By on July 16, 2020

hydrogen fueling

Maybe the military will still be able to get one, but the cash-consuming coronavirus pandemic appears to have nixed any chance that a normal consumer will be able to slide into a fuel cell-powered General Motors vehicle anytime soon.

Good news for Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai?

Or maybe worthy of a big, fat yawn from our readers? Who friggin’ cares, you might be thinking — GM’s been chasing this unviable technology for years!

Indeed they have, going back the the 2000s, and financial constraints have now caught up to the stubbornly latent technology. Or perhaps GM just recognizes the pointlessness of pouring resources into a technology that, two decades later, is still only usable for those living near two U.S. cities?

In the automaker’s annual sustainability report, GM resolved to hold the course on its electrified future, but those consumer-bound electric motors will source their juice from big, big batteries — not mini, on-board powerplants.

As reported by CNBC‘s Michael Wayland, GM Chief Sustainability Officer Dane Parker admitted the change during a media call.

“We saw the importance of prioritizing our resources, particularly in the U.S. market to electric passenger vehicles,” Parker said, adding that the company’s green focus would henceforth be split between civilian and military/commercial customers.

Originally, GM planned to launch 20 EVs by 2023, one of which would be a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. While GM still plans to foist electric vehicles on retail consumers en masse, underpinned by a new modular architecture and powered by in-house Ultium batteries, the company’s hydrogen team will now focus solely on military and commercial buyers. You’ll recall that GM Defense began rustling up interesting Chevrolet truck variants not too long ago.

That leaves players like Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai to continue carrying the hydrogen torch in the American retail market. BMW and Mercedes-Benz remain interested in the technology’s consumer applications, too. The average buyer, of course, might not be.

[Image: Daimler]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

11 Comments on “Coronavirus Seems to Kill GM’s Hydrogen Ambitions...”


  • avatar
    CaddyDaddy

    “Coronavirus (Executive Trip to the Seychelles) Seems to Kill GM’s Hydrogen Ambitions…”

  • avatar
    Shockrave Flash Has Crashed

    Hydrogen atoms are very very small and are gaseous at room temperature. H2 does not really exist on earth and needs to be created using other energy sources. It’s also hugely corrosive.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Coronavirus didn’t kill GM’s H2 plans; good sense did. And the remaining players would be wise to get out as well.

  • avatar
    Flipper35

    Not to mention there aren’t enough resources if we were to sell a tenth of new cars as fuel cell vehicles.

  • avatar
    schmitt trigger

    The coronavirus has provided many companies with a perfectly good alibi to modify a course without scaring the markets.

    An error is averted yet everyone “saves face”.

    • 0 avatar
      Old_WRX

      @schmitt trigger,

      That is good. Now, they can get out of the hydrogen fiasco while saving face. Just say: “the corroded up virus made me do it.”

      The difficulty of dealing with 5,000 or 10,000 psi distribution of a gas as slippery as H2 sounds daunting.

      Hydrogen does have one advantage as far as fires go: Hydrogen doesn’t puddle like gasoline vapors do.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    From what I’ve seen so far, hydrogen’s biggest advantage is in commercial and civil services vehicles and not in privately-owned personal or family vehicles. The small size of most POVs means the amount of conversion grid area is limited, which limits the total output power of the vehicle itself. Add to this that the fuel, no matter how it is obtained, is likely to be far more expensive than wall-socket electricity, even when using a class 2 charger at home (commercial fast chargers will, of course, want as much profit as they can get away with.)

    So anything from roughly vehicle Class IV and up can probably be served better by hydrogen with its faster ‘refueling’ time and potentially longer range (depending on tank capacity.) I can see almost any major construction vehicle taking advantage of the massive torque electric motors offer while, like diesels, can run at a fixed output level for long-term operation. Railroads and OTR trucking–even commercial buses–can take advantage of the capability and realize more efficient overall operations, especially when supported by a battery pack for surge demand and regenerative braking (something flat wasted in modern railroading at the moment.)

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Operating cost per mile for the Honda Clarity FCV was about the same as a Hellcat. Even in eco-friendly California, Edmunds’ long-term ownership experience was a refueling nightmare, and the car was a slouch on the road.

      Being able to drink the exhaust is a fun party trick, but not worth $60k.

      The infrastructure alone is practically non-existent, and the energy math is upside down. I just don’t see any advantages for H2, except in a spacecraft.

    • 0 avatar
      indi500fan

      If regen was economical for railroads, why wouldn’t they just couple a “battery car” on the back of existing engines? Compared to other land vehicles, the space claim and weight issues are non-existent for a loco. My guess is the economics just don’t work.

      • 0 avatar
        ToolGuy

        I’m not sure railroads have given up on the idea of hybrid power… see this GE article for example:

        https://tinyurl.com/y6kn32ec

        [GE used to thrash GM fairly regularly in the area of locomotive technology.]

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @indi500fan: Just so you know, that’s almost exactly what they’re experimenting with right now. It looks just like any other locomotive for the moment but it’s loaded with batteries designed first to help get the train moving and then to assist in both ascending and descending grades. I’m hopeful that the experiment pans out because the idea isn’t too different from the ‘Cow and Calf’ engine combinations (where one lacks the control cabin) and is little more than a concrete mass on top of the electric motors, where the ‘cow’ powers both itself and the attached unit. The only difference is that the ‘calf’ in this case is weighted with batteries and supplements the ‘cow’s’ output power without using another Diesel engine. —- This is a significant improvement over the hybrid ‘Goats’ they were trialing about 4-8 years ago (of which only one is still in use, IIRC.)

        @Toolguy: That’s exactly the unit I was talking about. Just went into service about 1-2 months ago.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • DenverMike: It’s just a theory. Except suppose they go directly from entry level Fords to entry BMWs? Or entry...
  • MKizzy: Sounds like this road will serve as a test case for the “road of the future.” If engineers cannot...
  • Superdessucke: Not to brag but I’ve been saying Ford, FCA, and GM made a big mistake abandoning low cost cars....
  • Superdessucke: Correct. An unreliable Fiesta could knock him right off the straight and narrow. No one likes paying...
  • Superdessucke: This is most famous as the car John Travolta recorded crashing in the 1981 movie Blow Out.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber