Smartphones – including the newly launched BlackBerry10 – may be getting all the attention lately, but interest in another technology with a greater chance to change the world – the fuel cell – is also heating up. Five of the world's big car makers have teamed up in two consortia – Daimler AG, Ford Motor Co., and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. in one, BMW AG and Toyota Motor Corp. in the other – to develop clean-emission vehicles run on hydrogen-powered fuel cells. BMW-Toyota also aims to develop a lithium-air battery that would provide more power than the lithium-ion batteries now used in hybrid and electric cars.
It's nice to see the auto makers working together to save costs and develop common platforms and encouraging that the technology is advancing. But there is little evidence to suggest an end of the dominance of combustion-engine-powered cars in the foreseeable future.
Alternative-fuel vehicles are weak sellers – accounting for less than 0.2 per cent of global sales – and the same issues continue to cloud their prospects as they have in the past: the enormous public and private cost of developing vehicles and the infrastructure to support them, and most importantly, consumer acceptance.
As the Globe and Mail's Greg Keenan reported this week , auto makers have yet to create a cost-effective hydrogen tank that would have to be mounted onto the vehicles. That of course brings up three questions – how safe would on-board tanks be (the prospect of highways clogged up with mini– Hindenburgs is unsettling), what kind of infrastructure would need to be developed to refuel them, and who would pay for that?
Of course, taxpayers have largely been footing the bill, and that isn't likely to change Developing alternative-fuelled vehicles has been a preoccupation of U.S. President Barack Obama. He has showered the industry with public funds – with questionable results – while the European Union has committed €8-billion ($10.8-billion) to build 500,000 electric car charging stations by 2020 and enact standards for other alternative-fuel networks.
But public spending can only go so far, and for so long. Alternative-fuel vehicles will only succeed if customers are willing to buy them. So far, says KPMG's Canadian automotive sector expert, Peter Hatges, "they haven't seen a viable alternative to an internal combustion engine-powered vehicle they're willing to spend their money on."
The lacking infrastructure is one thing, but of course electric car owners face the additional headache of cost (these vehicles are expensive and less compelling to own when gas prices ease up), convenience (charging takes much longer than refuelling) and performance (speeds and distance travelled are limited).
Meanwhile, auto makers aren't just spending on fuel cells and batteries: they are also working to improve the performance and fuel-efficiency of those gasoline-powered engines. In fact, according to a recent KPMG survey, manufacturers will be placing more of their focus on improving gas-powered engines over other areas in the next five years.
Not long ago, a popular documentary asked Who Killed the Electric Car? At this point, a more apt question is "When Will the Electric Car (and other Alternative-Fuelled Vehicles) Be Viable Enough to Fend For Itself?"
Sean Silcoff