Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL: First Plug-In FCV, Production Starts In 2017

JUN 13 2016 BY MARK KANE 118

Prof. Dr Thomas Weber, Member of the Daimler Board of Management, Group Research and Mercedes-Benz Cars Development with the Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype

Prof. Dr Thomas Weber, Member of the Daimler Board of Management, Group Research and Mercedes-Benz Cars Development with the Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype. Not only can the GLC F-CELL be refuelled with hydrogen in under three minutes at an appropriate filling station: convenient external charging of its high-voltage battery is also possible.

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype. Not only can the GLC F-CELL be refuelled with hydrogen in under three minutes at an appropriate filling station: convenient external charging of its high-voltage battery is also possible.

Daimler has announced that its new hydrogen fuel cell car with enter production in 2017 – the Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL.

The F-CELL will also be the first series produced FCV with plug-in charging capabilities.

Up until this point, we had wondering why Toyota, Honda or Hyundai had yet to offer a larger on-board battery pack with the option to plug-in, for those who would like to also use their FCVs in all-electric mode (just like plug-in hybrids) on shorter trips.

Overnight and occasional day-charging would be especially useful in these early days of the hydrogen vehicle’s introduction, due to the lack of a refueling infrastructure. Instead of these feature, we saw Toyota and Honda export power only through DC CHAdeMO inlet (without any charging capability of their tiny batteries).

In the case of Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL, Daimler has decided to use a 9 kWh lithium-ion battery (similar in size to other European plug-in hybrids).

According to the German manufacturer, the GLC F-CELL’s battery will enable all-electric driving up to 50 km/31 miles (NEDC rating) prior to using any hydrogen for the next ~450 km.  Of course, in real world driving (EPA), the all-electric range probably will be closer to 30 km (20 miles).

The fuel cell stack is installed in the engine compartment, while the lithium-ion battery occupies part of the trunk space. The two carbon-fiber-encased tanks that are used to store 4 kg of hydrogen are located in the middle and under the rear seats.

The drive system of the Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL. The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle will use F-CELL PLUG-IN technology.

The drive system of the Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL. The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle will use F-CELL PLUG-IN technology.

The drive system of the Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL. The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle will use F-CELL PLUG-IN technology.

The drive system of the Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL. The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle will use F-CELL PLUG-IN technology.

The drive system of the Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL. The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle will use F-CELL PLUG-IN technology.

The drive system of the Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL. The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle will use F-CELL PLUG-IN technology.

The drive system of the Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL. The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle will use F-CELL PLUG-IN technology.

The drive system of the Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL. The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle will use F-CELL PLUG-IN technology.

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype

Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL spec:

  • 4 kg hydrogen tanks (700 bar) and 9 kWh litium-ion battery, good for a total of 500 km (310 miles) NEDC range
  • 50 km (31 miles) NEDC all-electric range on the battery alone (~30km/20 miles real world)
  • charging capability

Press release:

Under the microscope: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL: The fuel cell gets a plug

Fuel-cell technology is an integral part of Daimler’s drive system strategy. Because the advantages are clear: a long operating range and short refuelling stops as well as a broad spectrum of possible uses ranging from passenger cars to urban buses. A new vehicle generation based on the Mercedes-Benz GLC is being launched in 2017. The Mercedes-Benz engineers joined forces with partners in the Daimler competence network to develop a new, compact fuel-cell system which for the first time fits into conventional engine compartments. The GLC F-CELL features a large lithium-ion battery as a further innovation of the next-generation fuel-cell vehicles. Rated at around 9 kWh, the battery serves as an additional energy source for the electric motor and can be charged externally by means of plug-in technology for the first time. Together with the further developed intelligent operating strategy, the combination of fuel cell and battery system offers maximum efficiency and comfort. With this set-up, the GLC F-CELL achieves a combined range of around 500 km in the NEDC.

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype. Not only can the GLC F-CELL be refuelled with hydrogen in under three minutes at an appropriate filling station: convenient external charging of its high-voltage battery is also possible.

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype. Not only can the GLC F-CELL be refuelled with hydrogen in under three minutes at an appropriate filling station: convenient external charging of its high-voltage battery is also possible.

Daimler relies on electric mobility with fuel cell. Vehicles such as the B-Class F-CELL and the Citaro FuelCELL-Hybrid urban bus have together now clocked up in excess of twelve million kilometres, clearly demonstrating that the drive concept is ready for market. The next technology advance is now imminent: working together with partners from its global competence network, Daimler AG has developed an all-new fuel-cell system. Around 30 percent more compact than previously, it can be fully housed in the engine compartment for the first time. The fuel cell developers have also further optimised the performance and operating range. Furthermore, the cost of the innovative technology has been slashed thanks largely to a 90-percent reduction in the amount of platinum used in the stack. From 2017, Daimler will be unveiling the new-generation fuel-cell technology based on the Mercedes-Benz GLC.

World first: plug-in fuel-cell drive goes into production

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype

A lithium-ion battery for autonomous operation is being used in an electric vehicle with fuel cell for the first time. The powerful battery has a capacity of around 9 kWh and is housed at the rear of the SUV to save space. It allows the GLC F-CELL to run on purely battery-electric power for up to 50 km in the NEDC and can be conveniently charged at a standard household socket, a Mercedes-Benz wall box or a public charging station. Two carbon-fibre-encased tanks built into the vehicle floor hold around 4 kg of hydrogen. Thanks to the globally standardised 700-bar tank technology, the tank in the GLC F-CELL can be refilled at a hydrogen filling station within just three minutes, which is about the same amount of time it takes to refuel a car with an internal combustion engine.

The combination of fuel cell and plug-in battery is ideal given the progressive development of the hydrogen filling station infrastructure. The innovative plug-in fuel-cell drive combines the advantages of both zero-emission drive technologies and, thanks to its intelligent operating strategy, continuously optimises the use of both energy sources in line with the current operating situation. The system also features a recuperation function, for example, which allows energy to be recuperated and stored in the battery during braking and coasting phases. In total, the GLC F-CELL achieves a combined range of around 500 km in the NEDC.

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype

Global competence network: access to key technologies

Part of the Daimler AG strategy involves ensuring direct access to key electromobility components. During development and production of the innovative fuel-cell drive, Daimler AG is able to call upon its global competence network. The centrepiece of the technology, the fuel-cell stack, was developed in Vancouver, Canada together with partner Ford in the Automotive Fuel Cell Cooperation (AFCC) joint venture. The stack is produced in the neighbourhood at Mercedes-Benz Fuel Cell (MBFC). Overall responsibility for the complete fuel-cell-drive assembly and the hydrogen storage system is developed from the Daimler subsidiary NuCellSys in Kirchheim/Nabern, Baden-Württemberg.

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype

The Daimler strain plant Untertürkheim is responsible for an establishment for the fuel cell system installation, also at the location Nabern. The hydrogen tank system consisting of carbon-fibre-encased tanks is produced at the Daimler Mannheim plant while the lithium-ion battery comes from Daimler subsidiary Deutsche ACCUMOTIVE located in Kamenz, Saxony. Daimler is currently working systematically to prepare for series production of the Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL. The family-friendly SUV suitable for daily use is produced at the Mercedes-Benz Bremen plant, which acts as the competence centre for the model series. The GLC has been rolling off the production line there since July 2015. Regarding to the drive system integration of the GLC F-CELL, the partner EDAG supports the factory Bremen and will settle in the immediate work area.

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype

The next generation Mercedes-Benz fuel cell electric vehicle: Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL prototype

Categories: Daimler, Mercedes

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

118 Comments on "Mercedes-Benz GLC F-CELL: First Plug-In FCV, Production Starts In 2017"

avatar
newest oldest most voted
Just_Chris
Guest
Just_Chris

Why only 9 kWh? I really think that they should have gone with double that. That would give you 80-90% of your driving on nice cheap efficient battery power with the nice clean but a lot more expensive and less efficient H2 from surplus wind and solar in the German grid taking the last 10% of travel where a BEV is a pain.

ItsNotAboutTheMoney
Guest
ItsNotAboutTheMoney

1) Space.
2) Cost
3) If that’s the size they use in PHEVs they’re going to re-use that size.

zzzzzzzzzz
Guest
zzzzzzzzzz

They are planning to change 9kWh to 13+kWh in all their hybrids in 2017. There are limits how much weight/space you can use before it stops making sense.

Priusmaniac
Guest
Priusmaniac

Instead of considering a certain energy amount for the battery, a better option would be to consider what distance is required to make 90% of the daily commute distances, which then comes out at roughly two times 40 miles, so 80 miles in total. If the Bolt has a 60 KWh battery to cover 200 miles, by comparison a distance of 80 miles would need 24 KWh in battery. So that is what would make sense to put in a meaningful PHEV.
That would also mean more electric power available for the motor so the fuel cell could become a range extender like in the BMW i3 and be scaled down in size and cost.

Of course a further improvement would be to use a direct ethanol fuel cell instead of an hydrogen fuel cell which would allow the use of conventional liquid tanks and fuelling system. Ethanol in the low volumes, that would be required for range extender operation only, is already made today in sufficient supply with no need for more. Ethanol is also not fossil so it would make the car a REEV-80 running on renewable electricity and renewable ethanol.

sven
Guest
sven

Nissan just recently announced that it is working on an ethanol fuel cell car, and a company called Serenergy plans to have a 20 to 50 car methanol fuel cell demonstration fleet this year in Europe. Also, the first methanol fueling station opened in Denmark last year. Below is video of the the Serenery filling up at the methanol station. The info about the fleet stats at about 3:30 into the video.

http://www.serenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/FIAT-e500-Battery-electric-plugin-hybrid-car-with-methanol-fuel-cell-range-extender.pdf

Priusmaniac
Guest
Priusmaniac

Beware that Methanol is different than Ethanol. The direct methanol fuel cell is easier to do than the ethanol fuel cell but there is a catch. While the Ethanol will get you drunk it is essentially non toxic, the Methanol on the other hand is very toxic and will even cause blindness if you drink it. Of course one could say that you are not supposed to drink either when using it to fill your tank but the real catch is the origin of both products. Ethanol is mainly a biofuel while Methanol is rather a fossil fuel derivative from such fuels as coal. So both are similar in aspect but quiet different otherwise. As usual the devil is in the details and it can be even more confusing since Ethanol can also be produced from hydration of oil based Ethylene and Methanol can be made from wood. Best would be Ethanol from certified renewable origin. To avoid fraud a carbon 14 content test can be done, the fossil origin will give a lower portion than the biologic origin.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

sven said:

“Nissan just recently announced that it is working on an ethanol fuel cell car, and a company called Serenergy plans to have a 20 to 50 car methanol fuel cell demonstration fleet this year in Europe.”

Glad to see that someone is working on a fuel cell car that doesn’t use compressed hydrogen for its fuel. This might actually be practical, at least as a stopgap measure until BEVs improve.

And this sort of thing is why I say that auto makers should continue to work on fuel cell technology as an R&D project. There are applications for using practical fuels to power fuel cells, unlike using compressed hydrogen, which is nearly the most impractical fuel anyone could choose.

Nix
Guest
Nix

The downside of fuel cells that operate using fuels other than hydrogen, is that they typically lose their “zero emissions” from the tailpipe status.

But yea, fuel delivery of E100 could be much more easily adapted to the US by simply replacing current E85 tanks with E100 tanks, and then using blender pumps to distribute E100 to a fuel cell car, E85 to E85 cars, and E15 to the long list of cars built after 2014 that are now E15 certified.

No bulky hydrogen tanks, and no huge new delivery system would be required.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

“…consider what distance is required to make 90% of the daily commute distances, which then comes out at roughly two times 40 miles, so 80 miles in total.”

Interesting, that’s the first time I’ve ever seen someone give an actual range in miles for the 90% benchmark.

Did you use statistical analysis to come up with that, Priusmaniac, or is it just your best estimate?

R.S
Guest
R.S

A FCEV is already pretty expensive, if you start substituting the H2 tanks with batteries it gets even more expensive.

I guess it just was a power, not a usability, choice. A MB needs a certain amount hp, not just 120-150. And a high power li-ion battery can add hp a lot cheaper than a fuel cell.

MrEnergyCzar
Guest
MrEnergyCzar

Will the hydrogen fuel be free for the life of the car?

RexxSee
Guest
RexxSee

Yuck!

Anon
Guest
Anon

Have they learned nothing from watching Toyota barking up the wrong drivetrain tree, yet?

God, MB has no gigafactory and is choosing to dump money into an inefficient, and highly problematic drivetrain ‘solution’, when more reliable, affordable, and efficient BEV tech already exists.

I don’t get it…

philip d
Guest
philip d

And all they will acheive is to convince the owners, that really enjoy driving those plugin only miles, that what they really want is a 215 mile EV that has a Supercharger network.

ItsNotAboutTheMoney
Guest
ItsNotAboutTheMoney

No, but at least they’ve learned that having it be a plug-in will make it better and more convenient for owners.

No price listed yet though …

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

$76,000 is what’s being reported.

MX9000
Guest
MX9000

Yep, GM and the VOLT DESTROYED this concept.

Djoni
Guest
Djoni

But what happen to the store hydrogen after a month or two using just the battery.
Some will have vanished, for sure, because of the nature of that small molecule and at this pressure.
And, how much it cost$

MikeM
Guest
MikeM

That’s a very good point.
I imagine a good few PE-FCV drivers well get a rude awakening when they run the battery down in the early part of their first long trip only to find the H2 tank half full.

Just_Chris
Guest
Just_Chris

You are thinking of a cryogenic storage system. These aren’t used for vehicles, there is no significant self discharge of compressed H2.

Bob
Guest
Bob

It is not about what “boils off”. It is about what seeps through the fittings (mostly) and actually through the skin of the tank (marginally).

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

Djoni said:

“But what happen to the store hydrogen after a month or two using just the battery.”

Good point, Djoni. Older articles on FCEVs say the tanks lose 1-2% of their fuel per day. (That’s 1-2% of what’s currently in the tank, not 1-2% of full capacity; it’s a half-life curve.)

Perhaps they’ve improved on that since those older articles were written, but there still must be some daily loss since the tiny H2 molecules leak past all possible seals, and even slowly leak thru solid materials like the wall of the tank.

sven
Guest
sven

Batteries also self discharge. Just sayin’.

sveno
Guest
sveno

Very true but the discharge rate is much much lower and will also slow down further as SoC decreases. Most li-ion systems have electronics which consume power regardless if being used or turned off (phones, power banks, laptops) too.

super390
Guest
super390

Also, owners tend to plug in their cars at home pretty often anyway. There’s no direct H2 analog for that.

Nix
Guest
Nix

Batteries do also self-discharge. But nobody is relying upon a battery that might sit for months unused as their range extender. So they won’t ever go to use it only to find that it is half empty and won’t get them to the next hydrogen station 150 miles away.

sven
Guest
sven

Toyota uses a newly developed plastic (nylon) liner in the Mirai’s carbon fiber-reinforced fuel tanks to seal in hydrogen. Toyota used steel tanks in its previous prototype FCVs, while Honda uses aluminum in the tank of its Clarity FCV.

Toyota and Ube industries co-developed UBENYLON 1218IU, a nylon liner material for high-pressure hydrogen tanks used in fuel cell vehicles. This polyamide (nylon) 6 resin delivers superior performance for hydrogen permeation prevention, an order of magnitude superior to high-density polyethylen (HDPE). After blowmolding the liner, it is wrapped by carbon fiber and then impregnated with epoxy resin.

http://www.plasticstoday.com/polyamide-makes-it-mark-high-pressure-hydrogen-tank-toyota-fuel-cell-vehicle/168249825924709

http://www.ube-ind.co.jp/english/news/2014/20141208_01.htm

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

I am sure that those working on fuel cell cars are working to improve the technology, but I rather doubt they’ve achieved an order of magnitude improvement in daily leakage.

Even if there is essentially zero leakage thru the walls of the storage tank and walls of the tubing, there still have to be seals at joints, and those seals will leak.

If they can get the daily leakage down to, let’s say, only 0.25% per day, that would be only 7.47% in 30 days, which I think most of us could live with.

0.5% leakage per day would yield a 13.96% loss in 30 days… that sounds like something a lot of car owners, maybe most of them, might consider a deal-killer.

It really would be interesting to know what the daily leakage rate of a new Mirai is, and how fast that increases over time. (I see from Googling that as fuel cell stacks age they crack, which allows more hydrogen to leak.)

sven
Guest
sven

Oops. The ethanol/methanol FCV part of the comment was meant to be posted as a response to Priusmaniac at the beginning of the thread.

Priusmaniac
Guest
Priusmaniac

A standard welding hydrogen bottle is experiencing nothing close to such high percentage leakage, but then again it is only at 200 bar, 700 bar in a composite tank might be another case.

scott franco (No M3 FAUX GRILL!)
Guest
scott franco (No M3 FAUX GRILL!)

If FCVs are so f**king great, why do they need to be made into hybrids? To conserve hydrogen?

Or is it perhaps because hydrogen from NG cracking is both expensive and dirty?

ItsNotAboutTheMoney
Guest
ItsNotAboutTheMoney

No, HFCV always have a hybrid battery because
(a) fuel cell power is expensive, having battery power allows for a smaller cell
(b) a battery allows for regen

Here with more battery and plug-in capability, it means
(1) more power: more appealing
(2) more miles between fill-ups: more usable with low filling station density.

If they’re going to make an HFCV, making a PHFCV makes a lot of sense.

Nix
Guest
Nix

The larger traction battery was only a matter of time. Along with the benefits listed by ‘Money, a larger traction also adds these benefits:

* Longer traction battery life. A larger battery reduces the number of C’s required to accelerate and to take in regenerative braking. That means less battery cell heat, and it can use a lower percent of the battery.

* Platinum is expensive. The bigger the battery, the less fuel cell you need in order to balance out surge demand. There is no need to have a fuel cell that produces enough electricity to provide 100% of the power to the electric motor. All you need is enough fuel cell power to get over the highest mountain pass with battery assistance.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

ItsNotAboutTheMoney said:

“HFCV always have a hybrid battery because
(a) fuel cell power is expensive, having battery power allows for a smaller cell
(b) a battery allows for regen”

Neither of those is actually the primary reason a FCEV needs a battery pack. The primary reason is that the oxidizing reaction in a fuel cell can’t be quickly turned up and down to a faster or slower rate. So if you want your “fool cell” car to be able to accelerate at a reasonable rate, you need to have a battery pack to provide the energy for that acceleration.

In other words, the battery pack is a buffer between the fuel cell and the traction motor(s), allowing plenty of power to be provided quickly, and also provides a buffer to allow the fuel cell time to slow down the reaction when, for example, the car rapidly slows down from highway speed.

But yeah, the ability to recapture energy from regenerative braking is also good.

David Murray
Guest
David Murray

This is what I’ve been saying they should be making all along. The primary reason I don’t want a fuel cell car is because I don’t want to make regular trips to the fueling station. But if I don’t have to refuel any more often than I refuel my Volt, then I could live with the FC as a range extender.

jelloslug
Guest
jelloslug

Or just get a car with a large battery.

SparkEV
Guest

Except unlike gasoline, H may be gone by letting it sit there if AER is so long that you don’t use FC. MB AER is short that you’ll always be using H. Question is, will some people notice the leakage if their commute is very short?

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

Volt goes into maintenance mode if you don’t burn any gas.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

Oh, that’s hardly the same thing at all. Sure, the Volt will occasionally turn on the gasoline motor even if you never burn fuel, to keep the average age of the fuel in the tank at less than 1 year; to prevent the gasoline from getting too old.

But if you leave the gasoline in the tank for a year, it will still be in the tank. Contrariwise, leave a FCEV sitting around for a few weeks, and a significant portion of the fuel will be gone. Perhaps nearly all of it; I don’t know what the daily loss rate is for current FCEVs.

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

Did you say the volt was dirty because it uses gas?

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

No, that’s not even remotely what I said, and stop putting words in people’s mouths.

And FCEVs emit a lot more pollution, considered on a well-to-wheel basis, than a long-range PHEV like the Volt; see the infographic linked below. (Well, there’s nothing else like the Volt, sadly.)

http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/06/Fuel_Cell_Whole_Truth1.jpg

Joe
Guest
Joe

Leaving a petrol/gas car parked for a year will result in similar reduction in your tank. Extreme heat increases pressure on joints and valves and makes rubber valves more porous. It’s a small amount of evaporation, but it still happens.

Nix
Guest
Nix

The Volt will never go into maintenance mode and burn any gas if you actually use the gas motor from time to time.

And when the gas motor does come on, the gas isn’t wasted, it is used to charge the battery and propel the vehicle.

On the other hand, any hydrogen lost to the environment is simply lost, and will always happen all the time. (I don’t personally know what that rate is with this vehicle, as Mercedes is not required by law to publish this information, and hasn’t chosen to publish a number.)

zzzzzzzzzz
Guest
zzzzzzzzzz

It would not pass safety requirements if it would be loosing hydrogen. It sounds like some fantasy really, the same as “hydrogen will make car brittle and it will go away in a dust” 😉 Or will explode just like H bomb.

Hydrogen gas was used at wide scale in German gas network for many decades, and is still used in some pipelines. Engineers there know perfectly well how to handle it and what materials are suitable for hydrogen. Just like elsewhere in the world.

JakeY
Guest
JakeY

All hydrogen tanks leak, they just vary on leakage rate.

The long term leak standard for the tanks in cars is 0.05 g/h/kg. That means this 4kg tank will be completely empty in 833 days (~2.3 years).

Hari
Guest
Hari

Or for that matter any size tank will empty in the same period, isn’t it?

Nix
Guest
Nix

No, how long it takes to leak down completely is based upon the surface area where the leakage occurs, verses the total amount of gas stored. The shape and size of the tank can greatly impact that.

A large perfectly round tank that contains more gas at the same pressure will have a lower percent of surface area per pound of gas stored, and take longer to leak down completely.

A smaller tank that is less round will have more surface area per pound of gas stored, and will leak down completely in less time.

This assumes that each container leaks down equally at all surface areas. If one part of the surface area that is small leaks the majority of the gas, the ratio of leaked gas to stored gas becomes even higher, and the larger tanks will take much, much longer to leak down than a small tank (any shape).

I hope this all makes sense, it is fairly esoteric.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

My understanding is that the leakage at the seals vastly exceeds the leakage thru the walls of the tank. If my understanding is correct, the leakage thru the walls is relatively negligible by comparison.

So I doubt the shape of the tank is going to affect the leakage rate that much.

Nix
Guest
Nix

In that case, assuming the seal surface area is equal for both tanks, the larger tank will take longer to get to “empty” than a smaller tank.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

zzzzzzzzzz said:

“It would not pass safety requirements if it would be loosing hydrogen.”

Well, since the tanks in FCEVs are constantly losing hydrogen, not “loosing” it, then that’s rather irrelevant. Nobody is claiming “fool cell” cars just set loose their fuel. 😉

But it’s no surprise that a physics denier and Big Oil shill would deny the reality of H2 leakage in “fool cell” cars.

Joe
Guest
Joe

“physics denier and big oil shill” – ah well. Why resort to ad hominem, when pure logic already wins the argument?

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

At some point, I get tired of seeing ZZZZZZZZ repeating, over and over and over again, the same science denier lies, and his repetition of Big Oil propaganda promoting the wildly impractical and stupid idea of putting into production cars powered by highly compressed hydrogen.

I confess to getting irritated when people deliberately ignore facts and keep repeating the same lies over and over, despite the truth being repeatedly pointed out to them.

Maybe that’s just me… but I doubt it.

Nix
Guest
Nix

It is not just you….

RCM
Guest
RCM

If you need a range extender you’re better off sticking with gasoline.

The H2 network in this country is pretty much non existent for 99% of the population

H2 costs A LOT more then gasoline

The price of the plug-in FCEV is going to be insanely high!

The H2 will still come from a fossil fuel (steam-methane reformation)

Just keep driving your Volt 2.0 until BEVs meet your needs

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

Exactly, and thanks.

Using compressed hydrogen as a mass transportation fuel is simply unworkable, period. Unworkable economically as well as impractical from an engineering standpoint. Using that for the “backup plan” in a PHEV doesn’t magically make it any less bad.

zzzzzzzzzz
Guest
zzzzzzzzzz

Don’t assume all the world lives in your country (I guess you mean the US). Daimler is German automaker. Authobahn traffic may force you into higher speeds and people there don’t buy higher end Mercedes to limp in first lane with 90 km/h trucks, economoboxes, and Teslas too, that can’t sustain high average speed because charging would take too long than, and especially in winter. Residential electricity is around 0.30 EUR/kWh in Germany – that is 33.7 *.3 = 10 EUR for “electric galon” as used in mpge. Not so much to save using it for road trips too. Assuming this GLC will cost around 70k EUR as people guess, it is no brainer over Tesla Model X in Germany, as it is both cheaper, has much better quality, no flopping gull wings, can go at any speed, provides “free” heat in winter from fuel cells, and can refuel in 3 minutes at multiple hydrogen in Germany and countries around it.

Nix
Guest
Nix

None of the current Fuel Cell vehicles are capable of the speeds you are talking about. The two FCEV’s currently for sale in the US have tops speeds of 100 and 110 mph, while the I believe Tesla is honoring the gentleman’s agreement of limiting their fastest cars to 155 MPH.

Mercedes fuel cell vehicles have traditionally only had a top speed of 105 mph, and then only for a limited time as the traction battery is drawn down. I wouldn’t expect this one to be that much faster, although the larger traction battery would give it a chance at a limited high speed run.

Higher speeds require more powerful fuel cells, which require more platinum, which means more money. It is cheaper to add battery at this point.

Priusmaniac
Guest
Priusmaniac
At 30 cent per KWh your ev is still going to give you a much better yield than gas or hydrogen so your 33.7 KWh egallon is actually worth triple or double the gas or hydrogen one. So even in Germany you still win in “fuel” cost per mile. On the autobahn high speed long duration matter, without any traffic jam to spoil it, the very last resort argument you use against Tesla, the new version S has improved its aerodynamics and is scoring better there too, at least it can do better than a maxed out fuel cell would since the small buffer battery would not allow a long distance at high speed, if high speed at all. To make the S still better Tesla is regularly increasing the battery energy content and working at increasing supercharger power as well. A fuel cell version of constant high speed long duration capability would need an oversized fuel cell and an oversized hydrogen tank, which would make it costly and dangerous in case of a collision at 150 mph with a 10 Kg 700 bar tank. Tanks are accident tested at speeds much lower than 100 mph, so at 150 mph… Read more »
Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

“…if I don’t have to refuel any more often than I refuel my Volt, then I could live with the FC as a range extender.”

If FCEV drivers didn’t have to fill up the fuel tank nearly as often, then there wouldn’t be enough demand to support nearly as many H2 fueling stations.

While this sounds like a good idea, it would make mass adoption of FCEVs even more economically unworkable than it already is.

Taser54
Guest
Taser54

Posters, please provide a link from a reputable source that states current fuel cell cars lose their stored hydrogen readily. Thanks.

SparkEV
Guest

Other than abstract, “reputable” papers are behind pay wall ($40). Google it.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

Well, it’s “only” $26.

http://papers.sae.org/2015-01-1169/

Nix
Guest
Nix

Taser — Why don’t you demand that information from Mercedes, instead of demanding that posters here somehow produce proprietary Mercedes data that Mercedes hasn’t released for this vehicle?

Rick Danger
Guest
Rick Danger

+1

Will Davis
Guest
Will Davis

I don’t understand. They’re combining both of the most expensive technologies. Then again it is Merc. They tend to be overpriced.

Gasoline plug in – that makes sense. Lots of range to augment the battery when you go on those <1% of longer journeys.

Fuel cell plug in? Strange idea tbh. Hydrogen infrastructure not exactly ideal in present state, and investment in infrastructure (outside of Japan) is severely lacking.

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

Why not try something new. The whole bev thing is not working with less than 1% total sales worldwide.

RCM
Guest
RCM

@ JySubaruOutback

How do you figure BEVs are not working out at 1%?

Seems normal to me being that they’ve only been around 6 years. ICEVs have been around over 100 years in comparison! Not going to happen over night!

If you think BEVs aren’t working out then how do you explain the 400K Model 3 reservations?!?

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

540,000(worldwide EV sales)/85,000,000 = .00635

0.6%

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

You can point to similar low market penetration at the start of every disruptive tech revolution.

You’ve got no real argument there at all. What you actually appear to be arguing is that EV tech won’t significantly improve, which is an utterly indefensible assertion. EV tech is obviously and significantly improving year by year.

And so are worldwide plug-in EV sales.

zzzzzzzzzz
Guest
zzzzzzzzzz

Battery cars had 40% market share in the US some 100 years ago. They had battery change stations, battery rental – whatever.

Nothing against battery cars, but they have limitations and while they are perfect for some applications, they can’t take whole car/truck market so far. Every tool has its own purpose, don’t try to do everything with hammer, sometimes you need screwdriver too.

RCM
Guest
RCM

I’m talking about modern day BEVs, not those old ones from over 100 years ago (The Detroit Electric comes to mind) that used lead acid batteries. Yes FCEVs could have their place and be useful just not with passenger cars here in the U.S. More practical to keep using ICEVs, hybrids and PHEVs in this country until BEVs can satisfy the consumers needs.

Nix
Guest
Nix

You are talking about a time when motorized transport (either gas or electric) only held a fraction of 1 percent of the total transportation market, with horses, trains, and boats still being used for the vast, vast majority of transportation.

All cars at that point were basically pink unicorns. You had your choice of battery or gas powered pink unicorn if you were wealthy enough. Even then, you likely had a selection of horses at your ready.

What point are you trying to make?

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

Nix said:

“You had your choice of battery or gas powered pink unicorn if you were wealthy enough.”

Well, there were steam powered pink unicorns, too. 😉 (Pushy ducks…)

Nix
Guest
Nix

*grin*

Somehow “Steam powered pink unicorn” just sounds wrong!

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

JySubaruOutback said:

“The whole bev thing is not working with less than 1% total sales worldwide.”

No doubt you would have said the same thing about cellphones back in 1985, a year after Motorola introduced the first “brick” cellphone.

Obviously the whole cellphone thing isn’t working, is it? 😉

Kids these days. So impatient!

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

Yes the industry changed when the technology changed. Bev market will change when the technology changes.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

400,000 reservations at $1000 apiece for the Tesla Model ≡ sounds like an awful lot of people think the tech already has changed.

The tipping point will come for BEVs just as it did for cell phones. It’s no longer a question of “if?”, but only “when?”.

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

Can’t believe you said that. 400,000/90,000,000(2015 sales)= 0.0044
O.44%

Priusmaniac
Guest
Priusmaniac

If you do the same exercise with FCV you won’t even have a 0.01%, it will rather be expressed in some ppb.

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

The reason I said all EVs are rounding error, at this point.

Robert Weekley
Guest

Jy, How many Subaru Outbacks were sold by Subaro in 2015? How many Outbacks were sold or reserved 18 months bebor they stated deliveries? In one month (equal to the nearly 400,000 Tesla Model 3 Reservations)?

Robert Weekley
Guest

Jy, we all know Tesla is not the only BEV OEM, so why would you compare sales of ALL Vehicles against one Make and Model? Tesla is targeting the BMW 3 Series (And maybe the Audi A4 ), so why not compare that 400,000 reservations with 3 Series sales in 2015?

RCM
Guest
RCM

BEV technology doesn’t need to change it just needs to improve and it’s already doing that now. In just 6 years the range is going from 84 miles per charge to over 200 miles per charge for around the same price. Look how long it took for the Toyota Prius to gain market share. Besides, if you think BEVs are having a problem gaining market share it’s going to be MUCH worse for the FCEV (in the U.S.).

super390
Guest
super390

But before you were saying that batteries should be abandoned. You can’t have it both ways.

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

Until then, your looking at rounding errors.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

So, you think Tesla Motors (and BYD) and this website should be shut down, we should all just accept that we’ll be driving gasmobiles forever, we might as well stop talking about EVs, and nobody should try to pursue EV tech, because you can’t go out today and buy a 500 mile BEV that can be recharged in 2 minutes, with public EV charging stations as common as gas stations are today… right?

No, I think you know better, and you’re just pot-stirring.

vdiv
Guest
vdiv

Uhm, for crying out loud, why?!

Oh I know, MB can’t make a proper plugin without Tesla. Ediots!

Robert Weekley
Guest

Why? I thought it was clear: 9 CARB CREDITS per sale!

Also
..They can say they have “The Car of The Future”, for sale now!

Since average people are not the MB target customer, but rather the ‘Well to do’, Why Not?

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

How to make an already horribly bad concept (trying to sell cars powered by compressed hydrogen gas) even worse: Make it a plug-in hybrid!

It’s already the case that hydrogen fuel is much too expensive and much too difficult to work with for any hydrogen fueling station to ever be profitable, partly because there are so few FCEVs on the road that there is almost no demand. Making H2 just a “backup plan” in a PHEV means the tiny demand becomes even smaller, which makes the economic case for operating a H2 fuel station even worse.

As someone said in a recent post to InsideEVs: Fuel cell cars make an interesting science project. But trying to actually produce them and sell them is downright stupid. Adding a larger battery pack to make them a plug-in hybrid doesn’t make them any less stupid; it only makes them even more expensive than they already are.

That’s not merely my opinion. It’s the economic reality of the situation.

SparkEV
Guest

CA EV rebate ran out, no doubt from all these damn FCV taking so much more than BEV!

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

They only sold few hundred. Your compliance spark EV did more damage.

SparkEV
Guest

219 FCV took CVRP at $5000 per car. Contrast that with $2500 for SparkEV, FCV does twice the damage.

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

Volume. My man. Volume. Your go-cart sold around 5000.

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

I’m sure those spark EV buyers took $2500 + $1500 low income rebate, bring the total to $4000.

SparkEV
Guest

Math shows 32 poor people took $4000 rebate for SparkEV. Contrast that with 216 people who can afford $60K FCV who took $5000. Yeah, 8 times the volume for the rich who can afford useless car.

SparkEV runs far quicker than the joke of a car running on FC like Mirai. Considering DCFC, range is greater than FC. Before you call something a go-cart, look at the substance rather than “ooh, shiny money waster”.

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

How many FC were sold during that time when poor people took those $1500 rebate for the spark EV.

How many rich Tesla owners took that $2500?

Spark EV is the worst selling bev of all time.

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

Spark EV couldn’t beat, “don’t buy my EV” Fiat 500e.

Tony Williams
Guest

They were not even trying…

SparkEV
Guest

By your dodging the point that $50K FCV like Mirai are joke of a car that’s slower than even $16K BEV, I take it that you agree. Driving 20 miles or more to “fuel up” is a joke compared to even a golf cart that you can charge at home.

Yeah, keep pushing that joke. Rich people taking $5K rebate instead of giving less / fewer to low income for usable EV is really not funny.

tiburonh
Guest
tiburonh

Please excuse my ignorance, but I am totally baffled by this. Why in the world would anyone want an EV with limited electric range for which the backup “range extender” power source was hydrogen? Even though I live just 3 miles from one of the handful of public hydrogen refueling stations in California (and there are for sure way more such stations in CA than anywhere else in the US), hydrogen stations are not just way scarcer, they are also way more expensive — to say nothing of the fact that hydrogen “evaporates” out of you car fairly rapidly when not used. Now if someone were to flip this and introduce a car who’s primary intended fuel source was meant to be hydrogen, with electricity from a battery as the backup, that I might be interested in.

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

Germany and Japan have the highest concentration of solar power. BEV will burden their grid and so they smart people are looking for alternatives.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

A plug-in hybrid FCEV is pretty close to the least smart alternative to a BEV.

Yes, Japan is an energy-poor country, but the laws of physics don’t favor “fool cell” cars there anymore than they do any other place in this world.

The physics deniers who are advocating, in this discussion, for cars fueled by compressed hydrogen… aren’t living in the real world.

Priusmaniac
Guest
Priusmaniac

Japan is a fossil fuel poor country but a rich renewable energy country. It has wind power, wave power, sun power and geothermal power. It can store it in dams in ocean CAS as well as in batteries. Japan is actually in an excellent position for the future.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

“Spark EV is the worst selling bev of all time.”

Oh, please. It’s almost certainly not even in the top 10 worst-selling. Maybe not even the top 20.

How about the Tango? The only reference I find to production numbers in the Tango’s Wikipedia article is “fewer than 20 cars”. Even the Th!nk City apparently didn’t sell much more than 2500.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

Edit: This post was meant to be a response to a post above by JySubaruOutback.

JySubaruOutback
Guest
JySubaruOutback

Tango? I can’t even cha cha cha ?

SparkEV
Guest

You don’t even have to go Tango. Look at iMiev, SmartED, FocusElectric, SoulEV, eGolf, all of which are lower than SparkEV. What is amusing is that he ignores total FCV is about half the monthly sales of SparkEV.

tosho
Guest
tosho

They should call it the Mercedes H-Class. Short for Hindenburg Class. 😀

Priusmaniac
Guest
Priusmaniac

Got the joke but I actually visited the Zeppelin museum in Friedrichshaven and it is very interesting. They have a reconstruction of the living space as it was on those large trans ocean ships that show cabins restaurant and so on. I hope some day someone will make one again and organize cruises. I would be in as long as they fill it with Helium or make an ExD version. It would also be a good dress rehearsal for a floating Venus cloud city like Geoffrey A. Landis of NASA’s Glenn Research Center has talked about. In this case living space would be partially replaced by a biosphere 2 type of environment for food production and leisure. On Venus air is a lifting gas, so that would make it easier than on Earth since Helium or Hydrogen is not necessary. On the other hand the Falcon 9 would need to land on a mid air platform which would be like a barge landing but with some extra motion freedom in vertical position.

Dave Alon
Guest
Dave Alon

Ok, and how much will 100 km cost me in H2? Is there also a home H2 refill system in the works to integrate with my solar panels?
What are the plans to provide at least as good a coverage as superchagers?

JimGord
Guest
JimGord

Sad that Merc is wasting time and resources on a vehicle configuration that can only be described as ridiculous. Hydrogen for ground transportation is DOA.
Anyone who drives one of these “Rube Goldbergs” will self-identify as one that is incapable of rational thought

jmac
Guest
jmac

Mercedes plug-in fuel cell concept will still require an extensive world wide hydrogen infrastructure. Just adding a plug to a 9 Kwhr battery will not magically solve any of hydrogen’s long list of sins. In other words, Mercedes’ coming plug-in hybrid is basically pointless.

DonC
Guest
DonC

Obviously won’t be practical and will cost too much. However, compared to a gasoline EREV, I wonder if packaging becomes easier, allowing for SUVs.

My biggest theoretical objection to a FCV as a consumer is I’d be back to having to go to a fueling station every week. This eliminates that objection.

Of course we could have natural gas range extenders now and given how little gas a decent range EREV uses it likely will never be worth the extra expense.

ItsNotAboutTheMoney
Guest
ItsNotAboutTheMoney

A natural gas range extender is a more expensive, bulkier, more dangerous gasoline range extender. Ethanol would provide a cheaper, easier, clean-burning and potentially-sustainable alternative.

super390
Guest
super390

There’s also zinc-air cells and flow batteries, both of which might be refueled or recharged.

Nix
Guest
Nix

One thing is becoming clear. The fight now over the future of transportation isn’t over how the wheels will be turned. The answer is clearly that the job will be done primarily by an electric motor backed by an electric battery. Even in a FCEV.

All that is left to debate is what technology will provide the additional range?

1) Various sizes and types of ICE engines with various fuels.
2) A fuel cell.
3) Additional on-board battery storage.
4) High speed charging.
5) Swappable batteries.
6) Batteries that can be refueled by physically refilling the battery’s physical contents.
7) Super-capacitors.
8) High efficiency on-board solar.
9) Superlight super aerodynamic construction for more range.
10) A combination of two or more of the above.

Any way it goes, they will all be hyphenated-EV’s.

Pushmi-Pullyu
Guest
Pushmi-Pullyu

11) Direct onboard conversion of nuclear energy to electricity.

http://tinyurl.com/mswyby7

(If you read the linked article, please do actually read the article and not just the fear-mongering headline. As the article points out, the shielding needed by this reactor would be no heavier than tin foil. This ain’t your grandpa’s nuclear reactor!)

Bloggin
Guest
Bloggin
MB/Audi/VW have all announced 300+ mile EVs coming in the next few years. Tesla is talking 500+ miles. All running on electric power that is limitless from the sun and chargeable at home. Hydrogen will hit the same wall that gasoline hit that spiked EV adoption. Fuel Cost. It really was not the ‘environmental’ concerns that pushed EV adoption mainstream, it was $5/gal fuel. Now with gasoline around $2/gal EV adoption remains strong. Why? Because buying Zero fuel is better than cheap fuel and electricity costing pennies ‘per gallon’ equivalent. Fuel Cell technology may make sense for commercial trucks driving long distances. But for consumers, it’s more of a novelty and for those trying to be different, not realizing they just got duped by the oil companies to come back to the ‘gas’ station, week after week, after week and pay whatever they decide to charge. Another thing…..still waiting on actual crash testing by IIHS for ANY fuel cell vehicle. Currently there is nothing for the Clarity(any year), Tucson Fuel Cell CUV or the Mirai. So far I have only been able to find one attempt at a crash test with a fuel cell vehicle from the state of Ohio,… Read more »