“The ix35 Fuel Cell is equipped with a 100 kW [136 hp] electric
motor, allowing it to reach a maximum speed of 160 km/h
[99.4 mph] . Two hydrogen storage tanks, with a total capacity of
5.64 kg [12.4 lbs. of compressed hydrogen], enable the vehicle to
travel a total of 594 km [369.0 miles] on a single [hydrogen-
storage-tank fill-up], and it can reliably start in temperatures as
low as minus 20 degrees Celsius [minus 4.0º Fahrenheit]. The energy is
stored in a 24 kW lithium-ion polymer battery, jointly developed
with LG Chemical.” http://ow.ly/jX6GX

“First Production Hyundai Motor Co.ix35 Fuel Cell
Vehicle Prepped for Geneva Motor Show”:

“Hyundai’s ix35 Fuel Cell is powered by hydrogen. A fuel cell stack converts
the hydrogen into electricity, which turns the vehicle’s motor. The only
emission generated by the ix35 Fuel Cell is water. Hyundai’s ix35 Fuel Cell
boasts drivability and performance similar to that of the [gasoline powered]
ix35.”

“Currently the ix35 is being produced for fleet operations and many European
cities already placed orders. Copenhagen, Denmark has requested fifteen ix35
Fuel Cell vehicles to further their plan to be carbon-free by 2025 and Skåne,
Sweden has requested two.” http://ow.ly/jX6rh

“The ix35 Fuel Cell is equipped with a 100 kW [136 hp] electric
motor, allowing it to reach a maximum speed of 160 km/h
[99.4 mph] . Two hydrogen storage tanks, with a total capacity of
5.64 kg [12.4 lbs. of compressed hydrogen], enable the vehicle to
travel a total of 594 km [369.0 miles] on a single [hydrogen-
storage-tank fill-up], and it can reliably start in temperatures as
low as minus 20 degrees Celsius [minus 4.0º Fahrenheit]. The energy is
stored in a 24 kW lithium-ion polymer battery, jointly developed
with LG Chemical.” http://ow.ly/jX6GX

“First Production Hyundai Motor Co.ix35 Fuel Cell
Vehicle Prepped for Geneva Motor Show”:

“Hyundai’s ix35 Fuel Cell is powered by hydrogen. A fuel cell stack converts
the hydrogen into electricity, which turns the vehicle’s motor. The only
emission generated by the ix35 Fuel Cell is water. Hyundai’s ix35 Fuel Cell
boasts drivability and performance similar to that of the [gasoline powered]
ix35.”

“Currently the ix35 is being produced for fleet operations and many European
cities already placed orders. Copenhagen, Denmark has requested fifteen ix35
Fuel Cell vehicles to further their plan to be carbon-free by 2025 and Skåne,
Sweden has requested two.” http://ow.ly/jX6rh

I would add that phasing out use of oil as fuel as
quickly as possible is essential to reverse the
accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere which
impacts climate change effects on plant life, crops,
wildlife and human populations.

The idea that a PHEV can fill gaps in the availability
of alternative fuel infrastructure is probably
essential in any transition from use of oil to use of
sustainable fuels.

Essential, too are the use of “full” ZEVs, vehicles
which emit no GHGs at the tailpipe.

Advanced battery technology must surely be added
to the list of green technologies for vehicles and for
developing smart grids. Leveling out fluctuations in
electric power generated by wind turbines is an
important application that electric storage can
fulfill.

I favor the use of hydrogen fuel-cells in vehicles
because the technology can easily lend itself to
energy storage in electric power grids.

I will attempt to address issues of fuel efficiency,
vehicle range, etc. at another time.

Shortest term, what could make an immediate difference, is to make all new vehicles either PHEVs or EVs. Many households with two or more cars could use a limited range EV and use a PHEV for longer trips.

I can’t think of anyone who couldn’t do their driving with a PHEV. If you simply have no access to electricity then they drive just like a gasmobile. With regenerative braking.

That would cut our oil use by around 80%. Since about 50% of all American driving is done with cars five years old or newer we could see a 40% or better cut in fuel usage in about five years. Since the average lifespan of US cars is about 12 years we would see a very significant drop in oil use in a decade to decade and a half.

If what we need to do is to largely eliminate our CO2 output by 2030 we would be well on our way by 2025 with personal vehicles.

I read as much as I can find on battery technology development. It seems to me that there are numerous developments making their way through the labs and toward production. I’m guessing that we are short years (well less than five) away from EVs that will drive around 200 miles per charge and accept a 90% recharge in less than 20 minutes. That would make EVs fully usable for all day, long distance driving.

No guarantee. But a strong assumption.

Once EVs start to see in volume their prices should fall to or below that of gasmobiles. EVs don’t have the hundreds of unique parts which must be designed, manufactured and assembled. They just have a bunch of identical battery cells and a rather simple electric motor.

Hydrogen is a potential winner, but I doubt it will get to market early enough to avoid long range, affordable EVs from dominating the market.

Once EVs are what most people purchase a new technology would have to be, in some way, cheaper or more convenient to cause market shift. I don’t think FCEVs can be fueled as cheaply or as conveniently as EVs. The only thing that might make FCEVs the winner is if long range batteries do not appear.

Them is my guesses….

The exchange is focused primarily on (pluggable) electric and hybrid
vehicles, comparing fuel efficiency – e.g. electric and gasoline – at
present and in foreseeable future developmental scenarios.

There are a number of economic projections I have difficulty following.
I know little about automotive engineering and associated economics.

I believe though there are factors which need to be added.
Technological development should or must take place in a cohesive
political framework.

It is meaningful to combine PHEV engineering with energy policy.

It is meaningful to combine PHEV engineering and energy policy with
environmental protection policy and so forth.

(It is meaningful to combine PHEV engineering, energy policy
and environmental protection policy with attempts to come to grips
with climate change and to integrate all of this with the impact
of climate change on global societies as well as worldwide flora
and fauna.)

We can consider various kinds of product life cycles: energy life
cycles and vehicle-type life cycles seem to be obvious choices as
starters.

In order to power a PHEV there must be access to some kind of
electric power source.

In conventional terms electricity storage applying some kind of
highly efficient, high energy-capacity automotive battery might
be one choice. In the case of hybrid vehicles burning gasoline,
diesel, methanol, etc., a conversion of chemical energy into
electrical energy takes place. For non-hybrid EVs some kind of
external charging station or electric-power socket is the usual
choice.

In conventional terms non-hybrid EVs depend on natural-gas-, oil-,
or coal-fired power plants.

In conventional terms I would think internal combustion engines
or fossil-fuel-fired power plants define the beginning life phase
& intermediate life phases of energy conversion, that is a
sequence of characteristic energy losses and energy consumptions
yielding the final product electricity for utilization in PHEVs or
EVs. The vehicle’s electric-powered motor defines the automotive
energy conversion from electrical energy to mechanical energy.
Hybrid vehicles convert breaking energy back into electrical energy
for recharging a battery.

In a broad sense, I believe Fossil-Fuel-to-Wheel defines the
general conventional energy life cycle for vehicles.

Enter center stage fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEV), in
particular hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles (H2EV).

Maybe someone would like to pick up discourse at this point.

I welcome additions, meaningful changes and constructive
criticism.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fTlSRJpKjdk/TRtUnbZn08I/AAAAAAAAFkc/-o_ni2pNqU0/s1600/14.JPG

That’s what it reminded me of, and on googling it, that image showed up multiple times. I was a little to quick to accept it. =-P

And if they changed the standard to truly effect a vehicle’s rating, the all electric range would drastically increases a vehicles MPG-e rating. Say the average person drives 45 miles per day, so for a PHEV with 20 miles of range, you get MPG-rating = 0.44*MPG-electric + 0.56*MPG-gas. Where a PHEV with 45 miles range gets an overall rating of MPG-rating = MPG-electric.

Since MPG-electric >> MPG-gas, this would accomplish your same goal without hampering future technologies.

There’s a chance that we might figure out fusion in the next couple of decades and then all this renewable energy stuff is going to look quaint….

But I have to say that I’ve been in some traffic jams that must have looked like that one….

PHEVs with 40 miles of electric range would cut our oil use by 80%. That’s technology we have in hand. If we wanted to do something drastic right now we have something that would work.

But on that, I think we should have a fuel efficiency standard of 30 mpg-e this year with a 5 mpg-e increase for the next 15 years… Then let the technology games begin!

We may find ways to make hydrogen more efficiently – and there’s little reason it couldn’t be made at home, making the distribution infrastructure costs miniscule.

At the same time, a significant break through in energy density, recharge rates or cost could wipe out any need for fuel cells.

Should be interesting, but worth pursuing both IMO!

Hydrogen simply cannot compete with electricity on a cost basis. It starts with an approximate 40% cost handicap due to the energy lost in converting water to hydrogen. Then you’ve got to add in the infrastructure costs for manufacturing and distributing the hydrogen.

A FCEV is likely to cost twice as much per mile to operate as an EV.