There is no truth so inconvenient that it can’t be fixed with clever marketing. With an eco-parade of automakers making promises both daring and dubious in their race to join the green gravy train, some skepticism is in order. But now I’ve been to the fuel cell mountaintop and have prayed to the hydrogen altar in an Equinox FCEV. Say Hallelujah! I’m ready to fall to my knees as a true believer in the New Gas. Well, almost.
Following in Bob Dylan’s footsteps, this Chevy has gone electric. A 98-horsepower electric motor sits at its midsection, mated to a 93-kilowatt fuel cell stack that converts hydrogen into electricity. Energy created from regenerative braking is stored in a NiMH battery that assists the fuel cell. Tanks located aft store 4.2 kilos of hydrogen. You can drop that garden hose and extension cord– the Equinox cannot extract hydrogen from water, nor can it run on battery power alone. Unlike the aging folk-rocker, the Equinox emits only heat and water vapor.
Like its Suzuki XL7 platform mate, this conservatively styled crossover won’t set the world ablaze, but the profile is clean and functional. Differences that distinguish the FCEV from its dino-powered sibling are modest. A modified front grille aids cooling of the fuel cells and regenerative system. The quad “exhaust” setup, including four distillers in the tail that emit water vapor, is aggressively styled to earn pistonhead approval, and wins my vote. And let’s not forget– not that we could– the advertorial paint job, adorned with water molecules and “FUEL CELL” logos visible from the next county.
The interior is equally familiar, taken straight from the standard Equinox playbook. The traditional rev counter is replaced by a power gauge that displays kilowatt output from the motor and brakes. This New Age tach makes for great car-geek entertainment, especially when it dips into the green zone as the regenerative system kicks in. A NAV graphic depicts a real-time rendering of the high-tech wizardry at work, including a reminder of how much Old Gas you haven’t burned. However, the monitor’s excessively low position on the center console leaves that amusement strictly to the passengers.
[This evaluation was limited to a short, controlled course, with no high-speed runs possible. Results of this first drive suggest that this FCEV will operate much like an ordinary CUV, albeit one that tips the scales at 4,300+ pounds.]
Startup is a non-event. A bit of pump and fan whirr substitute for engine idle; a dash light provides a useful reminder that the system is operating. Mash the “gas” pedal and power spools-up smoothly. There’s a slight lag in take-up, likely due to the need to pull the fuel cell setup’s several hundred pound weight penalty.
The General claims a top speed of 100 mph and zero to 60 times of about 12 seconds. The surge in the seat satisfies more than those figures suggest, thanks to the 236 ft.-lbs. of torque available throughout the rev range. Interior noise at speed is minimal. Although brake pedal feel suffers slightly from the regenerative braking, stopping power appears unaffected.
GM’s “Project Driveway” will distribute 110 FCEV’s for public testing, gratis. Most approved individuals will receive a three-month test, while fleets get a trial of up to three years. With hydrogen refueling stations as common as the Holy Grail, volunteers must reside in the LA, New York or Washington metro areas, and can’t stray too far from home.
A vehicle that can cart the kids to soccer practice and hit triple-digit speeds while leaving only a harmless vapor trail in its wake is tempting to greenies and gearheads alike. Nonetheless, there are challenges that stymie real-world functionality.
The FCEV’s most obvious liability is range. When refueled at 10,000 psi, the Chevy can travel about 150 miles. Yet many hydrogen pumps dispense gas at half that pressure, so range will frequently be reduced by roughly that amount. The fuel cell system’s substantial bulk– particularly when shoehorned into vehicles not specifically designed around it– shortens an already too-tight leash.
But wait, there’s more. Chemical reactions in the fuel cells create corrosion that contribute to their early demise. After 50k miles, they’re kaput. The New Gas is inefficient to transport and difficult to store, so net energy savings are debatable. Most US hydrogen production is either sourced from natural gas or generated with electricity produced from coal, oil or gas. So most, if not all, roads lead back to hydrocarbons.
Still, a guy can dream, and I’m dreaming. A bit of seat time in the Equinox makes me cross my fingers and toes, hoping this leads to something beyond vaporware. Despite obvious hurdles, to dismiss hydrogen fuel cell-powered cars now would be an exercise in premature pontification. Now, feel free to pass the Kool-Aid; mine’s in the cupholder near the handbrake.
[General Motors provided the test vehicle, insurance, taxes and hydrogen.]
Thank you for a very interesting article, two points in particular caught my attention:
10,000 psi sounds like a lot and
50k doesn’t sound like a lot!
On a more positive note, I was pleased to find you thought the regenerative braking worked OK.
I think there’s a good chance we’ll see partial hybrids (small electric motor and light small batteries to harness braking energy) relatively quickly.
Seems like a no-brainer to return 5-10% better fuel efficiency…
So lemme understand this.
It only goes for about 75 miles on a fill up of largely non-available fuel.
It will only last for about 50k miles.
It uses up petro chemicals much as a gas engine does, albeit in a different form.
Dear god – it’s come to this. Just because people will not buy a smaller vehicle, or car pool, or take public trans.
Geeze. It boggles the mind.
GM claims that there’s a net saving in hydrocarbons used if you–I mean they–carefully compute the “well to wheels” total used to create and transport hydrogen rather than simply burning the gas in an ic engine, but it seemed pretty small to me.
I drove this car a month ago and had the same impression of its acceleration: there’s enough torque available throughout the range that you’re stunned to find that the actual 0-60 time is 12 seconds; it feels much quicker.
Interesting review. But it looks as if Honda is a generation ahead.
The ability to refuel in your home with a natural gas converter seems like the way to go. This way, you only need to worry about hydrogen infrastructure on long trips.
So GM had to put this into an SUV. I guess GM is too dumb to develop a small car that would have more range. It looks like it’s upt to Toyota and Honda to make this work.
Sad.
GM’s claim is that they intentionally put it into an
SUV because they wanted to make it plain that this technology can work in an Everyman’s car, not just some wierd little Prius-like thing. And as far as they’re concerned, apparently, a midsize SUV remains our car of choice.
I have been scratching my head and left a bald spot.Because I have been thinking why did GM crushed almost hundreds of EV-1 in California in the 90’s (New England Gas price was about $1.50 a gallon and not sure about Cali).
The EV-1 was faster than this Equinox and can be recharge after 100 miles. The EV-1 was a brilliant invention that was totally crushed into extinction and forgotten by the people of California,General Motors and the rest of the western world but not with Honda and Toyota.
Probably Chevy can still used those EV-1 charging station that are all over Los Angeles
(I saw one 3 months ago).
This technology was invented 20 years ago it should have been better in 2000 and 8¡¿
That’s weird, my 2003 Jetta can travel about 600-650 miles on a tank of Biodiesel, and it’s available now. Not that biodiesel will be the final solution to dinosaur oil, but since it can potentially be made from algae and there’s already refueling infrastructure in place, I think it has a much better chance than the hydrogen or even the ethanol crap.
One thing to consider about any CO2 created by hydrogen production is that you have the ability to better manage and capture the CO2. If you burn coal to produce hydrogen you’re doing so at one or more large facilities. You can scrub the emissions and also perhaps pump the CO2 underground. Also, you can process coal directly to produce hydrogen.
But that aside, to properly close the loop we need to beef up non-hydrocarbon methods of electricity production. IMO, the coal plants need to be phased out and replaced by wind, solar, and nuclear. Coal has two problems. First, the emissions issue which can be managed properly. Second, the ecological devestation caused by extracting it is probably too high a price to pay for it I think. Especially the mountain top removal method.
They are way behind Honda, which claims a ~200 mile range with a 5000 psi tank on the FCX IIRC.
But it actually is pretty irrelevant. What it comes down to is that Hydrogen is a energy transport medium, not an energy source. It can either be through partial combustion of fuel (strip the H off of hydrocarbon) or electrolysis of water. But in either case, it has effectively the same dynamics as an electric car, except that it can charge faster.
The way to think of it is a Hydrogen car just separates the energy from the battery, and can be filled up with energy faster (the time it takes to fill the tank).
All all this talk is likely to be mooted very soon. Toshiba has announced industrial targeting LiIon batteries with a 5 minute to 90% capacity charge time and a 3000 cycle lifetime.
With a 5 minute charge time, you can just plug into a BIG plug and charge the car quickly.
The folks in Finland seem to have solved the Hydrogen transportation issues with a device that is the size of a Coke vending machine that makes the Hydrogen fuel directly at the pump. Of course, the Hydrogen is still only an energy vector and the electricity required still needs to be generated. I guess if we can convince the green movement that nuclear energy is the best source of carbon free technology, Hydrogen powered cars may actually be viable.
So which do you prefer, an oil powered car that releases one main green-house gas or a coal fired car that releases two (CO2 and H2O)?
I think it’s great that GM is doing a fleet test on the fuel cell vehicle. Keep in mind it is a test bed to learn from close to real world conditions. Hydrogen may or may not be the future fuel. Again it is an issue of fuel infrastructure as much as anything. We need a way to make and distribute copious amounts of Hydrogen while making everyone happy. It is all about power density which is why today we use the fuels we do.
As far as a home hydrogen fuel station. Any of us can buy one now from a company called PLUG. It just costs a lot and uses hydrocarbons.
I would quote Theodore Roosevelt but I don’t have the space.
I guess if we can convince the green movement that nuclear energy is the best source of carbon free technology, Hydrogen powered cars may actually be viable.
It seems that the environmentalists are starting to come around to that. Especially considering the meltdown-proof design of the pebble bed reator.
There is no such thing as man made global warming.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908
Greenhouse gasses are not pollutants but rather essential elements for life on earth.
Also, hydrogen and electricity are not fuel sources they only serve to store engery. They offer nothing in the way of replacing oil, coal, nuclear, etc. And how sustainable is technology that requires rare precious metals which are quickly consumed?
Of all the alternative fuel ideas Ethanol is the worst but Hydrogen is a close second. If anything, we should just go straight to electric rather than converting electricity to hydrogen to electricity.
The difference between this vehicle and the clarity is that this a real vehicle that’s been crash tested and is available to be driven on public roads by normal folks. GM has already stated that the fuel cells in this vehicle are a full two generations behind what they have since developed. If anything GM is atleast a step ahead of Honda.
korvetkeith: I somehow doubt this has been crash tested in it’s current form. You wouldn’t have to do that for a reseach test bed that is not for sale or lease. If GM has these magic better than Honda fuel cells, then I guess we will see them in 2010 in the volt.
guyincognito,
“Greenhouse gasses are not pollutants but rather essential elements for life on earth.”
Thank you for bringing this up. CO2 from a standard ic engine is a greenhouse gas and rather abundant in nature. So is water vapor that comes from hydrogen fuel cells. How long do you think it would take for certain greens to consider H2O a pollutant if people began to make lots of money off of hydrogen?
guyincognito: Three of the four authors of that study have ties to Exxon Mobile; try again.
N85523: H2O isn’t considered a pollutant or an greenhouse gas because it’s what’s known as a feedback agent, essentially this means that artificially high levels of it won’t be maintained in the long term, it’ll rain out. YOu can read about it here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/222357/40
m.apfelbeck,
ExxonMobile and other such energy companies literally fuel the nation and provide us with a high standard of living at the low price we have come to expect. If there are credible scientists who believe that CO2 regulation is unnecessary and wasteful, then I see it as entirely proper for energy companies to provide them with some funding. Ties to the corporate world should not necessarily be a discredit to scientists and their research. Several oil companies once had some of the finest and most highly respected research programs in the world.
Call me crazy, but I don’t think that large energy companies are a bad things for our country. We disagree on this, and that’s fine. And yes, I do work for an energy company.
They were also members of the UN IPCC. In any case, I don’t see how “ties” to Exxon Mobile (does that mean they filled up their car at an Exxon station?) invalidates their argument.
How about this one, http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf
Unfortunately, most people equate oil company funded research with tabacco and the many studies they’ve produced to tell us how good cigarettes are for us. Personally I don’t think it matters at this point. No matter what, sooner or later, all the available oil in the ground is going to become greehouse gasses, whether it kills us or not remains to be seen.
Guys, guys, guys, you work for energy companies but you don’t know that it’s ExxonMobil, not ExxonMobile?
Chemistry Class
If you burn (oxidize) a hydrocarbon you create CO2 and H2O molecules, the rest are side reactions or incomplete reactions. Thus the catalytic converter to finish the job. In other words we are creating lots of H2O already. Which is good stuff, especially if you mix it with Whisky.
Ah, Stephan , an excellent catch. My face is red with shame. I commend you.
If I may make one try at my defense for this inexcusable error, it is to say that I work for a coal company rather than an oil company.
I mentioned that those guys have ties to Exxon because Exxon has a long history of funding climate change denial. How ’bout we just agree to disagree before we run into TTAC’s anti-flamewar policies? :-)
Guyincognito, The paper is very dense and I read the first page without even seeing a mention of how they got the data for their reconstruction, is there a summary of that available somewhere?
We can gather the Hydrogen by vacuuming it off the surface of Planet-X using the main deflector array phased with a negative warp field.
Or burn a bunch of fossil fuel to generate it.
Or we can buy it from Iceland, where they are generating it from geo thermal power right now. Hawaii could be the new Saudi Arabia if someone (not bush) had the foresight to make the USA a leading producer of fuel instead of just the leading consumer.
The summary is that climate fluctuations are correlated to solar activity. My point is that there are peer reviewed studies debating the CO2 causes global warming theory as opposed to what Al Gore says.
In any case, I am all for alternative fuels. However, I think the rush to things like hydrogen and corn powered SUV’s that is being driven by the C02/global warming fear mongering and politics needs a reality check. This vehicle is a perfect example of this irrational thinking. It is totally impractical for use by most people, absurdly expensive, and with highly debatable environmental benefit but being put out in the market, highly subsidized, to give the false impression it is viable. I see a Who Killed The Hydrogen Car movie in GM’s future.
re: ” There is no such thing as man made global warming.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/908
guyincognito :
December 19th, 2007 at 11:49 am”
tell it to the internationally-reknown and respected community of climate scientists from more than 150 countries who participate in the intergovernmental panel on climate change [ipcc]. they have spent years seriously considering whether or not the warming this planet is already beginning to experience can be explained by natural variability. and as a group, they have concluded:
“It is very unlikely that the 20th-century warming can be explained by natural causes. The late 20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years.”
“This rapid warming is consistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in greenhouse gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity.”
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/ar4/wg1/faq/index.htm
Exxon is for Exxon Valdez. They haven’t actually paid those Alaskan fishermen who suffered a lot after a drunk captain ran a ground while holding his Whiskey.
Hydrogen sounds scary to me are you sure it’s not going to explode (like that blimp) and make mushroom clouds all over United States?
Electric car is the way to go for the future if we use more electricity to charge those cars We should build more soloar power plant around United States.
Why don’t we built a Solar Power Plant to support those Electric Cars. Spain have been using Solar Power Plant that support cities. equivalent to big cities like Boston, New York and Washington DC combined. Spain is still building more of those Solar Power Plant and by the end of this decade all Spanish cities will be powered by Solar Energy.
Al Gore didn’t win the Nobel Peace price because he invented the Internet. He pursuaded us that Global warming is here and will stay forever and eventually will kill US all if we don’t do anything for the future of our child and their children’s children. They will be breathing from an oxygen bottle.
Yes it is True, it is Inconvenient but to save us all We have to act Now.(and end the Iraq war)
Remember this Planet is the only planet in our Solar System than can support human life.
Oh by the way…
President George W. Bush said that he will battle global warming.
So, He will be sending 20,000 troops to the Sun.
1) Exxon Mobil has real money at stake with CO2 emission regulations. Thus, the so called scientists funded by Exxon are as trustworthy as OJ Simpson claiming that he didn’t do it. I would rather believe those who do not have billions at stake.
2) GM claimed that they are ahead of the competition many times before. For example, they had the most over 30mpg car models, blah, blah. Interestingly, why do they oppose the most recent legislation that demands higher mpg?
I mean, GM is lagging behind Toyota and Honda in terms of car(non-truck) sales but leading in fuel economy, isn’t this the perfect chance to kill them both?
The GM fuel-cell buzz will fade in no time, when the Honda FCX makes it to production.
guyincognito, The summary in that study doesn’t claim that solar activity accounts for all global warning since 1900, it claims that “…the Sun might have contributed up to approximately 50%… of the observed global warming since 1900” if you used their mathematical model. Which I don’t claim to be qualified to evaluate. If you look at the body of climate research as a whole the discussion moved from is climate change real to how you we build the most accurate model of it a long time ago. If you want to continue this without cluttering the TTAC board my email is my username @gmail.com.
Still I agree with you 100% that this vehicle is ridiculous and useless for weening ourselves off of a finite resource(fossil fuels).
Three of the four authors of that study have ties to Exxon Mobile; try again.
Ah, the familiar logical fallacy of attacking the source as the first line of attack by the climate change alarmists against anyone who presents logic, research, or facts that counter the groupthink of IPCC and its political allies who use its output for expanded regulation agendas. Well, it’s still the fallacy of attacking the source. How about arguing against their reasoning? Nah, that would be too honest.
Funding may or may not compromise the quality of science. The “green” side is equally vulnerable to the attack, given many scientists in the anthropogenic camp are funded by government and private entities that have already reached their own conclusion. I’m happy to examine Exxon-funded research on an equal footing.
All of this is against the backdrop of some simple unanswered questions:
1/ What’s important about 1850? Why is this our reference for “normal?” It happens that 1850 happened to roughly coincide with a 3+ century naturally-induced cooling period. It represents a cool reference point that happened to fall in the trough of a natural temperature swing.
2/ Why do computer climate models predict we should currently have suffered a greater warming of average global temperatures than have been observed, and why do these climate models fail to explain prior warm periods when man’s influence was scant to non-existent?
3/ Why do people get alarmed about recession of Alpine glaciers when we know historically that they have receded further in prior warm intervals?
4/ Why is the southern cryosphere showing not net evidence of global warming? Antarctica continues to accumulate ice, and the Andean glaciers continue intact?
5/ Why do anthropogenic believers ignore the fact that not only are solar cycles corresponding to our recent and current warming, but that we have warming or increased solar irradiance observable on earth, Mars and Uranus simultaneously, at minimum?
6/ Why are climate change alarmists targeting personal transportation, when greater immediate gains in greenhouse gas production can be found in stationary power generation, carbon sequestering, fixed location solar, insulation programs, etc. — not to mention the longer-term gain of nuclear power. Or let’s curtail meat consumption, drastically. Livestock flatulence, when considered in the context of methane’s roughly 7X greenhouse impact relative to CO2, outranks the automobile. Because they are not serious about focusing on the actual problem, if it is a problem at all.
The FCEV Equinox is a test bed, nothing more. The fuel cell aspect is interesting, but you can look at that as nothing more than a substitution for the power-generating gasoline engine that will be in the series-hybrid Volt. The electric drivetrain is being tested too. I think it’s a worthwhile exercise, but I don’t think there is any actionable information in reviewing a test bed. To the extent that hydrogen fuel cell personal rolling transportation is a worthwhile technology and packaging to pursue (it might not be), GM is squarely in the game, and despite its financial crisis the company is displaying the resources to investigate several avenues for reducing dependency on the oil drip, simultaneously. For that, they should be encouraged and rewarded.
Phil
Beat: President George W. Bush said that he will battle global warming. So, He will be sending 20,000 troops to the Sun.
I heard on Howard Stern that gov. Schwarzenegger proposed that we use giant rockets to move the earth just a bit further away from the sun, ending our global warming problem!
Interesting that everyone seems to be focused on the global warming argument, which is unwinnable IMHO. Is it real or not? Is it caused by us or not? Who knows for sure. I do know that it can’t hurt to stop putting so much crap into the air.
I’m more concerned about the vast quantities of oil we Americans buy from countries that generally hate us. Oil is eventually going to get so expensive that hydrogen may be cheaper, and I’d rather buy “home-grown” hydrogen than middle-east oil.
BEAT, hydrogen doesn’t “explode.” It burns, with virtually no visible flame and not a great deal of heat. The photos of the Hindenburg with all the fire are the result of the burning of the doped skin of the airship, which was painted with extremely flammable (actually explosive if contained) aluminum oxide.
Hydrogen is actually a lot safer than gasoline in that respect. If you got a leak in a fuel-cell vehicle’s tank(s), the gas would very rapidly dissipate upward, even if it was on fire. Gasoline slowly dissipates downward and puddles, waiting for a source of ignition. My volunteer ambulance corps responded last year to an MVA with entrapment. The car caught fire and there was nothing we could do but listen to the driver die, since the fire trucks hadn’t arrived yet and we didn’t have an extinguisher big enough to do any good. Wouldn’t have happened with a fuel-cell car.
I left for work today at 6:30 AM. It was dark, raining hard, wind blowing from the Northeast at around 35km/h and 4.5 degrees Celcius (37F) at the intersection of Hwy 17 and 52nd Street in Vancouver, BC.
There I saw it for the first time in 12 years of suburban commuting 9in Vancouver there’s many bike commuters):
A [fit] guy on a bicycle going to work in the SUBURBS of a large North-American city.
Wow. What a sight. eries to dispose of or to manufacture.
He crossed from the right lane to the left lane in front of me on 52nd Street signaling with his hands, full reflective gear on top of body suit, blinking red strobe on the rear fender, helmet with dentist’s mirror in the sunshade thing, blue LED headlights in the front, black bike with black fenders… I even had time to notice the cassete-type gears in the rear wheels (looked like a Dutch bicycle) while we both waited for the light to turn green.
Man-oh-man. That guy was doing his part. No emissions, no car payments, exercise, no car insurance…
All I have to do now is move to a place that is flat, offers good employment, good schools, mild climate, affordable housing within the limits of a human-powered commute, good healthcare, safety and low taxes.
Quote… “Three of the four authors of that study have ties to Exxon Mobile; try again.”
Oh, but it’s perfectly O.K. that the authors of your favorite global hoax pieces are all funded by enviro groups and officialy enshrined enviro agencies? Seems just a wee bit hypocritical to me.
Mr Wilkinson my comment was being sarcastic sorry about the confusion. I know hyrdrogen is safe but not really my type of alternative energy for cars. We studied different alternative fuel in my school but all has its negativity and how to develop them.
I still prefer Electric or solar power cars.
The review was great but in turned out to be an environmental issues instead of really focusing on the Car.
To believe or not to believe about global warming.
Yes it is not an issue now but would WE rather breath fresh air without the consequences of destroying our Only Home.
If you travel from east coast to west coast(or the other way around) via airplane you WILL notice the difference of land transformation.
When you reach the mid west and all the way to California the environmental structure is totally obvious. It is Barren Land especially when you reach LAX that the brown and black stuff that hover around LA is heart breaking to see and a painful chest. I never seen a State before that trees doesn’t exist when wild fires are now part of the environment, When Bakersfield no longer harvest fruits and vegetables for the entire nation.
When you travel from New York to Maine you will know what I am talking about.
GM is a great American company they already invented the dream car for the masses 20 years ago. they were ahead of Honda Nissan and Toyota but what they did was to destroy their achievement for the sake of oil and for the sake of their own ego.
I do know that it can’t hurt to stop putting so much crap into the air.
Absolutely. Which is what existing pollution regulations address. CO2 isn’t “crap” in the air. It is naturally part of air. Meanwhile by any measure of real pollution, the car is progressively cleaner by the year. The dramatic improvement in Los Angeles’ air quality and visibility over the past 40 years in the face of scaled population growth and wealth accumulation that have put more cars on the road is testament.
Getting off the oil drip for reasons of economic leverage and mitigating negatives in international politics is also worthwhile. But we have time to manage that. I’d love to cut back on financing oil sources that are hostile to American interests, but we’ve long been less dependent on those sources than have Europe and Japan. Don’t assume that if we succeed, those countries and cultures will suddenly be friendly or defanged. Solar, nuclear, wind, clean coal, wave-powered hydrogen extraction? Sure. Let’s get to it for reasons that materially matter.
Phil
Just a little reminder to folks. Gas pressure does not directly relate to the amount of Hydrogen in the fuel tank. Think of it this way. Which has more air (mass) 40 psi in a bicycle tire or 20 psi in a car or truck tire? Without knowing the volume of the tank in question 5000 psi for the Honda vs 10000 psi for the Equinox means nothing. This means we cannot directly compare the efficiency of either system.
On a related note, GM is working on a number of fuel cell systems. Some use pure hydrogen as the source, others use diesel, gasoline, or natural gas with an onboard reformer. Some are for automotive use, some are for home or commercial use. Last I heard, GM was on version 3 on its automotive unit, but my information is at least 1.5 years out of date.
One more note pertaining to the EV-1. While I’m sure it worked brilliantly in SoCal, I am skeptical of a 100 mile range in anything but ideal conditions. Electrical heating the cabin and running lights decreases range as well as cold temperatures decrease battery performance. It has been rumored that a GM engineer said that in these extreme conditions the EV-1 would have a range of 20-30 miles, not very ideal for most travelers. I believe production numbers for the EV-1 were less than 2,000 units, so its not a major loss that the program was dropped. This program did give GM an advanced look into the propulsion side on the fuel cell vehicle, so it was not a total loss.
50,000 miles, eh?
Well, that’s great news! That’s about 5,000 MORE than the current GM minivans! :D
(rim shot)
I have driven the Equinox Fuel Cell, and moreover, my daily driven work vehicle is a gasoline Equinox. The Fuel Cell version’s behavior is remarkably close to its gasoline counterpart. I found some funkiness with the regenerative braking (pulsed like it was having a mild seisure but the engineer promised that would be addressed) but overall, I wholeheartedly agree with Adrian’s review. Remember, this is Fuel Cell generation 1.0- I would love to see the General make great leaps in this technology. Because, overall, it works like a car should! If there were more filling stations, I would buy one.
Regarding the explosion issue: wouldn’t a leak in a 10,000 PSI vessel be powerful enough to do fairly unsavory things to anyone or anything nearby?
Ahhh. The climate “debate” continues. We play and listen to the music of the fiddle, while the Rome that we all love so burns.
I left for work today at 6:30 AM. It was dark, raining hard, wind blowing from the Northeast at around 35km/h and 4.5 degrees Celcius (37F) at the intersection of Hwy 17 and 52nd Street in Vancouver, BC.
There I saw it for the first time in 12 years of suburban commuting 9in Vancouver there’s many bike commuters):
A [fit] guy on a bicycle going to work in the SUBURBS of a large North-American city.
Wow. What a sight. eries to dispose of or to manufacture.
He crossed from the right lane to the left lane in front of me on 52nd Street signaling with his hands, full reflective gear on top of body suit, blinking red strobe on the rear fender, helmet with dentist’s mirror in the sunshade thing, blue LED headlights in the front, black bike with black fenders… I even had time to notice the cassete-type gears in the rear wheels (looked like a Dutch bicycle) while we both waited for the light to turn green.
Man-oh-man. That guy was doing his part. No emissions, no car payments, exercise, no car insurance…
All I have to do now is move to a place that is flat, offers good employment, good schools, mild climate, affordable housing within the limits of a human-powered commute, good healthcare, safety and low taxes.
He probably had a recent DUI conviction. :-)
Quotes in the wrong place…
Ahhh. The climate debate continues. We play and listen to the music of the fiddle, while the Rome that we all love so “burns”.
jazbo123
i wish i could take my bike to work. Its about 17 miles from here, i could make in a leisurly hour and a half. Its a little hilly, so much the better. I can’t tho. there are no safe roads between here and there. Dammit. I would no longer need the gym.
For the record, i ride my bike regularly anyway, alot… so this would not be a strain. as for the weather, It does not matter unless there is ice. winters in philadelphia are not very bad. And I do not have a DUI.
I would also save the appx 30 bucks a week i am currently spending on gas. I’d rather spend that money on good wine with dinner, for example.
Keep my car for pleasure, not commuting – which is awlful, stressful agony.
jazbo123:
“Quotes in the wrong place…”
Works for me ;-)
I could ride my bike to work many days, but would have to stash it in my cramped work area — but maybe my employer might consider a sheltered bike rack near the building…
Me too, during the warm weather at least. I’d need to relocate though since I coudn’t spare the 3 hour round-trip it would represent.
And I couldn’t resist the comment on the DUI :-D
Maybe it says a lot about our society when that’s what you cynically think of a bike rider :-(
re: Phil Ressler :
December 19th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
re: “1/ What’s important about 1850? Why is this our reference for “normal?” response: two highly-relevant factors regarding 1850 that you evidently did not take into account: [a] the fact that detailed weather and climatic data recordings began in earnest around this time in our country’s history and [b] the most-polluting aspects of the industrial revolution were initially/recently unleashed upon an unsuspecting world.
re: “2/ Why do computer climate models predict we should currently have suffered a greater warming of average global temperatures than have been observed, and why do these climate models fail to explain prior warm periods when man’s influence was scant to non-existent?” response: simply not true.
go here. http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/ar4/wg1/faq/index.htm
scroll down to chapter nine and click on the 9.2 link which will download a three-page pdf file. open that file, go to page two and carefully observe the simple-to-read, easy-to-understand graphs that comprise figure 1.
re: “3/ Why do people get alarmed about recession of Alpine glaciers when we know historically that they have receded further in prior warm intervals?” response: because the climatic changes that happened in the past were very gradual, occurring over periods of thousands and thousands of years – not highly accelerated, has they have been over the last 50 or 100 years. this distinction is extremely important to recognize because gradual change allows lifeforms [flora and fauna alike] the time required to adjust and adapt, instead of die. abnormally-accelerated change does not.
re: “5/ Why do anthropogenic believers ignore the fact that not only are solar cycles corresponding to our recent and current warming…?” response: that is not the case. the ipcc clearly states: “…[the] rapid warming is consistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in greenhouse gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity.”
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/ar4/wg1/faq/index.htm
re: “6/ Why are climate change alarmists targeting personal transportation…?” response: because there is plenty of room for improvement and because the anticipated costs required to achieve the desired changes are expected to be reasonably affordable and therefore not overly disruptive to our economic stability. moreover, those people truly concerned with climate change are in fact also reviewing and evaluating many, if not most, other aspects of contemporary life to determine where additional benefits can also be realized.
Thanks to everyone so far for the feedback. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the scientific training to respond to everyone here, but I’ll attempt to address a few points.
jerseydevil: So lemme understand this.
It only goes for about 75 miles on a fill up of largely non-available fuel.
It will only last for about 50k miles.
It uses up petro chemicals much as a gas engine does, albeit in a different form.
I’m going to guesstimate that the range on 5,000 psi gas is about 80-90 miles. The relationship is not perfectly linear between the difference in pressures and the loss of range is not exactly equal, although for our purposes here, it probably comes close.
But that’s not the fault of the vehicle, but of the fuel distribution network. That is obviously undeveloped in comparison to what would be required to make this viable to a wide market. It makes sense for the automakers to gear up to the 10,000 psi threshhold and to allow the infrastructure to catch up to it. Still, it’s fair to point out that GM was originally touting a range of about 200 miles, so they have reduced their own claims by about 25%.
A problem specific to the Equinox is its weight, which increased substantially to accommodate all of the fuel cell technology. GM reports a weight increase of about 500 pounds, but my own number crunching is leading to a figure closer to about 700 pounds. But a lot of this problem can be addressed by designing vehicles as fuel-cell vehicles from the ground up, as fuel cells offer the advantage of allowing for the use of “skateboard” platforms that allow for weight reduction in other areas and better aerodynamics in comparison to a typical internal combustion car.
According to autobloggreen.com, the new Honda Clarity weighs about 175 pounds more than an Accord. GM lost these opportunities for weight loss by using an existing model instead of starting fresh.
The fuel cell life is the result of materials used to make fuel cells. Research efforts are being devoted to finding new materials that will be more durable. Again, this is experimental technology, so I would not assume that these issues must inevitably plague fuel cells as they evolve.
Hydrogen systems are more efficient than internal combustion engines. Your typical gasoline- or diesel-powered engine is able to utilize about 1/4th of the fuel’s energy; for a fuel cell vehicle, this amount increases to about 1/2. Of course, that figure doesn’t account for the energy needed and resources consumed to turn oil into gasoline, or gas or electricity into hydrogen, nor does it include resources needed for transportation, storage, etc. Whether it is even possible to accurately quantify the net result, I don’t know. The assumptions used in the calculation could create substantial sway in the numbers, I’m sure.
SherbornSean: But it looks as if Honda is a generation ahead.
The Clarity platform is clearly ahead of the Equinox platform, in that the Clarity was designed was designed with fuel cells in mind. As discussed above, there are distinct advantages to taking Honda’s approach. But I’m not sure if that’s an indication of Honda being ahead in respect to R&D, in that the vehicle design itself seems to this untrained eye to be one of the least difficult challenges involved. The research I’ve reviewed leads me to conclude that it is the lack of fuel infrastructure (both production and distribution), fuel cell service life and production costs that are the main challenges. I’m guessing that it was a lot cheaper to use the Equinox as a public test mill than it was to build the Clarity for the same purposes.
Nopanegain: The Fuel Cell version’s behavior is remarkably close to its gasoline counterpart.
That’s exactly the point I was trying to communicate here, so thank you for that. This vehicle is so incredibly mundane and normal in its operations that you can’t help but be impressed by how ordinary it is. It may not be a champion on a skidpad or a drag strip, but you can’t help but feel optimistic about it. Doesn’t mean it will ultimately work, though.
As for the global warming debate, I’m not touching that with a ten-foot carbon-fiber pole. But carry on, and Happy Holidays to everyone.
Isn’t 10,000 PSI a teensy bit of a safety risk? I hope they WAY overbuild the tanks.
[a] the fact that detailed weather and climatic data recordings began in earnest around this time in our country’s history and [b] the most-polluting aspects of the industrial revolution were initially/recently unleashed upon an unsuspecting world.
Yes, of course I know this is the answer for why 1850 has become a reference for the “right” global mean temperature. But that’s just the point. It happens that distribution of thermometers, advances in transportation and communications, and expansion of a scientific culture around the world makes that year the point of first ability to get a fuzzy global picture, and the IR was just underway. Those temporal realities are artificial relative to the established forces that have been driving climate change before and since.
response: simply not true.
go here. http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/ar4/wg1/faq/index.htm
scroll down to chapter nine and click on the 9.2 link which will download a three-page pdf file. open that file, go to page two and carefully observe the simple-to-read, easy-to-understand graphs that comprise figure 1.
Unfortunately, your link doesn’t answer my question. The data you cite claims to answer the question of whether natural factors models alone or natural + human factors explain current temperatures. Even this is debatable as link wars can be incited tit-for-tat on every item in dispute. But the question I asked is why current climate computer models fail to account for prior warm periods. The claim that the last 50 years have been warmer than any time in the last 1300 is also in dispute, and even the report you cite couches this as “likely.”
response: because the climatic changes that happened in the past were very gradual, occurring over periods of thousands and thousands of years – not highly accelerated, has they have been over the last 50 or 100 years. this distinction is extremely important to recognize because gradual change allows lifeforms [flora and fauna alike] the time required to adjust and adapt, instead of die. abnormally-accelerated change does not.
The Little Ice Age was a pronounced cooling that occurred quickly and only consumed a few hundred years to go full cycle. Climate change is not exclusively a multi-thousands of years phenomenon.
response: that is not the case. the ipcc clearly states: “…[the] rapid warming is consistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to a rapid increase in greenhouse gases like that which has occurred over the past century, and the warming is inconsistent with the scientific understanding of how the climate should respond to natural external factors such as variability in solar output and volcanic activity.”
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/ar4/wg1/faq/index.htm
The IPCC is not the only authority nor the only body doing research. I have no special regard nor disregard for them and they are not comprised of a majority in the scientific community. They are just the UN-IPCC. They have not published a revision to this statement since newer evidence of increasing solar irradiance has been released, nor since additional evidence of “global warming” elsewhere in the solar system has been gathered.
response: because there is plenty of room for improvement and because the anticipated costs required to achieve the desired changes are expected to be reasonably affordable and therefore not overly disruptive to our economic stability. moreover, those people truly concerned with climate change are in fact also reviewing and evaluating many, if not most, other aspects of contemporary life to determine where additional benefits can also be realized.
But cars are not where the leverage is. Complete conversion of the US car fleet to Prius-like automobiles results in only 2.4% of the CO2 reduction that the IPCC is asking for by 2050. By contrast, conversion of all coal power generating plants to non-emitting technologies — or full carbon sequestering at each coal plant — would save 15% of the IPCC’s goal. Clearly, if you’re serious about this, the fixed-location infrastructure is the place to start, and progress could materialized much sooner. Futzing with personal mobility is a lot more disruptive to people than intensively addressing carbon release from the fixed infrastructure. If you are really serious about this, you could drive much more change by focusing money and energy on power generation and leaving the car to its already well-established vector of improvement.
Phil
I heard yesterday that the growth of wind generation in Texas is now being slowed by regulatory issues over transmission and connecting different parts of the country’s energy infrastructure.
Let’s all think thrice before looking for government to solve the problems.