 |
|
« More than 25 Million Now Use the Firefox Browser. Should You? | Main | Controlling a Device Just By Thinking About It. No, Really. I'm Serious. »
February 25, 2005
He Said, She Said: Hybrids vs. Fuel Cells
A recent blog item by Katrina served as a primer to hydrogen fuel cell technology. Personally, I believe this technology—for real-world, widespread use—is easily more than a quarter of a century away. Here's why.
Even while such technologies as 3D modeling and rapid prototyping have slashed time to market and helped make manufacturers more responsive, the auto industry as a whole is a slow moving train on the tracks of internal combustion, fueled by an oil-dependent and –manipulated national economy. Fuel cells indeed hold great promise to help create a clean and green future, but that train's not stopping anytime soon. Does anyone actually think that oil producers will say, "Yeah! Fuel cells are a great idea! All we have to do is make as much money from it!" It's just not going to happen in the foreseeable future when we as a nation don't yet understand the need to stop driving 9-mpg, 6,000-lb SUVs.
Such changes will only happen incrementally, using technologies already in use. We know internal combustion works. We love internal combustion. We weren't thrilled about electric vehicles (the most notable being the General Motors EV1) with limited driving range and the need to charge 'em up like cell phones. The technology held promise, however.
What about diesels? Bastardized by visions of black smoke-belching tractor-trailers and nightmarish GM (and mediocre VW) passenger car efforts in the 1980s, diesels nonetheless also offer great promise. (Smoke-belching typically indicates a fuel injection problem that needs to be fixed, and GM's older 'diesels' were a half-hearted, half-assed effort at best.) Mercedes did it right even back then, but consumers either saw no advantage or couldn't afford their offerings. Europe has embraced passenger car diesels for many years, not surprising with gasoline costs being many times higher there than here. The Big Three have finally found some success in diesels with their light truck offerings. Diesels still haven't found a place in America's driveway, however. Perhaps Jeep's new Liberty Common-Rail Diesel will help, offering both impressive economy and massive torque. On paper, it's an impressive 4-cylinder: 25% better fuel economy, 480-mile range per fill-up, and reduced emissions, and it also runs on corn-based biodiesel fuel. The trick, of course, is in the marketplace: will it be accepted?
Enter the Hybrid. President Bush wants significant numbers of hydrogen-powered cars in use by 2020. Of course, he also wants to put a man on Mars. Hybrid technology combining gasoline and electric motive power seems a much more likely way to lower emissions and increase economy without sacrificing performance, driving range, or family- and load-carrying luxuries to which we've become accustomed. Compared to electric vehicles, Hybrids won't litter our landfills with toxic, spent battery packs.
While still relatively small numbers, consumers purchased more than 84,000 hybrids in 2004, led by the Toyota Prius. Expect Ford's new cute-ute Escape and Mercury Mariner hybrid offerings to substantially increase these numbers this year. The Escape/Mariner are full hybrids, able to operate on gasoline or electric power independently or together. Mild hybrids, on the other hand, require gasoline engine operation all the time. The Escape's city economy of 36 mpg is certainly impressive, all while meeting California AT-PZEV (advanced technology partial zero emission vehicle) emissions as well as Tier 2, Bin 4 Federal emissions standards. Click here for more information about CA AT-PZEV (PDF).
Hybrids meet many of our environmental and uniquely American needs now.
|
Advertisement
|
Comment
10 CommentsHydrogen economy and hydrogen fuel cells in the long run will be our final choice
February 25, 2005 6:38 PMI really love my Toyota Prius. I usually average 40-45 mpg. I had to really pay attention on "how" I drive to maximize fuel efficiency. Start-ups from traffic lights seem to use more gas, while more coasting potentials, e.g., going downhill, uses very little, if any. Navigation option is wonderful, no more wrong turns.
March 2, 2005 8:56 AMre: Mark Devlin's Rant
I disagree with Mark on several points. As a resident of the Red States of America, I am confronted with the reality of extended trips to conduct the ordinary business of life. Further, most of these trips require competing for space on crowded highways with ever larger commercial vehicles. The majority of drivers in this country have the same considerations.
The SUV I drive weighs 6800 pounds and gets 12mpg. I drive the Yukon XL for two reasons — safety and capacity. The SUV is perceived to be a safer vehicle because it has a real honest to goodness perimeter frame and its size and weight augur against it becoming the sheet steel pancake in a traffic accident for which lesser vehicles are notorious. The SUV has the capacity to carry the entire family and their pets, baggage, hangers-on, and other impedimenta in one go. Using what passes for a modern electric or hybrid vehicle, a choice would have to be made between two (or more) trips, using two (or more) vehicles, or trimming the load. None of these options realistically obtain. These options, additionally, would expose users to the pancake propensity of the current crop of electric/hybrids to a greater extent.
Tree-huggers are constantly wailing that there is some sort of conspiracy between and amongst the vehicle manufacturers and the oil companies to maintain pollution at current levels. The simple truth is that the manufacturers of our current crop of automotive wonders (which The Greens choose to disparage when they are not behind the wheel), provide vehicles which the public will purchase. They are committed to making money. To do so they build products for which there is a demonstrable demand. Mark opines that The Conspirators will delay the advent of pollution free vehicles for at least two and a half decades. If there were a ground swell of demand for Green Dream Vehicles, the automotive industry would be breaking arms, legs, and necks getting them to market. The oil industry, like the automotive folks, is committed to making money. If there were a drop in demand for oil products in favor of some other form of energy, there is no doubt that Big Oil would abandon all the fun and joy of drilling in awful conditions, refining dangerous products, and distributing those products by expensive means of transport, in less than a heartbeat and become producers of that energy. These corporations are in business for the purpose of increasing the return to investors, not for the production of any given product, and certainly not to sustain some other company's profits.
The core problem with the Great Green Dream is that the technologies of low pollution energy systems are not mature — not even adolescent. Nascent is much more descriptive of the current state of the art. Battery technology is not equal to providing speed, torque, and range even remotely competitive with the internal combustion engine. Fuel cell technology is complex, hugely expensive, bulky, and underpowered when juxtaposed with the common IC engine. Hydrogen as fuel has some promise, if and when the problems of range, storage, and refueling are fully addressed and if hydrogen ceases to scare the bejesus out of the driving public. Solar energy is wholly without the ability to provide adequate power for routine transport. Diesel has improved, but until the engines will run without sounding like the pistons are exchanging cylinders and will provide the cost benefit ratios of the gasoline engine to the user, diesel will continue to be a marginal performer in the market. In short, Mark is decrying the manufacturers for not deploying currently unavailable technology that is going to require substantial advances to become viable market alternatives to the evil IC engine. Unless and until we drivers of SUV's become convinced that real alternatives exist, we will be unregenerately purchasing, driving, and enjoying our "behemoths." If the earth warms three degrees Kelvin, I plan on turning up the air conditioner.
Hey, Noel...
I sincerely appreciate your feedback and involvement, in an environment where, hopefully, we can agree to disagree.
1) Just as a Civic-swallowing Excursion is a requirement for some, so is the necessity to ship goods via truck. Competing for space against a typical tractor-trailer combination weighing, oh, 80,000 lbs maximum (does anyone know more accurate specifics off-hand?) with a passenger car or light truck (say, 2,500 to 8,000 lbs) is a losing battle no matter how hard you fight.
2) Safety is a relative concern as dictated mainly by physics. It's a valid argument to present that one is generally safer in an SUV-to-SUV accident than in one involving an SUV and a small passenger car such as an Acura TSX; hopefully, you're in the SUV. There's no contest. The TSX simply has a greater likelihood of being the grease spot. In a high-speed, emergency lane change, however, physics also dictate a greater possibility that you'll end up on your roof while the TSX scoots away without a hiccup.
3) The most troublesome Element (pun intended) to me is need; or, in the case of SUVs, lack thereof. You need the carrying capacity of an SUV. That's valid. Most individuals and families do not require a 6,800-lb, 12-mpg (conservative) vehicle. For most it's the epitome of wasted space, unneeded carrying capacity, and atrocious use of resources (metals, plastics, composites; manufacturing energy, and of course the billions required to find, tap, refine, produce, transport and distribute fuel). Our nation's insatiable thirst for oil—and what this means in terms of global checks and balances (interpret as you will)—is clearly a concern, or should be. But hey, this is America. If you want to buy a Hummer to carry a briefcase, there's no better place on the planet to do so.
4) Tree hugger? My daily driver is a 4,000-lb, 400-hp ragtop. It's excessive by any definition, 'lasagna noodle' chassis (for now) and all. I generally find tree huggers annoying, preachy, and uninformed. (Keep those cards and letters coming!) I can't transport more than one passenger and a couple of bags (You take the blonde; I'll take the one in the turban.). But it's an enormous amount of fun and oh, so cathartic on a warm, sunny day. Problem is, even with a car rated at 16 mpg city (never achieved with repeated, completely unavoidable applications of boost), I feel like a tree hugger around 'behemoth' SUVs. If I feel like a tree hugger, something is seriously amiss.
5) Evil internal combustion? No way. I love-love-love internal combustion. Nothing warms my heart (and makes my eyes water in sheer delight) as much as a classic, all-original, '60s big-block musclecar shaking everything within 50 sq ft and spitting raw fuel that can't possibly be combusted at a loping, raucous idle. Just keep it for car shows, vintage events, and the occasional, head-turning, 'What was that?!' drive to the office. Is that so wrong? Manufacturers are presenting more efficient alternatives, however, despite the marketplace, and I applaud manufacturers and engineers for their efforts. The market simply needs to take notice and, over time, adopt these alternatives as they're considered—you're right—to be viable. Unless someone abruptly turns off the petroleum tap, this will naturally take place over time. The sooner the better.
6) You're right again: goods are defined by the market, and manufacturers are providing what the market demands. I'm just as guilty as the next person when it comes to saving the planet. Sometimes (Heaven forbid!), I don't even recycle. Do we all want Ford Escape Hybrids? No. Do we all need Jeep Liberty diesels? Will I be rushing to the nearest Toyota store to buy a Prius anytime soon? Hell no. (No offense, Jane.) Should we at least be considering such vehicles? It would be an excellent idea.
7) Oil company conspiracies? No such thing exists. (You can't fool me. There is no Sanity Claus.)
8) Air conditioner? Try the ceiling fan first. If that doesn't work, I'm with you—crank up the a/c.
Respectfully…
Mark
Biodiesel is not corn based. It can be made from any vegetable oil or animal fat, but in the USA, mostly from soybean oil, which we have a surplus of. (the meal is used for thousands of other things). For lively conversation about biodiesel and other petroleum alternatives, visit the fora at www.biodieselnow.com
Hydrogen is only being touted so the oil companies can continue to extract dollars from the consumer. H will be inefficiently cracked from petroleum for a long time to come.
August 11, 2005 10:29 AM
