Last Friday, we ended our official work week at the Department of Transportation with five very special visitors: an FC-EV, an FCX Clarity, a Borrego, a B-Class, and an FCHV-adv.
Why are these five cars with initials for names so special? They're the latest hydrogen fuel cell vehicles from GM, Honda, Kia, Mercedes, and Toyota. Fuel cell vehicles are zero-emissions vehicles that run on electricity from hydrogen and oxygen. And they represent an exciting new automotive technology that promises to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lower our greenhouse gas emissions.
Hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles are already on American roads, and they are very close to being widely sold in the United States.
Thanks to the California Fuel Cell Partnership, this technology has progressed dramatically in the last few years. The members of this public-private partnership know that reaching California’s tough goals for cleaner air and reduced greenhouse gases requires full-function cars, pickups, and SUVs that people want to drive. And DOT is proud to represent the federal government in this important collaboration.
Most importantly, not only do fuel cell vehicles feel and perform like the vehicles we're all used to; they are also just as safe. The fuel tank protection technology has been tested, tested again, and retested. And because hundreds of fuel cell vehicles have already been driving on our roads for years, we have crash data available. And that data tells us the new technology presents no additional safety challenges.
For those concerned about pedestrians and bicyclists not hearing too-quiet electric vehicles, some of the cars that visited DOT were equipped with a pleasant chime sound that rang at low speeds and when reversing. This alerts blind pedestrians and others that the vehicle is approaching.
In California, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District operates the nation's largest fleet of hydrogen-powered transit buses with 12. Each bus is powered by a system built by UTC Power of Connecticut, and uses an advanced energy storage system by Enerdel of Indiana. Every day, these buses carry thousands of passengers and displace tons of CO2 that would be generated by a conventional diesel bus.
One of the steepest obstacles we face in pursuing this technology is the need to build hydrogen refueling stations. It's difficult to imagine that we once had the same problem with a shortage of gas stations when the automobile's popularity first took off in the early 20th century.
But DOT is supporting efforts to work through this. For example, through the FTA's TIGGER program, we're helping the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District develop its newest refueling station. This one will be able to refuel the transit agency's buses, and will also have a public-facing side where motorists can refuel their hydrogen-powered vehicles. And the new station will manufacture its hydrogen using solar power. Other stations are already using this approach, including a public Shell station in Los Angeles.
So, when this technology hits the market we're talking about a zero-emissions car powered by a fuel created with zero emissions. That's American innovation at work for all of us.
Well that is great news! It seems like promising technology that makes sense!
My question is what would be the cost to use such vehicle per 100 miles vs a gas powered vehicle?
Posted by: vehicle transportation | February 24, 2011 at 04:54 PM
It has taken along time; but I am glad to see that now we are developing transit systems with good sized fleets of hydrogen powered buses. Also, I am glad that we are creating hydrogen fueling centers where thehydrogen will be manufactured using solar power. And its all non-polluting and will help free us from dependence on unstable sources of foreign oil. We talked about these very things in my science class I had back in 1983 and its great to see the ideas become reality. Best wishes, Michael E. Bailey.
Posted by: Michael E. Bailey | February 25, 2011 at 04:17 AM
Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit appreciates Secretary LaHood's attention on these advancements, which could not have occurred without financial assistance from DOT and DOE. Vehicle production costs have come way down, but are still too high to compete for ever-dwindling transit dollars. Let's hope that his influence in the new House can help convince them that killing the future is no way to save money now.
Greg Harper, Director of AC Transit.
Posted by: Greg Harper | February 25, 2011 at 03:02 PM
NOW is the time for the US Congress and the Obama Administration to get serious about commercialization of gaseous motor fuels. Empower entreprenuerial fuel providers to build the infrastructure, cultural, technical and institutional, needed to facilitate rapid deployment of gaseous fuel vehicles. Compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles are the perfect surrogate for compressed hydrogen gas (CH2) vehicles. Federal policy that motivates OEMS to mass produce millions of affordable CNG vehicles (vans, pickups, SUVS and trucks) TODAY will stimulate private sector investment in thousands of CNG fuel stations. This will facilitate deployment of millions of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles TOMORROW because customers will be ready for this paradigm shift to gaseous motor fuels. Deployment of CNG motor fuels TODAY can be profitable at minimal cost to the federal government. Profitable CNG stations will make it much more cost-effective to upgrade those CNG stations to dispense CH2 TOMMORROW.
Posted by: David E. Bruderly PE | February 27, 2011 at 12:09 AM
So why did you censor my policy recommendation that fueling infrastructure for gaseous motor fuels be promoted by the Obama Administration?
Development of fueling infrastructure for gaseous motor fuels must go hand-in-hand with production of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles -- otherwise this technology will NOT be a commercial success.
NOW is the time for the US Congress and the Obama Administration to get serious about commercialization of gaseous motor fuels. Empower entrepreneurial fuel providers to build the infrastructure, cultural, technical and institutional, needed to facilitate rapid deployment of gaseous fuel vehicles. Compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles are the perfect surrogate for compressed hydrogen gas (CH2) vehicles. Federal policy that motivates OEMS to mass produce millions of affordable CNG vehicles (vans, pickups, SUVS and trucks) TODAY will stimulate private sector investment in thousands of CNG fuel stations. This will facilitate deployment of millions of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles TOMORROW because customers will be ready for this paradigm shift to gaseous motor fuels.
Furthermore deployment of CNG motor fuels TODAY can be stimulated at minimal cost to the federal government because CNG fuel sales will be profitable. Profitable CNG stations will make it much more cost-effective to upgrade those CNG stations to dispense CH2 TOMORROW.
Posted by: David E. Bruderly PE | February 28, 2011 at 12:14 PM
I'm also interested in how the operational cost will compare to today's vehicles, as well as how a fuel-up would work (i.e. self-service vs. full-service, etc.). Would the time fueling with hydrogen be comparable to that of gasoline (or, re-filling a container of propane)? I would hope it be much faster than trying to re-charge a battery-car enroute to a destination.
I've seen people raise issues with wind and solar power due to a need to retain some reliable back-up source in 'spinning reserve'. This would not be the case where wind and solar power are simply breaking down water into Oxygen and Hydrogen for use in fuel cells.
Last, can we have some example pick-up trucks, mini-vans, and Suburbans, too? Fuel-cell systems that would replace a 454 engine? Hybrids that plug-in at night to make more Hydrogen / Oxygen, and are capable of re-fueling enroute?
Posted by: John Heinley | March 01, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Riiight. Hydrogen remains explosive and has to be pressurized. It also has to be manufactured (it doesn't occur naturally), making it of poor efficiency -- you have significant energy losses in both the manufacture, and due to its use in a thermal engine, in the use. I hope this provides a meaningful contribution to our energy problems, but I seriously doubt it will. Battery tech is already more efficient, and can be improved, while hydrogen tech cannot have its efficiency significantly improved.
Posted by: Nathanael Nerode | March 28, 2011 at 04:09 PM
This is amazing! It is so nice to see the global shift, especially in government circles, to new and environmentally friendly options!
Posted by: Good Website | August 22, 2012 at 01:47 PM