Ford Airstream Electric Concept Car

Not to be upstaged by GM's plug-in electric concept vehicle, Ford has unveiled its own concept. The twists are design by Airstream and a hydrogen-powered fuel cell to charge the battery. From the AutoblogGreen article: "The fuel cell, made by Ballard, turns on automatically when the battery charge dips below 40 percent. With the on-board charger (110/220 VAC), the battery pack can be refilled at home. Ford says the HySeries Drive is 50 percent smaller and less complex than conventional fuel cell system and should have more than double the lifetime."

Good idea

This is where there is a lot of money to be made. A plug in vehicle that has a range of about 40 miles will take care of the business that most people use in their day to day lives, while having a small fuel cell or gasoline generator available for occasional longer journeys will make it feasible as a normal car. They just need to make sure it doesn't look like the Prius and handles like a normal car (and not a tin car) and they can make a lot of money. But then again this is Ford. They'll invent the systems while Toyota or Honda will actually make an effective product.

Re:Good idea

I don't know ... I understand that Sony will be supplying the batteries.

Re:

* All measurements in degrees Celsius.

No, BAD idea - depends on Unobtanium

Two kinds of Unobtanium, actually:

• The inexpensive, long-lived room-temperature hydrogen fuel cell, and
• Hydrogen fuel every 150 miles or so.

Without either of those, this is just a short-range electric car. <yawn>

PEM fuel cells have been one of the two stumbling blocks for hydrogen vehicles for years. It wasn't long ago that a stack for a car cost a half a million to a million dollars (due to hand-assembly and platinum content) and had a fairly short lifespan. Li-ion batteries to get the same range would cost a fraction as much, and they are coming down in price/kWh at a steady rate. Lifespan is going way up with the new chemistries and nanoparticle materials.

Hydrogen is the other form of Unobtanium. It would take something like a trillion dollars to build out a new hydrogen-fuelling infrastructure to replace petroleum motor fuels. (Got a spare trillion handy, or did it go for Bush's War?) Further, the production of hydrogen from non-fossil energy sources is very inefficient [blogspot.com]; a PEM electrolyzer is maybe 75% and a PEM fuel cell is about 60%, for a best-case throughput of 45% (before compression energy is considered). In contrast, a lithium-ion battery is about 95% efficient.

There are no ways around this; production of hydrogen from e.g. aluminum is much lossier than electrolysis [blogspot.com]. Making a renewable hydrogen economy requires not one but two kinds of Unobtanium.

So why's the US government pushing hydrogen? It's my suspicion that the oil interests want all the alt-energy money spent on things which cannot work, thus guaranteeing that taxpayer-funded research will never threaten their gravy train. A few million dollars in campaign funding thus buys them many $billions in increased revenue; probably the best investment they could ever make.

Re:No, BAD idea - depends on Unobtanium

Picking the right type of sustainable fuel is extremely difficult however it is very important for politicians to understand the energy equation of each fuel source. Unfortunately I think most politicians are "technological cretins" and only have a interest in what will get them elected or re-elected so choosing viable and appropriate fuel sources becomes more and more reliant on "interest and lobby groups".

Currently fossil fuel (includes diesel and petrol) is mainly used for transport and looks like being this way for some time to come. Alternative fuels in the form of bio-diesel and ethanol are being touted as a viable alternative to fossil fuel however even these fuels have their drawbacks since you still need to actually grow, harvest, produce and deliver the fuel to the consumer. Bio-diesel is currently seen as the most viable alternative fuel (cheaper and less polluting) since most diesel vehicles can run on it with little or no modification while petrol engines do need to be modified (some more than others) to run on ethanol which is not that environmentally friendly and has a lower energy equation than bio-diesel. On average diesel is approx 30% more efficient and diesel engines usually have allot more torque at much lower RPM than their equivalent petrol counterparts.

You are right so say "So why's the US government pushing hydrogen? It's my suspicion that the oil interests want all the alt-energy money spent on things which cannot work, thus guaranteeing that taxpayer-funded research will never threaten their gravy train.". I would add many governments are touting this around the world and so far nothing has come of it although hybrid (ie. petrol/electric and diesel/electric) are viable. Again you really have to look at the energy equation (time does play a part here) to see if current hybrids are truly viable and cost effective.

Before everyone runs out and buys a diesel (equally applies to a hybrid) I would suggest you do some homework since diesel cars are normally more expensive than their petrol counterparts and you may have to travel a fair distance before you start to save. If the costs are the other-way around (mine was) then it becomes easier to make the decision. Of course buying a motor vehicle is a matter of personal choice and prestige as well and fuel efficiency may not even enter the equation.

The following is an interesting read on the potential ways of manufacturing alternative fuels. The heading reads "'Flashy' New Process Turns Soy Oil, Glucose Into Hydrogen" so read into that what you may.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/06110 3083833.htm [sciencedaily.com]

Re:

Off-peak would mean "at night". I've lived through a Texas summer; it does get cooler at night, the asphalt roads actually solidify!

A big enough electric-vehicle fleet would let you take advantage of surplus energy at any time of the day, not just at nigh

But why is it so ugly?

Is that visual design supposed to be some sort of physically manifested sarcasm about "green" cars? How do they expect to win over the SUV crowd with the mirror plated SissyMobile? At least make the thing look respectable when pulling up to Home Depot.

Re:

Is that visual design supposed to be some sort of physically manifested sarcasm about "green" cars? How do they expect to win over the SUV crowd with the mirror plated SissyMobile?

That kind of reaction was also typical in the time the first automobiles sta

To be honest, the conversion cars are more...

appealing. http://www.electroauto.com/index.html [electroauto.com] Examples of some that are available. They are less shiny, less costly, and still get the same performance as standard plugin systems that are new. I just don't like the way that such cars seem to require a special new look. meh! Just build a nice commuter car with fantastic mileage, that's what we really want.

Driving Hazard

If you're driving with the sun behind you and this thing is driving towards you, the glare would blind you enough to veer off the road!

"Concept car", perfect for my "concept job"

A concept car is just what I am looking for to drive to my concept job!

Wait a minute.

Look at this picture. [autobloggreen.com]

I half expect that central column to start pumping up and down with a high pitched grinding noise as the vehicle slowly disappears.

Glitter Ford

Hey, I think I played one of those things in Rifts. [wikipedia.org]

"The innovator's dilemma"

In the article about the Chevy Volt concept car, I ranted about why GM didn't just manufacture and market the EV-1? Most people "don't want" 2-seater cars with an 80-mile range? Fine, no problem, don't try to sell it to most people, just sell it to the few people that do.

Well, since then, I've read Clayton M. Christensen's The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Great, great book. Everyone should read it. And I'm stunned by how perfectly the car companies are falling into the exact trap he describes. And how perfectly the electric car fits his definition of "disruptive technology." And, yes, he does talk about them in the last chapter.

Chevy and GM need to spin off a small division, a la IBM spinning off the Boca Raton PC division, to make and market an electric car. Not a future "sustaining technology" electric car that meets the needs of existing customers of gasoline cars. (Hybrids a la the Prius are a perfect example of that). Just... EV-1's, which are known to have a small market... a market which puts different values on things than the existing car market. A small spinoff for which that market is worthwhile. A spinoff that plays by its rules and doesn't need to compare the profit margin of an EV-1 with the profit margin of a Suburban, so it won't divert all its effort to building Suburbans. A small spinoff that will sell the cars to anyone it can find who will buy one, and will thereby find the new market for them.

Then, over time, the existing business for currently feasible small EVs will result in learning curve improvements, economies of scale, better batteries, longer ranges, bigger vehicles and suddenly one day the mainstream buyer will notice that the electrics _are_ competitive for the traditional market.

Yes, I know... you can tell that I've just read Christensen's book. Which has been out for a decade. But judging from the big carmakers, I'm not the only one who hasn't read it.

Just do it, Detroit. Stop fooling around with the concept cars, the great stuff that's always been just around the corner since 1939. Don't build a prototype of tomorrow's car, build a real car, now, and sell it, today.

Just start up the EV-1 line and build some more. Just like the last. Then sell them. Then build some that are a little better. Then sell them. And s on.

Confusing Article

This article was confusing to me also until I read the press release by Ford-http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_displa y.cfm?release=25150 [ford.com]. This is a hybrid in that it is powered by a Li-Ion battery and a Hydrogen fuel cell. There is a "350-bar hydrogen tank that supplies 4.5 kg of useable hydrogen". So you can plug it into the wall to recharge the battery but you must recharge the fuel tank with hydrogen. Also the battery only gives you a distance of 25 miles whereas the Fuel cell gives you 280 miles. There is no electrolysis.

Why no "trickle" solar?

One thing I don't get about the whole plug-in-only concept is why these cars don't have Photo-voltaic cells to complement the battery system. Solar-only doesn't work, but in many areas you could squeeze out significantly more "miles per charge" with a solar panel. And for commuters, your car sits outside in the lot for most of the peak collecting hours anyway, not anywhere near a charger.

Re:Why no "trickle" solar?

It's interesting - I've done some math on this before, and it's not really worth it.

After efficiency losses from engine and alternator, one gallon of gas [wikipedia.org] is equal to at least 10 KWH of electricity. Realistically, about the best you could do with solar panels is to cover 2 meters of the car with ~15% efficient panels = 300 watts (max). Now assume you get 12 hours of full sun directly on the panels each day (which is impossible). That's 3.6 KWH/day, or about a third of a gallon of gas. More realistic solar panel data (PDF) [spsenergy.com] gets about 1/5 of that in real life.

That might not even be worth the extra weight of solar panels and equipment!

Plug in electric cars.

Seriously, plug in is dead, fuel cell or other self-contained has to be the future. And hybrid has to be the past.

No, its not. There is no self contained sustainable fuel that is remotely viable at this stage.

Your non-renewable options are:
Petrol/Diesel
Natural Gas

Your renewable transport options are:
Hydrogen (*)
Biodiesel & Alcohols (+)
Electricity
Other esoteric energy stores.

The joy of electricity is simple - it piggy backs off whatever we decide to power the world with for fixed structures. That solution may be nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal or hydroelectric. It really doesn't matter, as long as we can store the energy sufficiently well in a car to get around. If you think that is going to be too hard, explain to me why its going to be easier to store hydrogen, because I see alot more things running off batteries now that hydrogen energy sources.

Just my opinions here,

Happy to see what others think,

Michael

(*) Right now all hydrogen is formed from hydrocarbon sources. Its hard to hold as it destroys the metals that hold it in compressed form. It loses most of the energy put into it in the compression cycle to get it into its container so that you only get about 30% of the energy put in.

(+) Definitely an option for some parts of the world, but not really going to work well for many countries as they don't have enough arable land to make all the biomass. And to make it replace fossil fuels for cars will require so much water to irrigate the crops we will probably have to start building massive numbers of desalination plants, etc. Personally I'd rather keep the land areas untouched and go for renewables, but some countries do manage this option ok.

Re:

Here is the thing: hybrids do not provide substantial fuel economy and environmental impact gains for people driving long highway commutes. It works very well in a frequent stop-and-go driving situation. While Toyota put the Prius on the market, GM spent t

Re:

The article and summary both clearly say that the fuel cell charges the battery, and not the other way round.

Re:

Where did you get the idea that there's a gasoline powertrain from?

don't care, because capacitors deliver current

Serious electric storage is kind of pointless, as is hydrogen. Hydrogen and stored electricity are both a pain in the ass to deal with, and both generated via coal-fired power plants.

Short-term high-current electrical storage is nice for serial-hybrid desi

li-ions can now handle around 9000 cycles.

Dont li-ion batteries lose capacity rather quickly?

Not any more. They last the life of the vehicle. 9000 cycles at say 250 miles per charge is 2,250,000 miles. At say 20,000 miles per year the battery should last about a hundred years. My last car started falling apart after about 15 years.

e.g.
http://www. [marketwire.com]

hydrogen is political distraction

Boy did I cringe when Bush suddenly got all excited about hydrogen. I wonder if he believes the nonsense or if he's in on the lie. He's really not dumb; that just plays well to many voters.

Pressured by the Japanese hybrid success and all the environmentali

Re:Yeah yeah

No problem: I'll agree to drive one of these to work every day, if you agree to wear a clown suit to work every day. Deal?