GM, Toyota Cool on Fuel Cells

Earlier this week at the Geneva Motor Show, GM and Toyota executives independently expressed that their optimism about hydrogen fuel cells as a power source for mass-market cars had cooled. The revelations are especially significant coming from two of the three companies that have been most bullish on fuel cells over the past decade. (Honda, maker of the FCX fuel-cell prototype of which 100 will soon be tested around the country, is the mum third.)

Cars.com isn’t in the business of saying “I told you so,” but I’m not above it myself, as I hope a record of realistic market views will give shoppers confidence in our counsel. We have not been bashful in our skepticism. The problem, as I’ve expressed it, is that hydrogen is not a fuel but a means of storing and transferring electricity.

This makes the notion of producing the gas from electricity — not to mention distributing it to filling stations that currently don’t exist, dispensing it safely into cars that currently don’t exist and running it through a fuel-cell component that’s ungodly expensive (and unlikely to become inexpensive) — just to turn it back into electricity seem like Rube Goldberg’s nightmare. Why not just put the electricity directly into a battery and call it a day?

It seems GM vice chairman Bob Lutz reached the same conclusion when he said, "If we get lithium-ion [batteries] to 300 miles, then you need to ask yourself, Why do you need fuel cells?" as reported by the Wall Street Journal. I’d even argue that you don’t need to get to a 300-mile battery. The ability to recharge conveniently at home overnight and/or at work — along with the prospect of onboard generators like those in GM’s experimental E-Flex system — greatly diminish the need for such long ranges. In the same article, Toyota president Katusaki Watanabe cited fuel cell and infrastructure costs as obstacles to “the spread of fuel cells in 10 years’ time.”

As recently as June 2005, Toyota was aiming for a $50,000 fuel-cell car by 2015. At that time, GM was predicting a production-ready fuel-cell car equipped with a $5,000 fuel-cell component by 2010. Whether the technology is completely unviable, or just so expensive that the companies don’t want yet another technology that Congress can force them into producing to meet consumption restrictions, is a matter of speculation. Either way, I’m glad to see industry leaders talking sense.

Comments

[jereg]

I find a couple of things interesting about this article.

First, yes, there is no infrastructure to support hydrogen cars now. So what? Australia created an infrastructure to support Autogas. Now, most cars there can be purchased or converted to run on Autogas and gas stations were converted to support them. Is America so helpless that we can't do the same? We did put a man on the moon. What's happened to us since then?

Second, hydrogen is a clean burning fuel. Continuing to burn petroleum will continue to pollute our environment. At some point a change will have to be made.

Third, a hydrogen car should require less maintenance and repair than an internal combustion engine. Again, this saves resources over the life of the car.

I don't know that a hydrogen car is the solution needed to answer all of the issues facing the world today, but energy problems are going to continue to escalate, and sooner or later, some thinking outside the box is going to have to be done. Better now than later when we could face a real crisis.

[Amuro Ray]

That's the nature of Americans, pal :(

We complained 'bou high prices on everything - yet we also complained 'bou Asian countries getting our jobs (yet producing stuff at cheap prices)!

We complained 'bou SUVs and Trucks - yet we keep buying them when we don't really need to.

We complained 'bou high fuel prices - yet we don't really support (or urge our politicians to support/raises taxes or whatever fundings) to be put into public transportation.

We complained 'bou toxic by-products produced by other countries - yet we don't mind shipping our junk to them.

Technology costs $$$, esp. on R&D. After that, investors MAY be able to recoup most of the $$$ when product is mass-produced for the markets. Yet, in order to go over the huge initial investment hump, no one (in Corporate America) wishes to spend that much so that it looks good on the books with the investors. What a sad scenario.

[Irv Miller]

The WSJ headline and story stating that GM and Toyota are "doubtful" about the mass use of fuel cells is an example of sloppy reporting, at its finest. I will not speak for GM, but as for Toyota, hydrogen fuel cells will play a major role in our sustainable mobility strategy.
• Our current technology is robust, reliable and durable. Our prototypes have a range of nearly 400 miles and are fully operational in sub-freezing climates, as evidenced by our recent 2300-mile drive from Fairbanks, Alaska to Vancouver British Columbia.
• Cost reduction and infrastructure are the remaining hurdles. The former will be met by Toyota's engineering and production savvy. The latter will require creative partnerships.
• At Toyota, hydrogen fuel cell technology has already moved beyond mere compliance with zero-emissions government mandates. It is now all about market preparedness.
• The arrival of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles at a Toyota dealership near you is not "just around the corner." There are huge challenges ahead. But we are convinced they will be part of our future. And we will be there.

[Dan]

When all this hydrogen fuel cell mania began, in the late 90's, early 2000's, there are high doubts about the ability of batteries to be able to store enough energy in small and lightweight enough package to move a car an acceptable range any time in the near future. So that's where the fuel cell thinking began. Find a way to store energy in chemical form as we have with oil but without using oil. The hope was that you could store more energy in a pound of hydrogen than you could in a pound of batteries, which is a pretty good assumption. However, in the last decade, battery technology developments have far surpassed expectations, and are quickly becoming a viable method of energy storage.
The worst development came when the phrase "hydrogen economy" started to be aired by a politician to be remain unnamed. Whether there was a misunderstanding on his part, or whether it was just a poor choice of words, people began to be believe that we could power an economy on hydrogen. But, just as Dave has already basically said, there is no source of elemental hydrogen on Earth, and the laws of physics makes it impossible to get more energy out when you burn it than you put in when purifying it. (Sorry Hydrino people. Truth is, you're crazy)
So here we are, hydrogen is an energy storage method that is developing more slowly than batteries. While that could change in the future, yeah, the best bet has always been against it.