Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

GM's Billion-Dollar Fuel-Cell Bet 578

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i-think-the-problem-is-the-electric-system dept.
nakhla writes "Wired is running a lengthy article detailing GM's billion-dollar effort to invent a radically new fuel cell vehicle. The interesting part is that GM's engineers are no longer trying to squeeze a fuel cell engine into a traditional car design. Instead, they're building a completely new type of car from the ground up. No gears, clutch, braking hardware, etc. It's all drive-by-wire (computer controlled). Even the engines are located in each of the 4 wheels. It's a fascinating read, and the article outlines economic reasons for such a car, as well as environmental concerns and practical uses (imagine powering your house with the excess electricity generated by your car). For anyone remotely interested in the future of automotive technology, this article is very interesting."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GM's Billion-Dollar Fuel-Cell Bet More

GM's Billion-Dollar Fuel-Cell Bet

Comments Filter:

  • Subsidies (Score:3, Informative)

    by Myco ( 473173 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @04:24PM (#3889098) Homepage
    Good to see them going 100% fuel cell. I think the hybrid cars are a good step, but not enough (and people haven't been too impressed with the performance of the hybrids, from what I've heard).

    An interesting point to note is that fuel cell cars, once mass-produced, may be more competitively priced than one would expect. There *are* federal subsidies for alternative-fuel vehicles. The reason hybrid cars are so expensive is that because they still use gas some of the time, they're technically not alternative-fuel vehicles. Stupid loophole standing in the way of progress.

    Best of luck to GM!

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Subsidies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zathrus ( 232140 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @04:35PM (#3889234) Homepage
      Stupid loophole standing in the way of progress.

      There's a $2000 federal income tax deduction available if you buy an alternative fuel vehicle. And yes, hybrid vehicles do qualify.

      As far as the loophole you specify -- there are efforts underway to change the wording so that hybrid vehicles do qualify. And some of the companies pushing for the change want a vehicle that uses as little as 2.5% of it's fuel from an "alternative" source to be considered hybrid. That's a load of shit and would actually be counterproductive.

      So be careful of what you ask for. You may get it.

      Frankly, hybrids shouldn't qualify. It doesn't solve the problem. Unless, of course, you like rewarding half-assed solutions in everything else in life.
    • Subsidies can't make the cars less expensive. The cost is the same, it's just the route from your pocket to the manufacturer that's different. Either you pay GM directly, or you pay Uncle Sam, who takes a slice and then pays GM...

    • Re:Subsidies (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @05:28PM (#3889717) Journal
      >people haven't been too impressed with the performance of the hybrids, from what I've heard

      If you have time, look into the Prius area on Yahoo Groups. You'll hear from a lot of people who are impressed.

      The Prius needs computer control to keep from lighting the tires when you pull out. If it weren't limited by software, the electric drive motor would deliver 258 foot-pounds at zero rpm. Once you start moving, the power curve is impressively smooth. Toyota held it to a 12.5 second 0-60 time, partly for economy and partly because the Prius is aimed at the boring-sedan market.

      "Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races" is the old cliche. Electric motors are superb for low-end torque.

      Hybrids are indeed a transitional technology, but I suspect mass-produced long-lived fuel cells are more than a few years away. Looking forward to them!
  • the main reason alternative cars dont sell is because they are UGLY! give me an attractive design and I will consider it...
    • The Honda Civic Hybrid [honda.com] is a hybrid fuel vehicle (gas/electric) that looks just like a regular 2003 Honda Civic.

      Now you can whine that you don't like the Civic's look, that it's too small, or whatever, but you can't whine that they're all too unconventionally styled.

      The funny thing, of course, is that odds are today's hybrids are just ahead of the curve, sytle-wise. And not just for fuel economy reasons. We've been moving toward more rounded shapes for a couple decades now.
    • If you read the article you would have seen this: Power is built into the chassis, which is like a blank slate for body styles and interiors. Seats don't have to lie in rows. A trunk can run the length of the car.

      Which basically means that since there is so much fewer crap in the way, they have much more freedom with the outer design of the car. They are no longer restricted as far as seat placement and hood/trunk designs in general. Thus, you could see many interesting designs, and probably designs just like cars you have now.
      • And if you want, you'll be able to switch vehicle bodies--you can have a convertible or t-top in the summer and a minivan in the winter, and you can change it to a pickup when you need to haul something.
        Thus, you could see many interesting designs, and probably designs just like cars you have now.
        And under the hood you'll have another trunk!

      • Think of it - everything can be changed.

        • Curved back seats so the passengers can talk more easily
        • Centered drivers for more even weight distribution
        • Central AC/heating systems
        • Trunks underneath the passenger compartment
        • Modular car design - pop in a trunk or a backseat, whichever you need.

        There could even be a huge potential market for body rental. As mentioned, instead of renting a pickup, just make your vehicle a pickup... rent the sportscar for that date or the full-size sedan for the business trip. The van for your vacation, or the pickup for your new furniture.

        --
        Can't talk anymore... Too busy scheming...

    • Here here! I don't care how efficient the Toyota Echo is... ick! Now, drop an RX-7 body on it, and I don't care if it has peddles, I'll buy one.

      -brian

    • I hate to sound like a shallow person, but parent poster makes a good point. If I spend thousands of dollars for a car, it's gotta look cool.

      You know.. if they're building it from the ground up, wouldn't it be cool if you could create your own 'case' for the car? Some of us 3D Modellers out there would have a field day with that! =)

    • On my side of the tracks, the issue is the ridiculous pricetag. I can barely afford to keep my twelve-year-old car running, and it's paid for!

      The 1924 Model-T touring car cost $290. That's $2901.86 in 2001 dollars. What the hell happened?

      • > The 1924 Model-T touring car cost $290. That's $2901.86 in 2001 dollars. What the hell happened?

        In a nutshell, safety and emissions regs.

        Each airbag on a modern car costs about $1000, and it's against the law to build a car that doesn't have one.

        Add another $500 or so worth for the catalytic converter, but at least the catalytic converter doesn't need replacement after a fender-bender.

        Finally, add in the cost of designing the equipment into the car, plus the cost of filling out the paperwork to ensure that the design's approvable by all of the myriad of state and federal officials that pass judgement.

        (And you can add another $4-500 if it's an SUV and it's gonna be sold in California next year. :-)

  • interesting (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mike77 ( 519751 )
    it looks and sounds pretty cool, but until they make one w/ some serious power, 4wd and some serious ground clearance. I'm sticking w/ what I have...

    • Re:interesting (Score:3, Insightful)

      by schon ( 31600 )
      until they make one w/ some serious power, 4wd and some serious ground clearance. I'm sticking w/ what I have

      read the article..

      Because they're starting from scratch, they're not encumbered by limitations of the traditional auto: they put a separate motor into each wheel, which 'one-ups' conventional 4x4 - there's no differential or axle to limit the ground clearance.

      Seriously, go read the article..
  • I thought american car manufacturers were just paying lip service to people about alternative fuel cars, producing the most bloated, ineffectual monstrocities possible simply so that concerned citizen could shrug it off and say "at least they tried" while they drive off in their Zaibatsu Monstrocity.

    Maybe its the radical re-design that will scare off people... and I'm sure a number of "Hydrogen is dangerous!" reports (perhaps authored by the Alexis DeToqueville sell outs!) will circulate for just long enough to FUD alternative fuel cars into the ground.

    I just read what I wrote. Gee, someone got up on the cynical conspiracy side of the bed!
    • BMW already has a hydrogen-powered 7 Serices car [edmunds.com]. Of course, it is still just a prototype.
  • Just the thing for the idiots riding around in 114 degree heat with their windows down, making sure the whole neighborhood can hear how bad their taste in music is.

  • At our current rate.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by iONiUM ( 530420 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @04:28PM (#3889158) Journal
    Of Fossil fuel consumption, we certainly need an alternative. Recently Honda and GM have made the battery cars, where they are charged by gasoline instead of a power line... they work well, run silent, but people just seem to want the power/reliability of fossil fuel cars.
    Making something from the ground up might allow for a whole new vehicle to emerge, which would certainly have a hard time starting in the market, but if fossil fuels ran out than we'd have no choice
    I'm surprised people never went to natural oils, like hemp and such alternatives for combustion solutions.. they're certainly very viable and easy to replenish..

  • byproducts and toxicity (fuel cells vs. batteries) (Score:3, Insightful)

    by small_dick ( 127697 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @04:36PM (#3889242)
    The discontinued EV1 was a joke -- it batteries spread throughout the vehicle and was available only on a lease basis.

    I've head Lead/Acid batteries are 95-95% recyclable...countries outside the US use standard battery packs that are swapped in minutes for recharging, replacement, etc.

    What kind of cleanup/toxicity issues do fuel cells have, considering all of the elements used (catalysts/fuel/fuel generation).

    Is this plan really a better bet than electric cars with high density batteries and some type of remote hydrogen powerplant running the juice over cables?

    I've always had the sneaking feeling that fuel cell technology was just another way for the petrochemical industries to keep their jobs when the wells run dry.

    • Re:byproducts and toxicity (fuel cells vs. batteri (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Christopher Thomas ( 11717 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @04:51PM (#3889390)
      Is this plan really a better bet than electric cars with high density batteries and some type of remote hydrogen powerplant running the juice over cables?

      Yes.

      The energy storage density of batteries is horrible. Even for the strange and wondrous experimental designs that you won't ever see because they're expensive or run at 300 degrees C or what-have-you.

      Fuel for fuel cells, on the other hand, has an energy storage density approaching that of gasoline (better by weight, considerably less by volume for hydrogen, which is a royal pain to store; comparable to gasoline on both counts for methanol, but that's a pain to re-form).

      Fuel storage density has been the limiting factor for the design of electric cars, so this makes one heck of a difference.
    • The discontinued EV1 was a joke -- it batteries spread throughout the vehicle and was available only on a lease basis.

      The EV1 was available in lead-acid and NiMH versions. The lead-acid got a respectable 75-100 miles per charge and the NiMH got up to 180 miles per charge. The joke was that GM wasn't serious about promoting, selling or advertising them. (Quite the opposite, in fact.)

      What kind of cleanup/toxicity issues do fuel cells have, considering all of the elements used (catalysts/fuel/fuel generation).

      Consider that for many years to come, hydrogen will be produced by splitting existing petroleum products. Same dependence on foreign oil, same refinery pollution.

      Is this plan really a better bet than electric cars with high density batteries and some type of remote hydrogen powerplant running the juice over cables?

      If the fuel and power companies would have spent these billions on ramping up production of advanced battery chemistries (NiMH, LiIon, NiZn) instead of beating up on fuel cells, the problem would have been licked already.

      But we're talking oil companies here.

      I've always had the sneaking feeling that fuel cell technology was just another way for the petrochemical industries to keep their jobs when the wells run dry.

      It also keeps the aerospace and defense industries running. (No reason to have wars over there if we don't need their oil.)

  • 1. That they come up with somethinig that is economically viable (i.e. they succeed).
    2. That they aren't going to try to fail on purpose, to make the idea of "alternative vehicles" look bad, thus bolstering the consumer desire for "regular" vehicles for a long period.
    3. That whatever vehicle they design LOOKS like cars do nowadays. Vehicles that are ugly, or distinctly different-looking than regular vehicles, will get ignored because most people don't want ugly cars. It's pissed me off that until recently, most hybrid or electric vehicles were sort of ugly and misshapen... and then everyone's surprised when they don't sell as well as regular cars! Well, duh.
    • I am not sure why so many comments say that the new cars must look like the old cars, or that if a design has been the same for a hundred years, it is a mistake to change it.

      As long as the cars look good, who cares if they aren't exactly the same as cars today? Computer keyboards look different than typewriters. Refrigerators, televisions, etc have all undergone massive design changes during their lifetimes.

      It sounds like GM has learned from the mistakes of the past, and are trying to do some really cool stuff. I know that this is hard to believe, but if they are spending a billion bucks, they aren't doing this as a public relations effort.

  • About Time (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @04:37PM (#3889258) Homepage Journal

    Amory Lovins has been pushing this kind of thing [hypercar.com] for years. Except, instead of a fuel cell, Lovins suggests using an ordinary gas engine whose sole duty is to power a generator; rather like a diesel locomotive. He theorizes that, because the engine can run at a constant RPM and torque load, it can be smaller and reduce weight, so fuel efficiency goes up. Also, getting rid of the transmission and other mechanical linkages reduces weight, so fuel efficiency goes up.

    Given that, it's not clear why Detroit is interested in pursuing highly advanced fuel cell tech.

    Schwab

    • What you describe is similar to the current hybrid cars. The question to ask is why the automobile companies who actually had to commercialize these things chose to do things as they did, rather than as Mr Lovins suggests.

      I doubt it is because they are stupid.
  • Even the engines are located in each of the 4 wheels
    Which is dandy until you actually take it off the showroom floor an onto the road. Where I live, there are holes in the road from time to time. There's debris in the road. Sometimes, I get a flat. Sometimes, they cut the top few inches off for resurfacing, which gives you a nice noisy ride for a time (what my kids call the "Groovy Pavement") followed by a 2 - 3 inch bump.
    I've even managed to bend a rim when an accident-avoidance maneuver took me into a curb (rather than the side of another vehicle) which set me back $200 for the rim and re-alignment, but it didn't take out 25% of my motor.

    Take a clue from God -- the vital organs go in the core, surrounded by bone. You don't put them on the periphery!

    • Free your mind! (Score:2, Informative)

      by des09 ( 263929 )
      Think for a moment what you GET when you put the power-plants in the wheel. no driveshafts, differentials, axles = less weight and more efficiency. Lower center of mass. Simple torque control systems for better traction.

      Also, this is not a new idea, some of the monster dirt movers in the mining industry use electric motors in the wheel hubs.
    • Yep. Way too much unsprung weight [vtec.net]. If GM goes as far as getting a real vehicle to try out, it will ride horribly with those motors inside the wheels. Cornering performance will be in the unsafe category. Of course, the car in the article is only a CG picture.

      To be real, they could mound the four motors to the chassis and run CV axles to each of the wheels. That sounds reasonable. They could still incorporate steering and braking via the motors.

  • Repairs Anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Quizme2000 ( 323961 )
    The one very big and very ignored part of any new durable mass market product is repair. Anyone can build a car from the ground, the trick is to build a car that utilizes fuel cells using parts that are mass produced and easily repaired, fixed, serviced, etc.. For example, GM loves to build cars with very expensive, shiny, weak pieces of plastic for grill covers. When involed in a TA it has to be replaced 95% of the time with a $600 part with $150 labor.

    GM is not building the next generation of Fuel Cell based cars to help out the enviroment. They are just like many greedy corporations, they will make money of the parts, service and maintance industry for a fuel cell powered car. Remember folks, industrial factories are still the leading pollution and natural resource draining offenders.

    So before you get all green and go blow 20K on a honda insight or some other enviromental friendly car, really consider the true impact/benefit of supporting the automotive industry.
    • Of course they want to make money, the thing that many companies are now realizing is that many environmental friendly business practices can also help line their pockets. For instance, at the General Motors plant in Fort Wayne they now burn gas recovered from a landfill nearby to help power the building, etc. Did they do it to help out the environment or to save money? Hard to say.

      Anyway, many environmental friendly type products or methods turn out to be time and money savers (even something as simple as using flourescent bulbs in your traditional lights).

    • Re:Repairs Anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by CommieLib ( 468883 )
      Ugh...this got modded up to a 5?

      No, the greedy corporations aren't making cars to save the world. I don't remember reading that in the article, either. But I suppose they're not up on a fucking cross for mankind like you either. No, those selfish bastards want to buy houses for their families, send their kids to college and, unbelievably, making even go on vacation every once in a while. I can't wait to get those bastards up against the wall when the revolution comes.

      (Deep breath)...okay. What exactly is the impact of supporting a fuel cell initiative? Uh, cleaner cars. Remember that the choices are not:

      A. Dirty, loud, unreliable cars
      B. Squirrels and bluebirds singing the park

      the choices are:

      A. Dirty, loud, unreliable cars
      B. Clean, quiet, more reliable cars

      Until you can learn to realistically balance alternatives, your only choice is A.

  • More info at designnews.com (Score:5, Informative)

    by bartyboy ( 99076 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @04:39PM (#3889281)
    Design News [designnews.com] had an article about this type of car in January. You can find it here [manufacturing.net].
  • There will be no Pontiac Model of the above mentioned vehicle. The Pontiac model entered testing, but failed miserably due to the weight of the excess plastic plastered all around the body.

    For the humor impared...you are supposed to laugh.

    -Pete
  • I think the article makes a great point in that you can't expect to simply pull an ICE out of a car and plunk in a fuel cell and expect it to perform anywhere near par. This is not necessarily because of any technological deficiency of the fuel cells, but because of hundreds of design elements that are best-case trade-offs for an internal combustion design.

    Unfortunately, the world's unconscious is so used to the emergent design brought about by these design elements that it's difficult for them to look at a radically new design and still think "car".

  • Well I think it is... at least they are finally starting to look at it now whilst we still have other fuels available. I'd hate for the world to get to the point where there is NO raw oil left to drill, and we have no choice but use alternative fuel cars.. I welcome the fact they are doing somthing like this now so that we can bring it in gradually :)
  • Makers of "fine" Pontiacs, SAABs, Olds, and Chevys...all cars who can't live longer than 9 years without their interiors falling apart. All cars that choke and wheeze at the 100,000 mile mark. All cars that have no life whatsoever. I'd rather have an electric BMW, Volkswagon, Honda or Toyota...hell, even an electric Dodge would be better than an electric Pontiac.
  • It's all drive-by-wire (computer controlled).

    This is going to bring the term computer crash into a whole new light.

  • Going away from the central engine idea is the equivalent to looking foreward to the first moon landing as far as the slow world of auto design is concerned.

    The idea that cars may be made cheaper and safer in this manner is also overwhelmingly appealing an idea. Combine the idea of smaller redundant engines with cheaper replaceable parts, and you have a better machine in total.

    None of this is to say that the end result will be anything like the plans - but the ideas coming to fore lift my impression of the U.S. auto industry many times what it had previously become.

    Besides, the endless stream of sedans on the highway have long since warn out their $15,000+ price tags I mentally see on each of them. I'm finally excited about the idea of a car again. :^)

    Ryan Fenton
  • Wow, you would have never thought this was shown publicly at the Detroit autoshow.

    Got lots of attention then, now many months later slashdot notices, come on editors, get with it~!!
  • Even the engines are located in each of the 4 wheels
    Err, there are no engines - that's a big part of the point... Electric motors sit at each wheel, which are supplied electricity by a fuel cell.

    Sheesh, first the /.ers stopped reading the articles, then the editors, and now the submitters?

  • Would it be street legal? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jweb ( 520801 ) <jweb68@nOSpAM.hotmail.com> on Monday July 15, 2002 @04:56PM (#3889448)
    Though conventionally powered, Filo did away with mechanical steering, clutch, and braking hardware, replacing it all with wires and circuits controlled by a joystick.

    IIRC, cars are required to have mechanical links to things like steering and braking, for the simple reason that if the computer controls fail, you would still have some measure of control over your vehicle.

    I've personally had the power steering and power braking fail on a few cars that I've owned. If there was no mechanical backup. Not a fun experience, but at least I was able to stop/steer, albiet at with somewhat less control.

    The thought of riding in a car whose steering/braking suddenly fails completely with no backup makes me shudder.

  • Just waiting for them to repeal the 2nd law (Score:4, Funny)

    by NearlyHeadless ( 110901 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @05:01PM (#3889479)
    I love this quote from the article:

    What if you could make your own hydrogen out of water, right in the garage? The technology is already available; you electrolyze water by more or less running a fuel cell in reverse.At the moment, this takes more electricity than the hydrogen would ultimately generate.
    I just can't wait until they can fix that problem!
    • It's called a catalyst. Or an enzyme if you're feeling biological. If you did any school-level chemistry you'd know that an exothermic (gives off more heat than it uses) reaction can have an energy-of-activation that requires more input energy than you ultimately gain.

      Think of it as climbing a 10 foot wall and finding an 18 foot drop (ie 10 feet + 8 feet). You had to "climb" 10 feet to get 8 feet lower than you were. This is not a good engine, since inefficencies in the procedure (yield and heat mainly) will not gain you sufficient energy out to warrant the effort.

      Now use a catalyst. This is the equivalent of one of those wall-knocking-down big balls. First you smash the wall with the catalyst, then you jump down 8 feet. Much easier, and you just gained 8 feet for next to nothing. Even with your inefficiencies, you gain energy. At least, that's the plan.

      The only requirement is that the reaction must be exothermic, and a suitable catalyst must exist. The cool bit is that a catalyst is not consumed in the reaction. It just helps the reaction along - it's all down to geometry :-)

      You can play with the temperature and pressure to maximise the yield by changing the partial vapour pressure (I think - this was some 15 years ago now!)

      Simon.
      • Are you a physics troll?

        This is true as you said for _exothermic_ reactions, but converting water to Hydrogen and Oxygen is not exothermic. If you could produce Hydrogen and Oxygen from water using less energy than you get from recombining them you would have a perpetual motion engine. Too bad you can no longer patent such a thing.

    • Re:Just waiting for them to repeal the 2nd law (Score:4, Informative)

      by God! Awful ( 181117 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @06:08PM (#3890087) Journal
      What if you could make your own hydrogen out of water, right in the garage? The technology is already available; you electrolyze water by more or less running a fuel cell in reverse.At the moment, this takes more electricity than the hydrogen would ultimately generate.
      I just can't wait until they can fix that problem!

      I don't think the article is suggesting that they will eventually consume less energy than the hydrogen will eventually generate, but if they make the process more efficient then they might get the same amount of energy back, or you might get 90% of it back. The point is, you may pay a 10% penalty to convert an immobile source of power into a portable one, but you will probably get that back because the original source of power can be cleaner and more efficient.

      The power source could be wind, solar power, or hydroelectric, which have less emissions. Any of those will be more efficient than a gasoline engine. Even if it is coal, the emissions don't have to be released in residential areas. Also, since the power station is immobile, you can scrub the emissions better. You don't have to worry about the guy with a hole in his muffler and a leaky gas tank who just doesn't care about the environment.

      -a

    • Re:Just waiting for them to repeal the 2nd law (Score:4, Interesting)

      by BitterOak ( 537666 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @06:47PM (#3890322)
      At the moment, this takes more electricity than the hydrogen would ultimately generate.

      Actually, it's the First law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy) that would be violated if you could electrolyze water with less energy than you get from burning the hydrogen, but you make a good point, and the second law sets a limit on the maximum mechanical energy you can extract by burning a fuel, either by combustion or indirectly by using a fuel cell.

  • I'm not a die-hard ecologist basically he says that it doesn't water if we switch to H2 cars today or in fifty years because eventually there won't be any oil left, so we'll have to make the switch anyway.

    It's true of course, but he ignores a major point: the sooner we will get rid of oil, the less CO2 will be released in the air and the less hot the earth will be for our children..
    NOT A DETAIL, I THINK!!!!
  • Wait just a minute friends. As much as I love technology, and the idea of a 'zero-emmission', radically designed vehicle is awful fun to think about, lets get real please.

    GM is presently taking the State of California to court over its ZEV rules. It cancelled its EV1 - which was arguably the best ZEV around...

    Now we hear of GMs * new real big commitment * to introducing a method for us to get off-the-oil, and its only (in the best flying-car style promise) 8 years away! They promise, there not kidding - just give them some time to deveolpe this new best thing, all the while allowing them to continue with the filthy ICE vehicles they produce now -- they promise to get us off the junk Real Soon Now(TM).

    No wonder GM is winning awards for GreenWashing [earthdayresources.org]

    Dont get your chequebooks out just yet friends, this sounds like allot of smoke-mirrors FUD to give their Lobbyists some time to convince(bribe) the Plutocrats in Washington to ease off the legislation.

    In conclusion: Fuck GM.

    Maybe they should spend some of that $1.5B on reaching some economies-of-scale for their ZEV EV program .... instead of killing it. [electrifyingtimes.com] For Conspiracy-Prone: I guess their buddies in the oil business didnt like the idea of not having a product to sell.. but i guess Hydrogen Filing Stations is all the same to them...

  • Can someone explain where the hydrogen comes from for these fuel cells? I've heard a variety of things, but no one seems to commit to anything.

    One possibility is that it comes from oil, which seems like a wash. It could come from plant products, but if ethanol is any indication, that's an even bigger wash (i.e., you use more energy in farming than you get from the product -- maybe hydrogen production is more efficient, but I doubt it's that much more productive).

    Would it be produced from water or other plentiful sources, using electricity, at power plants? This would be useful for unreliable power sources, like wind, which could just produce as much H as they possible, without having to meet instantaneous demand. But would this hydrogen really be efficient? How much more power would we have to produce to power all these fuel cells? And will this distribution network be any more efficient than the current power grid?

    I've heard this before: imagine powering your house with the excess electricity generated by your car... what are they talking about? Cars don't generate power. Nothing generates power -- power exists, and we harness it. So what power are these cars supposed to be harnessing? Great reservoirs of hydrogen of which I am unaware? Fossil fuels? Some plant mass that produces hydrogen much more efficiently than corn?

    (This post is entirely uninformative -- I'm just really keen to hear answers)

    • Re:Where does the H come from? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @10:55PM (#3891705) Homepage
      Can someone explain where the hydrogen comes from for these fuel cells? I've heard a variety of things, but no one seems to commit to anything.

      As you say, hydrogen can be produced in a variety of different ways. Anything from fossil fuels to algae to windmills. This means that it doesn't matter where the energy comes from. When fossil fuel is cheap, your car can run on hydrogen produced from fossil fuel. When geothermal is cheap, your car can use geothermal hydrogen. The market will decide -- we would no longer be 'locked in' to a single energy source. Hydrogen is to gasoline what Java is to assembly language, if you will.

      I've heard this before: imagine powering your house with the excess electricity generated by your car... what are they talking about? Cars don't generate power.

      What they meant was, you could drive your car to the hydrogen refueling station, then drive it home and use it as a generator to power your house. Of course this only works until your car runs low on hydrogen, then it's off to the station again to refuel....

      So what power are these cars supposed to be harnessing? Great reservoirs of hydrogen of which I am unaware?

      You'll note that 75% of the Earth's surface is covered by H2O... which contains a lot of H. Of course, it takes some energy to pull the H away from the 2 O's, but that's okay, because there is a huge nuclear reactor about 93 million miles away that provides us with as much energy as we could ever need, 24 hours a day. Actually making practical use of these resources will require some engineering, but all the ingredients are there in abundance. And for the shorter term, there are less direct methods of producing hydrogen (as noted above).

  • So, Bush tossed away the $1.5B that Clinton threw at this, and is simply tossing GM and it's cronies a $125M package next year instead. Hasn't anyone noticed that Toyota and Honda have already delivered their vehicles? I'm all for investing in America, but when, if ever, is this corporate welfare going to produce the goods!?
  • One thing has struck me : how much does one of these fuel-cell powered cars weigh? If it's less than or equal to that of a conventional car, could we not do away with the wheels altogether and have the flying car we've all been waiting for for the last 50 years?

  • (imagine powering your house with the excess electricity generated by your car)

    Buy one in Colorado, drive it to the coast and sell it. Repeat until wealthy.

  • I doubt that it can be doable easily.

    It is the main componant of the human interface to drive a car, I expect the steering to stay long after we've switched to drive by wire, hydrogen power,etc..

    It would be very hard to retrain people to use a joystick and think about the legal problems when there is the first accident..

  • Boeing did this 30 years ago (Score:3, Informative)

    by ckd ( 72611 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @05:14PM (#3889583) Homepage

    Boeing already built a vehicle [boeing.com] with electric power and motors for each wheel, 30 years ago. It is, of course, the Apollo Lunar Rover [nasa.gov]--three were used on the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 missions.

    (To my surprise, the LRV didn't use a fuel cell, though fuel cells were used for other applications on Apollo.)

  • since most of you are like me, pics of this thing would be great. well, i dug around and found a few:

    http://irishcar.com/ICOimages/autonomy.jpg [irishcar.com]

    chinacars.com [216.239.51.100] (google cache)

    e-insite.net [e-insite.net] (pdf)

    enjoy

  • MotorWeek (the tv show) did a special on the Mercedes concept car that steers and accelerates/brakes with a joystick. It was very cool, but according to Mercedes, US law requires a direct linkage between steering mechanism and wheels. This is law, which is why power assisted steering still steers if the pump dies. For this safety reason it will be a very long time before rack-and-pinion vanishes.

  • Not new!! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Sitxu ( 223846 )
    in 96 bombardier pulled the plug of the developement of a new car based on "motor rue" one electric engine per wheel (1500 joules each) the test vehicle was a dodge spirit this car was basicaly 4 engines, regulators (4 per wheel included inside,) bateries and computer, thus no brakes, shafts no transmission
    no noise, and yes it could burn rubber it was also fast, I wander why bombardier pulled the plug
  • what I want is a moller skycar
    http://www.moller.com/

  • Alternative Vehicle? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by N8F8 ( 4562 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @05:21PM (#3889636)
    Want 50MPG?

    A 0-60 time better than the average car?

    It's called a motorcycle.

  • Alternatively-powered cars can not and will not make a majority sell in the world so long as hydrocarbons exit to burn.

    A bold statement? Perhaps. But realistic? I think so.

    You thought M$ has a stranglehold on the computing industry -- can you even conceive of the grip that the hydrocarbon industry has on the automobile industry? Internal combustion engines are going to be around for a looong time, my friend.

    Nothing to say of the efforts and successes that we've had in making alternate fuels work. Good job, good science, but it won't fly on the market. Years ago science had developed the 50mpg engine...where is it? Oh, right, Geo Metros that sound like a bumblebee and have 2 cylinders. Big success there.

    Is the oil industry ready to back down in favor of more environmentally-friendly fuels? Right. Tell an oil tycoon to shut down his wells because he'd be doing the world a favor and he'll tell you what to put in your pipe and where to smoke it.

    Consider this, my fellow ingenious geeks: Which is better, Microsoft or GNU/Linux? Is that a resounding vote for Linux I detect? Ok, then...so why isn't it the dominant OS?

    Which is better: internal combustion or alternate fuels? Alternates? Then why isn't that the market standard?

    Fact is, folks: A speeding train is really tough to stop. A speeding train with the combined momentum of the oil industry, automobile industry, and lobbyists is even harder to stop. Pure money still speaks volumes and will for years, as long as the public has enough Preparation H and is eased into high prices slowly enough.

  • Silent running... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AndrewHowe ( 60826 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @06:37PM (#3890258)
    Now I don't know about you, but I ride a bicycle, and bicycles are dead quiet. The problem with this is that pedestrians keep stepping off the pavement (sidewalk) right in front of me (as in, someone did it yesterday).
    One thing that's quite good about cars is that they tend to make a bit of noise, and faster and bigger ones (the ones you really don't want to get hit by) tend to make the most. Well, nothing is louder than those little 2-stroke hairdryers, ok but there is a trend there.
    I do like the idea of these electric cars, but people are just not gonna hear them coming. I know you are supposed to actually look before you cross the road, but people just don't.

  • This sounds interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cr0sh ( 43134 ) on Monday July 15, 2002 @07:33PM (#3890754) Homepage
    But it isn't really anything "new" or "revolutionary". Fuel cells running on hydrogen or hydrocarbons? Which power electric motors? Or hybrids using conventional engines, doing the same?

    Bah!

    What would I like to see succeed?

    How about the McMaster Motor [mcmastermotor.com]? Two moving parts, light weight, innovative fuel source (but could be run off of steam in a pinch!), simple design - similar to a
    Nutating Disk Displacement Meter [tpub.com].

    Or, how about the Ball Piston Engine [ballpistonengine.com]? An interesting design that looks more like a ball bearing than an engine. The nice thing about the engine is the "standard" parts - ie, all the cylinders look the same and operate the same, parts can be swapped almost at will. I would bet one of these could be prototyped using parts from Home Depot.

    Yet another twist on engines, The Henry Engine [henryengine.com] is a rotary steam engine, not a turbine.

    These are the kind of mechanics I want to see in a future car. Something different, maybe based on older tech (I am sure all of these examples I have given are based on older principles/ideas).

    Another kind of engine, one that I think would actually make for a better and lighter hybrid vehicle: the free-piston engine. Basically this engine consists of a piston that is fired on both side (alternatingly), with the shaft that extends through the piston driving linear hydraulic pumps, with the hydraulic fluid being conveyed in the normal manner to power hydraulic motors which drive the wheels. I would suggest that instead of the piston driving pumps (more indirection=more friction=more heat=wasted energy), make the piston a magnet of sorts, wrap a coil around the cylinder (or make the cylinder be the coil), and extract the electricity directly as the piston is bounced back and forth between the ends. I would think such a system could be made to use the fuel in a super-efficient fashion (not perfect, but better than a standard piston engine). I can think of a number of design issues (ie, how to make a piston be a magnet with the heat of combustion working at odds, among others) - but these can be worked out.

    Think about how (relatively) simple a free-piston engine is - a tube, a piston inside the tube, and inlet/outlet ports (and controlling valves) plus spark plugs at the ends. I would think a good spud-gun builder could build a prototype (that would run for a while, then melt from the heat) from ABS/PVC pipe, sprinkler valves, etc from Home Depot - make the piston from a chunk of wood with steel end plates, magnets set in holes around the edge, wrap wire around the middle. Control the solenoid valves and plugs with reed magnet switches, maybe some relays (or Hall Effect sensors) - hmm, if I had the time I would do it myself!

    Someone should try to build this - I guarantee you will get /.'ed in seconds if you do (heck, it will be a better story than another one about case mods)...

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close