backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by ghost49x.. on Mar 27 at 9:48 PM

No fuel cell vehicles from VW on the horizon

A few years ago there were a number of automotive manufacturers putting serious money into hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. These vehicles promised to have a driving range similar to a conventional gasoline-powered automobile, but produce no emissions to pollute the atmosphere.
 
However, the vehicles faced several daunting challenges, including the lack of a hydrogen fuel infrastructure and the fact that hydrogen is highly flammable and difficult to store.

Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn stated this week that hydrogen fuel cells have failed to live up to promises and are unlikely to become an efficient and cost-effective way to power cars in the near future.

Winterkorn said, "I do not see the infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles, and I do not see how hydrogen can be produced on large scale at reasonable cost. I do not currently see a situation where we can offer fuel cell vehicles at a reasonable cost that consumers would also be willing to pay."

While Volkswagen doesn't see a near-term future with hydrogen vehicles, other manufacturers continue to move forward with the technology. Mercedes-Benz reached a deal with Ford and Nissan-Renault with a goal of selling the first production fuel-cell vehicle starting in 2017.
 
Back in 2010, a study was published predicting 670,000 fuel cell powered vehicles would be sold annually within a decade. So far, that prediction doesn't seem likely to come true.

Source: Auto News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Hope
By Jim Vanus on 3/23/2013 1:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks. Duh. Good point on the nuclear power. That kills the idea of hydrogen-powered vehicles for me.

Most of the greenies don't seem to understand basic chemistry and physics. If it takes more energy to produce a fuel than the fuel yields, it's not a viable fuel.

Energy scarcity plays into the hands of politicians and those providing the current fuels, which may be the biggest barrier to abundant, cheap, clean energy.

Some form of nuclear power is likely the answer.


RE: Hope
By maugrimtr on 3/26/2013 11:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear, esp. modern Nuclear, IS the answer. Unfortunately, governments correctly assume that their voters will never go for it. Many voters are morons when it comes to Nuclear Energy.

Look at Japan and France's recent reactions to a disaster striking outdated ancient reactors that should have been off-lined long ago. Voters think all future reactors are the same as those designed in the 1950s to 70s.


RE: Hope
By ghost49x on 3/27/2013 9:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If it takes more energy to produce a fuel than the fuel yields, it's not a viable fuel.


In theory this only becomes 'nonviable' when it costs more for the consumer to buy the fuel he needs to get to work than he makes from work.

In practice people (or at least smart people) would look for other options (or adjust their lifestyle) if they can't maintain their lifestyles while using their preferred option.

In ether way there needs to be more options out there to break the monopoly oil has on our lives, they would only benefit the market as oil companies would have to deal with competition and thus have to balance profit and consumer loyalty. Also economies would be more stable as they wouldn't be as dependent on the oil market.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki