Behind the wheel: fuel-cell vehicles

We recently had the chance to drive some fuel-cell vehicles that aren’t for sale to the general public, giving us a behind-the-wheel view of the possible future. Many of these research vehicles  impressed us and show the promise, and appeal, of electrically powered cars, in this case through fuel-cell technology.

A potential alternative to gasoline-engine-powered cars, these electric vehicles produce their energy on board via a chemical reaction in a fuel-cell stack. Hydrogen is consumed in the process, with water as the only tailpipe emission.

In spring 2007, we drove the impressive Honda FCX sedan. It has since been renamed the FCX Clarity, and was shown at the Detroit auto show. Since then, we drove a hydrogen-powered BMW 7 Series, which is propelled by an internal combustion engine rather than an electric motor.

This past fall, we hosted an unusual guest here at our track in Connecticut. For a few hours, we got to experience the Chevrolet Equinox FC fuel-cell vehicle. It looked like a regular Equinox, except for the slightly raised floor that was concealing three hydrogen tanks and a symbol of a blue water drop on the shifter. The tanks hold 4.2 kilograms of compressed hydrogen at 10,000 psi. The claimed range is 200 miles. That translates to about 48 mpg in terms of gallon-of-gas-equivalent (gge) consumption. (One kg of compressed hydrogen is about equal to one gallon of gasoline in terms of energy density.) With the electric propulsion, the Equinox FC was much quieter than a regular Equinox V6. There was a noticeable, but unobjectionable, whine when accelerating on a highway ramp and the vehicle felt responsive. The car kept making all sort of whirrs and fan noises after we parked it and left a small puddle of water under its tailpipe.

Late last year, at the EVS23 (Electric Vehicle Symposium) in Anaheim, CA, I drove several electric vehicles. Also on hand, were several other fuel-cell vehicles.  I sampled them on a short driving loop and some of them were quite impressive:

Nissan X-Trail: The X-Trail is a small SUV that was never offered for sale in the United States. This fuel-cell version had a tank of compressed hydrogen at 10,000 psi and a relatively long claimed range of 300 miles. The tank holds about four kilograms of compressed hydrogen, which translates to 75 miles-per-gallon-of-gas-equivalent (mpgge). The X-Trail was quiet and refined. From a standstill, it launched decisively and kept accelerating smoothly. It handled and rode soundly. All that was happening underneath was rather transparent without intruding into the cabin. The car was free of strange and unpleasant noises.

Toyota Highlander FCHV: Based on the previous-generation Highlander, this fuel-cell vehicle is able to propel itself only on battery power, without drawing directly on energy from the fuel-cell stack and depleting the hydrogen. That’s the reason for the H (for hybrid) in the FCHV name. It has a claimed range of 350 miles, and Toyota says it can sprint from 0-60 mph in 10.5 seconds. The compressed hydrogen is stored in two tanks under the floor at 10,000 psi. With a little more than four kilograms of compressed hydrogen, it would consume 88 mpgge. It drove like a Highlander hybrid, which is quite slick with a comfortable, quiet ride and smooth acceleration; The hum of the traditional V6 engine was conspicuously absent.

Mercedes-Benz A-Class: The A-Class is the smallest Mercedes (not counting the Smart-branded products) and was never offered in the United States. The company boasts that through its fleet of 60 A-Class fuel-cell vehicles, it covered over four million test miles in four years. The A-Class stores 1.8 kilograms of compressed hydrogen in two tanks at 5,000 psi. It has a claimed 100-mile range, which translates to about 55 mpgge. The design of the A-Class fuel-cell research vehicle dates back to 2002. From behind the wheel, it  felt rather slow and noisy. The stiff ride was probably inherent to the A-Class. The slow acceleration and noisy whirs and swooshes, however, were attributable to the fuel-cell conversion. Mercedes is now in the midst of phasing its fuel-cell efforts into the larger B-Class. (Read the B-Class first look. Our B-Class road test is available to online subscribers.) The B200 we tested is sold in Canada but not in the United States.

Hyundai Tucson: The Tuscon fuel-cell vehicle has three tanks of compressed hydrogen at 5,000 psi and it holds 3.5 kilograms of the gas. This small SUV has a claimed range of 190 miles, which translates to 54 mpgge. Kia also featured the same technology in the essentially identical Sportage. The Tucson didn’t feel as slick as the Nissan or Toyota but better than the Mercedes-Benz A-Class. It drove pretty much like a regular Tucson, which is pleasant enough. Acceleration wasn’t quite robust and the vehicle was considerably noisier that a regular Tucson.   

Bottom line
In the effort to wean us off petroleum and slow global warming, at this point, it is safe to say that in the long-term future we will see vehicles powered by either hydrogen or electricity (or some combination of both). Automakers are reluctant to put all their technology eggs in one basket and are developing more hybrids and plug-in hybrids, which are likely to proliferate in the short-term. For now, electric vehicle development is mostly relegated to the aftermarket or specialized manufacturers.

Before these cars of tomorrow reach consumers, there are several obstacles to each technology as they race to go mainstream. For example, hydrogen lacks storage and delivery infrastructures; the fuel stacks (which use expensive platinum) are costly and may not last as long as gasoline engines; and the public remains skeptical. Further, batteries for plug-in hybrids or electric cars are still too expensive, and effective thermal control strategies have not been verified.

At this year’s Detroit Auto Show, GM Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner said he expects fuel cells to be the long-term solution, while plug-in hybrids will fill the gap in the medium term. Some electric-car advocates and environmentalists, however, have suggested that fuel cells are just a distraction from development of battery electric vehicles.

It’s too early to tell who is right. But we’d like to hear your opinion on fuel-cell and electric cars. Let us know what you think by posting your thoughts in the Comments section below.

—Gabe Shenhar

Learn more about fuel cells and alternative fuels in our fuel economy special section.

Comments

[Bryce]

Fuel Cell vehicles won't wean us off petroleum. They're just a sham. Where do you think the hydrogen is going to come from? Answer: petroleum... What we need to be doing is focusing on pure electric vehicles that have those performance factors people crave, such as the Tesla Roadster as a start. Tesla has shown it can be done and be stylish and perform at the same time. You can get clean electricity from solar or wind energy; or even nuclear or nucular, depending on your IQ.

Bryce

[Ted]

Electric motor powered vehicles are the future. How the electricity to power them is produced will evolve at a rapid pace. Millions of tiny wires -- each 1,000 times finer than a human hair -- may soon make solar power cheaper and more attractive, trapping sunlight and turning it into electricity more efficiently than anything now on the market. Advancements in storage systems, wind and nuclear power generation technology will ultimately make electric vehicles viable. In the meantime, propulsion systems that utilize petroleum, albeit more efficiently, will be transitional.

[Ed]

I think that CU should make it a point to discuss Bryce's point about where we're going to get the hydrogen or electricity. Right now, in my home state of Massachusetts, it comes mainly from fossil fueled power plants, with some fraction from nuclear power. There's talk about windmills in Nantucket Sound, but we consumers don't know about what's practical, and what it would cost to run a vehicle on hydrogen or electricity.

[G. Holland]

Hydrogen is right pollution free answer to oil. The auto manufacturers have the fuel cell vehicle technology to make it happen. A hydrogen delivery infrastructure must be put in place. General Motors says we can have a hydrogen fueling station within a few miles of 70 percent of the U.S. population for about $12 billion. That's less that we spend in Iraq in a month. We need a new paradigm. The old time energy players are still in the game pushing clean coal, oil shale, and nuclear. When the dust clears, what will be left standing above all the rest will be renewable solar and wind, made availabel on demand by conversion to hydrogen. The sooner we get on that right path, the better off we all will be.

[Billy H. Boatright]

Quoting G. Holland: "General Motors says we can have a hydrogen fueling station within a few miles of 70 percent of the US population for about $12 billion." Let's see, starting at New York City, one fueling station every 100 miles 50 miles inland going south to Miami, and the same for the west coast from Seattle to Los Angeles covers about 70 percent of the population and would cost about 12 billion...sounds about right. Too bad about the 3000 by 4000 mile area between the coasts.

[Jean-Bernard Brisset]

I was stupefied to hear on CNN Money site, some weeks ago, Mr o'Reilly,
Chairman of Chevron, claiming that oil world reserves will still cover demand for the present century. The current CEO of TOTAL has quite a different view and thinks that we are near the point were exponential rate of demand will soon exceed production. It is therefore pointless to argue about the relevancy of fuelcells. Fuelcells are the ultimate solution but will only make sense when hydrogen is produced by clean energy such as windfarms. I quite disagree with the common wisdom which claims that this is decades away. I am extremely bullish on hydrogen and, although aged 72, I hope that my next car will be a Hydrogen car.

[Greg Blencoe]

Hydrogen is the only viable alternative to gasoline. That is why Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, GM, etc. have made such strong commitments to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. As mentioned, the key is that the hydrogen must be made from clean sources of electricity. And the infrastructure planning needs to begin now, so the transition can start around 2012.

[Stanley Oswald]

Hydrogen power has been around for a long time and I think it will play a large part in weaning the populations of the world from petroleum/coal/natural gas based energy. We all realize that hydrogen is rather hard to separate from the other elements that it is bonded to but we also know that it can be done. Storage and transportation is another obstacle for the hydrogen engineers to overcome. H2O is the most plentiful element in the world and hydrogen from water is the answer.

If all the money that has been spent in developing ethanol to where it is today had been spent on hydrogen the world would be much further along on the energy cycle.

[George Miner]

I feel it is important that the public realizes it is not one technology over another and to knock one is a little short-sighted (Bryce). These technologies will mature and fill the each particular market based on their individual strenghts/weaknesses. Hybrids whether plug-in or not are the extension of conventional ICEs and fuel cells are the extension of pure electric vehicles. For hybrids, pure EVs and fuel cells, the battery is a key component which still needs further development and cost-reduction to achieve commercial success as does the fuel cell stack.

In regards to fuel, whether we talk about electricity or hydrogen by and large most of it today is produced from fossible fuels but both have the opportunity to be produced from renewable sources. One (electricity vs. hydrogen) is not advantageous to the other. In fact the only way any of these technologies will become mainstream is if they are developed in tandem which can be seen for example with joining solar cells with hydrogen production/storage capabilities.

With $100 barrel of oil and all of the turmoil in the world, it is not a matter of "if" but "when" this will materialize. We have no choice.

[Mark]

Fuel cell cars are an interesting technology, but Bryce makes a good point about resources being needed to generate hydrogen. However, where would the electricity come from for pure electric vehicles?

As long as we travel in individual large vehicles it will be costly from a resources point of view. A few changes to lifestyle could reduce consumption however...... for example.

* Telecommute - still needs electricity, but much less
* Take mass transit when possible
* Ride a bike or walk when safe (safer some places than others)
* Car pool when possible

[John]

There is enough geothermal energy underground to power all of America in electricity.If Iceland can provide all of their electricity with geothermal so can we Americans.We have one of the largest calderas on earth in Yellowstone National Park.Then there is wind,wave and all solar to spread out the energy to the power grid.There is no need for ag based fuels,nuclear,oil,coal and H2 for our energy needs.We need to understand that the current oil and coal industries are no longer in control and that the automotive industry is in for a tremendous paridym shift.They will no longer be able to fleece the car owners with unecessary repairs.Electric cars have very few repair needs and the battery electric cars can be diagnossed by their owners.This will close many car dealer showroom/repair centers.Virtual show rooms and repair centers will be accessed on the net.Electric power companies will sell clean energy to battery electric car owners for a discounted price and contract your battery pack to power suppliment the electric grid when needed.When battery packs are "used up" for BEV use the batteries are still very usefull for stationary backup use.This will create a cost payback solution.Battery technology has just arrived for powerful and extended use for electric cars.Batteries can be fast charged to 80% capacity in less than 10 minutes and can last over 150,000 miles.Companies are getting ready as we blog to capture the vast market for this huge profit maker.Even Ferrari is building a 4-wheel drive called the Chili Pepper.It is a 3/4 scale size of their million dollar high performane car.It will have better performance in handling and speed.Lets face it the internal combustion engine is on it's last gasp !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jaime Escudero]

I would like end all this talk concerning Hydrogen. Oil had it's reign for over 100 years, and now it's over! Everyone that says it takes Fossil fuel to make is so wrong. You can produce Hydrogen from Solar, recharged batteries from a Gray Motor, Stirling Engine, a metal mixture that produced Voltage for Life! and others. The people that suppress this information are the Oil companies and the people that are getting rich from it. They have the money, power, and they make the laws. Yes this free energy will impact our economy, but have you seen it lately. Many people around the world are converting their cars to use Hydrogen, produced on the fly. not stored like many people want you to think. Finally thanks to the internet, this information is being delivered. I hope one day soon that Consumer Reports can do a review on systems for Hydrogen Home Production as well as Free Electricity.

[Bruk B]

If anyone has the money to make hydrogen work as a fuel it ought to be NASA. I think you can accurately say that compared to what you and I are prepared to spend on a vehicle, NASA's budget is virtually infinite. Yet, look at this paragraph taken from the first article that popped up on Google relating to the last Shuttle launch:

"NASA has been bedeviled by these fuel-tank sensors ever since 2005, when shuttle flights resumed following the Columbia disaster. Last year, the space agency eased its sensor rules for launch, and also conducted an investigation into why the sensors failed. NASA thought they had isolated a bad batch of sensors, but Hale said he was disappointed to see the problem crop up again." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22152190/)

If NASA can't get reliable operation from their sensors when money is virtually no object, and they've been at this for about four decades now, what makes you think that you're going to get reliable operation from the el cheapo (by comparison) sensors in your car, especially after you've been driving it for 5 years in the mud and rain and that little fender bender 2 years ago and etc. etc.?

This is only one of many problems with a future hydrogen economy. It's not happening. All this activity is an act of a huge industry (oil--okay the automotive industry also has similar reasons for its participation but I'll skip that argument for now) that is facing its mortality and is desperately trying to find a substitute, any substitute, that will allow it to keep some skin in the game. Pay no attention to what this or that CEO says -- look at what they were saying regarding global warming up until only very recently. It's all business, and their business is going extinct. (You'll notice, by the way, that the President doesn't even mention hydrogen in his State of the Union addresses anymore.)

[Marion Z]

We, the future comsumers of such vehicles might remind ourselves of a couple realities.

* Others with the resourses and means to design and build these cars will make all the decisions, not us.

* Many of them have objectives other than just providing humanity with the lowest cost, least polluting means of personal transportation, as in, do it profitably in the short and long term.

* The mega oil corps. say what ever is in their interest. Don't worry. There is plenty of oil. Never mind it is clear they are unable to provide any more volume than is currently be produced. The fact is they are delighted with oil at $95 a barrel, and use those profits to maximise potential future earnings. Hold down the cost of oil as best we can just below the level that it might cause a world wide economic collapse, as all of their holdings would lose value also.

* Develope a new industry that they can control and make tons of money with for the next millineum, say the manufacture and retailing of hydrogen.

* Never mind that it takes a bunch of energy to separate hydrogen, then transport it, then tranform it back into electricity before we can use it. These technologies will be well beyond the reach of the average comsumer to provide on their own. Once again they will have a captive market.

* A battery driven electric car has something like five moving parts. It is based on technology available today. No oil changes, no tune ups, many times less expensive to own and operate. And a home owner can buy $2000 worth of solar panels, energy storage and charging equipment (about the cost of two years worth of gas today) and never pay the big corps. another dime and not pollute anything. NO ONE MAUFACTURING CARS OR ENERGY WANT ANY PART OF THIS! Not because they are evil, it simply undermines their profitabilty and very existence.

* You can reto-fit a car today with battery/electric drive that will perform equal or better than it did with it's gas engine, can go 30 to 50 miles on a single charge with common lead cell batteries using technology from 1910. New designs of batteries today like the Firefly carbon foam lead design more than double the energy and storage capacity and useful life of the common lead cell battery at a LOWER COST. Combined with an Austrailian battery design the combines a capacitor with a battery you have a battery that can go 150 plus miles between charges and can be recharged in minuets not hours. This would satisfy more than 80% of all the driving we do. When you want to go further, that can be your second car, as it already is at most households, or rent a real nice car. Remember the average annual cost of a new car, inital cost, insurance, fuel, maintaince, garage space, is well over $8000. You can rent one fine car every month and be money ahead.

* Or we can continue to pollute, and continue to give billions of dollars to the oil companies.....I mean hydogen companes...forever.

Marion Z.

[Joseph M]

I watched a number of you-tube tinkerers retrofit their gas guzzlers to hydrogen. Using only water as their fuel supply. Someone mentioned NASA as the possible solution... The Wright Brothers were competing with a Frenchman who had all the financial backing of his time...They were bicycle mechanics. The fellows at Apple Computer used the WYSIWYG interface that had been sitting on the shelf at Xerox... no-one there knew what to do with it but Apple saw the applicability. Everyone is trying to put the batteries in the electric cars and that makes them too heavy... Cover the freeways with solar collectors and imbed the batteries in the ground... let the cars get their power from that storage by use of a brush hanging down the way the old trolley cars used to connect to the cables above. They can use small batteries to get to and from the "powered road".. There won't have to be a Hydrogen "Source"... the source will be in your auto... converted on the spot by electrolysis. Your source of Hydrogen will be a 5 gallon tank of water... stuck in your trunk. H2O two parts hydrogen to 1 part water. Today's SUV will soon go the way of the horse drawn buggy. And it will probably be some guy in Barstow working out of his garage who figures out how to do it. And the Arabs/Exxon who have been selling us exhorbitant buggy whips in the form of $4.00 a gal. Gas will have to find other victims. Thinking outside the box means to think outside what our cars will look like. Two Seats Tandem...instead of side by side.. lets us get twice the number of cars on the same road... and makes the car more aerodynamic. Cars traveling together ...joined like train cars... computer controlled.. knocks down major air resistance and lets increases the efficiency of all the cars combined by a factor of 50 to 60%...maybe more.. with no drag.. wind resistance remember even a bicyclist can go 100 mph.

[Renee McClelland]

As a member of GM's Advanced Propulsion & Environment Communications team, I would like to respond to Billy Boatright's post dated 1/29/08, as I think there's some missing information that may be of some help. A number of analyses (GM, Shell Hydrogen, U.S. DOE and others) have shown that deployment of a hydrogen fueling infrastructure is within reach. A network of just 12,000 hydrogen stations would put hydrogen within two miles of 70 percent of the U.S. population (all those living in the 100 largest metropolitan areas) and connect the major U.S. metro areas (all across the country) with a hydrogen refueling station every 25 miles. And though this in itself demonstrates that a national hydrogen infrastructure is doable/affordable, a practical first step would be to focus initial fueling coverage in concentrated regions. For example, 40 modern, high-capacity stations in a large metropolitan area such as Los Angeles could be built with an initial investment of just $200 million and provide refueling for more than 40,000 fuel cell electric vehicles. The biggest challenge in transitioning to a hydrogen infrastructure will be managing the early investment risk on the part of vehicle manufacturers and energy companies ("chicken or the egg"). That is why geographic concentration and the balancing of hydrogen availability with fuel cell-electric vehicle sales growth will be essential, and the role that government plays will be crucial.

[Aaron picken]

I believe internal combustion enginess will dominate for the next few decades maybe longer its nothing new to create a fuel cell powered car or just a plain battery powered car for that matter but there are still many obstacles to pass and a public to convince promises have been made before e.g. chrysler said in 1997 that by 2005 it would have 100,000 fuel cell vehicles on the road i remain optimistic as to whether a hydrogen economy will ever happen i am a big fan of internal combustion engines and have to say that they are still the most cheapest and practical option to date every alternate fuel listed to date has been around for more than 2 decades and frankly if either of them were going to take of they would of taken of back then this is a hype and i hope that internal combustion will remain dominant the only changes i expect to see are more hybrids and better fuel efficiency

[skeetist]

Forgive me if this has already been covered and I missed it.
We need a fuel that costs us less to create or obtain than to consume.
Ethanol is not it. It's only 2/3 the energy of gasoline and costs more to create, making the cost of corn products higher.
Hydrogen is not it. It costs more to generate than can be charged for it.

Fuel accounts for just 44% of the oil we use.
The rest goes for most products we use today which are byproducts of oil.
The last I heard, it costs the middle east about $2.00 a barrel to remove it from the ground. I don't know what that number might be in the U.S. but probably not that much more, depending on the method.
We have more oil available to the U.S. than the whole middle east.
Why don't we tap into it?
Alternative energy is just around the bend, and solar energy works well in the southern states with lots of sun.