Ford Airstream Electric Concept Car 202
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."
But why is it so ugly? (Score:4, Interesting)
To be honest, the conversion cars are more... (Score:5, Interesting)
Driving Hazard (Score:4, Interesting)
li-ion (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Uhhh Hello Earth to Detroit (Score:2, Interesting)
With this aside, I wonder why they use onboard alternator to recharge the fuel cell. Making H from H2O through electrolysis is not very efficient (the biggest number I heard is around 40%).
Re:Fuel Cell? (Score:2, Interesting)
li-ions can now handle around 9000 cycles. (Score:3, Interesting)
e.g.
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?rele
Onboard water cracking? (Score:1, Interesting)
It needs to make enough hydrogen to drive reasonable distances before it qualifies as "feasible".
I can imagine driving this thing for three or four hours, then stopping at a motel and plugging this in overnight. It could charge the battery, and also start splitting hydrogen off water. But I have no idea whether overnight is enough time to refill the hydrogen tank.
If you had the above feature, then you could make a trip of up to 600 miles or so with this thing, as long as you are willing to stop overnight halfway through. For that matter, you could make a trip of 300 miles at any time of the day, as long as you would be staying at the destination long enough for the fuel system to replenish. Considering the lack of fuel stations selling pure hydrogen, the above feature seems like a good idea. If it's feasible.
No, BAD idea - depends on Unobtanium (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Why so ugly? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why no "trickle" solar? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"The innovator's dilemma" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Uhhh Hello Earth to Detroit (Score:3, Interesting)
FYI, in GMC's booth at the NAIAS today is the 2-mode hybrid Yukon. This is due out in 2008.
Toyota may have beaten Detroit to the consumer hybrid table, but their days of dominance in this field is numbered. GM alone will, as of 2008, have a hybrid sedan (Aura Green Line), hybrid crossover SUV (Vue Green Line), and full size truck SUV (hybrid Tahoe/Yukon/Silverado/Sierra). That means you can drive a hybrid that actually looks like a regular car (imagine that!) instead of a poorly executed fashion statement.
Re:No, BAD idea - depends on Unobtanium (Score:5, Interesting)
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/2006/11/0611
don't care, because capacitors deliver current (Score:3, Interesting)
Short-term high-current electrical storage is nice for serial-hybrid designs. (serial hybrids have fuel burning engines without mechanical connection to the wheels) High-current storage lets you get sports car acceleration despite having a fuel-burning engine only big enough for typical use. Use biodiesel if you like.
Size the engine to be just barely big enough to carry a car full of fat people up a mountain pass. Size the electrical storage to be enough to store all the energy generated by the engine and regenerative braking when you slow from 70 MPH to a stop where you wait for a slow freight train or drawbridge. Be sure that the stored energy plus engine-provided energy is enough to keep all 4 wheels at the threshold of losing traction as you accelerate from 0 to 80 MPH, assuming high-traction tires on dry pavement of course.
Hey, that would be worth paying a premium for.
hydrogen is political distraction (Score:3, Interesting)
Pressured by the Japanese hybrid success and all the environmentalists, the US car industry had to do something. They created a distraction. Hydrogen is something they can research for decades, and probably a great excuse for federal research funding. It's something to keep us from thinking about hybrids and regulations.
Must be the American psyche... (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, at least in a crash you can try being in the bigger vehicle so that you're less likely to die while the other participant hopefully does, instead of both of you being in lighter vehicles which would maybe injure both but less severely... that would be for Socialist sissies!
Is there any research as to whether there is a corresponding influence on a person's way of driving when they choose to drive something that tries to look as intimidating as possible?
Re:Good idea (Score:3, Interesting)
No What Your Missing Is (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as Ford's vehicle, OMG is that damn thing ugly! Compared to Honda http://world.honda.com/fcx/ [honda.com] that thing looks like it should be back in the 1970s. Honda is also working on Home Energy Stations (can't find the latest press release showing what it would look like in a typical garage) with the first version using natural gas (home solar is in developement) that should be going on sale in 08 with the FCX.
Dammy
Re:That's great. (Score:1, Interesting)
Now a compact car (Ford Focus 4dr) using wheel motors and all electric operation needs about 3.6KW to go 45mph, 6.9KW at 60mph and 12.6KW at 75mph. So to go 60mi at 45, 60 and 75mph requires 4.8, 6.9 and 10.1KWH respectively. Using a 90-10% discharge range for NiMHs, you need 6, 8.6 and 12.6KWH worth of high capacity 2.6AH cells. That is 1923, 2756 and 4038 cell packs. Since 336V nominal is 280 1.2V cells in series, rounding up to the next 280 cell set, we get 1960 (7 sets, 6.1KWH), 2800 (10, 8.7) and 4200 cells (15, 13.1) weighing about 123, 175 and 263lbs and costing $1764, $2520 and $3880. Peak outputs are 25, 36 and 55KW. 0 to 60mph accelerations assuming 2000lbs + battery are 18, 12 and 8.6 seconds. Lifetimes are about 80K, 120K and 150K miles. Range of 80% capacity (90% - 10%) at 45mph is 61, 87 and 131 miles. Cost to charge assuming 0.25C rate and $0.10/KWH, $0.57, $0.82 and $1.23 for a cents per mile of 0.94 or 107 miles to a dollar. Cost per mile for the batteries is $02.2, $02.1 and $02.6. This assumes that everything after the battery is kept between battery changes.
Given the extra cost of the wheel motors, the gearing, the electronics, cables and etc., you can add about $4K to the cost of the battery, $4K for the car and another $4k for overhead, advertising, shipping, dealer prep, etc. for a grand total of $14K to $16K. Add profit margin and you would be looking at a $17K to $20K retail price for the car. Assuming you keep the car for 10 years, the overall cost would be about 12 to 13 cents a mile including tires, weekly washes, annual lubes and checks, lights (no oil changes or tune ups because no engine) and replacement batteries (car insurance costs vary greatly by age and state).
A fuel cell would run to the upper side of the above range with the expensive fuel cell and tank being offset because it doesn't need as big a battery. Hydrogen runs about $1.50 a Kg currently which the PEM converts to 18KWH or $0.083/KWH. 4.5Kg in the 350 bar tank equals about 81KWH or about 704 miles at a constant 60mph. At 75mph, that drops to 482 miles. Applying the EPA reducer for highway miles of 9/13 we get an EPA equivalent range of 487 and 334 miles respectively. The reason why the Airstream gets less is its larger cross section, extra internal power use like heating, ventilating and air conditioning. And it includes things we didn't like weather, climbing, accelerating and the fact that regenerative braking doesn't recover all of the kinetic energy.