Edmunds CarPool

I hope people don't look at this car's limited range and complicated fueling procedure and jump on the "This will never work!" bandwagon because that attitude never got the human race anywhere. I think that this is a promising step forward, and I don't think it will be long before they'll get it properly sorted.

Agree that it's a great step. The fueling procedure and range might be limited now, but both should improve with engineering improvements.

Now Karl... if we're going to be sustainable, ahem, let's talk about you living 50 miles from work. ;)

"Hopefully this vehicle sparks some good conversations on these blogs too."

Don't want too large a spark around hydrogen. It might ignite something more than conversation!

My wife has signed up to participate in this (I am not a citizen). If we don't get selected, we'll experience the vehicle through Edmunds.

Interesting point you made about the different levels of fill -- I didn't know that. 90 miles would equate to every third day, but the one station in DC is relatively convenient for the home-school-work run.

Hydrogen is by far the most common element in the Universe. It represents about 91% of the Universe by number of atoms, and about 71% by mass.

Jay Leno reviews the Fuel Cell Equinox in yesterday's Sunday Times:

(Apologies for the html link)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/new_car_reviews/article4588256.ece

It may be the most common element in the universe but it doesn't exist here on earth by itself.

Last numbers I saw it took more energy to "produce" hydrogen then you got from the hydrogen.

10 years ago I was closely following the progress of Ballard Power Systems ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballard_Power_Systems).

They were the world leader in fuel cell research and I was sure there would be fuel cars on the road soon. After countless millions of government and investors money spent on trying to make them practical, the company has sold off it's automotive section and moved on to other applications for fuel cells.

It's an interesting idea that's been around since the moon landings but by the time someone finds a way to make it affordable and practical, batteries will have made it redundant.

The Greenies are fighting themselves on this one. Hydrogen only makes sense if we aren't using the typical energy sources to get the hydrogen ready to go (we don't want to burn coal). The only reasonable alternative is nuclear power, but the Greenies fear the nukes. So while nukes seem like the best solution, it isn't a politically popular solution, so it probably won't happen leaving us with no clean and practical way to get the hydrogen in fuel cell form.

Last I heard hydrogen was processed from natural gas. So yes, you only have water vapor from your tailpipe. But CO2 emmissions are given off when the hydrogen is captured.

Nuclear is not green unless you've come up with a way to get rid of radioactive waste.

"Nuclear is not green unless you've come up with a way to get rid of radioactive waste."

Its possible to argue that every source of power is "not green".

Another piece of free advertising for GM. Color me shocked.

"Its possible to argue that every source of power is "not green"."

Exactly, Doug. No power sources are "green"; so we need to get over that and instead ask "ok, which is the least harmful?"

Regardless of the source, I like the idea of moving the point-of-pollution from the car to the grid, where economies of scale should make pollution control easier.

Producing water vapor as exhaust is a really bad idea. Imagine a couple hundred cars sitting at a major intersection in 0 degree weather, all spewing water out of their tailpipes? All that water freezing as soon as it hits the ground...

If you're interested, GMnext just released a video that answers common consumer questions about hydrogen fuel cells. You can check it out here: http://www.gmnext.com/Details/Videos.aspx?id=eadf76a6-36e5-49e9-aa91-695d2878ce00

That's a really good point vvk. Does anyone know if this is a verifiable concern?

The water vapor is just that -- vapor. It's not like a faucet is open on the back of your car. I suppose it's possible that a bunch of fuel cell cars parked very tightly together for a long-time in really cold weather could maybe lay down a thin patch of ice.

But for the most part, I don't see this as a valid concern.

Karl,

Even minute amount of water vapor produced by gasoline engines causes icing at intersections. How much more water does a fuel cell powerplant produce? I have no idea, do you?

In substantially cold weather the "vapor" will condense immediately, probably before leaving the tailpipe. This is actually better than having vapor escape and ice forming on all surrounding surfaces, including above ground. -30 degrees, common in mid-west winters and in some parts of New England, would probably mean condensed water leaking onto the pavement. Multiply this by several dosen cars (or several hundred?) and you have a disaster.

I just can't imagine how gallons of water pouring on frozen pavement can be ignored.

Karl, how does hydrogen refueling compare to compressed natural gas refueling for the Honda Civic GX in the long-term test fleet?

Unless someone comes up with a viable source of hydrogen, I don't understand how fuel cell vehicles have any advantages over PHEVs/EVs. Sure, build a nuclear plant to generate electricity. Now you have a choice - either send that electricity to homes over the existing infrastructure to recharge EVs and PHEVs, or: send it to a newly-built hydrogen generating plant, build a complete new infrastructure for hydrogen distribution, fill up your (currently) super-expensive fuel cell vehicle, all to generate electricity to run the same electric motors the EVs and PHEVs use. Doesn't sound like a good use of our money...

dougatgmnext

That video is the lamest waste of 4 minutes I have ever seen. They found a half dozen of the dumbest people on the planet, asked them simple questions they couldn't answer and then had the "expert" give meaningless fluff answers.

Promotional marketing at it's worst.

"In substantially cold weather the "vapor" will condense immediately, probably before leaving the tailpipe."

In cold temperatures it would skip condensation (gas >> liquid), and instead desublimate (gas >> solid). Basically, if it's cold enough for frost to desublimate from the humidity in air, the same thing would happen with the exhaust.

That would depend on the temperature of the exhaust. Frost forms as a solid because it is cold already. If the exhaust is hot (and judging by the cooling problems fuel cells have, it will be), the water will come out as a liquid and freeze when it hits the road.

If they ever do become common, it would be a problem at intersections in northern climates.

A lot of cars dripping water onto the road at -30 degrees can't be good.

It's interesting to note that water vapor is a drastically stronger retainer of thermal solar energy in the atmosphere, and yet we're totally ok with dumping more water than we are with more CO2.

I guess it's because it's more difficult to regulate water.

texases, it's because batteries are heavy and expensive, not to mention caustic and noxious. The hydrogen is just a more efficient transporter of energy. Plus, even if it takes 30 minutes to fill the hydrogen tank (as opposed to ~3 for a standard gas pump), it's still way less than an overnight charge for batteries.

heffling: interesting. The capacity of the Equinox is 4.2 kg of H2, and the range is 150 miles. 4.2kg of hydrogen will result in 9 times as much water by weight after the fuel cell adds the oxygen from air, so the Equinox adds ~160g/km of water vapor to the air.
For comparison, a Prius emits 100g/km of CO2, the average car about twice that. So it would seem that there is a greater greenhouse effect with the Equinox than even a Prius, unless I'm missing something with the water cycle.

Or is the point of this that it doesn't involve fossil fuels, rather than being "better for the environment"?

drwales, the Equinox, and other fuel cell vehicles, have battery packs, they're hybrids, like a Prius, just with a fuel cell in place of the ICE. So that difference disappears. "Efficient" must include economics, not just KCAL/CM3.

drwales

Neither one is an efficent transporter of energy at this time. It takes too much energy to produce the hydrogen and it also takes a great deal of energy to compress it to 5000psi.

Right now both are way behind plain old gasoline.

The real question is which will overcome the hurdles first.

I would say batteries will beat fuel cells because of the simplicity.

Both designs are basically electric cars. The fuel cell car however needs to carry a lot more baggage in order to generate it's power. It also needs batteries because fuel cell do not generate power fast enough to keep up with all drivers demands.

There are just too many layers of losses for it be a a good solution.

When you create (wrong word, I know) the hydrogen, there are energy losses.

When you pressurize the hydrogen, there are
energy losses.

When you generate the eletricity, there are energy losses.

You also lose energy when you charge the batteries (just like the battery car).

The batteries on the pure electric car will wear out quicker but the hydrogen car will need to replace the very expensive hydrogen cylinders every few years (safety laws) which should be about even in cost.

It's hard to predict the future but I'll bet electric cars wil be a common sight in a few years while fuels cells will remain the engineering prototypes they are now.

drwales, the Equinox, and other fuel cell vehicles, have battery packs, they're hybrids, like a Prius, just with a fuel cell in place of the ICE. So that difference disappears. "Efficient" must include economics, not just KCAL/CM3.

I disagree with "'Efficient' must include economics," but yes, these vehicles must be economically viable, or else GM (and Honda) won't build them.

I didn't appreciate that the Equinox has a battery pack, but still, a wholly electric vehicle must require a larger, heavier, battery pack.

And yes, nothing comes close to the efficiency/ transportability of plain old gasoline. Well, except maybe diesel!

I do agree with the theory that water vapor seems far more "green-house-like" than CO2. If I picture a world where I wake up tomorrow and all the vehicles on the road are emitting water vapor instead of CO2, does that intuitively seem less likely to impact our planet's global temperature? No.

Of course I don't think man-made CO2 emissions can impact the Earth's temperature, either, so I'm probably the wrong person to analyze this...