« Axeon Wins First Li-ion Hybrid Electric Vehicle Battery Pack Development Contract | Main | Quantum Supplying Ford with Hydrogen Fuel Injectors »
Ford Introduces Edge with HySeries Fuel-Cell Plug-in Series Hybrid Drive
23 January 2007
 |
| The Ford Edge with HySeries Drive. |
At the Washington, D.C. Auto Show, Ford is introducing a real-world version of the new HySeries fuel cell plug-in series hybrid drive that made its debut two weeks ago in the Ford Airstream concept at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. (Earlier post.)
The HySeries Edge combines a 336V li-ion battery pack with a fuel cell range extender. When the battery state-of-charge (SOC) drops to approximately 40% (about 25 miles of all-electric range), the fuel cell begins operating to keep the battery pack charged.
 |
| Overview of the HySeries Chassis. |
The fuel cell range extender provides another 200 miles of range for a total of 225 miles with zero emissions.
Individual experiences will vary widely and can stretch out the time between fill-ups to more than 400 miles: drivers with modest daily needs would need to refuel only rarely, drivers who travel less than 50 miles each day will see fuel economy well over 80 mpgge (miles per gallon gasoline equivalent), while those with long daily commutes will see somewhat lower numbers as the fuel cell must run a larger fraction of the time.
At full range, the HySeries Drive powertrain delivers a combined city/highway gasoline equivalent fuel economy rating of 41 mpgge. The Ford Edge with HySeries Drive holds 4.5 kg of hydrogen in a 350-bar hydrogen tank.
The Ford Edge with HySeries Drive can travel at speeds of up to 85 mph. An on-board charger (110/220 VAC) can refresh the battery pack when a standard home outlet is available.
The series-hybrid architecture allows the downsizing of the fuel cell, thereby reducing the size, weight, cost and complexity of a conventional fuel cell system by more than 50%. It also promises to more than double the lifetime of the fuel cell stack, according to Ford. (GM offered similar downsizing observations when discussing a fuel-cell application of the E-Flex architecture in the Volt, which also uses a series hybrid architecture. Earlier post.)
HySeries is a flexible powertrain architecture that will enable Ford to use new fuel and propulsion technologies as they develop without redesigning the vehicle. The HySeries Drive technology is able to operate using a fuel cell, small gasoline or diesel engine connected to an electric generator to make electricity. This flexible series-hybrid architecture is similar to the approach GM is taking with its E-Flex System. (Earlier post.)
This vehicle offers Ford the ultimate in flexibility in researching advanced propulsion technology. We could take the fuel cell power system out and replace it with a down-sized diesel, gasoline engine or any other powertrain connected to a small electric generator to make electricity like the fuel cell does now.
We wanted to take what was in a ‘gee whiz’ vehicle like the Airstream and connect it with something people are driving on the road today, something that wasn’t just a futuristic concept vehicle.
—Gerhard Schmidt, vice president of research and advanced engineering for Ford Motor Company
At the announcement, Ford did note that many significant technical hurdles need to be overcome before a vehicle such as the Edge with HySeries Drive can become a reality: the stacks themselves and the hydrogen infrastructure on the fuel cell side, and the cost of the lithium-ion batteries on the plug-in side.
January 23, 2007 in Fuel Cells, Hybrids, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (35) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/7595128
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ford Introduces Edge with HySeries Fuel-Cell Plug-in Series Hybrid Drive:
Comments
Let the Hydrogen Bashing commence! On your mark...get set...GO!!!
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jan 23, 2007 5:08:41 AM
You are right Schmeltz.
And while we are at it, I would like to blame Bush too....
Posted by: Neal Bortz | Jan 23, 2007 5:50:33 AM
Another concept that may be introduced sometime in the future....oh boy!
Posted by: Bud Johns | Jan 23, 2007 6:09:23 AM
What can I say? at least Ford has a few things right...the electrical part!. As many of you know, it takes a lot more energy to make hydrogen to go into a high pressure tank than to make electricity to go into a high capacity battery. Since we lack ENERGY and not a better energy carrier (Hydrogen), in 5 years (the time it will take for the next generation high capacity, high power, high deep cycle batteries), Ford will find itself further behind in the game. Of course, the rude awakening make happen a lot sooner if these EEStor capacitors turn out not be a hoax, with 332 W*hr/kg energy density, astronomical power density (intrinsic characteristic of ultra capacitors), can be fully charged/discharged hundreds of thousands of times, and all this at 1/4 to 1/8 the price of current li-ion batteries.
Posted by: Freddy | Jan 23, 2007 6:34:15 AM
As I've said several times on my own site, the problems with hydrogen as a mass market transportation fuel are so much greater than those of BEV's that hydrogen simply won't be able to compete. If we had no BEV technology, then we would, in fact, learn to live with hydrogen after decades of building infrastructure and numerous breakthroughs in creating, distributing, and using hydrogen.
Replace the HFC with a small flex-fuel (or HCCI, if you feel a need to be bleeding edge) engine, ala GM's Volt, and you have something that's vastly more practical and could see mainstream commercial use in the US in two or three years.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Jan 23, 2007 7:06:44 AM
Freddy, I couldn't agree more -- way to go Ford -- on the electrical part!
Posted by: John McConnell | Jan 23, 2007 7:40:04 AM
May 12, 2012
Who remembers the news back in 2007? Ford, GM, Toyota and other car manufacturers tripped over each other to show their concept cars of the future. All of them painted in vivid colors their ideas and wishes for a hybrid car; and the customers salivated and waited ... and waited. It appears that the only sane car-buyers were those that bought what was already available. Back then, three-wheeled electric vehicles like those from ZAP, neighborhood electric vehicles from a variety of manufacturers, electric scooters and bikes began to appear in the streets of many American cities. At first they were an odd group of people, but soon it became a stream. Now, it appears, those were the only drivers who did kick the oil habit.
Posted by: David Greenfield | Jan 23, 2007 7:40:05 AM
David:
Everybody driving 3-wheeled ZAPs in 2012? That's a scary future my friend! Hydrogen powered horses would be a neater idea, I think. :)
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jan 23, 2007 7:50:05 AM
As a range extender I find hydrogen and fuel cells attractive (any left over hydrogen will bleed off instead of going sour, gas engines seize up if they're not run often enough), but only if they can bring the cost down to at least the neighborhood of a gas genset (therein lies the rub). They are quiet and have no harmful local emissions.
David: Have you got yourself an EV?
Posted by: Neil | Jan 23, 2007 8:15:19 AM
Stops when state of charge reches 40%. Whew, that's
a lot of overcapacity trade off to try to squeeze some
extra lifespan from those batteries. I'd say their battery
technology leaves a lot to be desired.
Posted by: kent beuchert | Jan 23, 2007 8:18:21 AM
Great. Now take it out of an SUV and put it into a lighter proper passenger car and get even better range and performance.
Posted by: Jeff | Jan 23, 2007 8:19:28 AM
How weird would it be if flying hybrid cars were in every driveway in 2015 and the Cubs finally won the pennant.
Posted by: Jason | Jan 23, 2007 8:34:21 AM
I'm referring to the 80s movie classic "Back to the Future"
Posted by: Jason | Jan 23, 2007 8:35:39 AM
Schmeltz- "Back then" implies our "now and here"; it does not forecasts the same 3-wheelers as the only EVs of the future. The piece calls your attention to the real efforts of today, versus the paper waving of the big manufacturers. Those firms could RIGHT now sell us their EVs of the 90's, since they already amortized their development costs, rather than fantasizing about energy sources of the future. As for hydrogen-powered horses... ok.. I'll drive my electric car to check out your prototype ;-)
Neil- Yes, I do own and drive a converted Ford pick up truck. Every drop of gasoline that I don't buy weakens a terrorist.
Posted by: David Greenfield | Jan 23, 2007 8:36:52 AM
David:
My hat's off to you for having an EV. I like to see people put their money where their mouth is.
Perhaps I am too much of an optimist when it comes to Hydrogen, but when I read an article like this, I can't help but get excited. Ask yourself this question: Why would almost all of the big Automakers, especially Honda, being expending so much money, time, and manpower on something that a number of people on this site have called a "pipe dream". I don't know for certain, but there has to be literally thousands of people employed by the numerous car companies, working only on Hydrogen vehicles. Do you think they get up every morning and think, "I wonder why I am working on something so hard that will never work, and never happen?". I think most feel that they are working on the future, and that these things will catch on in a big way.
Two facts: First, we have the technology to mass produce Fuel cell vehicles right now, as the Ford Edge, the GM Sequel, and the Honda FCX are all evidence of. Second, we also have the technology to mass produce Hydrogen, right now too. So the technology is here already. Albeit, in primitive form, but it has been figured out. The energy industry can't just rush out and start making tons of Hydrogen, when there's no customer base yet. And vice versa, the car companies can't just go out and make thousands, or even millions of FCV's, when there isn't a good supply infrastructure in place yet. Everytime we see an article like this, that tells me that we are inching closer to a hydrogen world. And if we are as green as we say we are, that is something we should applaud.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jan 23, 2007 10:11:46 AM
As Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead.
All of this talk of hydrogen offends me. If you are an environmentalist, you prioritize reduce greenhouse gases now, in the least toxic route.
If you are a free marketer, you want a solution that most rapidly lowers our trade imbalance, which is a grave threat to open markets.
If you are a patriot, you want to buy less Arab oil. Now.
All of these things point to three technologies for the next 10-year replacement cycle: Lighter vehicles, light hybrids and diesel. In the aggregate, these could cut our per-mile consumption by 10-25% y 2015. That would be huge - especially as biofuels come on line and reduce the greenhouse impact of those more efficient fuels even further. One challenge: if we really can impact consumption of petroleum, we may need government tax incentives to sustain the biofuels industry.
Next wave would be public transport, urban design, series hybrid, and plug-in hybrid. Research and infrastructure now, then implement. From 2015 to 2025, another 25% reduction in fuel consumption per mile.
Then, maybe then, can you start talking about hydrogen. Talking about it now is purely counterproductive.
The good news, as I mentioned at the beginning, is that the free marketers, patriots and enviros are all aligned right now, if they correctly perceive the world. The only people not on board should be hydrogen fantasists, environmental fascists, car company idiots, and oil company shareholders. But in a real democracy, those people would be marginalized and we'd know that government policy and private action would be pointing us to a 50% reduction in per-mile petroleum use by 2025.
Posted by: DollarEd | Jan 23, 2007 11:09:26 AM
This platform is not dependent on fuel cells.Seems to me series hybrids are simply waiting on demonstrated li-ion batteries which would need to be mass produced to hit the price points.Many recent posts seem to show a real push towards those goals.The initial battery production may need to be rolled out in suv type vehicles to justify cost.As more models are introduced and the battery production ramps up, the cost per unit could come down to a reasonable amount for sedans.Forty mile electric range would equal a dramatic reduction in fossil fuels based on daily driving habits of most people.
Posted by: earl | Jan 23, 2007 11:59:06 AM
DollarEd:
I'm confused. Why is investigating Hydrogen NOW, counter-productive? Why is investigating Hydrogen EVER, counter-productive? Seems to me, Hydrogen is the end game we should be, and already are shooting for. What category would the engineers at Honda fall under?--Hydrogen fantasists? Car Company idiots? Environmental fascists? All of the above? Honda is one of the darlings of the green car world. If they, not to mention most of the other big car companies are pursuing hydrogen vehicles, then wouldn't you think that maybe we are actually moving towards a hydrogen world? Why would they expend so much of their time and energy now if they didn't see a market for their FCV's until 2025 as you suggest? Their actions point to the fact that they are soon ready to get the ball rolling.
Another advantage to H2: Automakers with FCV programs have seen quite a bit of fruits from their technical labors already by being able to build better electric vehicles--look at the Volt as an example.
I agree with: "In the long run we are all dead" but in the mean time, I want to live a better life, and some day leave this world better than I found it.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jan 23, 2007 12:17:11 PM
I get the impression that each person gives a thumbs up or thumbs down to each one of these press releases based on their particular interests. I have not yet seen any new vehicles address the whole issue:
Greenhouse gas reduction
Reduction/Elimination of Petroleum as a fuel
Cost effectiveness to the consumer
Cost effectiveness with regard to the cost of converting one energy source to another (Oil, gas, electricity or other fuel to hydrogen)
Cost and environmental impact of car components
Until we look at the whole picture and provide a solution that addresses all of these, we will be hurting one area at the expense of the others (Consumer, Environment, Planet Resources).
So far the concept car manufacturers are just pushing the emphasis to alternate energy sources as a publicity stunt to gain market attention without regard to the complete environmental impact in securing the energy sources or the materials for car manufacture.
It is nice to finally see acknowledgment for some of the environmental impacts that cars have on the environment but we have a long, long way to go before we find a viable solution.
Posted by: JROJAI | Jan 23, 2007 12:28:31 PM
"gasoline equivalent fuel economy rating of 41 mpgge."
Read that again & let it sink in!! This really is back to the future.
At this rate, in 2017, Ford will match what Toyota had in 1998
Posted by: DS | Jan 23, 2007 1:02:53 PM
As always people are clueless. From a car makers perspective your dealing with a world of fuel combos both regional and local and national.
To make one car handle all the options is a very valid plan.
Why h2? Well its creeping up in japan and likely elsewhere that you can actualy right this second produce h2 from petroleum gas at home and then convert it via fuel cell to power your home or dram it into your car... CHEAPER then buying the electrity drirect and cheaper then buying gas in japan...
They did an article on it somewhere and people are saving alot of money installing h2 stations in japan.
What h2 allows is to convert one form of energy into anouther with currently not much loss and every year that loss grows smaller.
Also h2 allows one t convert excess wind or solar energy into something relatively easy to store ulike ebntricity itself. THUS you can build alot more wind or solar then local or region deman can consime. More then you can sell on the spot market. More then the local grid can handle at peak power.
And meanwhile fuelcells get cheaper and l;ast longer with every gen.It doesnt lok like that tend is slowing anytime soon.
If the fuel cell costs less then an engine and transmission did and so does a h2 tank.. and if they real do manage to hit 350 or even 4 bucks agallon equive for h2... does it realy matter what h2 is classified as? Its till gona work.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 23, 2007 1:53:49 PM
IMHO we're a lot closer to mass market BEVs than we are to mass market fuel cell vehicles.
David: what have you got in your truck?
Posted by: Neil | Jan 23, 2007 2:22:08 PM
To all skeptics of H2-FCV,
FC-PHEV like this one is the best marriage between H2-FCV and Battery Electricity in order to overcome the disadvantages of each energy medium.
H2-FCV suffers from high cost and low durability of the fuel cells, plus expensive and inefficient H2 transportation.
BEV suffers from high cost, high weight of the large battery pack big enough for range of 200-300 miles, and long charging time with current electrical infrastructure. For example, the Phoenix SUT has a 35kwh battery for a range of 130 miles. To make it go 200 miles on one charge will require a 53kwh battery pack. At 120wh/kg battery weight, the 53kwh pack will weigh 448kg, or 987 lbs, and contains a lot of precious materials such as lithium itself that may be short supply if large number of BEV's will be built. After 200mi range, it will take hours to charge up the battery.
Thus, by making a FC-PHEV, only a 10kwh-battery pack will be needed, thus reducing required but scarce lithium raw material by 1/5. The FC stack can be a lot smaller and only is needed to provide cruise power + accessory load, thus saving a lot of cost. A FC stack, if runs continously, will last 10x longer than being turned on or off frequently for vehicular usage. So, the battery will be used first, and only when battery charge is down to 40% that the FC will need to come on, and the FC will run continously at the most efficient output no matter what the car is doing, to either provide direct electricity to the motor during cruise, or to recharge the battery when the vehicle is coasting or stopped. In that essence, the Ford HySeries is not a pure serial hybrid, but rather serial-parallel hybrid. For short trips, the FC will not be used at all, while the battery can be recharged by home electrical socket.
4.5 kg of H2 containing 160kwh of energy at 2kwh/kg gravimetric density for Quantum compressed tank will weigh but 176 lbs, far less than the 987-lb equivalent Lithium battery. The FC will provide the much-needed waste heat for winter driving that will save precious battery electricity in the BEV for use in cabin heating!
H2-distribution's inefficiency and cost issue? There will be NONE!
Produce the H2 locally and dispense it all in the same location. A city with 10mi x 10mi area will need but one integrated H2-production-AND-dispensing center in the middle, thus necessating on average, under 4-mile one way trip to get a fill up. Thus, 1 station every 100 square miles.
H2 can be produced by gasification of dried cellulosic biomass transported to the center. The 800-degree heat of gasification of biomass can be used for high-temp steam electrolysis using wind or solar electricity from the grid in order to double the electrical efficiency of electrolysis. For wind electricity whole sale cost of $0.05/kwh, making H2 via the high-temp electrolysis will cost but $1.50/kg. Adding another $1 for profit and cost of facility and equipment and taxes, and renewable H2 from wind can be sold at ~$2.50/kg, thus renewable H2 energy competitive with gasoline cost of today!!! Since H2-FC-HEV can travel twice as far as a comparable non-hybrid gasoline car of today, you can see that the potential energy cost for the end consumer can be reduced to HALF of today's gasoline cost.
Ah ha, the beauty of H2-FCV is that, no matter how cheap energy expense will be, the vehicle will remain very energy-efficient in order to provide adequate range demanded by the customer, unlike the problem with energy-dense liquid hydrocarbon in which, as fuel prices decline, so will fuel efficiency of the vehicle.
Another beauty of H2-vehicle is that all the pollution will remain at the gasification center and not spewed into the air causing respiratory ailments in dense population centers. NO MORE OIL SPILLS, no more smogs or ozone, no more acid rain from car exhaust...fewer asthmatics, fewer lung cancers, fewer emphysema or COPD's...etc AND, with H2 derived from waste biomass and wind and solar electricity, global warming will stand a much better chance of being reduced or reversed.
What is there not to like about a holy matrimony between BEV and H2-FCV? (unless oil profit is the hidden agenda!, but then, there will be profit to be made from the sale of H2, and car batteries, and solar panels and wind turbines etc...) A WIN-WIN SOLUTION, ISN'T IT? WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 23, 2007 8:57:58 PM
I still can't figure out why the ~ 20 times more economic natural gas home fuel cell than the vehicle fuel cell, is not available to us home owners who could really use it. A prime example of microCHP, not available or publicized for the consumer. I here tell that Tokyo Gas can produce the 1 kw home fuel cell for $100,000, cheap compared to the much more difficult vehicle fuel cell.
Consider:
Home Fuel Cell(HFC): 1.5 kw is ample size for most average power & heat requirements
Vehicle Fuel Cell(VFC): at least 15 kw is needed
HFC: size & weight, not a problem
VFC: severe limitations on size and weight causes reduced fuel economy
HFC: burning off the carbon in Natural Gas or Methanol fuel (readily available & easy to store) with a reformer provides useful heat
VFC: either you use exceedingly difficult & expensive and inefficient hydrogen economy & hydrogen storage or if you use reformers the carbon energy is thrown away & fuel cell overall efficiency drops below that of an ICE - so who needs a fuel cell?
HFC: could last life of building, not likely to be scrapped, not likely to be smacked up
VFC: could be destroyed in modest accident, likely scrapped when vehicle is scrapped
HFC: can easily run on Natural Gas, which most homes & buildings have already
VFC: would require a massive, extraordinarily expensive hydrogen infrastructure development.
So why is it almost all the R&D and press is on the vehicle fuel cell. Another case of hydrogen Greenwashing by Oil & Auto companies and their servants in Washington.
Posted by: W.Heath | Jan 23, 2007 9:34:11 PM
WHeath: Our supply of cheap petroleum will come to an end within (a debatably imminant) time. Since our current modes of transport are about 98% dependant on oil, and 40% of our GHGs come from transportation. Replacing regular gasoline cars with something cleaner and more sustainable is the problem that has everyone's attention. Yes, I would like to see HFCs more available but then most of my electricity comes from hydro which is cleaner.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 23, 2007 10:36:52 PM
W. Heath,
You've just said: "VFC: would require a massive, extraordinarily expensive hydrogen infrastructure development."
Say what, brother? What expensive hydrogen infrastructure development? Please read my previous posting carefully, or let me repeat it again regarding INTEGRATED H2 production and dispensing center:
"Produce the H2 locally and dispense it all in the same location to avoid cost and inefficiency associated with H2 transportation. A city with 10mi x 10mi area will need but one integrated H2-production-AND-dispensing center in the middle, thus necessating on average, under 4-mile one way trip to get a fill up. Thus, 1 station every 100 square miles.
H2 can be produced by gasification of dried cellulosic biomass transported to the center. The 800-degree heat by-product of gasification of biomass can be used for further H2 generation at the same center by high-temp Solid Oxide steam electrolysis using wind or solar electricity from the grid in order to double the electrical efficiency of electrolysis in comparison to room-temp electrolysis of water.
For wind electricity with whole-sale cost of $0.05/kwh, making H2 via the high-temp electrolysis will cost but $1.50/kg. Adding another $1 for profit and cost of facility and equipment and taxes, and renewable H2 from wind can be sold at ~$2.50/kg, thus renewable H2 energy competitive with gasoline cost of today!!!
Since H2-FC-HEV can travel twice as far as a comparable non-hybrid gasoline car of today, you can see that the potential energy cost for the end consumer can be reduced to HALF of today's gasoline cost.
Brother Heath, talking about infrastructure, the manufacture and recycling of millions of battery packs for BEV's will require a lot more infrastructure set up than putting one H2-generating-and-dispensing station for every 100 square miles of urban areas. In fact, the presence of a gas station in every street corners is a big waste of infrastructure, but, it is supported by private investment money. As more and more H2-Vehicles will arrive, more H2-generating-and-dispensing center will be opened, such that we will see one station every 10-20 square miles instead of one every 100 square miles, but all developed on "pay-as-you-go" basis by private money from entrepreneurs or investors.
And, brother Heath,if you are still of the belief that H2 economy is "exceedingly difficult & expensive and inefficient hydrogen storage...", please consider the fact that Quantum compressed H2 storage costs ~$15-$17/kwh with gravimetric energy density of 2,000wh/kg, whereas Lithium battery costs ~$500/kwh to $1,000/kwh for the 9kwh Valence battery pack for the PHEV Prius, and Lithium battery safe enough for cars has much lower energy density at 120-160wh/kg.
You can fill up a 160kwh H2 tank in 2 minutes, but can you charge up a 80kwh battery pack in 5 minutes with the current electrical grid? NOPE!!!
Nearly all major car mfg's are proposing H2-vehicles, while none are proposing pure BEV's.
"nuff said!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 23, 2007 11:03:55 PM
No matter what because of the differences between biofuels and h2 and battery there is a solid market for all 3.
That is what people are missing. They assume one will win. Just like now we have gas and deseil andcruder fuels for transports and such we will use various fuels n the future.
Because even gas the uber fuel didnt handle everything.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 24, 2007 5:12:40 PM
Wintermane,
It would be best to use biomass gasification to make H2, and the heat of gasification combined with wind and solar electricity for high-temp electrolysis to make more H2. Then, you would combine the FC with the battery into one FC-PHEV like this Ford HySeries vehicle. Voila, the best mix that has all 3: biomass energy, wind and solar energy, all combined into H2-electricity and battery electricity!
Or more economically, you can use the low-purity H2 from gasification process to burn in the H2-ICE-HEV, and reserve the ultra-pure H2 produced from high-temp steam electrolysis from wind and solar electricity for FC-PHEV. There, even lower-cost H2 utilization, without the more expensive process of scrubbing all the CO and other trace impurities from the syngas product of gasification in order to make 99.996% pure H2 necessary for PEM fuelcell stack.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 24, 2007 11:07:02 PM
Brother Pham, I’m really and truly sorry you’ve been taken in by the Oil Company, Big Auto & Bush/Cheney “we love oil” Administration Hydrogen Sucker Trap. I know that their brainwashing efforts are insidious and pervasive, but please, please Brother Pham, for your own sake, free yourself, do not allow those demons and their agents to invade your brain cells.
Actually, I’m not a big fan of the BEV, or even the PHEV. I’m a believer in the Series Hybrid EV, which does include FCV’s, they would be fine with me if and when they are ever practical. As it is, not even the ~20 times more economical Home Fuel Cell is practical yet, and the Home Fuel Cell has far more wide reaching advantages than the Vehicle Fuel Cell does. I will also point out your comments on batteries apply even more so to the FCV than the regular Series HEV since the high cost of VFC’s implies a need for a much larger battery. In any Series HEV, there is an economic trade-off between battery size and generator size.
The fact is if even 1% of the Oil/Big Auto/Pro-OIL Gov. funding was put into R&D for Series HEV generators, we would long ago had generators for Series HEV’s in the needed 10-50 kw range with efficiencies of at least 50%, comparable to or even higher than FC generators. Consider with miniscule private funding (none from Oil/Big Auto/Pro-OIL Gov), companies like Reg Tech have developed the RadMax rotary Diesel engine, with 1.3 hp per lb, FlexFuel, high efficiency – the StarRotor FlexFuel external combustion Brayton cycle engine is 45-60% efficient, the Free Piston Power Engine/Generator with 1 kw output per kg and >50% efficient, and Gas Turbines have been built with 62% efficiency. As an example of what can be achieved, with funding that is nil compared to HFC & Hydrogen Production & Storage expenditures, the series hybrid based on the Free Piston Power Engine, with four 50 kw wheel motors, all wheel drive, turns on a dime by running one side wheels reverse to the other, 0-60 mph in 5.2 secs, and 147 miles per US Gal. And a much simpler, more reliable design that will burn gasoline, bio-diesel, ethanol, LPG, etc.
There is zero doubt in my mind that Auto Companies could build a two seat commuter car, series hybrid, made with light weight composite materials, 0-60 in < 9 secs, 1-2 kwh battery, 25-50 hp electric motor, top speed 70 mph, high efficiency FlexFuel engine/generator of 8-10 kw output, with >200 mpg fuel economy, probable production cost in volume of ~$10,000, and a >25 year life expectancy, with minimal maintenance. It could be built if even a miniscule fraction of the money poured into Hydrogen/HFC R&D was put into it. And as far as I’m concerned, big vehicles should pay a hefty fee to travel into the city cores, unless with > 3 passengers, as is done in some European cities. This could be done now, not 20 years in the future (if all goes well). For the average 30 miles vehicles travel per day, such a vehicle would use <570 ml of fuel (say alcohol) a day. Many people drink more alcohol than that. You could go to Wal-Mart, buy a 4 gal jug of alcohol, and that would take you 800 miles. That’s easier than buying milk or beer. With fuel economies of over 100 mpg ( which could even be accomplished with Series HEV SUV’s), and ethanol/methanol/biodiesel/syngas fuel the Greenhouse Gas, Peak Oil, Oil Dependence problems are all effectively solved in the transportation sector, with simple already available technologies, and the consumer would save money in the process.
I do like your idea of neighborhood H2 production. An even better idea is home roof based H2 production in bacteria panels or tungsten nanotube converter panels, the H2 could be stored in home, and burned in a HOME H2 FUEL CELL of 1-1.5 kw is adequate, not your 15-50 kw vehicle fuel cell. This would be a far superior use of H2 and Fuel cells. I would envision every home having a Plugin Hybrid sized battery or ultra-capacitor bank of about 10 kwh, and a Synchronizing Inverter of 1-2 kw connected to the utility and a regular Inverter of 25 to 50 kw (about 10% to 50% of the size of an EV or HEV’s PEM and simpler) connected to household power. This battery bank could then provide a quick recharge for PHEV’s and about a quick 25% (50 mile) recharge of BEV’s, but more importantly would revolutionize power production & distribution. Now the typical household average grid energy requirement is 1-2 kw, that is 4 to 9 amps @ 240 vac. As such each home would only need a feeble #16 cable to tap into the utility, instead of a heavy 2/0 cable and a large 100-250 kva transformer tied to a 4,160 – 13,800 volt utility distribution feed. A similar, but larger installation could be done in buildings. Gone would be the days of major power blackouts, brownouts and fears of terrorist or environmental disaster caused power failures. This distributed energy system of course would inevitably lead to distributed energy production, in particular CHP (Combined Heat & Power). Home solar stations of modest size, or home or neighborhood windmills, and home natural gas fed microCHP furnace/hot water/power generators, which could be small 1.5 kw natural gas fed fuel cells (not like your 15-50 kw automotive hydrogen fed fuel cell) or stirling engines or even small diesel engines with heat exchangers (which can generate power with >80% effective efficiency and no distribution losses). This is where your neighborhood H2 production could thereupon fit into the energy mix – for Electricity, Hot Water & Heat production for homes & buildings, not for vehicles, where cellulose based ethanol / methanol & biodiesel large production facilities located near Agricultural & Forest sector waste outputs, would be a much more efficient way to produce & distribute vehicle energy.
You should also understand that the Oil/Big Auto/Pro-OIL Governments that are funding H2 & H2 FCV R&D, have no interest in your neighborhood H2 production. First & Foremost H2 is a case of Greenwashing for them. Spend money from their advertising & disinformation budget on H2, come out smelling like roses, yeah – were pro green, while companies like Chevron buy up the NiMH battery patents and bury the technology for vehicles and home energy uses, and finance political campaigns to suppress realistic green technologies. Chevron right now has a mega-buck advertising campaign falsely claiming Energy Independence is impossible. Secondly, after they have successfully forced the consumer to buy all of their expensive Oil & Gas, then they will use taxpayer funded high temperature gas cooled nuclear & also coal plants to produce H2, and they will have total control over production & distribution of H2, which will only be available in service stations that they own. Of course, previously to that they will use up our precious Natural Gas reserves to convert it to H2, as they are doing now.
If the Oil/Big Auto/Pro-OIL Governments were really serious about H2 & FCV’s, the only logical course of action would be to first build & mass produce the series HEV, with efficient engine/generators – improve the cost & efficiency of them to the max. At the same time go full out to develop & mass produce the natural gas and methanol (in particular for homes & buildings that don’t have natural gas) Home Fuel Cell CHP generator. Once the cost & efficiency & demand is sufficient for the former, than if the large VFC can compete in cost, then it is a trivial matter to swap the GenPak in Series HEV for a Fuel Cell. And thereupon if H2 storage & production can fairly compete with ethanol/methanol/biodiesel/syngas in vehicles without massive public subsidies, then I’m fine with that.
Posted by: W.Heath | Jan 25, 2007 10:45:30 AM
Brother Heath,
You have a great point there, regarding CHP, esp. using FC. But, you've quoted a price of $100,000 for a 1kwh unit hotwater heater in Japan, while the Japanese website mentioned only~500,000 yens, which is ~$3500 USD. Far more affordable, with lifespan of ~40,000 hours.
Also, ethanol won't have much of a future, either, due to the extensive use of low-grade heat for the distillation and processing steps which cannot be efficiently recycled by steam turbines for electrical generation, unlike biomass gasification using high-temp heat that can be recycled, hence greatly increase the overall efficiency of the process. Ethanol can't be pumped in existing pipelines, and its corrosiveness forces replacement of existing pumps and fuel lines at gas stations, a major expense that will make you wonder why not just jump right onto H2 instead for comparable infrastructure investment cost.
WRT series hybrid EV using much-downsized genset like you are proposing, such a device is only recently made practical by much more durable nanotech Lithium battery (A123) with thousands of charging cycles. In the past, series hybrid EV like in diesel-electric locomotives still needs a large diesel engine to provide peak power due to lack of durable electrical storage means. Without a large and durable battery pack, you will need a big engine, big generator and big motor to get the power to the wheel, and that would cost a lot more than a mechanical transmission unit used in most cars up to now, without any gain in overall efficiency. The Prius, which uses a serial-parallel architecture with reduced-size generator, reduced-size motor because the engine provide a portion of torque directly to the driving wheel, is still more expensive than a non-hybrid vehicle of comparable size. If the Prius is to be made a serial hybrid, you'll need a larger generator and larger motor and a larger batter pack, and that will inflate the price so much that it would no longer sell well in the market place.
The money spent on Hydrogen development (Freedom CAR)were thought by the BUSH Adm as a ploy to divert funding from PNGV (and more-promising petroleum-sparing PHEV technology) were not wasted, either. We are gaining fantastic H2 technologies that can, in the near future, really replace petroleum with biomass and wind and solar energy. Again, the law of unintended consequences. To paraphrase a Rafael's statement: "Never underestimate what magic a research scientist or engineer can pull out of a hat!"
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 26, 2007 5:40:11 PM
Brother Pham: Regarding the Tokyo gas fuel cells, I seem to recall seeing an actual cost to them of $100,000, but they were leasing them to customers for about $1000 per year on a 10 year contract. Does sound high to me since you can get 250 watt methanol fuel cells for ~$3500 now. Definitely this could be the way to go for microCHP, I want one right now if you can sell it to me for $2000, people where I live have $300 power bills per month (electric hot water heat) and $400 fuel bills per month in the winter.
I don’t buy that ethanol/methanol corrosion argument, you buy it at Wal-Mart in a flimsy plastic jug (they wouldn’t allow you to buy gasoline in a container like that). Water is more corrosive than ethanol / methanol & all pipelines are exposed on their larger surface area outside to water so what’s the problem on the inside. Recall BP letting their Oil Pipelines corrode away to the point they leaked, vastly more toxic than ethanol, oil onto the landscape. And Brazil is commonly using ethanol in vehicles without any problems. And I don’t think it’s that uneconomical, since Bill Gates & Richard Branson are both sinking large amounts of money into cellulose ethanol production. I don’t believe H2 would be anywhere nearly as economical for transport or storage than ethanol, methanol. biodiesel or SynGas derived liquid fuel. There is the absurd case of BMW showing off their Liquid Hydrogen powered ICE vehicle, here’s a quote:
“First, the hydrogen tank takes eight minutes to fill and it takes up most of the boot space. Even then, the hydrogen tank provides a range of only 125 miles. To get enough hydrogen into the fuel tank it has to be chilled and liquefied. Gradually it warms up and boils away, so if you don't use the car over the weekend you'll find less in the tank. Park up at the airport while you take your three-week holiday and when you get back it'll be nearly empty. The fact that the hydrogen has to boil off for safety reasons may be why hydrogen vehicles are illegal in France. Even over here you are advised not to park the vehicle in an enclosed car park. You cannot see hydrogen, you cannot smell it and it burns with an invisible flame. Like petrol vapour, when mixed with air it is highly explosive. At least you can smell petrol! “
Regarding the series hybrid, I keep having to explain to people that charging cycles are related to the %utilization of the battery. So the Prius uses a 1.2 kwh NiMH battery that is only 25% utilized, because it does a cycle every time the vehicle is accelerated. A series hybrid sedan type vehicle only needs a 1 kwh battery which would need to be good for probably 5-10,000 cycles like the Prius battery, because it is doing the grunt work of absorbing braking and normal downhill energy. In order to add the capability of brief high speed highway travel (say > 90 mph) and hill climbing in the mountains, the series hybrid would need an additional 4 kwh of battery size, which the happy coincidence is also provides the 25% utilization factor for absorbing braking energy and normal downhill energy (except 4 times the energy that the Prius can absorb). The other consideration is the Power to Energy ratio of the battery, in order to absorb & deliver the high currents of braking & acceleration, which again the 5 kwh Series Hybrid battery pack is much more capable than the 1.2 kwh Prius battery pack.
Regarding diesel locomotives, for long distance travel the diesel engine is sized sufficiently to pull the heavy train at speed, low accelerations, mostly continuous speeds and fairly flat rail, leaves little advantage to a series hybrid. Nevertheless, a couple companies are producing series hybrid switching locomotives, with Lead-Acid batteries no less, and diesel engines 1/10th the size of a comparable non series hybrid locomotive. See http://www.railpower.com/products_hl_howitworks.html
Actually if the Prius was made a Series Hybrid you would need a much smaller generator of about 18 kw, it needs only be large enough to run the vehicle at maximum continuous highway speed. At 80 mph the Prius should use about 18 kw, does it really need to travel that fast continuously? The battery size of 5 kwh would be ample, which is worth max of an extra <$1000 in NiMH. The larger electric motor would and electronics would maybe cost an extra $2000 but the much smaller engine, no complex transmission, and much simpler control would easily make up for that. And of course you would eliminate efficiency losses due to engine acceleration & below optimal performance and transmission energy losses which would be comparable to the conversion & battery charging losses for the series hybrid. In addition you would gain a much larger portion of braking & downhill energy recovery. The much smaller simpler standardized generator (no reason it could not be standard with all series hybrid vehicles and all generators made in the world) with no acceleration or torque requirements would inevitably lead to engine/generators that would be much more efficient than the Prius’ Atkinson engine. Pollution controls are much more effective and efficient as well on a constant rpm engine. And addition the all electric drive would mean much better acceleration, as electric motors are far superior to gas motors in that respect. And the much simpler design would lead to much lower maintenance costs, indeed most of the maintenance cost would be on the small engine/generator pack which can easily be removed and changed to any type made by any manufacturer.
I see no reasonable relevance of H2 for vehicles. It could be great if home or neighborhood produced, for home or building fuel cell CHP but if Auto companies (& their Oil Company masters) were really serious (which they most definitely aren’t) about vehicle fuel economy the typical vehicle would easily be made 100 mpg, using the series hybrid & lightweight construction. The Loremo sports vehicle has 152 mpg just using light weight construction (contrary to what Detroit claims it is very easy and affordable) & a diesel engine. No series hybrid to capture the braking & downhill energy or to run the engine at optimal efficiency. See http://www.loremo.com/daten_en.php . At those levels of fuel economy it is trivial to dump a few gallons of alcohol or biodiesel or SynGas fuel into a plastic fuel tank and be good for like 600 miles of travel. At that level it is more significant the amount of oil products used in packaging and clothing.
An additional comment on the NiMH battery which has been around for 10 years: Way back in 2000 the chairman of ECD Ovonics stated they could produce it, in volumes of 20,000 or more, for $250 per kwh, which would be $2250 for the Volt battery pack. He also stated he expects they are on track to produce them at $150 per kwh. Which for the Volt would be $1350. Of course, this was all before the Terrorist Funding Miscreants at Chevron shut them down, just when the battery was ready to explode on the marketplace. University of California, Davis also determined that present cost in volume would be $220 per kwh.
A comment on the Series Hybrid Volt for your information. This is from the GM-Ovonics website in 1998:
“GM's series hybrid (using an electric motor to drive the front wheels) uses a compact micro gas turbine generator system to charge the GM Ovonic NiMH HEV battery pack while driving, which provides an effective fuel economy of nearly 100 miles per gallon (MPG) of reformulated gasoline! This is based on GM's anticipation that the series hybrid owner will plug the vehicle in overnight while parked in the garage (grid charging), leaving in the morning with the HEV batteries fully charged. Operating as an HEV only (no grid charging), the hybrid obtains 60 MPG highway and provides a 350 mile driving range. When the generator is running, tailpipe emissions are one half of California's stringent ultra low emission levels (ULEV). The very high power to energy ratio GM Ovonic NiMH battery provides ample power for acceleration (zero to 60 MPH in nine seconds) and offers a zero emission, EV only, driving range of 40 miles, significantly more than other HEV battery types can provide."
Posted by: W.Heath | Jan 26, 2007 8:36:21 PM
Brother Heath,
I admire your tenacity regarding serial hybrid (SH)!
However, I have some questions for you: Why don't you couple the engine torque directly mechanically to the electric motor during cruise, thereby wasting no power loss due to resistance in the winding of the generator and the motor, plus eddy current loss in the core as well? Direct mechanical coupling have zero loss, you know! Plus, you are avoiding the wear and tear in the motor and generator circuitry.
When acceleration is needed, currrent from the battery is sent to the motor, and when the car is coasting, the generator will receive the engine torque to recharge the battery to avoid powering down the engine. Thus, even in the serial-parallel hybrid (SPH), the engine is always operated in the most efficient regime, in nearly-wide-open throttle to avoid pumping loss. When the vehicle runs so slow that the engine would be out of its most efficient regimes, then, the engine will be disconnected from the motor, and shut off and let the vehicle run on pure battery power electric mode!
The SPH takes mechanical advantage of the engine torque to downsize the electric motor and to reduce the size of the battery. Thus, no duplication of effort. Efficiency of the SPH is higher than SH due to the absence of electrical loss from the generator-motor route, plus a lighter and lower-cost vehicle due to reduced motor and battery size. Don't you think that Toyota has already considered this when they designed the Prius and the rest of their line of HEV's?
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 27, 2007 11:37:34 PM
Brother Roger, it is an old argument that direct coupling the engine to the wheels improves efficiency significantly. At cruise speed the losses on a fully optimized electric drive are 5% engine to DC bus, 5% DC bus to Motor, 5% Motor to wheels. The typical losses in a mechanical drivetrain, according to the US dept of energy are 30%. This is double the 15% series hybrid loss @ cruise speed, if wheel motors are used, and if a simple motor to differential system is used the losses will be about 15%. Still comparable efficiency, engine shaft output to wheels, as the Parallel Hybrid engine to wheels efficiency. And for that comparable efficiency, you are sacrificing an inherently simple modular construction, the engine/generator can be mass produced for any vehicle built by any manufacturer, and easily installed and swapped out.
As for the life of the motor(s)/generator, typical industrial electric motors & VFD’s are run continuously for years without service. That’s like over 1 million miles without any maintenance whatsoever. I’ve seen motors still running smoothly after 70 years of almost continuous service.
Consider, maybe you might beat the efficiency of a series hybrid by 5% with the parallel drive at cruise speed. But when you have a modular mass produced standard generator/motor pack, surely you can improve upon the 35% efficiency of a TDI Diesel engine by 5% (= 36.8% eff), when you have a much smaller engine than the typical ICE or Parallel Hybrid, it has no torque or acceleration limitations, and runs at a constant rpm and can be mass produced common to all vehicles and portable generators. Wouldn’t this open up practical high efficiency series HEV generator engines like the StarRotor Brayton cycle or the RegTech RadMax diesel or the Free Piston Power engine/generator or high efficiency ultra-compact turbines? Do you seriously believe, when these engines are claimed to have up to 45-60% efficiencies, with comparatively trivial funding (all private), that the 37% efficiency can’t be beat. And save on a very complex drivetrain & control system.
I admire the complex patented Toyota Synergy Drive, but they have already been sued for Patent Infringement. There are several reasons Toyota likely didn’t choose the much simpler Series Hybrid EV design. One is that Chevron/Cobasys successfully sued them for patent infringement for their Panasonic NiMH battery, and as part of the settlement they were limited in battery size sufficient (barely) for a parallel hybrid drive but not for a Series Hybrid. Chevron does not want the EV to succeed for obvious devious, immoral reasons, and the fact is a series HEV is a version of an EV. Also, Toyota knows that EV’s including series HEV’s require very little maintenance, and apart from the small simple generator engine and the $1000-$2000 battery pack, can be expected to last for 25 years or more. The automakers in Japan have already forced legislation through Japan Gov. make it very expensive to keep vehicles (I think its called a Shaker Tax) in Japan for more than 5 yrs. I have little doubt that automakers are avoiding using lightweight composite materials for Auto construction because they like the rust-away obsolescence, and of course their devious Oil Company masters want maximum fuel consumption. Even with an ICE engine a series HEV can easily be converted into a BEV, something that the Oil Companies hate, and the Auto companies and Auto Service industry fear like the bubonic plague.
The all electric drive has been chosen by the military for the new HumVee & Future Combat Systems propulsion (no ulterior motives) and diesel locomotives have long used it, where they could have used the direct drive quite easily if it paid. In remote mining camps, where all power is diesel generated, wouldn’t it make sense to use diesel engines to drive big 100-1000hp vent fans, 100-600hp compressors, or 50-200 hp pumps, rather than convert from diesel to generator through transformers & transmission lines to the drive motors and save on conversion losses? They many decades ago used to do that, but it does even come close to pay off. The simplicity, vastly superior reliability, and very easy control of all electric drives make the diesel drive option, long obsolete. We had an expensive 500 hp diesel compressor where I worked which never got used because maintenance & control issues made it impractical. So what you do, is put in a few high reliability, maximum efficiency Diesel Generators with heat exchangers to utilize the waste heat, and all your mechanical drives are electric motors, easily controlled by high reliability Frequency Drives and Programmable Logic Controllers. This industrial standard hasn’t taken over automotive yet, but be sure, it inevitably will.
Posted by: W.Heath | Jan 28, 2007 8:36:20 PM
Dyno testing of modern car engine hp directly at engine shaft and at the wheel reveal a typical 17% loss thru all the drive train at high gear. The 30% loss reported by the DOE website is likely a composite loss in consideration of power going thru all the gears like in acceleration, or simply a reflection of data from older cars having Hydramatic transmission with lossy hydraulic torque converter instead of direct torque lockup like in modern automatic tranny.
But, I'm not discussing transmission power loss. A Serial-Parallel Hybrid (SPH) does not have a transmission unit, just like that of a Serial Hybrid (SH) with an electric motor geared directly to the differential. In a SPH during cruise, you simply clutch the engine directly to the electric motor and thus having NO loss whatsoever from the generator-motor coupling! When the engine is not running at its most efficient regime, the car computer simply de-clutch the engine from the motor, and now you have a serial hybrid, for use if the battery power is drained and you must accelerate. If you still have battery power, you do not have to disconnect the engine from the motor when accelerating, but simply power up the motor using current from the battery.
90% is an accepted efficiency figure for an affordable car electric motor at cruise, or a generator constructed out of affordable materials. 90% x 90% from generator to motor losses will get you only 81% efficiency, so, you've just threw 19% of the energy out of the window. Sure, some motors claimed 94-97% Peak efficiency, but that's peak, and not necessarily at cruise, or that's from more expensive motors using more exotic permanent magnets that may not be practical for mass production.
The claims of Star Rotor or free piston engine or RegTech RadMax having up to 60% efficiency are more likely hype!
There is nothing in Star Rotor Brayton's thermodynamic cycle that allows them to claim 55% efficiency. In fact, Brayton cycle is inferior to Otto cycle. Free piston engine operates either in Otto or Diesel cycles, so, how can they claim more efficiency than the best of long-haul trucker's engine? Free piston's downfall is in the mass balancing mechanism making it susceptible to vibration. The Prius' Atkinson cycle engine when lugged down to nearly wide-open throttle, or a turbo-diesel engine, will offer the most efficiency of any practical engine for automotive use. You can't find any more efficient engine than that for a PHEV genset!
Serial Hybrid for Humvee is due to the dusty environment in which it must operate, I would guess, whereas a Diesel locomotive needs electric drive due to the great numbers of wheels that must be driven to maximize traction. Mechanical torque transmission and coupling and differentials for all the wheels of a locomotive would be too complicated and would lack durability required for millions of miles of operation. Remote mining camp needs electric motors to run the fan because you don't want to get the diesel exhaust fumes down into the mine tunnels and causing carbon monoxide poisoning of all the workers.
But, what kind of transmission do Caterpillar tractors, or combines or 18-wheeler trucks use? Mechanical transmission, of course, to minize cost.
Your argument that automakers purposely making the ICE-transmission drive train less reliable or less durable for economic gain is simply not supported by facts or logic. Owners like to trade in their cars after 5-7 years to get a new car because they like the new interior, design, or for vanity reason. After 12 years or 150,000 miles, a car's interior is so worn out, the plastic and the fabrics all deteriorated, and that's often the reason the car is junked to a salvage yard, even when the engine-drive train is still working adequately. My last 1978 Chevy Caprice still ran well with original engine-transmission after 180,000 miles, but the car's interior deteriorates so bad that we had to give it up.
Most auto parts sold these days are rebuilt from generic part makers, not original factory items, or at least what I usually purchase to repair my cars. The automakers don't make a dime from these parts. No matter how durable BEV or PHEV drive train will be, the owner will throw the car out when the interior makes the car unsellable. In fact, automakers are striving to make their car more and more reliable to maintain a good reputation. Cars and components are subjected to strenous durability testing over and over again in the extremes of environment to ensure that their products won't give the maker a bad name!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 28, 2007 10:14:38 PM
why are all hybrids petrol/electric ?
............why not diesel/electric ?
the diesel can run on veg oil and the elecriic motor will increase the amount of vehicles that can run on the amount of available reg oil being produced at the current time
the technology has been around awhile to produce a car that is totaly carbon neutral, producing less carbon than ever before.....
hydregen vehicles will come into there own when seperating oxygen from hydregen can be achived in the vehicles, releasing the oxygen inside the vehical.
Posted by: Ian | Jun 15, 2007 3:39:13 AM
