Crossover Watch
Originally created on November 15 2007
Plug-in or hydrogen fuel cell: Whither automotive technology?
Each side is competing for federal funding
Advocates of alternative-fuel vehicles would seem to be a unified bunch, bound by their determination to wean the world’s automobiles off fossil fuels. But there’s a red-hot fight brewing in the green-car world.
Proponents of the two most hyped technologies — hydrogen fuel cells and plug-in electric hybrids — are squaring off in an increasingly bitter fight. They are vying for publicity, manufacturer acceptance, favorable regulation and, especially, funding for research and investment in infrastructure and market.
The first cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells, such as the Honda FCX Clarity, left, will probably have substantial price tags.
The battle has been simmering for several years, but with the technologies coming tantalizingly close to commercial reality, the stakes are higher than ever. Whoever gets the upper hand now might determine how cars are powered in the future.
The camps are competing for potentially more than $2 billion in federal funding over the next five years and are lobbying for federal and state regulations that could have a serious effect on whether fuel cells or plug-ins wind up on dealer lots.
“It’s just unfortunate that there has to be so much infighting,” says Patricia Monahan, deputy director for the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which calls itself agnostic on which technology holds more promise. “Sometimes, it seems almost personal.”
Fundamentally, the disagreement is over which technology is more viable. Fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen to create electricity, which powers the car. The only emission is water. But critics say the process of producing hydrogen requires three to four times more energy than the hydrogen later generates in the fuel cell.
They also say that the cars are too expensive and that hydrogen molecules can’t be contained easily without energy-consuming compressors or maintaining them in liquid form at extremely low temperatures.
Plug-in hybrids, meanwhile, also are powered by electricity but draw their juice from batteries that are charged by plugging the car into the electrical grid. In addition, they typically carry a small gasoline- or diesel-powered generator that can be used to charge the batteries and extend the range of the vehicle.
Plug-in’s critics say that battery technology isn’t advanced enough for long-range driving and doubt that the current electric infrastructure is robust enough to charge a nation’s entire fleet at once. Plus, they note, much of the electricity from wall outlets is generated by burning fossil fuels.
The lack of common ground between the rival camps was on display last week in Anaheim, Calif., at EVS-23, the nation’s largest alternative vehicle convention.
Standing in front of his booth, Lorne Gettel, president and chief executive of Advanced Lithium Power, which makes batteries for $80,000 Fisker plug-in luxury cars that are expected to be on the market by the end of next year, dismissed fuel cells.
“The infrastructure isn’t there, the hydrogen is too expensive, and it’s extremely difficult to store,” he said. “The quickest way to reduce emissions is through plug-in hybrids.”
Directly across the aisle, Paul Cass of fuel cell maker Ballard Power Systems saw things differently.
“If you start plugging in hundreds of thousands of cars all at once, you’ll be finding out what the limits of the electrical grid are real quick,” he said. “Fuel cells are the only zero-emissions option.”
Carmakers largely have ridden the fence, investing considerable resources in each technology. General Motors, for example, says it will begin selling its Chevy Volt plug-in by 2010, but meanwhile it has begun lending 100 Chevy Equinox fuel cell sport-utility vehicles to select drivers. Ford handed the keys to 20 plug-ins to utility supplier Southern California Edison less than a month after buying, along with Daimler, Ballard’s automotive fuel cell business in a deal worth $228 million.
Toyota executives say the company’s long-term bet is on hydrogen, even as it toys with converting its Prius hybrid into a plug-in.
In Washington, however, the story has been less equivocal. Funding in the 1990s was limited but, by most accounts, fairly balanced between technologies. That changed in this decade, particularly after President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address, in which he called for a “national commitment” to fuel cells, pledging $1.2 billion for the first five years of a 10-year development program.
While batteries and plug-in technology get some federal support, it’s a fraction of that given to fuel cells. For 2007, the Department of Energy budgeted $50.8 million to research and develop hybrid and electric propulsion, compared with $195.8 million for hydrogen technology.
Well-organized trade groups such as the U.S. Fuel Cell Council and the National Hydrogen Association are lobbying hard to ramp up hydrogen-related funding in coming budgets, yet plug-in advocates have a surprisingly muted voice in Congress.
“In a word, I would say there is no trade or lobby group (for plug-in hybrids and battery-only vehicles),” said Marc Geller, co-founder of Plug In America, an activist group that doesn’t get the kind of corporate support its hydrogen counterparts do.
The disparity is playing out on the regulatory side as well. Despite protests from the likes of Geller and a few activist scientists, California’s complicated mandates requiring manufacturers to make zero-emission vehicles for several years have favored the production of fuel cell vehicles over battery-powered ones.
Still, Bud deFlaviis, the U.S. Fuel Cell Council’s director of government affairs, noted that plug-in cars have one considerable advantage: “Batteries are a highly commercial product, but there are no truly viable hydrogen fuel cells on the market today.”
Thanks to growing sales of advanced lithium-ion and other batteries in everything from cordless drills to cellular phones, companies such as A123 Systems, which makes batteries for power tools as well as cars, have income they can use for research.
“That’s a huge leg up,” deFlaviis said.
But even if one technology shows more immediate promise, it’s important not to give up on the other, said Claudia Chandler of the California Energy Commission, which recently was given $120 million by the state legislature to fund research on alternative fuels. “We’re not picking winners right now,” she said.
Plug-in hybrids
Pros:
Flexible, with both gas and electric engines.
• Driver can fill vehicle at gas station or recharge battery from a home electrical outlet.
• Low emissions.
Cons:
Cost more than regular hybrids.
Limited range on electric-only power.
Availability: Toyota and GM plug-ins are expected by 2010. Conversion kits are available now for hybrids such as the Toyota Prius.Hydrogen fuel cell cars
Pros:
• Longer range than electric cars.
• Zero emissions.
Cons:
• Not yet a network of stations to refill cars.
• Initial models will be very expensive.
Availability: Honda is releasing a limited number of FCX Clarity models next summer in California; GM and Ford have fuel cell vehicles in development. It could be 2020 before the cars are generally available
This page has the following sub pages.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
