Want a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Car? Get One Free!
by Andrew Posner, Rhode Island, USA on 12. 9.07
Just as promised, beginning in January General Motors will be providing 100 people with the Equinox Fuel Cell crossover, their answer to Honda's FCX Clarity, for free, three-month tests (No, they won't get to keep the cars). While Honda will soon be leasing the Clarity to select customers in Southern California, G.M. will be giving the Equinox to people that have been "active in its online forums for fuel-cell vehicles." (They must also live near a hydrogen filling station.) It may seem that Honda is farther along with fuel cell technology because they are actually leasing the Clarity, but the fact is that both companies are still looking to "pile up real-world miles, data and owner feedback." In fact, G.M. requires the testers to provide feedback, the Clarity must be returned when the lease is up, and neither vehicle can be purchased at a dealership (that isn't expected to happen until at least 2011). And even if it were available at your local G.M. dealer, the Equinox is currently valued at a cool $1 million each, putting it just out of the average person's price range!
So why should we care that major automakers are testing hydrogen vehicles in very limited numbers?
Well, we should care for several reasons:
1) Nothing does a better job of dispelling the fear that hydrogen is dangerous than having hydrogen vehicles safely driving down the road.
2) We've been hearing for a while now that the hydrogen economy is a dead-end. Aside from the notion that hydrogen is a dangerous and impractical energy carrier, the hydrogen economy has suffered from a catch-22: no one wants to build the infrastructure to carry hydrogen unless there are cars that can use hydrogen, and no one wants to build the cars without the infrastructure. By putting vehicles on the road, G.M. and Honda are creating competition, improving the technology, and creating demand for more hydrogen infrastructure. Already, the Clarity gets 68 miles per gallon equivalent, compared to 43 MPG for the Equinox. With a range of around 200 miles per tank for both vehicles, we can expect increasing competition to go farther on a kilogram of pressurized hydrogen.
3) The more alternatives we have to fossil fuels, the better. We all know that there are still problems with how we produce hydrogen, but in the short-term hydrogen vehicles can lower emissions, and the potential is there in the long-term to create an energy economy based on renewables, with hydrogen as the storage medium.
4) The technological innovation required to produce fuel cell vehicles will create green jobs and ensure that the Big Three remain competitive.
5) Economies of scale: more hydrogen vehicles mean a lower cost-per-unit.
Via: ::NY Times
See Also: ::The Open-Source Hydrogen Car, ::Videos: Auto Evolution: Fuel Cells, Plug-Ins, Electric Vehicles, Hybrids, ::Hydrogen Car is Here, a Bit Ahead of Its Time
68 mpg equivalent, running (essentially) off of natural gas? I know a few cars that can one-up that -
The Honda Accord diesel. Reportedly gets around 60 mpg, with the infrastructure already built.
The Aptera Typ-1, which gets over 200 mpg, with the infrastructure already built.
The Zap Xebra. Completely electric. Only $10500.
I tried to get an EV1 when GM was trying to get people interested in those. I'd love to see how this does.
Gasoline is a hydrogen carrier just like a pressurized tank of H2 is a hydrogen carrier. Ever look at an exhaust pipe on a cold day? That's water vapor you're seeing.
Octane mean 8 carbons with18 hydrogens = roughly 16% hydrogen by weight. Problem is, an ICE engine has to produce a ton of C02 just to get at that nice hydrogen energy.
A large part of that hydrogen in gasoline was added in the refinery to crack benzene rings down into less toxic, more combustible straight chain molecules. Know where that H2 came from? Natural gas reformation. Just skip the gasoline and put 11 million tons per year of H2 right into the fuel cell vehicles and bamm. You're on the road.
They sound so cool.
jl, why would you put reformed H2 into a fuel cell when you can put straight natural gas into an internal combustion engine?
What if we want a hydrogen fuel cell CAR and not an SUV? Parking that monster in the city would be damn near impossible.
Answer to Lloyd.
Natural gas powered vehicles need similar or more onboard fuel storage space and container mass as hydrogen vehicles would need to achieve the same range. However, natural gas powered vehicles are less efficient per mile driven and have far higher emissions. And, natural gas does emit mercury and formaldehyde (things not present from gasoline powered vehicles).
Hydrogen fuel cells are all about the infrastructure and making sure you are still buying your fuel from GM. GM has billions invested in the attendant technology like fueling stations and refining, all linked to a proprietary fuel cell that they want other manufacturers to buy into. All this despite the fact that the hydrogen fuel model simply shifts the pollution from end-user to producer. Lloyd is spot on; why would we muck about with this cell when you can just go straight to the vehicle's propulsion? Because then you can get your hydrogen anywhere, including make your own (saw a neat bio-mass fuelled hydrogen generator I covet), instead of being tied into GM's cash flow. The only green they are really into folds and goes neatly in your wallet...
Infrastructure? I remember seeing an episode of Scientific American that showed how Hydrogen was produced on site using thermal energy from the ground that required one to dig no further down than a standard house foundation. I think it was in Iceland where they actually have these stations. Doesn't seem like much of a tweak to me -- about the same energy as a bank taking over another bank and replacing all its signage, but with much greater long-term gain.
Great news (or not). Honda will rent you a car and then take it back when your rental period (lease) is up. GM will loan you one and then take it back. All this is possible for people who live in selected markets. Seems somewhat familiar to me. Also, most of the country cannot participate. I'd love to have had a chance to buy the EV-1 when they put in the better batteries, but that wasn't an option. I won't pay rent for several years and give a car back.
This is really an Electric car that forces you to buy expensive fuel to generate power. I would buy this car in a GMheartbeat if it just had the battery pack that I could charge with my solar panels on my roof or simply plug in just about anywhere in the US. Yep like your own home.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
Here are the specs if you haven't followed this car.
Three carbon fiber fuel tanks store 4.2 kg (9.24 lb) of hydrogen at 700 bar (10,000 psi). A 35 kW NiMH battery pack supplements the fuel cell and captures energy from regenerative braking. The 3-phase asynchronous electric motor generates 73 kW of continuous power (94 kW maximum) and torque of 320 Nm (236 lb-ft).
The Equinox Fuel Cell accelerates from 0-60 mph in 12 seconds; has a top speed of 100 mph (160 kph); and has an operating range of 200 miles (320 km).
It's nice to finally see GM moving the right direction. It may not be the best solution, but at least they are trying. We (as environmentally responsible consumers) should support their efforts, so they know they have a customer base outside of the gas guzzling SUV crowd.
When I started looking into hydrogen, I was so stoked. Now I realize that the Bush administration just sees it as a way to sell tons of natural gas, pretending to be green. The greenhouse gas part is a lie, the fossil fuel part is a lie, the pollution part is a lie. It's just so depressing.
(All electric vehicles aren't much better, considering you're driving a full ton of lead and hydrochloric acid around. And the batteries need to be replaced in three years.)
I need to move to Iceland...
I went back over this news story, and I wonder about the slanted language.
Several sentences don't make sense. For example, one starts out "It may seem that Honda is farther along" but the sentence ends with a comment about racking up miles, which is totally unrelated to who is farther along. This is the sort of fluff we expect from sports reporters.
The sentence following that connects the unrelated topics of feedback with lease terms. It seems like actual info, but it makes no sense.
Needless to say, the title is misleading.
Then there is the "aside from the notion that hydrogen is a dangerous and impractical energy carrier".... Why use the word "notion", which means "fanciful or foolish"? Why not just call those things "facts"? Who would suggest that a gas twenty times more flammable than gasoline, pressurized to 5,000 psi, isn't dangerous?
I know this comment won't get past the censors, but I'm just wondering why the news isn't reported straight, without the spin?
THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE IS. WHY IS FINDING THE PERFECT ENERGY SOURCE A DIFFICULT PROBLEM. THE SUN IS THE BEST, SOLAR ENERGY IS THE SOLUTION. I TRUELY BELIEVE PG&E IS ALSO ANOTHER OBSTICLE THAT IS HENDERING THE IDEA BESIDE PATROLEUM COMPANIES. THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE IN USA HOW MANY BUILDING ARE BUILT? WE HAVE ALL THESE BUILDING CODES WHICH ARE ALWAYS INCORPERATED IN BUILIDING A HOME ETC. YET THE GOVERNMENT ENFORCING CODES HAVE NEVER MADE SOLAR PANELS A PART OF IT. IMAGINE THAT.... IF EVERY HOME, BUSINESS BUILDING HAD SOLAR PANEL AS PART OF THERE STRUCTURE MANDATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT WOULD ELECTRICITY BE A PROBLEM? THIS IS WHY I BELIEVE PG&E IS WORRIED THEY WOULD LOSE ALOT OF $$$$. AND THATS THE BOTTOM LINE THESE PEOPLE DONT CARE ABOUT OUR CHILDRENS FUTURE. IT ALL STARTS AT THE TOP...