Hydrogen Cars may hit showrooms in 2005

[Johnny Punani2]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1016_TVhypercar.html

Hydrogen Cars May Hit Showrooms by 2005

Janet Ginsburg

for National Geographic Today

January 29, 2003 (Originally published on October 16, 2001)

Viewers of National Geographic Today in the United States can watch an update on hydrogen-car technology in tonight's broadcast, which follows yesterday's announcement by President Bush that he proposes U.S. $1.2 billion in funding for this research over the next few years.

In the clean, "green" future envisioned by energy expert Amory Lovins, cars not only get 99 miles per gallon emissions-free, but they may also play a key role in providing electricity to a power-hungry world.

The solution, according to Lovins, is a "hypercar"—a lightweight vehicle powered by a hydrogen fuel cell, with enough style and space to compete with luxury sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Lovins is with the Rocky Mountain Institute, a think tank in Colorado, and chairman of its corporate spin-off venture Hypercar, Inc.,.

Future Transport?

The Revolution, a lightweight car powered by a hydrogen fuel cell, is as much as eight times as efficient as most standard models, according to its designers. Some of the giant car companies are also designing hydrogen-powered cars. Hypercar Inc. hopes to have its first model ready to roll off the production line by 2005.

Today, an estimated 210 million vehicles are stuck in traffic on America's roadways. Collectively they spew nearly a billion and a half tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year. According to a recent EPA report, the latest conventional models average a little more than 20 miles per gallon—the worst showing since 1980.

While some blame America's love affair with the fuel-hungry SUVs, Lovins says the problem comes down to design.

A decade ago, Lovins was asked to address a National Academy of Sciences meeting about how to build cars with greater fuel efficiency. The general thinking was that fuel efficiency could be increased by only 10 percent because otherwise the car would become too expensive, says Lovins.

He was unconvinced of that assertion, however, and set up an informal team to rethink the automobile from the tires up. "I'm not a car guy, which actually was a bit of an advantage because I didn't know too much about how it ought to be done," said Lovins.

The result is a car that is as much as eight times as efficient as most standard models.

Lightweight Parts, Heavy Results

How did the Lovins team do it? They began by "light-weighting" the car.

They started with the body, which is made from a composite of carbon fibers set in a plastic matrix. It's a stronger version of the material used in skis and tennis rackets—and, per pound, five times as strong as steel.

Although carbon composites are a lot more expensive than steel, a smaller quantity is needed. Even more important, Lovins pointed out, "it's cheaper to manufacture."

While the Hypercar weighs less than 2,000 pounds (907 kilograms), it is still tough enough to meet federal safety standards, based on a computer-simulated 30-miles-per-hour fixed barrier crash. In a cyber smash-up with a Ford Explorer—a vehicle twice the weight—all the damage to the Hypercar occurred in the front end.

There are other, less obvious, ways to lightweight. Special low-rolling resistance tires developed with Michelin, not only cut down on friction—which can use up to a third of a car's fuel energy—but are also designed to run flat. If a tire blows, the car can still be driven for another 100 miles, more than enough to get to a gas station. The need to carry a spare is eliminated, further reducing weight.

Soon the savings in weight starts to snowball. A lighter car requires a smaller engine to power it, less braking to stop it, and less suspension to hold it up. And because the Hypercar runs on an electricity-producing fuel cell rather than an internal combustion engine, certain parts, including the starter, alternator, clutch, and transmission, are eliminated.

"The car gets radically simplified. And then it costs less to make," said Lovins.

David Cole, president of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan, said it's important to be cautious about expectations. "The potential on paper looks awfully good," he said. "But getting it into production—things don't necessarily turn out as you might expect."

"If you think of this as a ten-step program, the first step is showing technical feasibility," said Cole. "They still need to do this. Then it's nine more steps to commercial feasibility."

"Brains," Not Bulk

Brains replace bulk in a Hypercar. "Think of it like a computer with wheels, not a car with chips," Lovins explained.

The car can diagnose, upgrade, and, to a certain extent, fix itself. It can also be programmed for a variety of new features, such as recording everything that happened at the time of a crash, like an airplane's "black box."

Two years ago, Hypercar,Inc., was spun off from the Rocky Mountain Institute. The nine-person start-up team, based in Basalt, Colorado, intends to "create the DNA of the next generation of vehicles," according to Hypercar's Michael Brylawksi.

To do that, they're trying to sell not only the Hypercar itself, but also the ideas that make it run so efficiently—the "intellectual property." By working with automakers and suppliers, the company hopes to get the technologies on the road faster.

While none of its fuel-efficient, smart features are unique to Hypercar, what's special is how they're combined and optimized.

For example, at least half a dozen automakers, including Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, and BMW, are developing fuel cell-powered cars. But because those vehicles are still fairly heavy, they need fuel cells, which are about three times bigger and heavier—and three times more expensive—as that used by the Hypercar.

Cole thinks the Hypercar is "a huge step" in the right direction. "My guess is where they [Hypercar Inc.] would make the most contribution is in a few of the ideas," said Cole. "The real role of the Hypercar is unleashing the imagination—that's one of the real values of it."

Double Duty

Perhaps the biggest hurdle to overcome with fuel cell-powered cars is setting up a distribution network to supply the hydrogen gas that runs them.

A fuel cell works by combining hydrogen with oxygen from the air in a chemical process to generate electricity. The only by-products are heat and pure water. Hydrogen can be extracted from natural gas, using a device called a reformer, or through a process called "electrolysis," which splits water into hydrogen and oxygen atoms.

While there are only a handful of hydrogen gas stations in the world, Lovins has a plan for making it easy to fill up. "Many people assume that before you can sell the first hydrogen car, you have to put in $100 billion worth of hydrogen generating and delivery stations and pipelines," said Lovins. "That's not correct."

He says the first Hypercars should be leased to people who work in buildings where fuel cells have already been installed. The Hypercars could tap into the buildings' supply of hydrogen to refuel. But they could also be hooked up to the grid.

As "portable power plants on wheels," the cars' fuel cells could be put to work during the day when they're parked, generating—and selling—electricity.

"It doesn't take many people wanting to be paid to park, rather than the other way around…to put the coal and nuclear people out of business," said Lovins. And of course, using fuel cells would dramatically decrease the need for oil.

Cole disagrees with Lovins' conclusions, arguing that the hydrogen infrastructure would take billions of dollars to establish. But he does support the direction of the project. "I say, 'More power to them.' My only reservation is to be careful about generating unrealistic expectations," he said.

"It does get people to think out of the box," said Cole. "You don't want to clamp down on these people who are dreaming at the edge."

Eventually, the Hypercar could change ideas about what people come to expect from automobiles. Fittingly, the first model to come off the drawing boards is called the Revolution.

[Brown 43]

Boy, this puts an end to "Bush does nothing for the environment" reply!

[Cskin]

I'm going to watch that segment tonight.... and for those who see it.... we should discuss it tomorrow.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Brown 43

Boy, this puts an end to "Bush does nothing for the environment" reply!

No it doesn't. These cars were in the works before Bush took office. Unless of course you think that becasue of Bush these cars suddenly were created in just a few years. And Bush's record on the enviroment still sucks.

I'll give Rove credit though, great issue to pick up. It will get a lot of press, certainly more then his failed voluntary clean air policy. And truth is this is a very important issue for america, helps us get off the "oh no look at gas prices!" and will reduce smog in big cities if these cars prove more marketable then hybrids.

[Thiebear]

Didnt Bush Stand in front of the Country for the State of the Union and promise to put this front and center?

The U.S. Military today put forth all kinds of different vehicles in different test of alternate fuel... If the Big 3 won't do it we can circumvent them.

Destino:

EVERYONE and I think I can speak for just about ummmm EVERYONE. Nobody wants to depend on foreign fuel: It's in all of our interests to fix this.

EVERYONE wants to get 100mpg or Drive for a month on Dry Cells....

I don't think this is a republican/democrat issue really.

Most liberals look at it only in the green way.

Most righ-wingers look at it only in the security way.

The other 80% of us look at both

[webnarc]

Originally posted by Thiebear

Most liberals look at it only in the green way.

Most righ-wingers look at it only in the security way.

The other 80% of us look at both

What type of car does your 80% drive?

People don't want to depend on foreign fuel LESS than they want to drive their SUV. Oil is too precious to just burn.

[Mr. S]

For people who dont want to depend on foreign fuel, we certainly suck it up well. Our sudden rise in SUV's on the road( Clinton's fault) has sucked more of our fuel out. We also could use more domestic fuel and drive prices down, but we use that fuel more as reserves and military I think, not sure though.

There also has been evidence of how big oil business has given contributions the politicians to slow alternate fuel research, then they are the ones who will look even better by introducing their better fuel alternative they are researching.

[Sarge]

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw98544_20040527.htm

Army shows off alternative energy options

May 27, 2004, 8:50 PM

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) -- Hybrid tankers that can power an entire airfield. Electric chariots that can zip soldiers to their destinations. Fuel cell-powered all terrain vehicles that can roll along in near silence.

These are among alternative-energy vehicles being developed by the Army, which showed off a dozen prototypes Thursday at Elmendorf Air Force Base.

The Army envisions the vehicles greatly reducing its fuel consumption on the battlefield and at urban posts in the near future with technology other military branches are watching closely. In fact, the Air Force has assigned a representative to the Army's Detroit-based National Automotive Center, which is developing the vehicles through partnerships with manufacturers.

"Our intention is to find common-use items that work not only commercially but with the military," said Army spokesman Eric Emerton.

The open house at an Elmendorf hangar was the show-and-tell portion of a four-day symposium in Anchorage co-hosted by the Army to explore clean energy sources for and from Alaska.

Military and industry engineers and others led visitors around vehicles ready for use and under development. Examples ranged from relatively humble Segway Human Transporters and three-wheel American Chariots to a heavy-duty hybrid truck and two versions of a surveillance carrier.

All represent the virtues of energy-saving technology that's so crucial at a time when the Army burns 750,000 gallons of fuel a day in Iraq alone, said NAC Director Dennis Wend.

"We can take these technologies and reduce our fuel on the battlefield," he said. "At the same time, we can put these technologies on our bases and be a good neighbor to our industrial partners by sharing information."

Reality, however, is three to five years away for the more advanced equipment, according to Wend. The automotive research center, created a decade ago, has intensified its alternative energy development only in the last few years.

Besides corporate money, the center receives $100 million in federal research and development funds. But a recent $60 million infusion for a two-year pilot program will enable it to develop hybrid battlefield trucks.

"If that works out successfully, we could be looking at another billion dollars to put them into production, to actually produce several thousand vehicles for the Army's battlefields," Wend said.

Among the more impressive items on display was the SmarTruck II, a technologically enhanced armored vehicle. The modified Chevrolet Silverado is loaded with gear that would make James Bond proud -- luxury seats, a missile launcher, electric generator and far-range surveillance equipment, including night-vision capabilities.

All that would make the hybrid-electric ideal for vulnerable urban settings such as Baghdad, Iraq, according to its developers, which include Integrated Concepts & Research Corp., a subsidiary of Kodiak-based Native Regional corporation Koniag Inc.

Then there's the tanklike hybrid-electric diesel truck developed with Oshkosh, Wis.-based Oshkosh Truck Corp., which builds the Army's large off-road vehicles as well as civilian fire and refuse trucks. Painted in camouflage tones, the Oshkosh HEMTT consumes less fuel and puts out reduced emissions compared with its traditionally fueled counterparts.

The vehicle also can produce 350 kilowatts of electricity while its 505 horsepower engine idles. The company tested the vehicle's onboard generator at the Whittman Airfield in Oshkosh, providing lighting for the control tower and a 14,000-foot runway for two hours. It was a hit -- signifying numerous applications for the military and civilians alike, said company engineer Chris Yakes.

"There's the fuel economy and the power production capabilities," Yakes said. "It can be used for anything from natural disasters to homeland security."

[JimboDaMan]

Originally posted by Thiebear

Didnt Bush Stand in front of the Country for the State of the Union and promise to put this front and center?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Stop it, yer killing me. The Bush campaign openly mocked Al Gore for his dead-on positions in favor of alternatives to the internal combustion engine. Bush can honestly take credit for whatever support he's given to this, if he also takes responsibility for being such a shamelessly dishonest political hack in the first place.

The U.S. Military today put forth all kinds of different vehicles in different test of alternate fuel... If the Big 3 won't do it we can circumvent them.

If President Gore did this, would that change your opinion of what a good idea it is?

Destino:

EVERYONE and I think I can speak for just about ummmm EVERYONE. Nobody wants to depend on foreign fuel: It's in all of our interests to fix this.

EVERYONE wants to get 100mpg or Drive for a month on Dry Cells....

I don't think this is a republican/democrat issue really.

Except for Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham.

From the conservative Insight mag, August 2000 regarding the GOP convention:

"Naturally, there were plenty of political barbs. Bush said of Gore that as the heir of Franklin Roosevelt the only thing he has to offer is fear itself. In the delegate roll call, Michigan Sen. Spencer Abraham made sure to note that his state is a "friend of the combustion engine" - a jab at Gore's environmental extremism that has gone so far as to announce his intention to abolish the internal combustion engine."

Most liberals look at it only in the green way.

Most righ-wingers look at it only in the security way.

The other 80% of us look at both

Don't know about you but I'd say the 80% is way, WAY high.