Surviving the Advanced Tech “Valley of Death”
By Charles Freese
Executive Director, Fuel Cell Activities
One of the most difficult things about working with a new technology is helping people understand the “dollars and sense” associated with it. This is especially true when the technology is one that can be demonstrated, but is still a few years from commercial introduction. Take hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for example.
In 2007 GM deployed Project Driveway, a fleet of more than 100 Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell electric vehicles. Project Driveway is still the largest and most experienced fleet of its kind anywhere in the world with more than one million miles of accumulated driving by real consumers. The vehicles were hand-built, making them very expensive, but the builds helped establish a new supplier community and resolved many technical challenges.
While the Project Driveway vehicles still amaze almost everyone who drives one, they use technology that is now four years old and was essentially a proof of concept. Ordinarily, we wouldn’t put early vehicles in the hands of real customers until a program reaches pilot production. Project Driveway’s purpose is to gain customer feedback, better understand the technology and evaluate the fuel infrastructure. More importantly, these vehicles were intended to prove to the world that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can become practical solutions for future transportation needs. It is a testament to the skill of the development team and the capability of the technology that these vehicles are refined enough to be used daily and meet or exceed customer expectations.
We are often asked how much these vehicles cost and we are consistently careful to avoid putting a price tag on a vehicle that people can experience but not own. Putting it bluntly, the cost of a demonstration vehicle is neither the right measure nor the right question. Even prototype vehicles with conventional propulsion systems are prohibitively expensive at this point in their development cycle. The important cost question should focus on what the technology will cost when it enters production and what value the technology provides the customer, including energy efficiency, zero emissions, improved performance, reliability, fuel range, short refueling times, and consumer acceptance.
With quantifiable learnings from the Equinox fuel cell fleet and a strong technology development effort, the fuel cell program left R&D about a year ago and became part of Powertrain, where it is treated like any pre-production program when it comes to seeking efficiency, cost reduction, design for manufacturability, and other elements of a production program. It is still expensive, but the costs are coming down dramatically. Our next-generation fuel cell architecture is 220 pounds lighter, uses about half the parts and roughly a third of the precious metals, compared to the still-impressive Equinox demonstration vehicles.
In some ways, we are a victim our own success. The Chevy Equinox fuel cell is a great car, but it is a demonstration vehicle with aging technology and high cost. The next-generation fuel cell system is much less expensive but is not yet to the point where we have vehicles on the road. The graphic below shows the significant physical differences and the tale of the tape between the Project Driveway propulsion system and the next-generation system. The things we are learning will continue to lower fuel cell system costs and we expect the fuel cell system will become cost competitive with other comparably capable advanced powertrain solutions. All these technologies have a common goal: to quickly complete a couple production learning cycles that will help bring costs down. Then the technology must be used in enough cars to achieve necessary economies of scale.
For today, we must help people understand that the fuel cell vehicles they can drive now would still be out of reach for most buyers. Fuel cells must cross the same “valley of death,” that every new technology must endure. GM is developing advanced hydrogen fuel cell designs that are clearly on a path toward affordable hydrogen-powered vehicles. As we move from petroleum to other energy sources we must consider the true technology costs and stay the course to achieve our long-term objectives.
Click here to see the full-size image.
23 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Absolutely outstanding progress. This, far more than using batteries, should be the push for propulsion. Thank you for sharing the work your team at GM is doing. Looking forward to hearing more.
GM is developing advanced hydrogen fuel cell designs that are clearly on a path toward affordable hydrogen-powered vehicles.
Although that does nothing to address the daunting problems of handling either gaseous or liquid hydrogen and the expensive hydrogen infrastructure that will be required. The hydrogen infrastructure is the long pole in the tent, not developing a hydrogen fuel cell.
Are you doing any research into methanol fuel cells? Methanol is an excellent carrier of hydrogen; is much easier to handle; and to some extent, a methanol infrastructure already exists.
There are already factory fork lifts and industrial tugs using methanol fuel cells. With that leg up, surely it wouldn’t be that difficult to put a methanol fuel cell into an auto.
Neither the hydrogen infrastructure nor the technological hurdles of using fuel cell cars is the tall pole in the tent.
The tall pole in the tent is the fact that the systemic efficiency of the hydrogen fuel cell car is *far worse* than that of a gasoline or diesel powered car. Hydrogen as a facility for energy transportation is vastly inferior to fossil fuels.
Production of pure hydrogen is an energy intensive process. Combined with the energy required to compress hydrogen to 10,000 psi as required by advanced fuel cells, the fuel cell produces far less energy than went into the fuel in the first place.
That energy must come from somewhere. That energy has to be produced by a means *other* than hydrogen fuel cells. The hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure will do nothing but increase the demand for power from our current fossil fuel based power grid.
While I am a strong proponent of moving away from fossil fuels for power, hydrogen is the WRONG WAY TO GO.
William~
You are right, I readily stipulate that hydrogen production is the second tall pole in the tent.
Due to the immutable Laws of Thermodynamics, it will always take more energy to produce hydrogen fuel than we can get back by either burning it, or using it in a fuel cell.
I’ve always felt that rather than use electricity or natural gas to produce hydrogen and incur those thermodynamic losses, it would make more sense to use the electricity or natural gas directly as a fuel. If a hydrogen fuel cell is possible, a methane (the chief component in natural gas) fuel cell would also be possible.
I’d certainly like to see GM as excited about either methanol or methane fuel cells as they are about hydrogen. Both offer the advantage of not needing the huge expense or offering the daunting logistics problems of a hydrogen supply infrastructure.
Best regards,
Doug
William,
Ultimately, I don’t think that the efficiency of hydrogen production is the relevant question. The relevant question, in my opinion, is simply cost to the consumer. You correctly point out that the energy cost to produce hydrogen would be borne by the grid. However, many power plants run 24/7 regardless of demand. So, at low demand times, the surplus energy in many cases is lost. Why not use this surplus to manufacture hydrogen? Furthermore, if the electricity is produced by renewable sources, then I care even less about its relative efficiency. Wind, geothermal, solar thermal, hydroelectric, etc., even nuclear, operate 24/7. Hydrogen can be generated during off-peak hours with minimal impact on the grid (in fact, utilities have expressed a lot of interest in generating hydrogen during off-peak hours which is then used by standalone fuel cells to supplement supply during peak hours).
Moreover, many people don’t realize that ever more quantities of pure hydrogen are produced to refine gasoline. It is my understanding that a hydrogen production facility is located near almost if not every oil refinery. Hydrogen is also a by-product associated with the production of chlor alkali and other industrial chemicals. According to 2003 statistics (I could not locate more recent ones), if you were to purchase hydrogen in bulk (delivered to you) from companies like Linde, Praxair or Air Products, the price would range from $5.30/kg to $11.02/kg for compressed gas cylinders and $4.87 to $7.73/kg for liquid hydrogen. A kg of hydrogen is roughly equivalent to a gallon of gasoline. However, fuel cells are generally at least twice as efficient as comparable gasoline engines (i.e you will get at least twice the mileage). So, if at worst case, your cost is $11.02/kg (equivalent to $11.02/gal.), you are effectively paying the equivalent of $5.51/gal because you are able to travel twice as far on that kg of hydrogen as you would a gal. of gasoline. And that is a 2003 worst case scenario. The Department of Energy predicts this cost to drop significantly as more hydrogen is produced (as it is the ultimate renewable resource, we will never run out of it). The 2003 best price would be in line with what we are paying at the pump today (excluding taxes). This optimism is shared by the industrial gas industry, including the Linde Group, who are confident that they can produce and deliver hydrogen cost competitively with gasoline.
With regard to transportation, it is a common misunderstanding that we would need to develop a transportation and logistics structure. According to the Department of Energy, the world economy currently consumes about 42 million tons of hydrogen per year (a lot of it being used by the oil companies). Every day, trucks carrying compressed hydrogen and liquid hydrogen travel the roadways. I am sure you have probably seen tanker trucks from Linde, Praxair and others carrying hydrogen without realizing it. These companies have the experience and expertise to safely transport hydrogen.
From my perspective (I am a Project Driveway participant), there don’t appear to be any technological show stoppers preventing widespread deployment. GM has shown it can make a great fuel cell vehicle that is on a glidepath to cost equivalence with comparable gasoline vehicles. Companies like the Linde Group are confident that they can produce, transport and even dispense hydrogen cost competitively with gasoline. All that is required is the capital investment and political will to make this happen.
However, many power plants run 24/7 regardless of demand. So, at low demand times, the surplus energy in many cases is lost.
Energy is never lost (2nd law of thermodynamics).
Fossil fuel grid power derives from highly efficient co-generation plants that run 24/7 to supply the base demand and much less efficient gas turbine plants that can come online quickly as needed to provide peak demand power.
This means that the plants that run 24/7 do not have surplus power, and running the plants that supply peak demand power 24/7 is not economical.
Efficiency relates monetary cost to energy cost.
The idea that we won’t have to develop an infrastructure is preposterous. Most of the hydrogen production you cite is not *transported*. The current hydrogen transportation capability would have to grow by multiple orders of magnitude. Hydrogen distribution end points do not exist.
How much volume does a kilogram of hydrogen take up? It’s more than a gallon… The fuel tank on BMW’s hydrogen 7 takes up most of the trunk and doesn’t provide the range of a tank of gasoline.
Efficiency should matter at least as much with renewable energy as with fossil fuels, as there is so little renewable energy around right now.
I guess what we believe, as “pundits” is immaterial. The industry players, however, remain really confident in hydrogen. GM appears confident that if they can cross this “Valley of Death” and reach economies of scale, fuel cell vehicles will be cost competitive with conventional vehicles. Companies like the Linde Group are confident that they can provide and deliver hydrogen (as well as the dispensing equipment) at a cost competitive with gasoline. I am willing to give the industry the benefit of the doubt (I am optimistic by nature) and am really excited about the prospect of truly having your cake and eating it too: a fuel cell EV can be scaled from subcompact up to a bus, so we can drive what we want, have zero emissions, and be (hopefully) energy independent. I am not normally an SUV fan, but the fuel cell EV Equinox has great torque and is fun to drive, together with plenty of cargo room. If these companies can do this, shouldn’t we all be as supportive as possible? What is the downside?
I am willing to give the industry the benefit of the doubt (I am optimistic by nature) and am really excited about the prospect of truly having your cake and eating it too.
I am too, as long as they don’t expect American taxpayers to provide the money to jump start their industry. I wouldn’t want them to do as the corn ethanol industry did, letting taxpayers support them with tax credits, subsidies, and tariffs while they reaped the profits and for themselves.
That is a business model that is much to prevalent nowadays — letting taxpayers provide the money and take the risk, while keeping the profits for themselves.
That is also a flaw in GM’s business model for the Volt. They are banking far too much on that $7,500 tax credit for electric cars. If a business model can’t stand on its own without subsidies or tax credits, it’s not a good business model.
I am frankly troubled that Mr. Freeze seems so apologetic about GM’s fuel cell program, as though the public doesn’t get the need for next gen vehicles. I think he’s really making the case to GM management, a notoriously backward thinking group. GM needs to get fuel cell vehicles into showrooms. Ahead of the competition. Enough talk!
Dan,
If you could walk into your local GM dealer today and buy a fuel cell vehicle, how much do you think it would cost? How much would you be willing to pay? (Unless you are a major stockholder in Google or MicroSoft, I guarantee the cost would be more than you are willing to pay.)
Where do you think you would get the hydrogen to refuel it?
Aha! In that perspective, the story of the EV1 “test fleet” almost makes sense.
Too bad there was no Gen2 electric car (EV2?).
There is a Gen2 electric car, it’s called the Volt.
How difficult is it to reform on board hydrogen from methanol or dimethyl ether?
David,
I suspect it would be far easier to use methanol directly in a fuel cell, rather than to use an intermediate process to extract hydrogen from the methanol. Here is a link to a company that is already making commercial direct methanol fuel cells for use in forklifts and industrial tugs: Direct Methanol Fuel Cells
Many large distribution centers and warehouses are shifting to tugs and forklifts that use direct methanol fuel cells. The big advantage is no pollution and no batteries to charge. When a methanol cartridge is empty, it is a fast and clean process to swap cartridges, with little down time for the forklift.
One would think that a DMFC that can power a heavy forklift all day would also work in a car, and I’m surprised this doesn’t seem to be on GM’s radar screen.
“Our next-generation fuel cell architecture is 220 pounds lighter, uses about half the parts and roughly a third of the precious metals”
What type AND how much precious metals are we talking about here? There was a rash of Catalytic Converter thefts because the device has platinum. Theives would slide under your vehicle with a battey powered sawz-all cut the converters out likety-split!
Fuel Cells use platinum in the PEM correct? If there is enough in a catalytic converter to warrant the interest from thieves, is there more of a risk with PEM’s loaded with the stuff? Is there any development in the nano-particle field that may replace precious metals with nano-structures or sponges?
Catalytic convertors were stolen because they were easy and quick to steal, and scrap metal prices for all metals were sky high. A fuel cell would be much harder to steal than a catalyst, as the fuel cell is basically an engine. Metal prices have also fallen with economic times.
Metal prices have also fallen with economic times.
Huh? Have you checked the price of gold, silver, and platinum lately?
A-MAZ-ING! GM is truly a pioneer in fuel efficiency and alternative fuel vehicles. Kudos to them. I am curious why GM abandonned their electric vehicles (EV). Those were awesome cars.
I have always felt strongly with the hydrogen theory being a major part of the combustion engine. however why not use the technology we already have and just perfect it. such as electric motors powering all the wheels. but instead of using 10k worth of batteries that will need to be replaced, why not just have a small 3 cyl diesel engine powering a 8kw generator that will in turn power all the needs of the vehicle, you know like the trains do, 400miles on a gallon of diesel to haul 1 ton of cargo is what they claim. and it doesn’t have to be a 120 hp engine, a simple 12-20hp is more than enough.
if a simple guy like me can make one for under 10k surely a billion dollar operation can do much better with better results, or maybe your just paying the engineers way too much for stuff they dont understand.
why not just have a small 3 cyl diesel engine powering a 8kw generator that will in turn power all the needs of the vehicle
That’s an excellent question Anthony. A true series hybrid. Mechanically it would be very simple, and would have the advantage of getting rid of the mechanical efficiency losses a gearbox, differential, and all that entails. Just an engine turning a generator that sends power through wires to electric motors at the wheels.
As you point out, diesel-electric locomotives have worked that way for decades. It would be interesting to have someone in GM’s R&D division explain why cars have never been designed to work that way.
Another case of GM taking their eye off the ball.
For years GM was the world’s leader in series-hybrid technology when their Electro-Motive Division (EMD) was making the best diesel-electric train locomotives in the world at their plant in La Grange, IL.
Instead of using that technology in cars, what did the GM leadership do? Of course, they got rid of EMD in 2005 selling it to a private equity group.
It’s too bad some of the auto engineers in Detroit didn’t tap into the hybrid expertise of GM’s EMD engineers in La Grange..
There is an interesting article in the recent Popular Mechanics:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4335827.html?page=1
It is clear that in order to Survive this Valley of Death, there has to be a support from grassroots level and this article appears to support it. But Dr. Chu, our honorable Secertary of Energy, believes that we need the “four miracles” to survive.
In the article it mentions:
” The next-generation fuel cell system is much less expensive but is not yet to the point where we have vehicles on the road.”
So as now GM has a GEN 2 Fuel Cell, does that mean there will be a PROJECT DRIVEWAY 2? And will there be a new test fleet of GEN 2 Fuel Cell vehicles that need to be driven?