Fuel Cell Cars Still 15 Years Away Says Government Study
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 07.17.08
Image from post406
Though a few lucky Californians may already be leasing the Honda FCX Clarity, one of the first-generation fuel cell cars, a National Research Council report predicts that it will be another 15 years until they comprise a significant share of the domestic car market. And that assumes carmakers are able to successfully overcome several major technological and logistical challenges and that they receive significant government subsidies.
Image from BBQ Junkie
Report predicts 2 million by 2020
At best, the report estimates, there will be roughly 2 million electric fuel cell vehicles on the road by 2020 -- less than 1% of all vehicles in the U.S. The government would need to inject over $55 billion in subsidies over the next decade and a half to ensure fuel cell vehicles become a commercially viable option by 2020.
One way of achieving this would be for the government to buy fuel cell cars or install fuel cell technology in half of its existing vehicle fleets. In the short term, first generation fuel cell cars like Honda's FCX Clarity, which costs a whopping $950,000 to produce, and GM's Chevy Equinox will remain out of the reach of the great majority of drivers -- both for production and pricing issues. Like Honda, GM is currently leasing Equinox vehicles to a selected group of drivers.
A light at the end of the tunnel for fuel cell cars?
On a more positive note, the report predicts that falling costs and a more robust hydrogen fuel infrastructure could help fuel cell vehicles become competitive with conventional vehicles by 2023. Once that happens, the number of fuel cell cars on the road could drastically increase -- eventually hitting 200 million by 2050.
Strong electric car push could quash fuel cell progress
In light of the recent flurry of activity in the electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle sectors, and the progress made in advanced battery technologies, it seems more likely that fuel cell vehicles will never become a major component of the world's vehicle fleet. While it is possible that a major breakthrough could make hydrogen fuel a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels, the momentum seems to be shifting in the direction of companies like Tesla and Fisker, on one hand, and the renewed efforts by leading carmakers like Toyota and Nissan, among others, to develop electric models.
Via ::Reuters: Fuel cell cars still 15 years away at best: study (news website)
More on fuel cell cars
::Danish Climate Goal 2009: World's Biggest Fleet Of Electric Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars
::Hydrogen Hybrid Fuel Cell Taxis Ready For London 2012 Olympics
::Production of Honda FCX Clarity Hydrogen Car Begins
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
Graphic Of The Day: Why They Keep "Removing" Appalachian Mountain Tops
|
Feliciano dos Santos, 2008 Goldman Environmental Prize Winner, on Ecological Sanitation
|
I would have to agree with the last paragraph. It seems that hydrogen fuel cells have missed the boat as far as a power source for automobiles. Electric systems already have a considerable head-start. With an additional 15 years of well-funded R&D, advanced battery technology coupled with biofuels will likely satisfy the needs of the transportation sector.
Certainly there will be a niche market for fuel cell vehicles, but it will be hard to justify significant investment in refueling and distribution infrastructure once electric vehicles gain a sizeable share of the market.
Personally, I think the greatest potential for hydrogen fuel cells lies in applications for the home. An alternative for those of us currently tied to natural gas or propane for heating, for example. It's an outstanding technology that just hasn't found a good fit yet.
$55 billion in subsidies for a boondoggle program with 50% of the energy efficiency.
No wonder studies on Hydrogen won't even consider the Battery Electric Car as a possible alternative despite it succeeding with NO government subsidies.
The future is BEV, (by a very wide margin). Any country that fails to notice and adapt will be left with inferior technology.
There doesn’t seem to be an end in site with the Oil problems. I can't see the Government being that generous with their subsidies; as they get massive money from their oil taxes (especially in the UK)
If your rather excellent article is right, we could be knocking on the 22nd century before we can get viable alternatives to fuel - what will happen in the next 40 years with Oil declining?
Not only does it assume all of that, but it also assumes that the plethora of hybrid and electric vehicles launching within the next two years will themselves be a complete failure in the marketplace and hydrogen won't have to compete against them.
Hydrogen cars are not 15 years away. They are very easy to build. All we need is a bout 1,000,000,000 tonnes of platinum to fall from the sky. Then people would be able to afford one.
This is the problem with electric cars (hydrogen included in that) they are too expensive. That is why GM killed the electric car the first time. That is why Tesla makes $100,000 super cars instead of $20,000 family cars. The raw materieals in the batteries themselves cost $40,000 to produce, and that is not going down with production.
No, the path is simpler than that. We are seeing the first step: hybrid cars. They are gradually giving way to serial hybrids, PHEV. These will likely be more affordable than fuel cells in the short term. But once PHEV are common, the addition of a fuel cell becomes much more practical. Fuel cells provide electricity, as do batteries so a battery/fuel cell car could be made much lighter and with fewer redundant systems than a gas/electric hybrid.
If we really want to eliminate fossil fuel use, then the fuels we use in the future will need to be made synthetically. Maybe we'll get sufficiently improved biofuels that we can power our cars, trucks, ships, and airplanes that way, but batteries+hydrogen made from electricity derived from renewable sources could, in the long run, be a good choice. It make take a while before oil is expensive enough to justify it, though.
This summer, I was in Missouri for a week and a half. When the topics of gas prices came up, I mentioned plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, and I needed to explain what they were and why they were better than hybrids, ethanol, and hydrogen. It seems that people who aren't actively green don't catch on to these things, especially in more conservative regions.
Electric cars deserve more press coverage, and more funding. When I tell most people that hydrogen vehicles probably aren't as viable as commercials make them out to be, they're shocked. They assume hydrogen is the only real solution.
One of the biggest problems with hydrogen is indeed the speed of development. With hydrogen, it seems they're running into a wall set up by the laws of physics in terms of the energy density of hydrogen. The main place they can improve is by making the vehicles cost less. The big issue with BEVs is how to get more energy density in the batteries without compromising range or cost. That's an issue of technique, not science, and there are a ton of cool ideas down the pipeline. For example, MIT came up with a technique where viruses could build a battery at the nanoscale.
It is good to see that at least hear most people get it that hydrogen is a very poor choice for cars. That is so not true most places! Very Respectfully, Michael
See: "The Hydrogen Car Hoax" http://knol.google.com/k/michael-foster/the-hydrogen-car-hoax/2on0cj1ivesbw/2?locale=en#