or early 20's and still nothing viable, cost and reliability wise, to really offer. All their agreements with the auto makers have all been retracted or scaled back. The big talk in H2 storage is Paladium Catalyst as an absorber for the H2 but now you have a fuel tank that is worth as much as a hybrid vehicle. I'll have to go along with John on this one, don't bother with the electrical conversion to get the Hydrogen and just use the electricity for charging batterys in an electric car.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Nov 6 2006, 09:31 AM) [snapback]344453[/snapback]</div>

Just substitute "fuel cell" with "Cold Fusion" and I think it would be a reliable indicator of how probable Wagoner's comments will pan out.

 

I can explain all of this seemingly bizarre pursuing of the hydrogen route.... I mean lets face it, the engineers aren't stupid, so will have told management all about the problems of energy balance / economics / practicality / platinum availability limitations etc years ago.

But, if you just replace the word "hydrogen" for "environmental PR" then it all makes sense!

Eg:

GM: "We have spent one billion on environmental PR".

Bush: "This administration will spend millions on environmental PR, developing a future US economy based entirely around environmental PR".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Nov 15 2006, 07:04 AM) [snapback]349398[/snapback]</div>

PR = Propaganda

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Nov 15 2006, 10:04 AM) [snapback]349398[/snapback]</div>

I know, what corrupts morons the GM execs are. They're just in cohoots with Bush and the Big Oil. Spreading their lies and propaganda in order to keep the Republicans in charge and to make it look like they are doing something for the environment.

And Honda too. They plan to have a Hydrogen Fuel Cell car in production within two years. Looks like Honda is just trying to prop up Bush and their environmental image. What morons they are. Don't they know it won't work? Corrupt idiots, that's all they are.

And Volkswagen. They're doing research in Fuel Cells and just announced a break through a week or so ago. More corrupt idiots just trying to prop up Bush and Big Oil. Sheesh!

And Toyota. Who would have thought they were in the business of propping up Bush and Big Oil. They're working on fuel cells too and have been quoted saying that hybrids are the transition between gasoline cars and fuel cells. What morons.

And those European leaders!!! They're propping up Bush and Big Oil too!!!! The European Union is funding lots of fuel cell research and has several cities with prototype fuel cell busses. Corrupt idiots all of them. They're all in Bush's pocket!

And all those other car manufactures, small companies, and universities who are researching and developing fuel cell technology. It's all just one big sham conspiracy to prop up Bush. And what a huge conspiracy it is. Hundreds of companies, universities, and governments, all pushing fuel cells just to prop up Bush. It's amazing, really.

Cause we all know that fuel cells can't work.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Nov 15 2006, 10:07 AM) [snapback]349416[/snapback]</div>

Fuel cells CAN work (and indeed do) and there is no doubt at all that a 300 mile range H2 vehicle could be made.

The problem is that they use FOUR times the energy of a plug-in hybrid, and today is a time when we can't afford to be wasting energy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Nov 15 2006, 09:12 AM) [snapback]349536[/snapback]</div>

Four times less efficient, and ten times the cost in the *same production quantities as a modern, 300-mile EV*.

We have fuel cells. They work. We have fuel cell cars. They work too. The question still remains: Why bother when you consider that today we have a better way of doing everything that Fuel Cells MIGHT be capable of if everything works out well in the next 20 years. And those better ways that we have today are all cheaper. Cheaper NOW. Even at low production quantities.

Hmm. Timely article here:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/11/14/ho...ith-ev-zealots/

This implies that producing H2 requires less energy than charging a battery. And proving that wrong doesn't dismiss ANYTHING out of hand. It is this "complete end-to-end" study where H2 comes up short. If the energy to produce H2 is ignored, it is almost as good as battery power!