Even as it struggles for its short term survival, GM has unleashed a cloud of hydrogen-powered publicity. A week ago last Sunday, GM announced that "Project Driveway” will deliver 100 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell “test” vehicles to consumers in LA, Washington and New York City. The following Monday, GM unveiled their hydrogen fuel-cell powered Sequel. And last Thursday, The General delivered a fleet of fuel cell Chevys to the US Army. Does this mean that GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz is finally right about something; that GM’s “moon shot” will put Toyota’s hybrids to shame and save GM?
In these environmentally sensitive times, it’s hard to criticize the world’s largest automaker for developing “clean” hydrogen fuel cell technology. But not impossible. Even if hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were ready to compete with gasoline-powered vehicles, the technology would require a massive new hydrogen production and distribution infrastructure. Even if the trigger was pulled five years ago, we're still talking decades. In fact, Bob’s boasts are more pie-in-the-sky than moon mission. [Note: How about some independent confirmation of the Sequel’s 300 mile range? GM has a bit of a checkered history in this area.]
Bottome line: GM can no longer afford the distraction, currently pegged at $100m per year. But don’t take my word for it. When posing next to the Sequel, Maximum Bob promised to nudge GM’s Board into investing more money in the hydrogen economy. "It would probably replace some other programs that we'd like to have in the high-performance area," Bob admitted. Just in case you thought GM’s resident loose cannon might present a coherent case to the Board, he then declared that fuel cell vehicles would cost less to develop than engineering diesel-powered vehicles that meet the EPA's 2010 Tier 2 Bin 5 regulations.
Meanwhile, Honda has just announced a high mileage diesel engine that meets those stringent new pollution regulations. Although the system still faces some technical hurdles, Honda says it will sell the powerplant stateside within three years. Oh, and they’ve also created a flexible fuel system that can run on any ethanol to gasoline blend between 20 and 100 percent, which they’ll sell in Brazil later this year. Oh, and they’ve figured out a way to make a hydrogen fuel cell stack 20 percent smaller and 30 percent lighter, improving their FCX hydrogen-powered vehicle's operating range by 30 percent, beating the Sequel’s stat by 54 miles (354).
Once upon a time, GM led the world in automotive engineering. While the company still shows the occasional glimmer of greatness (e.g. Magnetic Ride Control), The General has lost/is losing the technological arms race. There may be nothing fundamentally wrong with the company’s pushrod engines, but the market says that hi-tech, high-mileage, variable-valve, free-revving four cylinder powerplants are the business. Gas – electric hybrids may not suit the majority of GM’s customers, but there’s no denying that the Prius has convinced The General’s public that Toyota owns both the high tech and environmental responsibility rep (in addition to reliability).
If Maximum Bob thinks GM is in a financial position to catch up with its rivals in hydrogen fuel cell technology– or any other major technical development– he’s wrong. MB’s suggestion that spending big money on fuel cells would only require the sacrifice of a few high performance models was disingenuous– which is why he later said that the money required might mean a “slight delay” for mainstream products. Although the press failed to push Lutz on the point, one wonders if GM’s Texas turnaround chainsaw massacre has left the company with sufficient warm bodies to engineer new models with existing technology, never mind perform ground-breaking “blue sky” research.
In fact, there’s only one way GM can catch up with its high-tech rivals: buy their technology. When GM CEO Rick Wagoner jetted off to Japan to meet with Toyota’s CEO and talk about God knows what back in May ’05 , it was widely anticipated that Rabid Rick would license Toyota’s Synergy Hybrid Drive for The General’s vehicles. Whether or not such a deal was even on the table, GM missed an important opportunity to get its shit together. If The General’s new[ish] SUV’s had been released with Synergy Drive powertrains in situ, it would have at least limited the gas shock SUV exodus.
And here comes the bus again! When presenting his new clean diesel, Honda President Takeo Fukui said he was “open to considering” a licensing deal with interested automakers. While GM put a Honda engine into the Saturn Vue, the chances of The General going hat-in-hand to Honda for new engine technology are extremely slim. Despite all the talk about GM’s “new sense of urgency” and its ability to “finally face reality,” the same hubris that got GM where it isn’t today is still in place. If The General really understood the gravity of its position, if it really knew just how bad its products are relative to the competitions’, it would do whatever it takes to rectify the situation. It doesn’t so it won’t.
112 Comments on “General Motors Death Watch 92: GM’s Hydrogen Powered Halo...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Steady on RF, the DW series continually criticises GM for “always doing what they always did†and brushing everything under the carpet etc. At least now they’re trying something, attempting to forge some future. I agree more data is required on the performance of the new fuel cell vehicles, but let’s give them some credit.
Further, GM produce a bunch of excellent diesel engines in Europe, they should haul those over there rather than forking cash into Honda’s coffers…
Hydrogen fuel cells are nothing more than showboating. GM can’t afford it.
GM’s European diesels aren’t clean enough for the new standards.
No doubt GM (and Ford) are outgunned at this point with little hope of catching up. Lack of funds is reason number one, but the way they’ve been tossing talent to the curb for the past fifteen years doesn’t help either.
And it’s a shame because at one time they were on top of the world. Just had a very interesting conversation yesterday regarding the EV1. Our intern and his classmates have access to several museum quality examples at thier university. GM spent huge money and resources on this program and developed some really cool shit, but didn’t really LEARN anything as an organization. Now these kids are chopping these vehicles (in a very respectful manner) into other really cool stuff – but will GM reap any benefits from this excercise?
It goes on and on and on. We here certainly don’t have all the details but the problems seem so obvious from the outside.
Anyone with half a brain would be lined up to liscense the Honda diesel technology. Can you imagine a Fit (or Focus) getting a real world 50 to 55 (or better) MPG? But Detroit’s arrogance and totally out of place pride (hubris?) will preclude this.
“Bottome line”: another Britishism? I like it. How about “Ye olde bottome line?”
If they can develop fuel cells for $100m per year, that’s pocket change in this business. The ultimate cost must be far higher, at least when the time comes for mass production.
But the real bottom line is that, if they end up selling more vehicles at higher margins with this technology, then it’s worth investing in. The press and GM itself keeps talking about product development spending as, well, spending, as money that GM just dumps in a hole. In reality, it needs to be thought about as investments. If the investment is likely to pay off, it’s worth it. If it’s not, it’s not.
Also, it’s much easier and cheaper to license others’ tech if you’ve got something they want to trade.
GM has actually managed to finally come through on hybrids, with two systems, one simpler than Toyota’s and one more complicated. So their advanced powertrain group appears to actually be producing something after years of no obvious results. The real deal is to push through to production in a timely fashion this time, rather than spending the money on research then failing to commercialize the results.
Sad, but typical side-effect of current corporate policies: why have R&D when you can just buy it from an OEM vendor? Why develop innovative or unique products when you can just copy what everyone else is doing? (Witness the lock-step march into SUV hell…) GM’s effort is too little – too late.
The real casualty of the national obsession with outsourcing and micro-management of component costs is the death of innovation in the short term – and likely the death of the company in the long term. A book entitled “The Innovator’s Dilemma†described repeated cycles of whole industries marching off into oblivion together as innovative competitors just take their market away.
Although the book has been widely studied (how many times have you seen its favorite buzz-word: “disruptive technology†in a PowerPoint presentation?), it’s hard to plug innovation into a spreadsheet or “BPM†process tree. Unfortunately, that is about the only way you can explain and justify stuff to the MBA/ bean counter set.
Take it from me (former competitive tech analyst), it’s not just GM and the US auto industry – it’s the whole US technology sector. Wall Street hates any expenditure that doesn’t show a “next quarter†return and our government is doing little to encourage home-grown R&D – until that changes, it’s only going to get worse…
A wise man I used to work for liked to say “When your house is on fire, you don’t start adding an extra room.” The Motorama showmanship and promises of a bright future worked in the 50s when GM was top of the heap and wasn’t struggling for its very existance. In the “here and now” they need to get busy developing world-class products they can actually produce to fight that fire and stop pouring money into pie-in-the-sky projects in hopes they’ll divert everyone’s attention from the conflagration, even as the flames are licking at their ankles.
Granted, GM has made many missteps. However, I dont think this is one of them. The hurdle here is the cost of converting gas stations to allow for hydrogen fueling. It is estimated to cost about 1,000,000 per station and there are about 11,800 stations country wide.
That represents a daunting sum of nearly 12 billion dollars. As a comparision, the Prudhoe bay pipeline cost approximately 24 Billion dollars. The infrastructure can be put in place. Those stations that invest in the technology early, will have a near monopoly for a number of years and be sure to recoup there investment.
The other factor not mentioned is China. China has a relatively sparse infrastructure when it comes to refueling. This is actually a benefit since it will cost less to build a station from scratch that can accomodate hydrogen, than to reconfigure an existing one. GM has the potential to be on the forefront of an emerging market.
Winning in business takes innovation, sometimes you have to create a market where none exists to survive. I honestly believe GM is on the right track and this could be the bet that saves to company.
it’s not just GM and the US auto industry – it’s the whole US technology sector. Wall Street hates any expenditure that doesn’t show a “next quarter†return
Oh please TechBob I’ve been hearing these dire warnings for 30 years, yet the US still constantly innovates (maybe because 99.9% of companies are not public anyway, and 99.9% of innovators don’t work for public companies, and our universities actually get a lot of funding, unlike any other country’s). Everyone was yakking the same line 15 years ago when in fact the Internet was being invented right under their noses in the US while the Japanese were wasting their precious resources trying to make flying robots.
In more industries than not, the US remains the only innovation engine for the planet earth. Wall Street is always criticized for short-sightedeness, except of course from 1995- 2001 when Wall Street was criticized for its long-term pie in the sky hopes in sinking billions into companies with no hope of profits anytime soon.
Anyway, the one lesson from Innovator’s Dilemma that probably does apply here is that whatever is the great 21st century solution to super fuel-economy probably won’t come from GM anyway. The lumbering bureaucracy will find a way to lose, no matter what. So maybe Robert’s right and they should just give up, save their money, and copy the eventual winner, which will probably come out of some trailer park in Arkansas.
It is estimated to cost about 1,000,000 per station and there are about 11,800 stations country wide.
There’s a whole lot more than that (as that would be only 236 per state. Don’t think so) — more like 200,000+ gas stations in the US. But perhaps by the time we’re ready to seriously roll out hydrogen then costs will have declined a lot. OTOH, the problem there will be the same now with ethanol — if you’re an individual gas station owner, why make the huge capital investment in a newfangled pump system, when it is not going to increase your profits?
No evidence that selling hydrogen/ethanol/electricity is wildly more profitable to the pump owner than selling gas. Why bother? That’s the challenge for all these innovations.
Here’s my problem, though i don’t know why no one else has said it:
The Sequel is a good looking vehicle. Why isn’t GM building this RIGHT F’ING NOW and equippoing it with a diesel-electric hybrid powertrain, getting out in FRONT
And, lest we forget, it takes energy to make hydrogen.
Even if we use our current energy infrastructure (i.e. imported oil) to make the fuel, someone’s going to have to invest billions of dollars in new hydrogen processing plants and distribution systems.
Of course, if we do THAT, there will still be carbon pollution byproducts– just at a different point in the energy chain.
To eliminate THAT problem, we’d have to invest tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in renewable energy micro-refineries.
To do THAT, we’d have to convince tens of thousands of local governments to waive the usual zoning BS (e.g. Ted Kennedy’s windmill fiasco). And, of course, we’d have to find a way to guarantee that the eventual product would be commercially viable. Oh, and what about the fact that we’d be taking food from the table of Big Oil?
All of which I think is a great idea. I mean, I’m Mr. Energy Independence, me. But to think that there’s the political will to do this– never mind to do it the right way– is more than slightly deluded.
as I was saying, getting out in FRONT of the Japanese and Germans for a change?
NOOO, they insist on building the same 3-ton SUV’s that are now gathering dust on the dealer’s lots.
BMW will be/produces a hydrogen powered vehicle and they don’t get slated for it, i guess that whatever GM do will never be good enough for RF and this web site. Go on have a pop at BMW.
Whats wrong with thinking ahead to what WILL be an emerging market. At least they’re trying to cover their bases with current fixes for their problems and being there when this takes off. You know what i can see happening is that if they dont do it and it does take off, RF will be the first to go for their juggular “GM death watch 12000987912, why doesnt GM have Hydrogen fuel options?”. You’re very short sighted RF, a problem Ford had years ago and is currently facing the consequenes with, even more than GM. They have to be in this for the future.
It would be nice if GM could once again lead instead of follow in the high tech world.As Frank W. points out its not the best time to blow the budget.
Your right RF its publicity and a photo op,but if you do nothing the media is all over you.
G.M. is pulling out all of the stops to build cars that people actually purchase,even I know that is where cash flow starts.
It just blows me away to hear how wonderfull and green Toyota is with the Prius.In the next breath you hear Toyota is building a big honking,gas gobbling,pick up truck.Toyota also knows where the cash is.
No matter how this all plays out, I think this is going to be the most fascinating time of automotive technology since the end of WW2.
Sorry, Kevin – not buying the “in more industries than not … US remains the only innovation engine…†(the US market, maybe). There is a big difference between incremental innovation or integration and fundamental innovation which yields competitive advantages. Most consumer equipment (computers/ TVs / DVDs / etc.) is made overseas. Much engineering testing, validation and research (outside of academia) is done also outside US as far as I can see.
By “Wall Streetâ€, I mean financial pressures that suppress longer-term beneficial investment within any sector w.r.t. short term payoff. My direct experience is in the computer industry, but I watched MANY cool technologies shelved because individual Product Managers wouldn’t take the development cost-hit on their product cycle.
It’s not just a failure of “Wall Streetâ€, it’s a management and leadership failure across the board. The payoff of Hydrogen for GM is a side-note – the big picture is: why do things always have to get to the crisis stage before anyone is compelled to take risks?
Honda’s been field testing the FCV for years, getting it to start and run under freezing conditions. How about GM’s setup? It would be bad publicity if the SequelNox doesn’t start the first time it drops below 32F/0C.
Agreed, though, that this is more of a publicity stunt rather than significant progress. There are other pie-in-the-sky technologies such as HCCI which if ready for market would more of a difference in the short run.
Here is a comment by Peter DeLorenzo, the “Autoextremist” He’s has been a very harsh critic of GM but…well read on….
GM Sequel. Publisher’s Note: I had the pleasure of driving the latest version of GM’s Hydrogen fuel-cell-powered electric technology last week at Camp Pendleton, California, and I came away very impressed. The previous version of GM’s technological “moon shot” was the Hy-Wire concept, which had a joy stick playing a prominent role in controlling the vehicle. This time around, GM Vice Chairman and chief product guru Bob Lutz gave clear marching orders to the Sequel development team lead by Larry Burns, VP of research, development and strategic planning: Make the new car an effortless transition for any driver – in other words, you shouldn’t be challenged by the technology in some off-putting way. And they succeeded with flying colors.
The Sequel (branded a Chevrolet, by the way) is a 4,700 lb. crossover that meets all current vehicle safety standards, while featuring GM’s latest iteration of its most advanced technological systems, including its highly regarded hydrogen fuel-cell technology, lithium-ion batteries, and “by-wire” electronic steering and braking controls. GM says the Sequel represents the most advanced and sophisticated technology ever applied to an automobile, and I don’t doubt them for a moment. There may be other companies with advanced fuel-cell programs, including Honda and Toyota (BMW has focused their efforts on “transitional” technology – burning hydrogen in internal combustion engines), but no automobile manufacturer in the world has ever combined and integrated this technology in such seamless fashion in an automobile that could easily thrive on the highways in any real-world driving situation.
The Sequel delivers a 0-60 mph acceleration time in the neighborhood of 10 seconds – not great, but for a crossover vehicle of its size it’s certainly adequate. But the range is what’s most impressive – a full 300 miles between “fill-ups” of hydrogen. And it delivers zero emissions in the process. What is it like to drive? It’s a non-event, and that’s exactly the point. In a matter of moments, you’re going down the road as if you’re in any car – a highly agile and nicely responsive one at that. There are no weird tendencies and no jarring compromises necessary that would suggest to you that you’re having to make some sort of sacrifice to achieve zero emissions. Anyone with a driver’s license could step into the Sequel and go about their daily business with no effort or thought whatsoever. And for GM to get to this point with this vehicle is an incredible technical achievement. Yes, there are still two major issues hanging over the hydrogen economy – establishing a basic infrastructure (see below) and the cost of the hydrogen storage tanks is still prohibitive for all but niche production – but GM has emphatically demonstrated that this could be the game-changing technology we’ve all been looking for.
The Sequel is a glittering showcase of advanced technology and proof positive that General Motors is at the leading edge of a technological breakthrough that will fundamentally alter the automobile industry as we know it – and dramatically reduce our dependance on foreign oil in the process. I for one, can’t wait.
- Peter M. DeLorenzo
Yada yada yada. Non-event indeed. You can’t find an E85 filling station for your flex fuel Tahoe, and we’re supposed to get excited about a hydrogen-powered car that’s less efficient than Honda’s effort?
Gentlemen, show me the money. ‘Cause GM needs a lot of it, and soon. Meanwhile, I’m with Frank Williams: get your head out of the vapor clouds and build something that people will want to buy now.
There GM goes again. Now they’re killing the hydrogen car!
“The Sequel (branded a Chevrolet, by the way) is a 4,700 lb. crossover” P. M. DeLorenzo
Well, MaxiBob wants to make it a seemless transition for his customer base the design team certainly got the proportions correct. I wonder if the fuel cells produce enough electricity in real time to power this thing. I imagine a fully-charged battery and a fuel cell system ripping away a full bore @ 100% duty cycle [even when the car is still] just to keep up with power demand. There’s no way 2.35 tons gets anywhere in 10 seconds without a lot of dead dinos or some help from the electrical outlet.
On the other hand, this is just a proof of concept, right. Bubble some water vapor out of the tailpipe, show some innovative battery-packaging technology and waft around a parking lot like your Neil-freaking-Armstrong?!?! Only cool if your MaxiBob…
So if to survive in the short term, GM has to sacrifice their image as a market leader in technology and innovation (huh?) then I guess that’s what they’ve got to do. Sine GM has not rep to prop up today’s consumer will be looking for a good car that doesn’t look and feel like a reject from the daily-rental fleet.
It’s EV1 all over again. Why should we trust GM with a project like this if they won’t commit 100 percent?
What bothers me most about this is the attitude GM’s execs show by putting on these thinly-veiled sideshow acts and then patting themselves on the back for ‘fooling’ consumers and government by pretending that they’re doing something forward-thinking. But they don’t learn anything from these ‘exercises’, and customers get nothing tangible out of them.
Just think, we could be driving electric cars right now if we wanted to be doing so.
GM has 100 working vehicles released to be used in a real world environment. Until Honda or anyone else does the same it’s all just statements they can do better.
I really don’t understand the love for fuel cell vehicles, other than the gee whiz factor. It’s an electric car with the batteries replaced by a hydrogen tank and a fuel cell. Other than the water that comes out the tailpipe, and lots of added complexity, what is the advantage over a regular electric car?
Looking at the infrastructure needs for either option, first thing would be lots of new powerplants for either. With the fuel cell there is the extra need for hydrogen production and distribution.
One idea I haven’t seen discussed for battery powered electric cars is that automakers could develop a standard for swappable battery packs. Gas stations could spend a lot less than it would cost them to add hydrogen pumps and become charging stations, where you can drive in and have your depleted battery swapped out for a charged one. Perhaps instead of buying a battery pack as part of your car purchase you have a deposit on one rolled into the purchase price, and basically lease the battery. From a consumer standpoint they now never have to worry about limited range, or having to spend 1000’s in a lump sum to buy a new battery.
But back to my first point, does anyone have a comparison that explains the interest in fuel cells?
But back to my first point, does anyone have a comparison that explains the interest in fuel cells?
Its the most gee-whiz technology you can put into cars. That’s the only good reason I can think of. No moving parts maybe? Seems like magic, ooooooohhhhh.
I think the main reason for the interest in fuel cells IS the fact there is no moving parts. The internal combustion engine can only manage to convert 15% of gasoline to propel the car; most of the energy in fuel is lost through heat and mechanical friction. The point of fuel cells is to extract more energy from the fuel that is normally lost through mechanical devices.
If I could make a purchase where my fuel costs are not dependent on the whims of opec, I would. I cant wait for the day I can buy a hydrogen car.
Bad news. The only way to get a large hydrogen infrastructure in place quickly: use imported oil to make the fuel. OPEC is going to be in business for a long time to come.
Bad news. The only way to get a large hydrogen infrastructure in place quickly: use imported oil to make the fuel. OPEC is going to be in business for a long time to come.
Explain?
Bad news. The only way to get a large hydrogen infrastructure in place quickly: use imported oil to make the fuel. OPEC is going to be in business for a long time to come.
It can also be done by Natural Gas of which have a greater reserve in the short term. Long Term, perhaps solar if the storage difficulties can be sorted out.
The solution is not here, I’ll give you that, but achieving this is a vital step for the future. I understand your skepticism RF, We have both watched a proud industry fail for lack of foresight and unbelievably bad product decisions. It’s the product that counts, always has been and I think this is a product that America wants. If they pull this off, it will change the fortunes of the US Automobile Industry. If they get it to work, it’s jobs, real jobs that pay. Right here in the US.
Maximum Bob is talking about 10% of all cars sold to be Hydrogen by 2020. Not good enough IMHO, but it’s a start, it’s going to take time.
Next generation powerplants have always been “over the horizon” for GM. Remember the Sunnyracer? EV1? Hy-Wire? These have always been single or short exotic production that never made it into mainstream vehicles. GM should connect the “future” with “today” For the next five years, a few diesel powerplants built to fit into common GM vehicles would give them 40+ MPG options for all their vehicles. And without a hybrid subsytem it can be made cheaper than any hybrid, with an appropriate torque kick to make any suburban speedster relive their youth between stoplights.
Hydrogen also has problems being low density, and it’s miniscule molecular size means your fuel system must be several orders of magnitude higher quality to contain it. Everybody talks about the fuel cell itself, but the storage and delivery are the hard part.
Look inside any fuel cell vehicle and you will see precision parts and fittings that cost an arm and a leg and come out of a scientific laboratory. Making all that in a mass produced vehicle will be another revolution in industrial production.
Bad news. The only way to get a large hydrogen infrastructure in place quickly: use imported oil to make the fuel. OPEC is going to be in business for a long time to come.
Explain?
To generate Hydrogen, you need a stimulus. You can extract it from water, but water holds no energy (well when it’s not moving I guess). To the easiest way to extract hydrogen, is electrolysis, but you have to get the energy from something right? So you burn oil to produce the electricity, that’s what RF means.
You can also do it with Natural Gas or Coal. Neither is a ideal solution. The hope, is that we can do it with solar energy, but it’s difficult to store electricty and the cloud cover messes everything up. Can you imagine no one driving cause it rained for week? So the missing piece would be a way to store solar generated energy to be used to produce hydorgen. It’s not easy, it’s hard. Man on the moon hard but we did that right?
Housekeeping note:
As per my previous stated policy, I'm deleting posts that accuse this site and myself personally of anti-GM bias.
If anyone would like to write a dissenting opinion about GM's technology issues, they are welcome to do so here (without editing) or submit an editorial for publication.
Right R.F. build the cars that people want right now.G.M.is doing just that with the Impala.the HHR and the Cobalt, the G6,the Solstice.Ed s writes they belong in a rental fleet,he is entitled to his opinion, a lot of people think different, 25% I
believe.
O.P.E.C is gonna be with us for long time yet.Right and so is the gasoline powered internal combustion engine.
Suki,
I understand what it takes to convert water to hydrogen I just did not understand what “OPEC” would have to gain because petroleum based electricity generation in the US is under 5%.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/fig3.gif
The thing that’s attractive about Hydrogen power for cars vs electricity is the fact that you still have to transport it. Electric power from your cars means you plug your car in at home. No more gas stations. This means that the HUGE industry of shipping oil, refining it, shipping the refinied product to distribution centers, and then to the gas stations, and then of course the stations themselves all go away. Thats huge money lost. Hydrogen, however, would still need to be transported – and like an above poster mentions – it would actually be MORE expensive to transport, requiring tankers that would not only keep a liquid from spilling, but keeping a gas in it’s liquid state! That takes a lot of energy!
Also, think of the money invested in the auto repair industry. If you take away the internal combustion engine, most of that money is no longer needed! So all the automotive dealerships lose out on their biggest source of income (service), and a huge source of blue collar labour in the country goes away. Hence, the electric car is out.
This all comes from an interview with the director of “Who Killed the Electric Car?”…
Also, realize that both electric motors and hydrogen motors arent really ‘zero emissions’ at all – they’re ‘emissions elsewhere’ vehicles. Supplying the electricity in this country is still mostly Coal plants – the most poluting power source available (i think?)! To build a nuclear infastructure would take about 20 years (planning, zoning, safety inspections, disposal, etc). Solar/Wind are nowhere near efficient enough, there aren’t enough rivers to dam (and the lawyers of the Sierra Club won’t allow it anyway), and the supply of Natural Gas is even MORE limited than Oil.
There ARE no ideal solutions on the horizon.
How about making commercial fuel stations obsolete for hydrogen?
GM and Honda are working on a solution for hydrogen infrastructure/distribution too, with home fueling stations generating hydrogen:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2006-09-24-gm-hydrogen-usat_x.htm
I’m not buying GM stock any time soon, but if they’re onto something here, they just might create the “sequel” to the internal-combustion, gas-powered vehicle. Can you imagine?
This technology won’t help sell Cobalts or HHR’s, but it makes sense to me that GM needs to throw every spare and borrowed dime at this technology.
BKCars,
From what I have read one of the ideas behind hydrogen is that the shipping is no longer needed. The filling station is used to crack the hydrogen. All they need is electricity and running water.
If GM was currently in the situation of Toyota then spending money on Hydrogen research would be a great idea. The problem is they are cash strapped and need to look to the immediate term before they can look 20 years down the road.
Expand your two mode hybrids, diesel and make diesel-hybrids available. You start selling Trailblazers and Envoy’s that get 35mpg and you’ll see the SUV sales rise as fast as they fell. Then become an industry leader by offering the same tech across most of your product line. Many of your existing customers and Ford customers are used to diesels in their trucks and the infrastructure for diesel is already in place.
If need be license the tech from Honda for the short term and then improve it.
Fuel cells? Yawn. Ultra-capacitors are the new hotness:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/06/09/25/1837254.shtml
About the supply of hydrogen.. Honda has the Home Energy Station FCX.
In addition to a solar cell-powered hydrogen refueling station, Honda is operating an experimental Home Energy Station that generates hydrogen from natural gas for use in fuel cell vehicles while supplying electricity and hot water to the home as part of its ongoing research into development of hydrogen production and supply systems for a hydrogen-based society of the future.
http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/FCX/station/
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics is a real bitch to get around. The electric car and the hydrogen car would be a lot easier to envision if our electric creation and transmission facilities were up to the task. But, we don’t build nuclear plants, solar plants are still very inefficient, wind farms kill birds and views, which leaves coal and natural gas. As the Enron debacle of 2000 proved, our electrical transmission facilities are 2 decades behind. The problem specifically for GM is that in order for a hydrogen vehicle to sell in numbers, someone is going to have to put up those supply lines. We are talking real money here, well above that famous Everett Dirksen axiom, and GM does not have that kind of money. Which begs the question: Is this what GM should be spending money on when their interiors are still 2 generations behind Audi? GM has shown for the last couple of decades that the art of the possible is tough enough, why screw around with the problematic?
Is it just me, or does it simply make more sense to minimize the size of the vehicle, utilize kinetic energy when possible, utilize the lowest cost fuel infrastructure available, maximize the interior space and aerodynamics of a vehicle and then manufacture the car with the best quality of any car sold in the world at an affordable price?
So, then, Toyota has the Prius just right, right?
As for the future, once (and if) these “cheap” ultracapacitors become available, then it seems to me to make the most sense to bypass the hydrogen economy and go straight to electric cars (and building up our electrical grid to support the charging of our cars OVERNIGHT in our own garages – which will be the most sensible time to do so for most car driving chores). Electrical infrastructure already in place is very underutilized over night at this time, thus we may be closer than people think to being able to make electric cars possible – as long as these super capacitors actually work and can be made cheaply.
But then I’ve looked at literally hundreds of magazinie articles since the 1960’s relating to alternative engines, including Stirling cycle, gas turbines, hybrids (finally Toyota and Honda did it, now others, 30 years later), Wankels (a side-show now only for Mazda buyers to enjoy, not “the answer”), hydrogen IC engines (a 1972 Popular Science article with a university group taking a Gremlin, putting a Ford 351 engine in it with a Impco propane carburetor and running hydrogen), etc. etc. In other words, I’ll believe it when I see it.
Personally I hope Honda CAN introduce an affordable FCX car fuelled by hydrogen in two year, but I ask you, what exactly is the point in making hydrogen from natural gas, instead of just running natural gas? Kind of dumb to spend billions developing a car to escape the carbon economy and replace it with the mythical hydrogen economy, then tie the hydrogen generation to natural gas (of course, this proves the point that hydrogen is not the answer, because unless we can produce all electricity from non-carbon based sources, there won’t be a hydrogen economy – it will just be a more expensive variant of the oil / carbon economy).
In the meanwhile, my Prius gets 45-55 mpg (generally 45-50 commuting which is most of it’s use) and pollutes 11% as much as cars are allowed to do for sale in California, as well as being more efficient “well-to-wheels” than a fuel cell hydrogen car, per Toyota’s website re: their Prius Hybrid Synergy Drive.
Congrats RF,
You are way ahead of the crew on this one. So much so, that I suspect you need to dedicate an editorial to the Hydrogen Economy or more precisely the Hydrogen Non-economy. To witness: there are posters here that still believe hydrogen automatically means energy independence (Spencer Abraham, please vacate the site!).
Such an editorial would include a basic explanation of the properties of hydrogen (low density, small molecule size, etc.) that makes it one of the worst possible forms in which to store energy. Safety concerns would be a part of it. You could also explain that even if you had enough clean energy (electricity from wind or solar) you’d be much better of transporting, storing and using it as electricity, not hydrogen.
If you feel brave you may even venture into thermodynamics, explaining that while hydrogen fuel can be used with high efficiency, the same is not true for making hydrogen fuel. Thus the overall energy efficiency for using hydrogen is (and always will be) low. When considered together, going from energy source -> hygrogen -> energy user just wastes the bulk of the original energy source. It is much easier, cheaper, safer and efficient to do energy source -> energy user.
We need renewable energy, and we need it fast. What we don’t need is a new fuel that would require us to replace the entire vehicle fleet out there, as well as all fuel stations. Even ethanol is too different from the existing fuel supply to be usefull. What we need is renewable gasoline and diesel to gradually phase out fossil (OPEC) gasoline and diesel. The technology exists (Gasification/Fischer Tropsch, TDP).
Key question (as with all new fuels): Where will the energy come from? Well, according to USDA/DOE, we can replace one third of our transportation oil use with forestry and agricultural waste. While that is not a 100%, it would be a good start…
Some interesting numbers – current market cap:
GM $17.7B
Ford $15.7B
Porsche $18.2B
A real eye opener on how low they’ve fallen..
Put solar cells on your roof. Use the electricity to run your house and then some. Use the “and then some” part to fill your tank.
Problem: solar cells are expensive. But they save you from needing grid electricity in the long term.
Problem: solar cells are not (that) efficient. But if everyone buys one => more profit => more money for r&d and more efficient panels.
Problem: Hydroen is dangerous to store. So is natural gas pumped right into your house.
Problem: Hydrogen is hard to store (takes energy to compress, big tanks contain little volume of usable H2). That is true.
The only problem with alternative energy is political will. We have all the tools and technology to make things work, we’re just missing the will to do it.
I agree that burning natural gas, coal, oil to boil water to spin a turbine to spin an alternator to produce electricity to electrolize water to produce hydrogen that is hard to compress, difficult to transport and dangerous to store is a monumental assinine idea.
Now more on topic: GM. What Frank said. House is on fire. Please don’t focus on what’s coming down the pipe 5 to 10 years from now. Please build something *I* want to buy. And I’m not picky. and *I* already own one GM product.
BMW will be/produces a hydrogen powered vehicle and they don’t get slated for it, i guess that whatever GM do will never be good enough for RF and this web site. Go on have a pop at BMW.
Tell me, which company, GM or BMW, is actually making a profit right now off of their main products? Hint: It’s not GM.
Fuel cells and other alternative energy vehicles are great, but they are nothing more than show pieces right now. The primary benefit from hybrids are their ultra-low emissions, not their fuel efficiency. Diesels are just as fuel efficient as hybrids. GM needs to focus on their core product line and not rely on a “moonshot” alternative energy vehicle.
GM has 100 working vehicles released to be used in a real world environment. Until Honda or anyone else does the same it’s all just statements they can do better.
I don’t think they are working quite yet:
“….”GM has reinvented the automobile”, brags Larry Burns……Exciting stuff, until the rubber meets the road. On a test drive, the red check engine light flashes on. Nine times on a 20-mile circuit the Sequel stalls. The future of the automobile has to be abandoned on the side of the road.”
Source: Fortune, October 2, 2006.
Forget the hydrogen hang ups for a second. The true accomplishment is the fuel cell its self. Anyone can power an internal combustion car from any volatile liquid or gas. I’m not impressed with BMW, it’s just a glorified zamboni or floor waxer. It still uses pistons.
The real innovation is the converting liquid or gaseous fuel directly to electricity with much greater efficiency over mechanical internal combustion.
KTM
Fortune, October 2, 2006.
?!
Hi, Engineer. Yes, TDP and even coal-to-gasoline using locally mined coal (and as used in South Africa, from which the country obtains 50% of it’s auto fuel) are exactly what I think are far more logical than the mythical hydrogen economy.
I also don’t think there is any ONE answer. We need multiple fuels, multiple paths and multiple vehicle types with fuels not coming from one group of nations (read: OPEC). The day of cheap gasoline providing 99% of our personal transportation needs is nearly over.
Wind generators? Yep. How about wind generators that appear to work in low wind and at low altitudes, at low cost?
Let’s put them on top of our homes along with solar panels. When the sun isn’t shining, it often is raining and the wind is blowing.
See the vertical shaft windmill for yourselves. It’s ingenious.
http://www.fuellessflight.com/video/28%20foot%20by%2014%20foot%20finished%20wind%20turbine.wmv
How about Butanol instead of ethanol? See
http://www.butanol.com
But, why waste what we are finding to be finite resources? We may be wise to demand that vehicles can capture a certain amount of kinetic energy while slowing and stopping, rather than politically mandate a given technology to do so.
This could mean hydraulic hybrids powered by diesel or fuel cell cars powered by hydrogen or brand new butanol powered Prius’s, any many other variations too.
As always, we simply need an extraordinary leader AND group of leaders in Congress and in our US auto producers and we aren’t getting this from the two major parties, are we? If results count, lack of results also count against, correct?