Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Friday, October 06, 2006

Assessing GM's Fuel Cell Strategy

The automaker plans to begin rolling out a test fleet of fuel-cell cars, but some experts say it's a mistake.

By Kevin Bullis
smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Last month, GM announced plans to distribute 100 fuel-cell-powered vehicles to customers next fall, along with plans to develop home-based hydrogen refueling stations. It's the automaker's latest move in its stated goal to build the world's largest fuel-cell vehicle fleet. The first 100 vehicles will be available for evaluation in California, New York, and Washington, DC.

But, from an environmental and technical standpoint, does it make sense?

Fuel-cell vehicles, which are being developed by other automakers as well, are powered by electricity generated from hydrogen. They emit only water vapor from their tailpipes, and the fuel cells are significantly more efficient than an internal-combustion engine in extracting energy from the fuel.

But GM's focus on creating a fleet of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles could be a costly mistake as a strategy for combating global climate change and for decreasing U.S. dependence on oil, many energy experts say. The problem, these critics argue, is that powering electric vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells is both inefficient and expensive.

Hydrogen fuel must be extracted from fossil fuels or water--both energy-consuming processes. Once produced, the gas must be compressed or liquefied for distribution, and this process and the distribution itself take yet more energy. By the time the hydrogen has been delivered to the fuel cell for conversion to electricity, then, a significant amount of energy has been lost to these processes.

"Along the way, you've thrown away nearly three-quarters of the electricity. No one in their right mind would do that--if your alternative is to just string a power line from zero-carbon electricity and charge a battery onboard a car," says Joseph Romm, executive director of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, and formerly in charge of energy efficiency and renewable energy at the U.S. Department of Energy.

Romm says a more promising alternative to internal-combustion engines are plug-in hybrids, which combine an electric motor powered by batteries with a conventional gasoline- or diesel-powered engine, but rely on the electric motor far more than today's hybrids. Plug-in hybrids, which are being developed by Toyota, with conversion kits for ordinary hybrids already available through several companies, would not eliminate the use of gas, but they would cut down on it significantly. In one type of plug-in hybrid, electricity from the grid can provide enough power for an average commute, at a fraction of the cost of gasoline.

[1] 2 Next »

Comments

  • Logic
    Jack on 10/06/2006 at 6:18 AM
    Posts:
    4
    In the log run there is no alternative to the use of Hydrogen Power. To our present knowledge it is the only carrier which is pollution free - when when wind, water, solar energy is used to produce it. Production of Hydrogen contributes pure oxygen to our atmosphere and its use gives us pure water, where is a comparable power carrier with a limitless supply?  Jack
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Logic
      asdar on 10/06/2006 at 12:20 PM
      Posts:
      63
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      I don't think Hydrogen is a forgone conclusion at yet.

      I think GM's inclusion of batteries in their fuel cell cars is a clear sign that the most promising alternative to Hydrogen is batteries.

      It's borderline now on the performance, and the cost is slightly above that. I think there are a lot more barriers to a Hydrogen fleet than a battery electric.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Logic
      Phil.j on 10/06/2006 at 6:48 PM
      Posts:
      1
      Flex-fuel plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)

      Even if fuel cells for vehicles become technically and economically possible, there is a strong case for configuring even fuel cell vehicles as PHEVs — plug-in hybrid electrics — so that the ‘fuel’ for short trips is electric power from the wall.

      A PHEV can have a combustion power plant or a fuel cell power plant. The important thing is that it can also use electric power generated from any source.

      Electricity for propulsion is three times more efficient than hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels — whether the power plant is a combustion engine or a fuel cell.

      Most drivers want the ability to drive longer distances when required which is why most of them need more than just a battery electric vehicle.

      Methanol and ethanol, as fuels for vehicles — both hydrogen-rich fuels — are good fuel candidates for both combustion engines and fuel cells.

      Methanol is the fuel used in the Indianapolis 500.

      Methanol can also be a fuel for direct liquid and DMFC direct methanol fuel cells. An advantage of using methanol in fuel cells is that the process temperature is well below combustion temperature and avoids chemical reactions with nitrogen in the air — which avoids the emission of oxides of nitrogen. Also, methanol and ethanol fuel cells are more efficient than methanol and ethanol combustion engines.

      Feedstock for the synthesis of alcohol fuel is very diverse — and any energy source can be utilized to power the synthesis process. An important feedstock component can be carbon dioxide — which can be gathered as waste from other industrial processes.

      Other feedstock sources can include corn, sugar beet and sugar cane sources — that are used around the world for E85 and E100 fuel.

      The utilization of cellulosic biomass materials is even more worthwhile. The processing of willow, poplar and wood waste into ethanol has several advantages. Willow, for example, doesn’t need fertilizer, and after each harvest it just grows again without needing to be replanted.

      Another source for fuel production is algae. Waste water treatment plants can be designed so that solar energy is utilized to maximize algae growth which is harvested and converted into fuel. It’s a great way to utilize solar energy — and a bonus is the pure water that leaves the treatment plant.

      It’s good news that there are so many renewable sources of fuel.

      The important role of PHEVs is to greatly diversify the sources of transport energy that we use — so that half the energy used is electrical power from the wall (or from renewable and distributed generation) — and the other half is from a liquid or gaseous fuel carried in an on-board tank (which can be renewable or petroleum).

      Because a PHEV operates all short trips on electrical power from the wall and longer trips by consuming a fuel from an on-board tank, almost any renewable energy can be an energy source that contributes to transport energy requirements.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Logic
        lary999 on 10/11/2006 at 8:04 AM
        Posts:
        3
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        Excellent commentary -- far better writen & reasoned than the original article!
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Logic
        sihanat on 10/11/2006 at 3:07 PM
        Posts:
        3
        Wow, you know alot about this subject. Why don't you work with the car makers or the goverment, advising them about their fuel strategy.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Logic
          jrolson on 10/27/2006 at 1:18 PM
          Posts:
          1
          This is just another example of a company run by people that have been unchallanged for so long and are so powerfull that they can do as they please with no repercussions. Hydrogen vehicles are impractical in cold climates, as they spew water vapor that would turn roads into skating rinks in places where the temps dip below freezing. Fixing this would surly neturalize any gains from hydrogen powered engines, which as mentioned in other articles are not very efficient when fuel generation costs are factored in. Nuclear is not an option unless some way of neutralizing spent fuel rods is developed, not to metion the risks associted with centralized nuclear power plants in today's world. The fact is there is more then enough power falling on our shoulders each day to provide all the power we need, we simply need to make an effort to collect it. This would certainly be an improvement on digging things out of the ground to burn and fouling our surroundings in the process, don't you think?  
          Rate this comment: 12345
  • Devil's Advocate
    Surfing_Nico on 10/06/2006 at 11:09 AM
    Posts:
    1
    A few questions: Where does the electricity come from currently (from an emission perspective)? Where will the gasoline come from in the future? What kind of environmental impact do batteries have? How much does a conversion really cost?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Devil's Advocate - go nuclear
      gabrielg01 on 10/06/2006 at 11:38 AM
      Posts:
      306
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      Most electricity (51%) in the US is generated by coal power plants (http://energy.usgs.gov/coal.html)
      so even if you drive plug-in hybrids, or other electric cars, they are in fact powered by coal. So there is not much reduction in total carbon dioxide levels. The advantage is mostly political - by driving hybrids and electric vehicles, we become less dependent on oil producing countries.

      Hydrogen is the best energy carrier, no doubt about it. There is no other fuel that will give you only water as the reaction product.

      If we couple hydrogen production to advanced, clean nuclear power plants we can save the planet, and we can become energy independent.

      GM's fuel cell strategy is smart and visionary.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Devil's Advocate - go nuclear
        SVE on 10/06/2006 at 1:12 PM
        Posts:
        42
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        The point is to divide the transportation problem into 2 separate tasks. Each task would be independent of the other, and improve at its own rate. Any improvements on either one would improve the transportation system situtation overall.

        Task 1: Electric cars - make them run efficiently. improve their storage batteries capacity & charging speeds. make home-charging infrastructure better

        Task 2: Generate & distribute electricity - use best available technology to create sufficient electricity. improve distribution systems efficiency and capacity. transition energy source from coal and other carbon heavy types to more benign sources like renewables as they become practical.

        In this fashion, the entire transporation problem is solved in piecemeal fashion in small, sound steps. Every intermediate state is solid and fiscally sound. This is the practical way to go versus the "Hail Mary" approach of hydrogen highway-fuelcell cars that will certainly fail.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Devil's Advocate - go nuclear
          gabrielg01 on 10/06/2006 at 6:33 PM
          Posts:
          306
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          I see your point and agree to a large extent with it.

          The problem is in the political process. If you follow the piecemeal approach, it usually means that the whole program gets fragmented into smaller pieces, and as a result of that it loses momentum. The sub-programs may fall victim to "brownian political motion" so to speak - they lose sight of the initial vision, get derailed, become someone's pet project etc.

          A larger, more vertically integrated project may maintain its momentum and its integrity until its goals are achieved. As an example, I believe we could have never gone to the Moon, if we broke up the process into smaller pieces, and farmed these pieces out to a dozen different agencies. A single agency, NASA, was in charge of all key aspects, and it single-mindedly stayed focused until we got to the Moon.

          In energy research we are all over the place, completely unfocused, and going nowhere. We need to be focused, we need an Apollo program for our energy needs.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: Devil's Advocate - go nuclear
            SVE on 10/06/2006 at 9:45 PM
            Posts:
            42
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
            The piecemeal approach is always preferable to the large vertically integrated project. This is because it produces incremental financial benefits at every step of the way. Whereas the huge vertically integrated project fails because it produces no benefits until the end of a very long, very large investment. Longterm projects fail when times are financially tight and projects needing immediate funding for immediate benefits call - and this always happens. The Apollo moonshot is a poor example to use for the automobile industry. We had only one payer - the government - and only one customer - the government, and no competitive approaches put forward. This is not the case with the auto industry, with its many suppliers and many customers each free to optimize their own individual financial and ethical goals and choose their own technical approaches. Therefore, the only systemwide approach that will work is to take a technical path that makes sense at every step. The 2 tasks are undertaken simultaneously, at their own rates.

            Again:
            Task 1 - Electric cars - Get them designed better and better. Longer travel range. Cheaper. Easier to charge. The latest improvements at any time are immediately adopted in the current car model year and used.
            Task 2 - Electricity generation - Transition to better, carbon-reduced, renewable technologies. Improve generation efficiencies. Customers see only the electricity delivered over the wires to their homes and pay for them with their regular monthly bills. The fact that the electricity supply mix is steadily becoming more green is just a freebie. Customers will use the latest best electricity supplies with no action on their part. If you think nuclear is the best approach, great. Use it to make electricity and sell it on the open, competitive electricity market against all the other suppliers. Let the best producers of the moment win, until someone with better approaches beats them. And all the electric cars will be potential customers.

            All parties involved in the automotive & energy industry will have individual incentives to improve their wares since they will immediately recieve financial benefits from their improved offerings. They will not have to wait for any improvements made by the other parts of the transportation supply chain until they see their payoffs.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: Devil's Advocate - piecemeal approach will be too slow
              gabrielg01 on 10/07/2006 at 2:21 PM
              Posts:
              306
              Avg Rating:
              3/5
              I think, willy-nilly things will go the piecemeal approach anyway. Our government is way to overextended and unfocused as it is. There are also no real visionary and charismatic politicians on the scene, who could go out and say "Before this decade is out..."  So there will be no Apollo-like approach, even though I think that could produce some real quick breakthroughs (within 5-10 years).

              The piecemeal approach will produce good results as well, nou doubt about it. But my contention with this is that it will be too slow - it will be a stop-and-go type frustrating crawling. And by that time, I'm afraid, we will have done an immense amount of environmental damage.
              Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: Devil's Advocate - piecemeal approach will be too slow
                sihanat on 10/11/2006 at 3:35 PM
                Posts:
                3
                I agree with you, Im glad someone trying to do something about the future. There maybe problems, such as efficiency, cost..etc. But at least GM is making that initiative to do somthing about the enviroment and then over time improve on the hydrogen feul technology, instead of waiting for improvements from the other technologies.
                Rate this comment: 12345
              • Re: Devil's Advocate
                mjtimber on 10/13/2006 at 10:52 PM
                Posts:
                6
                Well, actually, there is an Apollo plan.  Try www.apolloalliance.org.  Now, this president will certainly not do anything, but the next one might, though I'm not convinced that it is specific enough.  And hydrogen may be a great carrier by weight, but not volume.  As far as emission, it lags well behind battery only technology, because there are zero emissions from batteries.  I don't know if you neglected to peruse the article, but here is the flow charge.  Hydrogen: create electricity, produce hydrogen, compress hydrogen, run hydrogen through the fuel cell, and use electricity.  Batteries: create electricity and use electricity.  Which path seems better?  Hydrogen may be the best by weight, but it has so many other problems.  Both of these technologies have been around for 150 years and for every one of those years, batteries have been ahead.  And if you think platinum is expensive now, wait until we put it in 100 million cars.  The platinum alone will cost more than the best batteries in development, A123 or Altair Nano, both of which can charge in minutes and already last longer than current fuel cells.  Expensive?  You bet they are, but they are already cheaper than fuel cells!
                Rate this comment: 12345
  • Develope hybrids further
    MarkShapiro on 10/06/2006 at 12:29 PM
    Posts:
    13
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    I feel the lure of solar and wind generated hydrogen for fuel cells for clean power . . . eventually. 

    In the meantime, keep improving hybrids, and deploy them where they make the most sense:  stop and go vehicles like buses, taxis, and delivery vehicles.  Make them lighter, more aerodynamic, and more efficient.  So when fuel cells are ready, just plug them to the vehicles.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • GM knows
    edsonbila on 10/06/2006 at 1:57 PM
    Posts:
    7
    You can be sure GM is not stupid and they know what they are doing. Probably there are some very smart guys being paid 150k/month to define the company’s strategy.
    If they intend to sell their H-Cars in 2014 is because they can and they know something that we don’t.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: GM knows
      teedil on 10/06/2006 at 8:25 PM
      Posts:
      1
      If you read up on "Who Killed the Electric Car?" you might get a better insight on where GM is truly coming from. 
      Go here http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Hydrogen as an energy carrier
    aahine on 10/06/2006 at 7:24 PM
    Posts:
    4
    Hydrogen is not the single answer to the world's energy needs, but it forms a very important part.
    We should acknowledge that conversion of renewable energy to electricity to hydrogen & back again is not particularly efficient, but the REAL point is that wind, solar, tidal current, etc., energy IS renewable & its capture is relatively inexpensive once capital costs of the capture mechanism is amortised.
    Fossil fuels are not expected to run out within our lifetimes, but the supply of AFFORDABLE oil [i.e., cheap enough to extract, transport, process and sell at prices (including a profit margin) we 'ordinary' folk can afford] IS expected to deplete in the near-to-mid-term future, so a number of alternatives to oil must be planned AND IMPLEMENTED before the so-called "Peak Oil" event occurs.
    It should be noted that it's not just GM's boffins & management who are sufficiently convinced that Fuel Cell vehicles will be a reality and should be the subject of ongoing (and expensive) R&D, but also Honda, Toyota, Peugot, FIAT, Hyundai, Volkswagen, DaimlerChrysler and Ford.
    The efforts of those companies alone is likely to make the Hydrogen Economy a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it should be noted that there is a small but growing number of international companies which are dedicated to R&D in the Fuel Cell arena who are also convinced that their efforts will not be in vain.
    Those companies include Hydrogenics, Proton Energy, Intelligent Energy and a plethora of others.
    Political [read, anti-western] problems causing perceptions of uncertainty of supply of oil is a reality, but so is the actual 'Peak Oil' scenario, not to mention Global warming, an issue which is turning into a problem that is now more widely accepted as becoming a genuinely serious threat to the world's economies, and no longer just the rantings of extreme environmentalists, as it was once thought to be.
    Hydrogen WILL BE a part of the future & vehicles using it will be quieter [what a relief!], cause very little or no local pollution and help to reduce the eggects of global climate change [we hope].
    we strongly support all the Hydrogen Economy and renewable Energy technology companies and so should the governments of the world.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Hydrogen as an energy carrier
      SVE on 10/06/2006 at 10:00 PM
      Posts:
      42
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      While I admire a can-do and stick-to-it attitude as much as the next person, fuel cell hydrogen cars will NEVER happen. Hydrogen in sufficient quantities to drive the transportation industry can only be practically produced by petroleum or coal - carbon fuels - for the next several decades. Using oil in an internal combustion engine will always produce propulsion just as efficiently (actually more efficiently) than using that same oil to drive a process that delivers hydrogen to automobiles that convert it into propulsion (FC's). All those companies you mention that are pursuing FCs are also slowly backing away and going after the more practical things like hybrids. As the true situation with hydrogen becomes more apparent, and as the competitive approaches like hybrids, electrics, biofuels, start to appear (MUCH sooner), the FC propaganda will die down, giving way to the real solution - electricity.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Hydrogen as an energy carrier
        Jack on 10/07/2006 at 10:47 AM
        Posts:
        4
        Electricity is indeed the most effective method of propulsion and in any case either batteries or capacitors would be required in any efficiently propelled vehicle.  A fuel cell is an effective way of producing Electro Motive Force but once produced it is essential to conserve this power by regeneration through the drive motors being used as generators when braking, downhill or overrun.  This method of retardation is superior in so far that it can be very smoothly controlled and no pollutant brake dust is produced.
        Certainly a myriad of hybrids will appear over the years but in the end I consider hydrogen will be the major power carrier.   Jack.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Hydrogen as an energy carrier
          SVE on 10/07/2006 at 2:15 PM
          Posts:
          42
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          Everyone seems to agree that electricity is the best universal form of energy, and that we can actually use it to do all the things we want. Then why is everyone so fixated on hydrogen? Electricity is created, transported, and stored just fine. Forget about hydrogen.
          Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Hydrogen as an energy carrier
        aahine on 10/08/2006 at 5:04 PM
        Posts:
        4
        Far from 'slowly backing away', the major car companies and smaller Hydrogen FC R&D companies are carrying out continuing R&D into FC vehicles.
        I am associated with one of those companies, so know whereof I speak!
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Hydrogen as an energy carrier
      JMB on 10/12/2006 at 12:20 PM
      Posts:
      3
      There's a very good analysis of hydrogen as an energy carrier by Dr. Ulf Bossel of the European Fuel Cell Forum here: http://www.efcf.com/reports/E15.pdf

      The conclusion is that hydrogen is NOT an efficent way to provide energy for transportation. Instead of a "Hydrogen Economy", Bossel promotes the concept of an "Electron Economy".

      Dr. Bossel supports fuel cell research, but only for fuel cells that can use liquid fuels directly, not those that use hydrogen.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • electricity
    okneg on 10/07/2006 at 11:02 AM
    Posts:
    1
    If Telsa knew whereof he spoke, then harnessing the world's biggest battery may be the cheapest, cleanest and most efficient; or am I out in left field?
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Totally New Energy Crop/Process
    mcclune on 10/07/2006 at 12:00 PM
    Posts:
    5
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    Sorganol is or can be America's 'sugar cane' system , see > sorganol.com < it is the worlds most simple low cost method to produce Fuel Ethanol, the harvester harvests the sugared juices
    right while driving thru the field, haul juice in add bio-agents, pump into storage, 2 days later,
    ethanol, Zero Fossil Fuel/Energy Input,, then distill the Ethanol, using about 4-5% baled stalk
    material, the only thing that leaves the farm is a tanker load of Sorganol(R)[fuel ethanol], made at ZERO FOSSIL FUEL/ENERGY INPUTS,, So why can't
    I get any support from our government or industry,
    been have to design, engineer, build, and finance
    the Project all myself, zero support,,??? LFM
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Totally New Energy Crop/Process
      techwatcher33 on 11/01/2006 at 10:28 AM
      Posts:
      1
      sounds interesting. Since corn ethanol got its push via political support, you might start your efforts to generate interest/support with your local congressman (political) & local university (science). unfortunately, theres no big sorgum lobby or big ag businesses to act as advocates for this crop against the competing ideas. If the economics make sense, others should eventually adopt this crop in their rotation.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • No Truth Once Again
    h2ohhhhhhhh on 10/07/2006 at 12:03 PM
    Posts:
    1
    How many time must we listen to wing bat lackey's of the oil industry proport that hydrogen won't float because it must be manufactured?

    As if we all pump crude directly into our tanks.  The reality of life is gasoline is manufactured in a process called refining.   That process requires an enormous amount of hydrogen today and will require even more hydrogen tomorrow as only we are left with dirtier and dirtier crudes.

    We will soon be closing in 1 kg of hydrogen being produced for oil refining for every 10 gallons of gasoline we get out. 

    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/praxair_starts_.html

    The situation is even worse though...as that 1 kg of hydrogen in a fuel cell vehicle will take you 3 times as far as the gasoline will take you in an internal combustion engine. 

    If we just stopped making refining crude oil and simply used the hydrogen that is already produced today in a fuel cell vehicles, it would be sufficient to fuel over 100 million fuel cell vehicles.

    If we took all hydrogen already produced today, it would be be sufficient to fuel over 250 million fuel cell vehicles.  Or said differently...that's enough for every man, woman, and child within the U.S. to own and operate a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle today.

    You can find that stat here on the Air Products hydrogen FAQ:
    http://www.airproducts.com/Products/LiquidBulkGases/HydrogenEnergyFuelCells/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.htm?wbc_purpose=basic%23other%23other%23products%23other%23top

    The problems with hydrogen are political...not technical. 
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: No Truth Once Again
      Rich on 10/12/2006 at 2:30 PM
      Posts:
      2
      Can you help me square these numbers? Rodger W. McKain President, SOFCo-EFS Holdings and Chairman, Ohio Fuel Cell Coalition (not an oil lackey I assume)has a presentation found at www.ohioshowcase.org/pdf/post-conference/Thursday/Fuel_Cells/Fuel%20Cells%20-%20McKain.pdf in which he has a slide titled the Hydrogen Production Dilemma. He states:

      13 million barrels crude oil per day used in transportation
      – equivalent to 1.46 billion pounds per day hydrogen
      • This would require doubling the total US power
      production (850 GWe to 1780 GWe) if hydrogen were
      produced by conventional electrolysis (assume 1 MW
      per 1000 lbs and efficiency improvements)
      OR
      • This would require 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year - approximately 110% of the 2002 total US consumption, nearly doubling the total natural gas requirement.

      So according to Mr. McKain, to displace half of our current oil consumed for transportation would require the dedication of the total US electrical power production of 850 GWe.

      On the other hand you link to Air Products and they claim "..About 45 billion kilograms (50 million tons) is produced every year—enough hydrogen to fuel 250 million fuel cell cars."
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: No Truth Once Again
        mjtimber on 10/13/2006 at 11:32 PM
        Posts:
        6
        The difference is the method of production.  Steam reforming of hydrogen is a hydrocarbon product, while your report assumes that we switch to a cleaner, renewable source of electricity and create hydrogen by electrolysis.  The reason fuel cells get so much hype is because we can still use oil and coal to directly produce hydrogen.  But, because of the improved efficiency of direct electric (battery) power cars, we could continue to use our current plants and, if the cars were mostly charged at night, would not even need to increase our power generation capacity.  We could even burn the oil to make electricity and use much less oil.  However, I would hope we could switch to cleaner technologies.
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • lithium
    samitch on 10/07/2006 at 2:28 PM
    Posts:
    1
    New lithium technology blows fuel cells away. Once new lithium technologies get economics of scale people won't even remember what fuel cells are.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: lithium
      SVE on 10/07/2006 at 2:35 PM
      Posts:
      42
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      The new Li battery technologies are definitely impressive. I do think that people will still remember fuel cells, though. I still remember bubble memory and typewriters.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: lithium - Is there enough lithium?
      gabrielg01 on 10/07/2006 at 3:08 PM
      Posts:
      306
      Avg Rating:
      3/5