Lutz: Fuel Cells a Bad Bet

[Bruce Nunnally]

Well, we’re hearing it again: the hydrogen fuel cell represents the future of automotive transportation. Japanese and German automakers have formed new alliances to develop fuel cell technology, and the father of the Prius, Toyota’s Takeshi Uchiyamada, is saying that it holds more promise than battery electric vehicles, which he says haven’t worked out to be “a viable replacement” for gas-powered cars.

Read More: http://www.forbes.co...-on-fuel-cells/

[Texas Jim]

Maybe they can make 'em work this time... But I have my doubts...

[Bruce Nunnally]

A lot of his arguments strike me as things that might have been said about gasoline another day. Gasoline was actually a 'throw-away' product from refining oil to get the real high-value product for the refiner, kerosene. When early automobile engines were discovered to run better on the lighter gasoline that otherwise would have been burned off, it was a win-win solution.

Some of the "by the time you get 1 gallon of X you have used up 2 gallons of Y to make it" arguments seem beside the point. If I can plug the car in for 4 hours or 8 hours and recharge for a day's usage for less cost per mile than gas, I think that's better.

Although it does not occur alone much, hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, so it will be harder to run out of. Put in water, apply electrical current, and export hydrogen -- we just need to figure out what to do with all the extra oxygen. Maybe if houses release a lot of oxygen it will counter-act air pollution?

[Cadillac Jim]

The ultimate key to any fuel is energy. The range of the vehicle are determined by the total amount of energy carried, the efficiency in which that energy is converted to mechanical power to move the vehicle, and the energy per mile needed to move the vehicle. This is true of cars, trucks, trains, airplanes, and spacecraft.

Given that, the economics are driven primarily by the cost of the energy in the fuel and the cost of the system that converts it to mechanical power to move the vehicle. Other practicality issues arise from the amount of fuel that is carried, the weight of the engine, and practical issues as raised in the article such as distribution of the fuel and containment/safety in the vehicle.

I think that any ultra-high-efficiency vehicle in the foreseeable (by me) future will have electric motors, regenerative braking, and rechargeable batteries. The size, weight, and cost of each is determined by the requirement to which the vehicle is designed (grocery getter, one or two person commuter, soccer minivan, tow truck, long hauler, train locomotive, etc.). Additional on-board generators and/or motive power can be driven by turbines, piston engines, diesels, photocells, fuel cells, or even bicycle-type pedals, as determined by the requirements to which the vehicle is designed.

None of this is at all new to the behind-the-curtain career vehicle designer. The motor-generator with batteries and traction motor concept of the Chevy Volt was new for the mass automotive market, but for trains it began right after WW I and replaced the direct-motor locomotives (mostly steam) engines in the 1950's all over the world. Weight and cost were not at all the same consideration, so massive 3,000 hp diesels running at 1200 RPM driving a generator which powers a DC traction motor replaced, 9,000 hp steam locomotives, for reasons of fuel cost, traction power at very low speeds from a single engine, maintenance, and... smoke reduction. They're quieter, too. Although they slow down on long upgrades whereas the steam engines did not if you were willing to pour on the coal, their torque increases as they slow so that the diesel-electric can pull really long, steep grades that the steam locomotive cannot without more engines added to the train.

I believe that problems such as emissions at the power generator plants and at the vehicle are demonstrably solvable and thus are essentially economic issues (how much time and cost to develop and use) so we are left with the economic and power issues.

Gasoline has been so durable as a fuel because it is inexpensive, carries something like 125,000 BTU/lb (a figure I read in a Car & Driver column many years ago), and reasonably efficient engines quickly became reliable and powerful, notably because of innovations such as the V8 introduced by Cadillac for the 1914 model year (modern two-plane crankshaft introduced for the 1924 model year). My money for the distant future is on a microturbine driving a generator because of size, weight, efficiency at constant RPM and load, tolerance of a lot of variety in the fuel, and low cost at high production volume. For the near term, it's a turbo diesel.

[BodybyFisher]

Off topic but this is interesting:

Bob Lutz is coming out with an interestingly titled book, Car Guyz vs the Bean Counters...... we have often said here that the bean counters were the problem.

Yesterday, I was in Costco and overheard a conversation between two guys. One guy said, he had designed a product and sold 400,000 of them and sales had tailed off.... the marketing and bean counters got involved and they started making the product with a 2 year life of planned obsolescence....so that they could 'resell' some of those 400,000 people every couple of years.... he did not like that, but was forced to go along with it.....

Bean Counters

See Lutz's site:

http://www.boblutzsez.com/

[Cadillac Jim]

This is a perennial problem. I was in an orientation class taught by Clarence Zener (yes, that Zener) and he told a story about the way that his company competed with another, perennially at a disadvantage in market share. One company optimized their product using linear programming models to be the best value for the customer with a reasonable profit for the company, the other optimized the product for company profit. Over an astonishingly short time the public could tell the difference on a subliminal level as evidenced by market share. Zener sold the idea to the Board to try parametrization just one product line to maximize customer value, and, viola, instant market share equalization.

The bean counters don't have the whole picture. They don't know that and can't be told, just like most of the rest of us.