The automaker plans to begin rolling out a test fleet of fuel-cell cars, but some experts say it's a mistake.
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.
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?
Re: Devil's Advocate - go nuclear
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.
Re: Devil's Advocate - go nuclear
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.
Re: Devil's Advocate - go nuclear
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.
Re: Devil's Advocate - go nuclear
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.
Re: Devil's Advocate - piecemeal approach will be too slow
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.
Re: Devil's Advocate - piecemeal approach will be too slow
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.
Guest (mjtimber)
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
Re: Hydrogen as an energy carrier
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.
Guest (Jack)
Re: Hydrogen as an energy carrier
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.
Re: Hydrogen as an energy carrier
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.
Re: Hydrogen as an energy carrier
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!
Re: Hydrogen as an energy carrier
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.
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?
Totally New Energy Crop/Process
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
Re: Totally New Energy Crop/Process
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.
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.
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."
Guest (mjtimber)
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.
Guest (samitch)
New lithium technology blows fuel cells away. Once new lithium technologies get economics of scale people won't even remember what fuel cells are.
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.
Re: lithium - Is there enough lithium?
Is there enough lithium to put into every car, truck, bus etc.? Just wondering.
Li is not a renewable resource.
It is also a highly toxic element.
The battery manufacturers themselves already advise that existing-technology batteries must be disposed of in an appropriate manner.
To safely dispose of Li batteries will require extra expense [whether that be by costly recycling or disposal to a dedicated 'safe' receiving zone - and unfortunately, every technology has to be subjected to a financial bottom line, including ALL costs associated with its whole-of-life use.
Li is, as are so many technologies, merely a part of the energy storage answer - don't write of Fuel Cells just yet!
Guest (mjtimber)
Actually, there is quite a bit of lithium, but it will put us in similar situations as we are in now. The largest deposits are in Chile and Bolivia. Yes, it is non-renewable, but so is the platinum used in fuel cells, and that is MUCH rarer than lithium (of course, you need a lot less). I agree with the article; fuel cells should the LAST resort, not the first choice. Even ethanol, which is just barely produced with an energy surplus, seems more likely to success.
As my name is mentioned I would like to correct the conjectures of Kevin Bullis. Neither the European Fuel Cell Forum nor myself are in any way related to electric utilities. The Europen Fuel Cell Forum supports fuel cells for realistic (hydrocarbon) fuels like natural gas (as long as it lasts) or biogas. We also promote the establishment of a sustainable enegy future based on renewables and efficiency. However, as most renewable energy is harvested as electricity, hydrogen has to be derived from water by electrolysis, not by reforming (of what?). Consequently, we have discontinued the promotion of fuel cells for hypothetical fuels like hydrogen, because electricity can be distributed and used with much higher efficiency than by hydrogen made from electricity and converted back to electricity with fuel cells.
Guest (Jack)
Please explain how electricity is to be stored in large quantities from wind, solar, hydro etc. with zero pollution or leakage without hydrogen.
Guest (jpdemers)
Why store it at all? We make electricity as needed, whether from hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, or burning carbon fuels.
The only storage necessary is in vehicles, and advanced batteries will beat out hydrogen handily when it comes to energy density (joule/kg). Hydrogen is a very inefficient way to store energy, largely because of the energy costs associated with compressing or liquefying it.
Guest (Jack)
Disposal of batteries is a question of degree. If you had to throw something away after each use like a disposable DMFC cartridge or an alkaline battery, I could see a problem. If it has a useful life of 100,000 miles and 1000's of recharge cycles before disposal, that's not such a bad deal. And no NOX or CO2 emmissions during that whole time ...
I fully expect that large battery packs, whatever the technology, will be recycled, just as lead-acid batteries are today.
Guest (mjtimber)
Exactly, lithium batteries are every bit as recyclable as lead-acid, if not more so, and are considerably better for the environment. Counter to what has been mentioned above, lithium is not dangerous, especially in the forms used in the batteries (lithium cobalt, manganese, or titanate). And these batteries last longer than fuel cells do at present, so the fuel cells will have to be recycled first, most notably the PEM material, which is what breaks down. The reason fuel cells go forward? Because Ballard keeps getting investment money, and because it is about the only positive press the car companies get, which they figure makes them more money than it costs (just like BP spends more advertising their "green-ness" than on the actual green programs).
Energy can be stored in large quantities by a number of methods, all of which are more efficient than electrolysis of hydrogen and subsequent generation of electricity from hydrogen. A number of the methods are described here: http://www.eere.energy.gov/EE/power_energy_storage.html
In addition, molten salt can be used to store power in solar thermal electric power stations to cover low-light/no-light periods as described here:
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/news/article/mps/uan/642/v/3/sp/
Whether fuel cells will ever go mainstream remains an open question. I remain hopeful and support research.
The core agreements in this thread: improving energy efficiency remains priority one. In transportation this means lighter, more aerodynamic, and also, more electrified. Battery electric, gasoline and diesel hybrid electric, and fuel cell electric are all in a race to the top. Perhaps there is room for all. And all cars should be lowest weight, lowest drag to get the best out of whichever propulsion technology is used.
And don't bother storing clean electricity such as wind and solar. A robust grid connecting a diverse portfolio of clean sources, PLUS real-time pricing will match supply and demand.
My impression is that people assume because a big company (GM for example) announces a limited trial of a product that the company is fully dedicated to it and it's future. GM has done this before... EV1. EV1 was developed to prove an all electric vehicle wasn't practical in 1999 using 1995 technology (my opinion). Same will happen with these new vehilces.
Our cleanest sources of energy generate electricity, directly/indirectly (solar,nuclear, hydro, wind). To take this energy and waste part of it by converting liquids or gases (that also took energy to produce) to hydrogen to be transported by pipeline or truck (also consuming more energy) to the end user to put in his vehicle and wast a bit more of the energy by converting the hydrogen back to electricity to drive the wheels is not very smart, and counterproductive. If the hydrogen is generated with electricity derived from a CO2 dirty process (coal, oil), it is even more wasteful. This seems to be that approach GM is proposing.
The best technologies for reducing vehicle CO2 emissions in the short term are plug-in hybrids (burning ethanol, ideally) and pure electric vehicles charged directly from the grid. Either needs a boost in energy storage technology before replacing gasoline in most applications. It seems to me that ultra capacitors have the edge for a ground breaking shift in electricity storage density. They also have the potential to charge very rapidly. Will they make it to the mainstream? I don't have a crystal ball, but my sense is that they will.
Re: GM is looking to fail again?
To all who have posted - it's encouraging that there is interest in the enrgy arena, because that arena is going to be a more & more important one in the near future.
To those who remain unconvinced that Hydrogen and Fuel Cells are going to become commonplace, here is a current news article which indicates that 'The Market' is already embracing H2 & FC's.
Ballard Announces Follow-On Supply Agreement With General Hydrogen Corporation
Contract valued at approximately US$22 Million
2,900 Mark 9 SSL'TM' fuel cells to ship in 2007 and 2008
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- October 10, 2006 -- Ballard Power Systems (TSX: BLD)(NASDAQ: BLDP) today announced that it has signed an agreement valued at approximately US$22 Million with General Hydrogen Corporation to supply 2,900 Mark 9 SSL™ fuel cells. These fuel cells are for integration into General Hydrogen's products that are being sold to customers converting from conventional lead-acid batteries in their materials handling fleets. Under the agreement, Ballard expects to ship fuel cells ranging in size from 4 to 20 kilowatts, with roughly one-quarter of these units to ship in 2007, and the balance to ship in 2008.
This year, through September 30, 2006, Ballard has shipped 100 Mark 9 SSL™ fuel cells. This agreement reflects the growing confidence of Ballard and General Hydrogen in the potential for fuel cell products in the materials handling equipment market. With this agreement, Ballard has exceeded its publicly stated corporate goal of shipping or booking 300 Mark 9 SSL™ units in 2006.
Guest (mjtimber)
Re: GM is looking to fail again?
Yuk, so that's $10,000/fuel cell for 5 hp to 27 hp fuel cells (736 W = 1 hp). So, at an average of 15 hp, that adds up to over $600/hp just for the fuel cell. So, you can pay $150,000 for a 250 hp fuel cell, without a car or hydrogen storage, or you can get a completed car with 250 hp, 0-60 in 4 sec, 250 miles range, powered by batteries, from Tesla Motors for $100,000. Seems pretty easy to me. And no, fuel cells are not cheaper at higher hp; they just stack up more of the same PEM elements.
Re: GM is looking to fail again?
I think the investement money has started to shift away from the companies like Ballard with a focus on FCs for vehicles to FCs for stationary uses. (FCs for stationary applications make sense to me.) Tyler Hamilton reported on Aug 6 2006:
"It was interesting to see last week's brief disclosure that highly secretive fuel-cell venture Ion America -- yet another John Doerr/Kleiner investment -- has raised $102 million (U.S.) in a Series D round of financing. Rob Day at Cleantech Investing says that brings Ion's overall VC funding up to $165 million. That's not bad for a
company we know little about. What we do know is that Ion is focusing on solid-oxide fuel cell technology for stationary, distributed energy
generation. One can imagine the markets would include back-up power for businesses and homes and primary co-generation systems (heat and
power) for the same markets."
Have there been equivalent recent VC investments in vehicle-related FC companies? I think the VC community is on the same page as Ulf Bossel that the 'hydrogen economy' can never compete with the 'electron economy.'
Guest (gwf_fly)
Re: GM is looking to fail again?
Actually, GM was forced under government mandate to produce a "practical" zero emission vehicle for the Califormia market. They were dragged kicking and screaming into the deal. What happened in the end was an experiment that went REALLY WELL - so well, that every owner of the EV1 did not want to give them up when forced to do so by GM at the end of the mandate period. At the time, the battery technology gave about 135 miles of range at a cost of $3.50 per charge off peak hours at your home. (you figure the cost per mile compared to any fuel system today) Go to wrightspeed.com and see the next generation electric car that can go 250 miles on a similar charge, and blow the doors off any production gas-burning car today. Can you imagine what would have happened if GM had continued with the technology? What happens when you fire all those union folks who make hundreds of parts for a hunk of iron that burns an oil by-product? Can't have that, can you? Too disruptive to the status quo! An electric car motor only has a couple of moving parts. All of the EV1 cars were confiscated and sent through a shredder located near an airport in Burbank California - despite the rigorous protests of the owners. If GM had continued with the program, I believe that they too would have 3 month waiting lists for their electric cars like Toyota has for their clunky hybrid. But no, GM failed again!
Too bad that people who think that this is a bad move b/c of inefficiency are forgetting about hydrogen producing bacteria and microbes, such as Thermatoga Neapolitana. Systems utilizing an approach such as this would be close to 90 percent efficient at producing hydrogen for fuel cells.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (Jack)
Logic
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
Reply
asdar
73 Comments
Re: Logic
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.
Reply
Guest (Phil.j)
Re: Logic
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.
Reply
Guest (lary999)
Re: Logic
Excellent commentary -- far better writen & reasoned than the original article!
Reply
sihanat
5 Comments
Re: Logic
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.
Reply
jrolson
1 Comment
Re: Logic
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?
Reply