Open Access Article Originally Published: December 07, 2002
I have been closely following the ZEV mandate since it was adopted in 1990. In the
early years of the mandate, EVs were the 'new thing' and were the darlings of the media.
Over the years the mandate has been changed, delayed, and weakened under tremendous
pressure from automakers.
When I started to read the background information describing
the latest round of proposed changes, I was initially encouraged to see on the first page
that the pure ZEV was still going to be a requirement. However, after reading the
document through, I had the sinking feeling that the proposed new regulations spelled the
death knell for zero emission vehicles.
I say this because it appears that CARB has effectively given up on battery electric
vehicles, and is placing a high risk bet that fuel cell vehicles will in fact become practical
in the future.
While this may in fact happen, it is not at all certain. There was a lot of
publicity earlier this week about fuel cell vehicles from Toyota and Honda entering
service. Toyota's press release headline from Monday this week proudly proclaimed
their fuel cell vehicle to be "Market Ready". This is of course a tiny exaggeration. As
John O'Dell reported in Tuesday's LA Times: "Representatives from both companies call
the deliveries historic, but they cautioned that it will be decades before motorists can
walk into a dealer's showroom an drive away in one of the vehicles."
But are fuel cell vehicles really the holy grail – the end game for providing clean personal
mobility? The popular and accepted view is that they are.
The thinking goes along the
lines of: fuel cells far more efficient than an IC engines because they are based on an
electrochemical process rather than combustion; they are quiet, there are no moving parts,
no greenhouse gas emissions, only pure water for emissions, and will have far more range
than battery electric vehicles. It sounds great.
But today I want to share with you some perspectives on fuel cell and battery electric
vehicles that differ from the conventional wisdom.
First – what about driving range and efficiency of fuel cell vehicles – where is the data?
There have been a lot of pronouncements but not much in the way of data. Actual range
and hydrogen consumption data are very closely held, but there are some indications that
might indicate that there are problems with range and efficiency.
In the Michelin Bibendum challenge last year, the fuel cell vehicles that participated
drove relay-style in legs of only 30 miles between Fontana and Las Vegas. The vehicles
were tested for efficiency as part of the event – but the companies that brought the fuel
cell vehicles made it a condition of their participation that the actual hydrogen
consumption data not be released.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 5559 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
7 comments so far...
08-Dec-2002
781
| |
Very interesting, I had to read this several times to get all of the info. I've had questions about fuel cells for some time. I was always wondering what the overall efficency was. A lot of hype about making hydrogen from H2O, besides the electricity needed to crack H2O 1/3 of the the energy is thrown away, oxygen. And then there are transportation loses and fuel cell efficency. I drive a Toyota Rav4EV and I could not see any pratical reason to change the battery for fuel cell.
The only thing I really ask for is more public charging.
Posted by: Dennis Brandenburg
|
|
10-Dec-2002
785
| |
The problem with fuel cell transportation that it was moved into the limelight between 5-10 years too early. It functioned as a convenient distraction from engineering and manufacturing challenges with hybrids and EVs. It is actually less costly to work on a new imature technology.
Batteries still have challenges but they are far more economical and reliable. Although fuel cells can operate for a sufficient period of time under laboratory conditions, no fuel cell has been able to demonstrate reliability on an automotive duty cycle and it's environmental and transient stressors.
Alec could have also pointed out the need for very high purity hydrogen which adds significant cost to the hydrogen generating equipment. In fact in terms of miles per dollar it is more economical to burn lower purity hydrogen in an internal combustion vehicle in pure or blended form rather than use high purity hydrogen in a fuel cell vehicle.
Alec has done a great service.
Posted by: Atul Deshmane
|
|
10-Dec-2002
786
| |
Wonderfull news. Appearant oppertunities.
The international standadard now is kilometer,
liter and (lt. per 100 km) for efficienty.
Why not start changing this too better international understanding and lesson error.
Try NASA for historic proof and truth in this matter.
This is a global problem area.
We have to think above politics.
Posted by: Bart ter Braak
|
|
16-Nov-2004
5387
| |
I am glad to see that someone has finally begun to recognize the fraud that Detroit has perpetrated on the American people vis a vis the fuel cell car.
In addition to the problems with the technology itself, the actual cost of duplicating a refueling infrastructure that equates to the existing gasoline infrastructure is enormous. Which is why alternative fuels are having such a difficult time.
The battery powered electric vehicle will eventually become the alternative of choice because of the infrastructure issue. Because battery powered vehicles will be able to be refueled daily, in the home, the need for the same infrastructure is not required. In fact, commercial refueling stations will only be required on interstate highways, where nearly all long distance driving takes place.
As for the range issue of battery powered electric vehicles, the Solectria Sunrise traveled 377 miles on highways on a single charge in the 1995 Tour de Sol. That was accomplished with Nickel Hydride batteries, and even greater ranges are possible with batteries such as Segmented Nickel Hydrogen or Lithium. It truly is but a matter of time.
Most sincerely
Jim Hogarth"
Posted by: Jim Hogarth
|
|
08-Dec-2002
775
| |
What a remarkable and in-depth analysis! I'm impressed with the how much time and effort went into looking at data and making calculations. I now better understand the bottom line of HFCV's is not as appealing as we are being led to believe. As others have indicated, when the grants to develop fuel cell vehicles dry up, I think we'll be hearing the same sad song about HFCV's being too costly, expensive, range limitations and refueling time concerns. That's why there's not much talk right now about the cost of manufacturing and producing these vehicles.
I'm not surprised that all the media releases have highlighted the range and efficiency figures in such an impressive way. The public will assume that 100 miles per gallon or so is based on the ability to hold enough hydrogen in the tanks to go comparably as far as an ICE vehicle goes on one tank of gasoline. I won't be holding my breath on fuel cell vehicles any time in the future. The costs and complexities of most of the Holy Grail technologies makes the costs and effort involved in riding bicycles look more appealing every day. Personal transportation in the coming century is looking like a very expensive proposition. Now where did I put that WalMart sale paper?
Posted by: Rick Pryor
|
|
08-Dec-2002
777
| |
Excellent article! An education I was hoping I would not hear, but we must face the truth about FC's. Speaking of range, I was suprised when someone at Exelon/PECO who drives a NGV told me the slower the vehicle is refueled, the longer the range. First time I heard that.
Posted by: Tullio Falini Jr.
|
|
20-Sep-2007
58376
| |
Your vehicle’s catalytic converter plays an essential role in reducing harmful emissions. When your catalytic converter is working properly it successfully changes auto emissions into harmless water vapor. When your catalytic converter is malfunctioning, the pollutants leaving your vehicle can exacerbate local pollution levels.There are four ways for you to determine whether your catalytic converter needs replacing or not:1.Busted or rusted out converter body or end tubes.2.Small pieces of substrate in other areas of the exhaust system.3.No rattle in a pellitized converter (If the converter does not rattle, the pellets may have melted together or fallen out).4.A rattle in a monolithic converter (A rattle in this kind of converter indicates the substrate has separated.)If you are unable to determine failure your state, provincial, or local vehicle inspection program will reveal that to you the next time your car comes up for inspection. If your car fails its inspection, you will have to replace your catalytic converter before you car can be passed.Replacement of your catalytic converter is a procedure that can be done by professionals such as through your dealer’s service department, through a muffler shop, or by a local garage. If you are handy, you can do the work yourself and save money on parts as well as on labor costs.Only purchase a catalytic converter that meets or exceeds your vehicle.I have here my catalytic converter,mazda replacement parts and I am well satisfied with it…Again, driving without a catalytic converter is illegal and the potential harm you create to the atmosphere simply isn’t worth it
Posted by: Arzella Fog
|
|
