Internal combustion engines also weigh less than equivalent power fuel cells, and gas in a tank weighs less per stored unit energy than hydrogen in a metal hydride storage canister or high-pressure tank.

As near as I can tell, GM’s AUTOnomy stuff is more or less pure marketing fluff, aimed largely at regulators.

“As for hub-drive electric motors…” but what if each motor only weighed 5-15 Kilograms? Cars will be seriously lighter when they don’t include 500-1000 pounds of engine,transmission, supporting frame, etc. Since they won’t require 150-250hp to be fun and sporty, the electrics can be small and built into the hub. Probably not the engineering fiasco many think it is.

I think Rajh is much closer to the real problem. What happens when it is the middle of summer and every available power plant is at 100% just to power all the air conditioners? How will the hydrogen be produced?

jake, the article (I assume you’re referring to the Wired article) actually refers to extracting hydrogen from “natural gas or other fuels”, not to electrolysis of water.

I do agree, though, that the efficient production of hydrogen is probably a far bigger roadblock than issues like building a hydrogen storage/delivery infrastructure, or the efficiency of the fuel cells themselves.

jet: for GM (total employees: 300,000), 300 engineers is not a huge amount. And it’s hard for me to put into words just how questionable the sentence “At the moment, [electrolyzing hydrogen from water] takes more electricity than the hydrogen would ultimately generate” is. The limitation that you can’t get more electricity from running hydrogen through a fuel cell than you used to electrolyze it from water is more rigid than the speed of light, which is saying something.

The author is certainly seriously confused, and possibly seriously misled – it’s unclear which. Regardless, as an indication of GM’s seriousness, the article is not compelling.

No, because for the NASCAR market you wouldn’t quote the 45hp of the petrol engine but the combined output of the engine plus electric motor – and with electricity it’s easy to make peak (as against sustained) output very big (those “300 watt” cheap stereos you see in WalMart typically have a sustained output on the order of 5-10 watts). Jet obviously does not work in advertising.

As for hub-drive electric motors, the unsprung weight of the motors on the hubs would totally ruin the ride and handling. If you make it sprung, your gonna need CV joints, shafts, etc anyway.

Alex,
Getting rid of the transmission, IC engine, axles , etc are probably going to mostly offset the costs of 4 sealed electric engines (aren’t sump pumps the same concept?), the 4 direct drive drive shafts, and seals.

Either way, GM has 300 engineers working on their hydrogen car. Sounds pretty serious to me.

#1. They are well understood in terms of reliablity. Anything that goes into a car has to last for a decade, minimum.

#2. They are cheap. A halfshaft with CV joints will cost US$120 retail. OEM price is probably under US$40. Look up what two meters of 0-gauge high-flexibility welding cable costs. Suspension bushings are rubber, so budget for large ground straps as well. Remember you are going to have to make weatherproof seals on both ends.

I’m not even going to get into what the motor itself would cost considering that it would need to be submersible. But you will not see an actual hub-drive car for decades, if ever.

Partially because there is a very large sunk investment that existing players can’t just walk away from (sunk cost fallacy notwithstanding).

Partially because existing auto company engineers are really really stupid and can figure out the design you propose. Hmmmm – perhaps not? I am no fan of the US auto companies’ strategic decisions, but the technical people I know who work there are very very good. The work that Ford did on the physics of combustion from 1970-1990 is nothing short of amazing, for example.

So – perhaps it is a little harder than you think? Half-shafts and drive shafts absorb shock, for example. What happens to your direct-coupled electric motor, which must have tight tolerances to be efficient, when that wheel drops into a 5 cm pothole at 120 kph? Just as one example. I would think that if anyone could do this it would be Honda, but they haven’t shown any signs of going down this road yet.

Still, I think the entrenched mentality may have something to do with it. Got about 2 billion USD? We could start a new car company to do what you propose.

Cranky

So – why is everyone still hung up on driveshafts and diffs?

GM has been investing in new technology for approximately 100 years. Along about 1975 they stopped actually bringing any of it to market, choosing to leave it in the lab in the hopes of finding the Next Big Thing™. While GM is “hoping” on fuel cells, Toyota and Honda are designing real hybrids and getting real vehicles on the road, gaining real design, engineering, manufacturing, and service experience. If and when the time comes for fuel cells, Toyota will plug them right into their hybrid designs while GM brings out another EV1.

Cranky

Most likely related the safety and import regulations for large manufacturers. Smart/Daimler cannot import the SmartCar to the US in its current form as it does not meet safety standards. An individual can get an exemption (first thing Bill Gates has done in a long time that I approve of!), but if individuals buy them in Canada and immediately apply for the exemption, the US regulatory agencies may view that as Daimler trying to bypass certification. Penalites for a large mfgr would be severe in that case.

Cranky

Derrida Derider
Just a thought, but wouldn’t people just laugh a the thought of a “power-boosted” 45hp engine?

And furthermore, surely someone ought to put a more efficient engine, say a Volks or Peugeot turbodiesel, on the front end of the electric chain?