ACC 1

William Kibbe

27 March 2005

Electric, Hybrid or Fuel Cell Technology. What is the best choice for America?

It has often been said that Americans have love affairs with their automobiles. It is true that

Americans have come to depend on their automobiles more and more every day. Americans own

more vehicles than the citizens of other countries do. Figures from the 2001 Nationwide Personal

Transportation Survey show approximately one vehicle for every one driver, and 1.89 vehicles

per household. In that household there are approximately 3.74 daily trips per person averaging

9.8 miles each (9). So many vehicles, driven so many miles has given rise to some very big

concerns. The two major concerns are the impact of so many vehicles on the environment and

the rapid depletion on our fossil fuel resources.

Most people agree that it is time to make some serious changes in transportation to help with

these concerns. America needs the right technology for new personal vehicles for the near future.

What should be considered in making the choice?

The vehicles we drive today are primarily Otto Cycle internal combustion piston engines.

This style engine was invented in 1876 by Augustus Otto. In the one hundred plus years since

then, the basic design and function has remained unchanged. Improvements in efficiency have

resulted in performance improvements. However, the efficiency of today’s internal combustion

engine still only achieves approximately 30 percent. This accounts for much of the concerns

from using such engines. It is time for newer technologies that operate at higher efficiency

ranges. While there are new automobile powertrain technologies under development, some of

which are currently available to the consumer. A universal standard that a majority of consumers

Bill Kibbe Page 1 10/27/2010

or manufacturers agree on has not been adopted. A close examination of these technologies is in

order to make an intelligent choice. What issues need to be considered as part of this

examination?

The primary issues needing to be considered are:

A. Cost of the technology.

B. Environmental issues

C. Suitable performance issues.

Future Technologies.

There are three new technologies poised to take the place of the Otto Cycle combustion

engines. They are:

1. Electric Powered

2. Hybrid Powered

3. Fuel Cell Powered

Each of these technologies has benefits and certain drawbacks. Let’s consider each.

Electric Powered

According to NADA’s research data, 16.6 million new vehicles where sold in North

American in 2003 (5). Of those, 10,400 were electric powered (5).

Electric powered vehicles use high output electric motors to propel the vehicle. These motors

are powered by a large bank of rechargeable batteries. Recent breakthroughs in both electric

motor technology and battery technology has brought the performance levels of electric vehicles

very near to the performance levels of the average gasoline powered piston engine. The major

selling points for electric powered vehicles have been economy and elimination of air pollution

emissions. However, a closer examination of these issues may reveal that these issues are not as
 ACC 3

true as once believed. Economy should envelope the total cost of operating the vehicle. This

should include the initial cost of the vehicle, fuel costs and maintenance/repair costs. The largest

part of this equation is the initial cost of the vehicle. Current retail costs of production electric

vehicles (EV) average is $30,000.00 to $ 40,000.00 (1). This is twice the average cost of the

average family vehicles being purchased today.

The feature that has been most attractive to consumers who are interested in this vehicle is

that it does not burn fossil fuels. It runs on rechargeable batteries. This means no tailpipe

emissions to harm the environment. The average monthly electricity cost for a typical EV driver

is less than $15, compared to $50 for gasoline (2). Also consider that battery recharging can be a

frequent and lengthy process, taking 4 to 14 hours depending on the battery type and the voltage

level used in recharging. This will produce an effective driving range of only 40 to 120 miles

depending upon driving conditions. This is compared to 350 to 400 mile range on a tank of fuel

on most combustion engine vehicles. Although the initial maintenance cost for maintaining an

EV is lower than a combustion engine vehicle, that advantage is short lived; EVs’ lead-acid

batteries must be replaced every 3 years at a cost of approximately $8,000 (2).

When it comes to pollution; while it is true that there are no tailpipe emissions, there are

indirect emissions. That means the generating plants that produce the electricity for recharging

the batteries are emitting pollutants. The truth is that when using electricity generated from dirty

sources such as coal and oil, electric vehicles may actually create more of some pollutants than

comparable internal combustion engine vehicles (4). A report by the U.S. General Accounting

Office cited a German study that estimated the environmental impact of electric vehicles with

two distinct energy mixes: one comprised of only 49% coal-fired electricity, and one comprised

solely of coal-fired electricity. Assuming that 49% of an electric vehicle's charging energy is

Bill Kibbe Page 3 10/27/2010

being derived from coal, the study found that when compared to combustion engine vehicles,

electric vehicles would cause comparable levels of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide to be

emitted, and that sulfur oxide emissions would increase by a factor of 10. Furthermore, when

assuming that an electric vehicle is charged with 100% coal-fired electricity, the study estimated

that the electric vehicles would emit 150% more carbon dioxide, 250% more nitrogen oxides,

and 2400% more sulfur oxides than a comparable internal combustion engine vehicle (9).

Putting aside the scientific studies, the primary obstacle to EV automobiles becoming the

technology to replace combustion engines is the high cost and the limited driving range.

Hybrid Vehicles

According to Polk’s motor vehicle registration database 43,435 hybrid vehicles were sold in

2003 (8). Hybrid vehicles are currently in high demand by American consumers. Although much

of the vehicles success can be attributed to its popularity among Hollywood types, the vehicle

does have some pretty impressive credentials of its own.

The hybrid vehicle is a combination of a conventional combustion engine powered vehicle

and an electric powered vehicle. The combustion engine is much smaller than usual. And the

electric motors are powered for high output batteries that are recharges through regeneration and

the combustion engine’s generator.

The theory behind the hybrid is one developed by Sir Isaac Newton. One of his laws of

motion states that an object in motion tends to want to stay in motion until acted upon by an

outside force. And this laws’ inverse, that an object at rest tends to want to stay at rest until

acted upon by an outside force. Practical application of these laws would mean that it takes a

great deal of energy to put on object at rest into motion, but considerably less energy to keep that

object in motion.
 ACC 5

The hybrid vehicle is powered by high torque electric motors using energy stored in quick

discharge batteries to launch the vehicle and help get it up to highway speed. Once a cruising

speed is reached, the small combustion engine can take over and maintain that momentum. Over

a period of time at cruising speed, the generator driven by the combustion engine can recharge

the batteries again. This combination can fulfill the consumers demand for power and economy.

While the technology does seem to be the American automobile consumers dream, there are

some drawbacks. One is initial cost; it costs automakers $3,000 to $5,000 extra to build a hybrid

compared to a conventional vehicle of that same model (5). Some manufactures may be willing

to absorb these costs to capture market share, but that will be short lived. Many claim that fuel

savings will soon offset that initial cost. Just how much fuel savings will be realized? Here are a

couple of examples:

Honda Civic Gasoline -29/38 (1)

Honda Civic Hybrid -47/48 (1)

Ford Escape 2WD- Automatic -19/25 (1)

Ford Escape2WD Hybrid Automatic - 36/31 (1)

While these numbers do represent a substantial reduction if fuel consumption, they really do not

come close to solving the problem of fossil fuel dependence. Even though technology is reducing

the miles per gallon consumption, America still burns more fuel each year than it did the year

before.

Fuel Cell Vehicles

One future technology that is on the horizon is fuel cell technology. Fuel cell technology is

Bill Kibbe Page 5 10/27/2010

seen by many scientists as the answer to both pollution and fossil fuel dependence. Vehicles

powered by fuel cells are still in the developmental stage. From a technical point of view they

should be viewed as electric vehicles since electricity generated by the fuel cell is used to drive

an electric motor. However, the vehicle does not have to recharge its batteries in the same way as

an electric vehicle does. Instead the fuel cell is actually producing the electricity to power the

electric motor as the vehicle is being driven down the road. The fuel cell vehicle is filled up with

a liquid (or gaseous) fuel the same way a combustion engine vehicles gas tank is filled. It is this

fuel that is used by the fuel cell to produce the electricity. The most promising type of fuel cell

for automotive applications is the polymer electrolyte membrane or proton exchange membrane

fuel cell (PEMFC). A membrane is a medium that separates the anode and the cathode (3).

The anode is the negative post of the fuel cell. It conducts the electrons that are freed from the

hydrogen fuel molecules so that they can be used in an external circuit. The cathode, the positive

post of the fuel cell distributes the oxygen to the surface of the catalyst. It also conducts the

electrons back from the external circuit to the catalyst, where they can recombine with the

hydrogen ions and oxygen to form water.

The electrolyte is the proton exchange membrane. This specially treated material, which looks

something like ordinary kitchen plastic wrap, only conducts positively charged ions. The

catalyst is a special material that facilitates the reaction of oxygen and hydrogen. It is usually

made of platinum powder very thinly coated onto carbon paper or cloth.

Electrons liberated during fuel oxidation in the anode travel through an external circuit which

includes the electric motor that powers the vehicle until they reach the cathode. Inside the

cathode, the electrons combine with the protons to reduce oxygen and form water. This reaction

in a single fuel cell produces only about ~0.7 volts at a nominal current density of 1 A/cm², the
 ACC 7

voltage can be increased by stacking the fuel cells in series. The fuel cell stack voltage then

becomes a product of a single fuel cell operating voltage times the number of fuel cells in the

stack (3).

This is an extremely efficient method of powering a vehicle with no pollution, the only

byproduct being water. However, in order to compete with internal combustion engine powered

vehicles, PEMFC’s must operate and function as least as well as them. A fuel cell will work very

well in a stationary application where the demands are constant and predictable. This is not the

case in an automobile application. The transient behavior of PEMFC’s, following abrupt changes

in the power demanded by the vehicle, is particularly critical since in entails control [Awk] of the

air and fuel flows, pressure, temperature , and hydration of the membrane to control the output

voltage of the fuel cell and degradation of the fuel cell. Most all fuel cells developed to date are

steady state and not suitable for automobile applications. Production of variable state fuel cells is

still in the future, most scientist predict it will be at least 2010 before development is complete.

During that time there would have to be a network of hydrogen and or methane filling stations

put in place to service these vehicles fuel needs. So while this technology is very promising, it is

still a ways off.

So what is the best way to power America’s vehicles? Every manufacturer of modern

automobiles has juggled three balls in satisfying consumer demands; performance, economy, and

emissions. That will not change. These same demands must be met in any new technology.

Which technology will win out? The one that can provide good power performance, good fuel

economy and near zero emissions. And, oh yes! Everyone can afford one.

Works Cited

(1) 2005 Fuel Economy Guide

U.S. Department of Energy

Bill Kibbe Page 7 10/27/2010

 (2) Clean Alternative Fuels: Electric Vehicles
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA420-F-00-034, March 2002

(3) Control of the transient behavior of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell systems
Journal of Automotive Engineering November 2004 Vol. 218 No. D11
M.Grujicic, K.M. Chittajalla and J.T. Pukrushpan

(4) Electric Vehicles: Likely Consequences of U.S. and Other Nations' programs and Policies.
Gateway Japan Publishers (1996)

(5) NADA's AutoExec Magazine May, 2004 Article 4

National Automotive Dealers Association
NADA’s Industry Analysis Division (Paul Taylor, chief economist)

( 6) Summary of Travel Trends 2004 National Household Travel Survey

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Washington, D.C.
Patricia S. Hu
Center for Transportation Analysis
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Timothy R. Reuscher
MacroSys Research and Technology
December 2004

(7) Optimizing Efficiency of Internal Combustion Engines

Rajesh R. Parwani
National University of Singapore

(8) R.L POLK HYBRID VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS REPORT

Copyright © 2005 R. L. Polk & Co.

(9) U.S. General Accounting Office

Research and Development Testimony GAO-02-810T
June 6 2002