May 10, 2007
FORD: The Hydrogen-Electric Car!
By Michael Silverberg, from Metropolis Magazine
Posted April 18, 2007
"Long a favorite of political speechwriters, hydrogen-powered vehicles have so far been all gas and no bang. Ford’s new hybrid hydrogen-electric concept vehicle is not about to make them commercially viable—that’s at least ten years off—but it does take several promising steps forward. The most important is a pared-down power train that taps the fuel cell to charge the battery instead of using it to run the car directly, allowing commuters to travel short distances on electric alone and then plug in at night. “You don’t need to depend on hydrogen as your only way to get around,” says Mujeeb Ijaz, Ford’s fuel-cell-vehicle engineering manager. “Every day you get twenty-five miles on the grid.”
Here Ijaz takes us through the features of the HySeries Drive power train, and Ford’s design manager, Jordan Bennett, tells us about the red-and-white interior, which was influenced by what he calls the “optimistic space travel” of Kubrick’s 2001. “And not the killer robot part of it,” he says.
**
Even though hydrogen is a very light fuel, its container gets pretty damn heavy. With the three components, there’s about 880 pounds sitting in the middle of the vehicle. We borrowed a concept from Land Rover called a “unitized body-on-frame structure.” You get the benefit of a unibody’s light weight with the advantages of a steel-frame structure.
You’ll run this as an electric car. The only time the auxiliary power unit—a fuel cell in this case—comes into play is to help keep the battery’s state of charge from going below about 40 percent. We’ve reduced the size, cost, and weight of the fuel cell by more than 50 percent, getting us a little closer to being able to commercialize it.
The compressed-hydrogen tank’s being down the center of the vehicle is no accident. We did that because we wanted to maximize its protection from side impact, frontal and rear crashes, and so forth.
We can drive 25 miles of electric-only on this battery, and then the fuel cell will turn on. Truly, an electric car needs more than 100 miles, but you only need 25 to 30 miles to do commuting distance. Every time you need to recharge, you can just plug in the car in your garage.
It’s got two electric motors—one in front and one in the rear. It’s an all-wheel drive. Typical fuel-cell vehicles are $3,000 to $4,000 per kilowatt. By doing the HySeries Drive, we’re now looking at a design that’s closer to $150 or $200 per kilowatt."
Fellas, you'll save a lot on gas spending? Thoughts?
Posted by anthony at May 10, 2007 10:19 AM | TrackBackI might save on gas, but how much will my electricity bill + hydrogen bill cost? Seems to me we'd need to seriously increase our power grid's durability and build a few more nuke planets to generate the power it will take to charge the cars, buses, and trucks that support 300+ million people in the USA. I'm all for the technology, I would just like to see more emphasis on the energy conversion.
Posted by: Eric Levenhagen at May 10, 2007 11:07 AMI would like to see us talk about how to get rid of our cars altogether and create usable mass transit or walkable cities (not petting zoos N.U. or TND:)). We spend a lot of time and energy trying to keep our individualistic idols instead of letting them go.
Posted by: churnock at May 10, 2007 11:17 AMExcept if BMW comes out with a 5 series hydrogen car, and then I think it is our God given right to own one of those...
Can I get a witness?
hrmm.... I think it is important to appreciate the steps in the right direction. I agree, that it would be nice to let go of our idols completely, but that is just not going to happen overnight.
Even if it will still consume energy, the energy will be used far more cleanly. As hybrids are starting to get more marketable to the middle class, this will take the place they had a few years ago as something that would be nice, but is only affordable to a few. The technological progression will work its way down, and we will start breathing clearer air.
I love the idea. It's smart, it's responsible, and it will also wean us off the Middle Eastern Oil Teat. I can't see anything bad from this being widely available. It's not ideal, but it's a helluva lot closer than we are now.
And I'll give an "Amen" to a BMW 5 Series hydrogen car. This is the first I've heard of it, is there a concept yet? Or is this just wishful thinking?
Posted by: Brad at May 10, 2007 11:39 AMWhy do car companies always think that in the future people want to drive around in bubble-cars? When I was a kid in the 80's, I remember seeing pictures of what cars would look like way in the future--like the year 2000--and they looked like bubbles not much different from the car in the picture above. I thought they looked ridiculous and ugly then and I still do. I just want a fuel efficient car that doesn't look stupid.
Posted by: nick at May 10, 2007 01:01 PMI invested in Ballard Power systems in 2001, which I believe is 15% owned by Ford, so I hope this thing catches on! I'm not optimistic, seeing how the stock sits about 22 points lower than what I bought it at--maybe I will cash in sometime soon?
Posted by: Zach Oelschlegel at May 10, 2007 03:15 PMBrad,
I know BMW is a leader in the hydrogen market and they had the first car to go +100 mph on hydrogen alone (I think it was in a 5 series frame, but don't quote me).
I don't think it would change over night, but I also don't think have a 'clean' car will make our lives any better. We will sit in more and more traffic, wasting our time in clean car. I am not sure that is a step in the right direction.
Posted by: churnock at May 10, 2007 03:26 PM...cars aren't going away; mass transit just doesn't get the job done for anything but the most dense cities in a cost effective way.
much as I wish it would, it doesn't.
Posted by: shawn at May 10, 2007 04:10 PMchurnock, I'm with you on the BMW point!!
Posted by: anthony B. at May 10, 2007 05:21 PMTo echo what was said earlier: why do car companies keep making the "effecient" cars look like something from a bad B-Scifi movie? If they made these cars a little easier to look at, they could sell more of them.
Posted by: Bobby at May 12, 2007 06:25 PMYeah, but if they weren't eye-violatingly ugly, people couldn't look at your car and immediatly go, "Oooh, they have a green car!" Which is, of course, the point. :)
Posted by: dramaturge at May 14, 2007 10:26 AM1. That car is stinkin' ugly.
2. Mass transit has numerous limitations. People in the rural areas will need cars/trucks. Why not invest in making them more fuel efficient or to run on alternative fuels? It only makes sense.
Like much of life, this is not either/or. It can be both/and.
$150/kW? Put gently, the typical 200hp gas engine in your ordinary car generates about 150kW, so this car is talking about $22k for the engine alone--you haven't even gotten the tranny or chassis.
Plus, the hydrogen for these things is generally refined using fossil fuels. No luck on saving much on gas with this idea.
Posted by: Robert Perry at May 15, 2007 01:14 PMRobert, those are excellent points. Car and Driver and National Review have both had a number of very interesting articles citing how right now "energy efficient" cars aren't really energy efficient. They look ok to your personal pocket book (aside from the fact that the cars are much more expensive than regular cars), but in terms of overall energy saved, there isn't an appreciable amount. In some cases, it actually takes more fossil fuels to produce the green cars than it takes to produce a regular car. And what are they going to do with all those dead batteries and empty hydrogen cells in the future, I wonder? But they're ugly, so it's okay. :D
Posted by: dramaturge at May 17, 2007 12:41 AM