AutoblogGreen

1. Is this infrastructure coming out of his pocket or the tax payers. It'd better be Exxon's bill.

I've already got the infrastructure for an electric vehicle: the PLUG.

Posted at 4:15PM on Apr 7th 2008 by mike

2. Secondly, I thought the problem of leaking hydrogen, from the fuel tank, has not been solved.

Posted at 4:16PM on Apr 7th 2008 by mike

3. Third,
Range, if Toyota's next version of the Prius will really allow up to 45 mph in Electric Only Range, then the secondary source of power becomes virtually unimportant, as most people will be able to drive in pure Electric mode Most of the Time. Meaning, the need for Hydrogen diminishes to nill.

Posted at 4:26PM on Apr 7th 2008 by mike

4. 5-8 years?? We've been told for ages its just a few years out. I don't see the point. By this point Renault and Project Better Place will have rolled out electric cars and the supporting infrastructure on a mass scale.

Posted at 4:41PM on Apr 7th 2008 by Simon

5. And we just found the problem the real problem with Chrysler; it wasn't them after all...

Posted at 4:43PM on Apr 7th 2008 by Dave

6. @5: Did you heard the one about when the press asked Dieter if the correct way to pronounce Daimler-Chrysler was "DAME-ler Chrysler" or "DIME-ler Chrysler"? He said "The PROPER way to pronounce it is with "Chrysler" silent.

Posted at 4:51PM on Apr 7th 2008 by steven

7. They think they can hype hydrogen enough that the greens that they despise will buy their hydrogen cars and make them look like they're an eco-friendly company. They *seriously* underestimate the tech savvy of early adopters of cleantech. The sort of people here willing to pony up the extra cash for a brand new drivetrain are the type who've researched the topic extensively. And, I might add, who know how horribly inefficient hydrogen is, and how much damage using it does to the environment.

Posted at 4:54PM on Apr 7th 2008 by KarenRei

8. we need to DECENTRALIZE fuel! Hydrogen just keeps the control/power with the fuel companies.

Anyone can generate their own electricity.

Posted at 5:01PM on Apr 7th 2008 by Tush

9. Do not, under any circumstances, listen to anything this guy says.

Posted at 5:07PM on Apr 7th 2008 by psarhjinian

10. There is a LOT of action right now with electrics, Tesla, Fisker, Chevy Volt, Lightning GT, iMiEV, R4E, Aptera, to name just a few.

So, if you're a company putting many millions of dollars, some your own, some state provided, into hydrogen, you might feel a bit apprehensive, maybe even a touch of panic. So what do you do? Of course, press releases, lots and lots of them! That will do until you actually have product to sell, right?

Posted at 5:09PM on Apr 7th 2008 by BlackbirdHighway

11. Fourth,
Battery tech, as the article above this proves, will be much better in 3 years.

Fifth, I'm Sick of supporting the Auto-Oil-Industry-War-Mongers.
Sixth, the 9/11 Terrorists were funded by the Highest levels of the Saudi government. Why aren't we sending the Arab states a Message?

2% electric cars per year till we only run Electric!

Posted at 5:22PM on Apr 7th 2008 by mike

12. It'll take more then 8 years to put the hydrogen infrastructure into place...but guess how long it'll take to put the electrical infrastructure into place??....IT IS ALREADY HERE..

Posted at 5:27PM on Apr 7th 2008 by Mark

13. "In Past News, Edison Light Works chair Dr. Thomas "Wizard of Menlo Park" Edison believes that the technology for long-distance DC power transmission is here today and that cities using the DC-for-transmission system will be equipped in five to eight years time. Edison also believes that long range DC power transmission will compare favorably with its competition, which we assume means other alternative means of power transmission like Tesla's "alternating current" (AC). One reason he cites as a DC over AC is cost effectiveness, suggesting that DC could power devices 300 miles away with cost-effective technology today. One unanswered question, though, is how cheaply AC will be able to transmit in five to eight years time. Still, by using DC, the customer gets to run their DC devices directly, while with AC they would have to convert it first. Edison recognizes that a potential problem area exists regarding the efficiency and voltage conversion problems that a DC transmission system would require. We remain intrigued by the technology, but recognize that major advancements must be made before jumping on the DC bandwagon. We also believe that AC transmission technologies will allow for many of the same benefits as DC."

Posted at 5:52PM on Apr 7th 2008 by KarenRei

14. Oh, and to debunk "Dr. Z". Let's compare his fuel cell vehicle with a range-extended-by-extra-batteries variant of an Aptera (since I'm most familiar with the Aptera). Let's say the extra weight lowers the energy efficiency from the normal 80Wh/mi to 90Wh/mi. Let's see how the comparison goes.

300 miles at 90Wh/mi = 27kWh

1) You can buy 27kWh worth of lithium ion batteries for cheaper than you can buy enough fuel cells to run your hydrogen car at any acceptable performance level. 27kWh of lithium phosphates today will run you around $27k, but will be half that in a year or two. For $27k, you'd be lucky to be able to afford just the platinum in your fuel cells.

2) At 200Wh/l or so for lithium phosphate batteries (even better for laptop batteries), at 90Wh/mi, you could fit them in under 5 cubic feet of space (an extra 3 cubic feet of space; cut the quite roomy 16 cubic foot trunk down to 13, and there's your space).

3) At 110Wh/kg or so for lithium phosphate (again, less for laptop batteries), they'd weigh about 500 lbs. That's a little over 300 pounds heavier than the normal Aptera batteries, so you boost the vehicle weight from ~1500lbs to ~1800lbs. Let's say 1850 to support the extra weight. And the problem is?

4) With modern li-ion batteries, an EV, too, is just "fuel and go", so long as you have fast charge infrastructure. 10 minute charges have no technological barrier; AC propulsion already makes a 18lb 150 kW onboard charger, which in ten minutes could fill a 27kWh battery pack. Fast charging infrastructure, I might add, is a *lot* easier and cheaper to build than hydrogen infrastructure. But even better, *you don't need it* with EVs except for on long trips. You're already bootstrapped with just a normal 120V/15A. Heck, you can already go long distances without particularly long charging waits thanks to 50A RV outlets.

Of course, I don't think I need to reiterate the laundry list of problems with hydrogen, including the essentially physically insurmountable one of overall systems energy efficiency. Or, more appropriately, lack of any semblance of energy efficiency. Or, to be more explicit, "it's worse than even gasoline". And is fundamentally pricier, and ozone-destroying, and a pain to handle, and explosive in almost any fuel-air mixture, and releases water vapor that can freeze to components, and on and on and on.

Posted at 6:15PM on Apr 7th 2008 by KarenRei

15. Again, here is a CEO that is clueless about all the problems of H2, his researchers keep telling him "It'll be ready soon, just one more little problem to solve..."

Compared to plug-ins, H2 is more expensive to buy, less efficient, and runs on a far more expensive fuel. Those disadvantages will still be a problem 6 years from now. The advantages Dr. Z mentions - 300 mile range and quick refills - are no problem for plug-in hybrids, and battery EVs are gaining on both speed of recharge and range as batteries are improved. By 2014, we could see over 300 mile battery ranges, under 10 minute chargers and/or quick swap battery packs.

BTW, Mike, the plug-in Prius conversions have a 45 mph electric only speed limit, but the Toyota plug-in Prius prototypes raised that to 60 mph, and the production version could reach even higher.

Posted at 6:21PM on Apr 7th 2008 by Chris M

16. Oh, and one final comment: let's just pretend the Aptera was powered by fuel cells. Let's say that you rely entirely on ultracapacitors for peak power, so you only need to be able to supply constant draw. Of course, you need to be able to handle constant draw at high speeds or for significant acceleration, so you really need ~12kW of fuel cell power or so. So, what does this look like? Let's say you can get 50W/kg and 100W/L.

1) 12000/50 = 240kg = 530 pounds. Heavier than the batteries, and *Not* counting the weight of the hydrogen tank or the ultracapacitor.

2) 12000 / 100 = 120L = 4.2 cubic feet, just a little less than the batteries. But *Not* counting the (significant) volume of the hydrogen tank or the ultracapacitor.

3) Let's say the sky parts, the angels sing, and you can somehow get $2/W fuel cells (good luck at that). 12kW * 2 = $24k. Not counting the hydrogen tank or ultracapacitor.

Fuel cells simply lose.

Posted at 6:33PM on Apr 7th 2008 by KarenRei

17. One H2 enthusiast mentioned that he was driving one of the fuel cell prototypes, and paying just $10 per Kg for compressed H2 fuel. Considering the typical efficiency of fuel cells, that works out to a fuel cost of about 15 cents per mile, Compare that with about 6 cents per mile fuel cost for a good hybrid, and about 2 cents per mile for driving electric.

KarenRei: your analysis is spot-on. I salute you!

Posted at 7:26PM on Apr 7th 2008 by Chris M

18. Dieter Z. failed miserably at a once very profitable auto company and loss billions of dollars.

Probably a record profit to loss scenery in the shortest amount of time.

How does this clueless sleezeball still have a job?

Posted at 7:52PM on Apr 7th 2008 by D-GOD