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.
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?
“….â€GM has reinvented the automobileâ€, 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.â€
Source: Fortune, October 2, 2006.
Well, hell, it IS badged as a Chevrolet, and engineered by General Messup, after all, right?
In the meanwhile, Honda have twice brought forward their introduction of the (whether for ill or for good, stupid or not) Honda FCX fuel cell car from 2012 about 9 months ago, to 2010 then just yesterday, they’re stating it will be brought out in 2008. And it works in -30C. temperatures. And I saw footage of it running, wow, it didn’t stall once.
GM is finito, eventually, it is a dead company walking.
1984, we have a subscription to Fortune. They usually release the magazines prior to the actual date, much like the September issue of R&T is sent to you in August.
Hell, I have had the October issue of R&T for two weeks now.
GLENN
7000 + Impalas a week 3 shifts 6 days a week.All sold,27 mpg,they meet every emision requirement world wide.
Dead company walking? I d`ont think so.Not yet.
sorry if I broke the rules R.F.
Glenn,
Right on! Lack of leadership is a huge problem. But even more than that, a sensible debate on the topic would be great. In this regard, I find the typical standard of journalism (TTAC obviously excluded) way too low. Outrageous claims by any leader (in industry or politics) simply get repeated in the MSM. How would you like to fill-up your car with water? Asif commenting that so-and-so’s statement defies logic would be politically incorrect. In the end, I guess this is what capitalism does to journalism: in seeking the higher possible ratings, journalism is forced to seek the lowest common denominator. Oh well, hence the niche market for intelligent reporting, such as TTAC.
In all the excitement the real goals of alternative fuels are lost. As RF points out, hydrogen is a nice way to stay dependent on OPEC, while paying a premium dollar for the priviledge. In part, this is based on the perception that energy-independence require us to switch to some new and/or exotic fuel. Hydrogen! Ethanol! Butanol! As I tried to point out: renewable gasoline and diesel makes much more sense than non-renewable (i.e. the cheapest, but not cheap) hydrogen.
Somebody made the comment that China is ruled by engineers while the US is ruled by lawyers (would that make you part of the ruling class, Glenn?). I don’t buy that completely: I think China’s lack of political and other freedoms will eventually bite them in the back. But it is hard not to conclude that US “leaders” are more concerned with looking good on the evening news (the next election is always only X months away) than with actually solving problems.
Concerning the ONE solution: yes and no. We need to diversify our fuel feedstocks, and reduce the power of OPEC (can you believe we still have those subsidies on Brazilian ethanol?). Adding waste as a feedstock is win-win-win as far as I can see. Increasing concervation/efficiency is also win-win, as is obvious. However, when it comes to the CARRIER fuel of choice, the market usually only allows one winner, currently gasoline and diesel for transportation, electricity for almost anything else. Hence my believe that RENEWABLE gasoline and diesel are the most promising fuels of the future.
As for butanol: Sounds exciting – almost too good to be true: can butanol fermentation be that much better than ethanol fermentation that has been around since biblical times? I’d like to see more hard data before making a call on butanol.
I’ll spot you one, mikey. Now let the debate move back to this issue, please.
can you believe we still have those subsidies on Brazilian ethanol?
Subsidies? That should, of course, be tariffs.
A hydrogen future is still very much a dream. Even if automakers can create cost-effective, real-world, practical hydrogen cars, infrastructure would still be needed, which would cost billions upon billions of dollars to put in place, even if hydrogen technology significantly came down in cost. The very nature of hydrogen itself makes infrastructure impractical and expensive. Hydrogen is highly volatile, and more flammable than gasoline. Having hydrogen produced at filling stations or at home is too impractical, and that would spell the end of the transportation side of the fuel industry, and politicians probably wouldn’t allow it. So that means hydrogen would have to be transported, but that would mean special expensive vehicles would be needed, due to hydrogen’s highly flammable nature.
And no BostonTeaParty, you got it all wrong. The fact that GM is investing in hydrogen technology; in and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that. Several major automakers (like Honda, Toyota, GM, BMW) are investing in hydrogen research. GM is getting criticized here, because as usual, Bob “the Putz and/or Klutz” Lutz, is overhyping hydrogen technology as a whole, and overhyping GM’s R&D in hydrogen tech. On top of that, all of this hype and PR talk from GM about the importance of hydrogen comes at a time when they are in a financial crisis. Yes, BMW needs to be criticized as well because they will build a hydrogen 7 Series when there is really no infrastructure to support it. On top of that, the Hydrogen 7 I believe still runs with an internal combustion engine, and I don’t think it’s an entirely fuel cell-based vehicle, which makes it even less of an accomplishment. The hydrogen 7 is essentially for marketing purposes, as its basically a test vehicle for BMW.
GM right now should invest *some* money into hydrogen R&D not to get left behind, BUT, hydrogen should NOT be anywhere near a high priority within GM. GM’s priority NEEDS to be the “right now”, and their priority needs to be making desirable vehicles that consumers want to buy, and that also can be sold for a profit. BMW can afford to fiddle around with a hydrogen 7 because they’ve been making solid profits for a long time.
As for those hyping DeLorenzo’s praise for the Sequel, what’s your point? Yes, he thinks the Sequel is a great achievement, and it very well *MAY* be a good technical achievement on its own, but that still has nothing to do with the argument at hand. The problems of infrastructure, and transportation have not been addressed, and DeLorenzo seems to have all of a sudden forgotten GM’s current financial crisis. DeLorenzo heavily de-emphasizes the lack of an infrastructure and the expense of a hydrogen fueled industry. He says it could be the “game-changing” technology we’ve all been looking for. Problem is, the technology, is years, likely decades away from being viable to consumers, and without an infrastructure in place first, hydrogen cars will be useless. DeLorenzo says he “can’t wait” for the hydrogen future. Well, keep waiting, because it won’t happen for a LONG time. The biggest question is, how does it help GM’s situation *right now*? The answer is it doesn’t … all the Sequel provides right now for GM is the “image” that they are “still in the game” technologically and in terms of cutting edge tech. GM seems to be (still) worried more about their image of being a high tech, innovative company than their products and financial woes. That is what’s really worrysome.
“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.”
Sorry 1984, but your assumption is wrong. You would be wise to do some research into this. For instance, Toyota for years now has been leasing, albeit in limited numbers, hydrogen fuel cell hybrid vehicles (like Rav4 prototypes) to people. Honda also for a while now has been leasing some fuel cell hybrid prototypes to people for real world use. Furthermore, since 2002, Toyota in Japan has had a fleet of hydrogen fuel cell hybrid buses in service in and around an airport near Nagoya. In 2005, Toyota used this fleet of buses to transport people at World Expo in Japan. Last but not least, for years now, Toyota has been selling diesel hybrid commercial trucks under it’s Hino subsidiary in Japan, as well as other markets such as Australia. Where is GM on this front? Their diesel hybrid busses that are *only* available for commercial use, and not for sale to the public? Toyota has diesel hybrid buses in Japan too, used for public transit. GM *only now* has begun to lease hydrogen fuel cell hybrid vehicles? Where was GM several years ago? Where are GM’s fuel cell hybrid busses? The reality is, GM is behind Toyota, and Honda, in the hydrogen arena, not just in the hybrid arena.
Just because it’s not reported in mainstream media doesn’t mean it’s not true. Most of you probably never even knew the extent of Toyota or Honda’s hydrogen R&D. The main reason being, is they kept hush about it, and did not hype it. I’d say that a fleet of hydrogen fuel cell hybrid buses being used in the real world is a pretty darn big achievement, but Toyota never really said a word about it. Only obscure news sources even reported this. Meanwhile GM on the other hand is hyping it’s hydrogen efforts, and trying to portray the image that they are leaders in hydrogen technology, which is quite far from the truth.
Finally, I will finish with something to ponder about fuel cell vehicles. Essentially, they are electric vehicles combined together with hydrogen tech. Current hybrid vehicles are gasoline powered vehicles combined with electric tech. Wait just a minute … did I then define fuel cell vehicles as hybrids? You bet, and guess who’s the current leader in hybrid technology? *Hint: it’s not GM*
Gee, Engineer, I never insulted you! (I’m not a liar/lawyer or politician either!) Hope nobody minds my sense of humor, such as it is. I’ll take your comment as a compliment in hopes that it was intended that way, okay?! Ha.
Mikey, all I can respond is – well, that’s fine that General Messup is still cranking out cars like cracker-jacks.
Now let’s look at the numbers. The General loses money on every vehicle it sells, I believe the figure was $1200 per vehicle thus far this year whereas last year I believe it was $2800 per vehicle, so they’re losing less money but this is not as good as making money, as anyone who has had to live life and pay bills can attest to! Ford is losing some few hundred per car, I might add.
Continually losing money on your major business endeavor has but one “ending” in the book, my friend. Eventually everyone wises up and stops lending dead-beats money in life, and in corporations. Wall Street has already made their assessment. GM is worth – a tad more than the small TATA car and truck company OF INDIA that is so inept that they had to pull out of the UK market (one of the easier world markets for cheap cars, hell even FSO from Poland sold cars there for a couple of decades, as did Lada from Russia, etc.). In other words, TATA can sell vehicles in India, but not many other places – yet the company is valued nearly as highly as General Messup?! Wow, that’s not good, my friend.
I’ll stick to my assessment. GM is a dead company walking.
They can’t afford to do it all, they can’t afford to do it all well, they can’t afford to even do some of it well.
A minor irony…
Remember the “Mobile Biological Weapons Laboritories” that the Bush administration claimed were part of their arsenal of WMDs?
It turns out they were mobile hydrogen production facilities. The Iraqi army used the hydrogen to provide lift for balloons used for observation and weather measurement.
In the “hydrogen economy”, will we be importing our “gas stations” from Iraq?…:-D…
(Actually, the reading I’ve done indicates that Iraq bought one vehicle from a European nation, then reverse-engineered the technology and built their own copies)
Glenn – no insult intended, confused you with someone else.
As far as GM is concerned, most of us would like to see it succeed. Most of us understand that success would involve building better cars. Period.
Sorry Mikey, most of us don’t see that happening (yet?).
Much as I personally dislike GM I also do not wish for it to fail, simply because too many people would have a tough time finding new jobs and I’ve been in that position before in my own life in the past, didn’t like it.
However, looking at history, one can see that dead companies walking are just a slow train wreck involving throwing good money after bad, and “nobody nor no company is irreplaceable”.
Thus, in the LONG RUN losing GM and Ford would not kill our nation, to say the least. It might hurt for awhile but we’ve known hurt before.
I’m a bit lost as to why anyone would go after an effort to move this technology forward. Even if you don’t think GM is up to it, or others are better at it, you can’t argue that they are not putting their money where there mouth is. Two things I understand about the Sequel vehicle in the picture. First, it is basically an electric vehicle that is powered by the hydrogen fuel cell. Although GM has, perhaps rightfully, taken alot of criticism for killing off the EV-1 electric car (recent indie film) I’ve read that all the technology from the EV-1 is in the Sequel. So it would seem there were some lessons learned and progression of the technology. Second, it is a good point to make about hydrogen infrastructure in this country but there was a USA Today story in the Business section this monday (9/25) that talked of a hydrogen collection device that GM has developed that would sit on your roof top and collect enough hydrogen from the sun to power your fuel cell car for a day. That seems to me to go a long way to eliminate the time and cost to build in hydrogen infrastructure. And as Maximum Bob (as this blogs likes to call him) said in the media I read, the first market for hydrogen cars will likely be in China not here in the U.S. Now there’s an image to think about, Americans downplaying the technology here in the U.S. while the Chinese — where Buick is the leading brand and GM has a decent reputation — are buying the cars by the boatload. Nothing wrong with Honda developing diesel technology and high five to them for doing so, but the fact that GM put a hydrogen powered electric car on the road for any journalist to come and drive who wanted to as well as more than a few bloggers, some of them ardent critics, and is now making 100 of them for real world testing is not nothing. I say go for it GM and maybe someday I can get one mail order from a dealer in Shanghai.
Speaking of conflict of interest, here’s one about DeLorenzo from last summer. Basically, blast whomever you think out to hire you, wait for the money, don’t disclose a thing.
If he’s praising GM, does that mean he’s on the dole?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_30/b3944112.htm
The situation with hydrogen is, first you have to make it. Way more then we currently do. Ideally, it would be processed from water. Supposedly, that is fairly energy intensive. Now you’ve got to store it. Compress it? More energy. Now you have to transport it. More energy. Plus all the storage issues every step of the way. Yes, there are 10,000 psi tanks out there. But look at the size of them(small).
I can make hydrogen, but it takes more energy to make it, and compress it, then it offers once it’s made. The flip side of that is, just take the the electricity we currently produce, and pump it into lithium batteries or ultra capacitors. Much simpler vehicles. You know why the auto manufacturers don’t like electrics? Too maintenance free. Consider the motor for instance. A shaft and two bearings. How can their dealers make any money off of repairs when the cars don’t need any?
Some choice hydrogen bits from around the web:
“But a fuel cell EV is still an EV and batteries can have a 90%
efficiency and fuel cells are stuck in the 60% range.
Hydrogen comes from 3 possible sources in these scenarios. Petroleum, electrolysis, and a hydride
Petroleum: Natural gas? we need that for other tings, we are near the limit of our capacity and why not just burn it directly. Compressing hydrogen to 5 or 10 Kpsi is at best 40% efficient
Electrolysis of water at best 70% efficient
Drive train at best 85% eff. lets say we start with 100kwh
fuel cell hydrogen from electricity 100kwh electricity * .7electrolysis *.4compressing * .6 fuel cell *.85 drive train = 14.3kwh remaining but what if we use a battery for load leveling? and a dc-dc to shore up against SAG? (makes peukert look trivial), this gets worse!
Electric vehicle 100kwh *.85 charger *.9batteryeff *.85 drive train = 65KWH remaining.
The EV costs less to make, has less parts.
My other favorite back of the napkin number is that it takes about 12kwh to refine a gallon of gas, why bother?”
And:
“The insurmountable problems I see with fuel cells lie in the fuel, not in the cells.
Remember that hydrogen is not a fuel, it’s an energy carrier. The energy has to come from some other source.
If it’s from a fossil fuel, the reforming process releases CO2 and other impurities. Of course the hydrogen can be made by electrolysis from renewable sources.
But with either source, there are still problems :
= Both reforming and electrolyse are relatively inefficient.
= Hydrogen storage is variable (and often low) in efficiency – hydride’s are heavy and tanks require considerable energy for compression.
= Energy is required to transport the hydrogen, either in pipelines or with tanker vehicles, further diminishing efficiency.
= Fuel cells are also less efficient than batteries.
What it adds up to is a serious hit in efficiency.
Suppose that you run your FCV on hydrogen from a natural gas reformer. You will STILL have a less efficient system than if you burned the natural gas in a piston engine. And THAT will be somewhat less efficient than if you burned the NG in a power plant and charged the batteries in an EV. (Proof of these assertions will be left as an exercise for the reader. ;-)
OK, suppose we allow that an FCV does use electricity as its fuel (that is, not reformed fossil fuel). Even then, the entire “supply chain” from, say, PV cell or wind machine to wheels will STILL be less efficient, more complex, and more expensive than using the same electricity in a BEV.
Thus the only real gains from an FCV are that it allows for fast refueling, and for minimal disruption to the current refueling infrastructure. The costs in efficiency for these small gains are high.
And here is the key. Who are you going to sell them to? We’re told that BEVs were a “failure” in the marketplace, and the reason usually given is that they offer no significant consumer benefits over ICEs. Well, what consumer benefits do FCVs offer over ICEs?
It’s very difficult to show that FCVs have a place in a free market – and most current Western governments show very little inclination to disturb free market principles in ways that promote such social goals as clean air and fuel independence. Even with their current limitations, there is more potential market for BEVs than for FCVs.”
Hmmm… we can keep running oil if we can get our main energy competitor off of it. If China goes hydrogen that means more petrol for us so that we can still drive our maximum size for maximum profit SUV.
It makes sense. You convert the country with no automotive history first, rather than the one full of stubborn nostalgic traditionalists.
(e.g. Ted Kennedy’s windmill fiasco).
As a Massachusetts liberal, I am totally pissed off at TK for this. The windmills would be little more than dots on his horizon, and they’d supply enough electricity for most of the Cape, a not insubstantial chunk of Massachusetts. The equivalent in coal power would help drive us towards global warming disaster, but TK doesn’t give a damn if it’s his view that’s (barely) affected.
The sad fact of the matter is, no matter what technologies we develop, we are not going to switch to alternative fuels until we run completely out of oil. We’re just too addicted to it. I’m not claiming the moral high ground. I’m just as guilty as anyone else here. When the electricity goes out in America and the economy collapses, then we’ll scramble to switch to something else. It’s a scary thought, but it is coming, and most likely in our lifetime. I just hope we can survive it as a country and we don’t delve into anarchy, because we’ve never seen anything like this before. We even had electricity and cars to get us through the great depression. It’s going to be really bad. Better be prepared for it.
Right Nathaniel,
Except that an energy CARRIER cannot replace an energy SOURCE. Energy SOURCES include oil, coal, gas, nuclear, wind, solar, etc. Energy CARRIERS include gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, ethanol, electricity, etc.
If you read some of the above postings you might understand that hydrogen is not a very good CARRIER, compared to either electricity or liquid fuels.
So, what energy SOURCE do you propose China use to kindly free up some oil for us? I believe they are looking at all of them, and also looking at higher efficiency and gas-mileage than currently used over here (hard as that may be to believe). Even with that full range of possibilities, they are still expecting to import ever more oil, assuming the economic growth rate continues to explode.
Also, are you recommending that we sit on our hands and hope the Chinese help us out? I guess it is almost as good as our current strategy – Please, King Abdullah, would you mind pumping more oil?
King Abdullah’s response: (Thinks to himself: He wants me to spend a bunch of money, to produce more oil, so that the oil I produce will be worth less?) “Tell you what, George, I will think about it! Meanwhile, please wipe off your lips…”
“Also, are you recommending that we sit on our hands and hope the Chinese help us out? I guess it is almost as good as our current strategy – Please, King Abdullah, would you mind pumping more oil?”
The Chinese definitely won’t help us out. I don’t think anyone will. As a matter of fact, I can see the world pointing and laughing at us as we become a starving third-world country almost overnight after our oil runs out. All the countries we’ve been making rich paying for our oil will use it to their advantage. Maybe even going as far as to take over the country economically(by buying everything up very cheap) if not by military force. I really hope we find a miracle energy source, and soon.
lzaffuto,
I know things look bleak, but they are sure as hell not that bleak. It is not as if we are going to wake up one morning to find out that OOPS we are all out of oil.
More realistic: Oil production slowly declines, leading to ever increasing oil proces (think $70/bbl is bad?). That does several things:
1. Conservation becomes fashionable, as a matter of necessity.
2. Alternatives become more attractive.
3. As part of the turn-around-next-quater plan, GM CEO Rick Wagoner announces that GM will be idling part of its remaining plant and aim to increase US market share to 1.0% thru aggressive sales incentives.
4. As part of his retirement speech Car Czar Bob Lutz points to GM’s success in dominating the barely existing big truck market segment, reiterating that “people who can afford our trucks do not worry about gas prices”. Both truck customers agree.
“lzaffuto,
I know things look bleak, but they are sure as hell not that bleak. It is not as if we are going to wake up one morning to find out that OOPS we are all out of oil.”
I admit I have a pessimistic outlook(to say the least) and I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it. It’s going to take decades to transition to something else from oil, our economy has been built on it. If we don’t want to run out, we need to seriously start searching for a replacement *now*. But not enough money is going into searching for or building alternatives, because it’s just too damn easy to keep pumping and burning the oil. In general most just don’t accept the fact that one day we *will* run out. Like pollution and overpopulation, we place it in the back of our mind and forget about it because it’s someone elses problem in someone else’s lifetime. Let them deal with it when it happens. But it’s not in someone elses lifetime. People aren’t going to switch until their backs are against the wall, and by then I’m afraid it will be too late. Part of the problem is that nobody wants to pay more for something that isn’t as good as what they currently have, unless they don’t have a choice.
For example, do I want to replace my car with a very expensive car using new technology that has the range and power equivelent to a Ford Model T? I don’t think so. Unless, that is, I have to choose between that and a horse and buggy.
LOL at points 3 and 4 in Engineer’s post above. “Both truck customers.” Gotta love it.
America last year graduated more psychologists then all engineering disciplines combined. Japan with 40% the population graduated twice as many engineers.
Japanese companies are ran by old engineers who worked their way up the company one rung at a time. US companies are ran by hot shot mba and bean counters who dont’ have a clue how the product works.
When/if the US automobile industry is ready to hire masses of engineers, and be ran by engineers then it will be ready to come back.
Lzaffuto: Right now there are oil wells that are idle because it costs more to pump it out of the ground than its worth. When the price of oil rises, these wells become profitable again, so the “road warrior” scenario where one day we have oil and the next day we don’t, isn’t realistic.
Here in Colorado there was considerable investment in alternative energy sources such as oil shale in the early 80’s when fuel prices were at their highest relative to income (and I still don’t think we’ve hit the record that was set in 81 or so.) After millions of $$ were invested, the Saudis increased production, which dropped the price of oil and all those companies that were counting on high fuel prices to keep them profitable went bankrupt almost overnight.
Perhaps I’m overly optimistic, but I have always believed that as long as there is a buck to be made, someone will be there to make it. Once petroleum sources begin to decline (which will take quite a while, even at the current consumption rate) the prices will rise inexorably. As prices rise, alternatives that are now not economically viable will become economically viable.
As for the US turning into a 3rd world country overnight, that’s not the way things happen. The actual 3rd world countries that are living closer to the margins of survival will be affected first, long before we are. Look at what happens in natural disasters: Compare a typhoon in Bangladesh that kills on the order of 100,000 people with a similar storm that hits the US and kills 1,000. That’s the difference that our complex and redundant infrastructure buys.
Martin,
Spot on for the most part. Find it hard to believe that there are places where oil cannot be pumped profitably at $60+/bbl. I’ve heard numbers in the range of $5 – 10/bbl for pumping, but I can’t lay my hand on anything solid right now. Do you have a reference to back your statement up?
aa2, could not agree more…
So RF, are you going to write something on the haloed Hydrogen Economy? Perhaps a series, entitled Modern day automotive myths? I am sure you have a closet full of topics for that.
Should be fun to write and a blast to read…
Engineer,
I don’t have specific evidence, but there’s anecdotal evidence all over the American west. Those idled oil wells are either idle because they’ve reached their “allowable” (the maximum amount they can take out per month according to the state’s Oil and Gas laws) or because the company that owns them doesn’t think it’s profitable to run them.
During the 80’s and 90’s when imported oil was cheap many of these wells remained idle for most of the decade, only being reactivated when energy prices started climbing again. Remember it costs money to pump oil – there are huge infrastructure costs that have to be borne including maintenance costs, administrative overhead, transportation, taxes, etc.
It may only cost $5-10 to pump a barrel of oil out of the ground in Texas or Wyoming, but how much does it cost to transport that barrel to the refinery? To pay the maintenance person who has to go out in the middle of a heat wave or a blizzard to repair the pump when it’s broken? To pay for the environmental cleanup that will be required at every site where that barrel is placed? To pay the salary of the person who sits in an office and pays all the other salaries?
You see what I mean – it’s often cheaper to just buy the oil from overseas and let someone else absorb all those infrastructure costs, until it’s not, and then the wells get turned back on.
Addendum: I suppose I should rephrase what I said about it not being profitable to pump the oil. What I meant to say, of course, is that it is not profitable to bring the oil to market.
I know! GM should buy some of these marginal wells and start pumping like their bottoms depend on it!
Then again, having two business units raking up the losses would just burn through the available cash twice as fast…
and don’t forget honda just came out with a new improved vtec system with 13% better mpg
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Daily_Auto_News/Daily_Auto_News_Sep_26_2006.S173.A10901.html
A new version of Honda’s VTEC variable valve timing system could give its vehicles 13-percent better fuel economy, the company said at Monday’s press event in Japan. The new system combines variable valve timing, lift control and variable timing control to boost torque at all speeds even while raising fuel efficiency. Honda says its new VTEC-equipped engine will meet ULEV emissions targets and will put out 75 percent lower emissions than the 2005 standards. A vehicle featuring the new VTEC engine will go on sale within three years, Honda said in a statement.
AND they’ll probably put it into cars that aren’t a penalty box to drive.
Weighing in way too late on this one, and don’t have the patience to read all 80 responses. But, two quick points:
(1) GM wants to “take the automobile out of the environmental debate” (direct quote from Larry Burns, head of GM global R&D). Yes, the electricity (or whatever) to generate H2 has to come from somewhere — but it won’t be GM’s political, social, or environmental problem.
(2) H2 vehicles are way, way simpler than current cars. The Sequel has 3 electric motors, 1 Li-ion battery pack, hydrogen tanks and a fuel cell. Everything else is by-wire, including “accelerator”, brakes and steering. That removes a lot of components out of the equation.
For more details, see my IEEE Spectrum piece Driving GM’s Hydrogen Car (end of self-plug).
Nice one John! And ignorance is bliss, hey? As you point out yourself: The broader question is, How and where do you refuel? Right now there are only several dozen places on the planet where civilians can buy gaseous or liquid hydrogen for automotive use. And naturally occurring hydrogen is a tricky substance: Because it’s the smallest and lightest molecule, it escapes easily through tiny spaces other molecules can’t pass through. So you need heavily armored and very secure storage tanks—in the car and on the ground—as well as aircraft-quality hoses and fittings to fill the tanks.
But hey, other than that, why let the facts spoil a good story?
And why read the 80 posts? You might learn something and no modern journalist can allow that!
Gee, once I subtract the insults, you seem to be saying that:
– you agree with my (fairly major) qualification that providing H2 would be challenging
– you think that this challenge indicates that H2 research is not worth pursuing
Have I got you right?
I s’pose not reading all 80 comments was dumb. It was essentially self-protective. Other peoples’ flame wars annoy me. I prefer data-based comments … like actual engineers tend to provide ….
If you actually bother to read the 80 posts you’d find very little flame wars – and a lot of good technical information pointing to all the challenges hydrogen needs to overcome – as well as some suggestions of better alternatives.
A fairly intelligent discussion, all in all.
BTW, how hard is it to skip through the annoying parts and still pick up some of the good bits?
– you think that this challenge indicates that H2 research is not worth pursuing
I know someone who does oil -> hydrogen fuel cell research at ExxonMobil, and there are less than 10 people in his department. Contrast that to billions of dollars ExxonMobil has made every quarter lately, it’s just a hedge, not an investment. Unless there’s a major push – pollution, government tax/credits/regulation, peak oil – itsnotgonnahappen.com. The USofA is the country of no coherent energy policy, after all.
I’m also reminded of the Civic NGV. It’s affordable, has very clean emissions as well, and bigger federal tax credits than the Prius. The Phill device to be able to pump natural gas from your garage is heavily subsidized, and if you don’t otherwise have access to a natural gas pump, you’re out of luck. That’s not factoring the tight supply of natural gas.
BTW, here’s a link to the Fortune article in the October 2, 2006 issue:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/02/8387510/index.htm
Of the major oil companies, Shell and Chevron were ranked (by “an auto industry source”) best as truly understanding that they needed to be aware, understand and dispassionately evaluate energy sources beyond petroleum. BP (originator of the “beyond petroleum” = BP slogan) was given high marks for PR and public image, but low marks re/having the actual technical chops to back it up.
ExxonMobil apparently spent the first half of a very high-level meeting with a major US carmaker that has lots of H2 research by trying to persuade them what a huge waste of $$$ it was. Only after the carmaker pointed out how much its surveyed consumers liked the idea that they might *never again* visiting a “gas station” (except during long-distance trips on Interstates) did Exxon climb off that hobbyhorse and start to have a serious dicussion on H2, its pros and cons, the cost and feasbility of infrastructure, challenges, energy balances, etc.
Paradigm shifts like H2 always threaten lots of established (often very profitable) interests. And they carry with them hordes of both promoters and detractors–some based on knowledge, others reacting purely from deeply held, quasi-religious beliefs.
Those who do not learn from history are often destined to repeat it. At the turn of the 20th Century, cars were split in rough thirds among gasoline, steam and electric. We know who won. But now, cars split among different fuels–for quite different reasons–doesn’t seem to me out of the question in, say, 2020.
I’m mildly startled by the depths of passion, character assassination, and general beliefs-before-facts approach in this thread. (My fault, perhaps, for not paying as close attention to Farago & Co as the true acolytes?) And, yes, I have now read *every single one* of those 80-odd posts. Sadly, doing so expanded the dialogue rather less than I’d hoped.
JV –
Yes, the energy/transporation paradigm will change someday from the gas-consuming auto/truck. The petroleum biz will to be extremely profitable no matter what, and I doubt that ExxonMobil will need to change what they do anytime soon. I have a brother who drives a Prius and was thinking of getting a Segway for his wife to commute to work, so there are some people on the wagon already.
As our household budget has shifted towards saving for kids’ college accounts, we personally won’t be financing any paradigm shifts. Our next car will be a B or C class car for way less than $20k, doubt it will have anything terribly innovative.
The paradigm has shifted for the Detroit 2.5, as they can’t make massive profits on body-on-frame vehicles anymore. Will they survive even that?
Hey, starlightmica, you could probably plump for a Prius – the interior is as big as a Chevrolet Tahoe (I’ve sat in the back of both) and I have had a new Honda snow blower, and a 27″ HDTV in the box, in the Prius (rear seat down). Obviously, not at the same time!
Getting 45-55 mpg, generally 45-50 mpg in 2-lane 17 mile commute from country to town. That’s real world MPG, not “dream on” / lying through the teeth MPG. In winter, with full Yokohama Blizzak snow tires, less efficient “winter” fuels and colder temps (at which all cars suffer a certain percentage of MPG reduction) I’m seeing 42-47 mpg on the commutes, some of which are as low as -20 degrees F.
You can go on a waiting list, pay list price, still get $1650 tax reduction on Federal taxes (don’t forget to look for a state tax break too – there were none in Michigan for me alas). Prius has sold over 60,000 units so the $3100 federal tax relief is cut in half, but don’t sneeze at $1650! List price on a Prius runs from $22,500 or so, not a lot more than you are thinking for a smaller B or C class car, which won’t crack 40 MPG, and will squeeze your family more than a Prius will.
If you have 2 teens and 2 adults, or at least 1 pre teen and 2 teens, you’ll do fine in the Prius for passenger room.
Yep, you are absolutely right about the 2.5, they probably are thus not going to actually survive the next gas price spike, whenever that happens.
To think that the big 3 spent tons of money (some of it our taxes from “grants”) on developing “80 mpg supercars” during the Clinton administration (never actually getting close to 80 mpg, but at least experimenting with hybrids) and then did nothing with any of it and now Toyota “owns” 78% of the hybrid market in the US, apparently.
Kudos to Toyota. That is how business successes happen. Concentrate on the long term benefits, do the job right, keep the customers happy. My 2005 Prius is my first Toyota, but not my last, and no longer will I buy non-hybrids. Why should I?
Glenn –
We’re unfortunately subject to AMT and so the hybrid refund doesn’t apply to us. The Prius is a gigantic car by my standards (google “starlight mica”), but it’s $8k more than a Fit and we write a check. I’d rather be able to split that money between our three 529 accounts.
ExxonMobil apparently spent the first half of a very high-level meeting with a major US carmaker that has lots of H2 research by trying to persuade them what a huge waste of $$$ it was.
They should know, shouldn’t they. Think of it this way: If hydrogen was to be the next big thing ExxonMobil would want to get on the bandwagon early. What better way to promote yourself as pro-environment? And you even get to wrap yourself in the flag. That ExxonMobil is so skeptical about hydrogen says a lot. Unless you have a deeply passionate, beliefs-before-facts faith in hydrogen, that is.
Like it or not, fossil fuels are currently the cheapest source of hydrogen. So if hydrogen were to take off tomorrow, we’d be buying most of it from the oil companies, including ExxonMobil.
I’m mildly startled by the depths of passion, character assassination, and general beliefs-before-facts approach in this thread.
Depth of passion? Beliefs-before-facts? You must be confused: those are characteristics of the pro-hydrogen crowd;) Character assassination? LOL!
My fault, perhaps, for not paying as close attention to Farago & Co as the true acolytes?
You are kidding, right? Farago & Co are certainly opinionated. Generally they are also able to defend those opinions in a rational way. Acolytes? Those would be the type of auto journalist that repeat the press releases verbatim, without question or criticism…
And, yes, I have now read *every single one* of those 80-odd posts.
Good! Consider yourself educated.
Sadly, doing so expanded the dialogue rather less than I’d hoped.
Careful there, your deeply passionate, beliefs-before-facts faith is shining through again!
They should know, shouldn’t they. … If hydrogen was to be the next big thing ExxonMobil would want to get on the bandwagon early.
Why does Exxon know that Chevron, Shell and BP don’t? Those three did not see GM’s efforts as a waste of $$$. Exxon’s view doesn’t mean that the others don’t see potential in H2 test projects to ascertain if there’s a business there, and what it might cost.
Like it or not, fossil fuels are currently the cheapest source of hydrogen. So if hydrogen were to take off tomorrow …
Yep. You betcha. Note “currently”. And H2 is NOT going to take off tomorrow. Most optimistic guesses are that fuel-cell vehicles won’t be offered to the general public til 2012 to 2015. That said, two H2IC vehicles are now fleet testing: BMW 7 Series and Mazda RX-8 Hydrogen. Baby steps, for sure, but they didn’t exist two years ago.
…your deeply passionate, beliefs-before-facts faith…
This is what confuses me. You’ve never contradicted either FACT in my original post, but instead I get all these odd accusations of being a true believer and whatnot.
Let’s get one thing straight, since obviously you saw something quite different in my posts. I’m NOT saying H2 is a panacea. Nor that a century of gasoline distribution infrastructure isn’t a powerful counterweight to deploying H2.
And I’m deeply aware that the energy source for H2 generation swings the carbon equation one way or the other (a point always lost in uninformed, non-technical discussions of “zero pollution cars” in the general press).
And currently petrochemicals ARE the easiest, cheapest way to fuel personal transport.
But the very first commenter, some 90 responses ago, got it right IMHO. Farago can’t have it both ways: It’s internally inconsistent to criticize GM for not innovating AND criticize them for fundamental R&D into things like H2. And GM is also developing hybrids … alt-fuels like E85 … a lot of diesel knowledge … so they’re covering many bases.
Some of those technologies will prove transitory. Others may appear in the next 20 years. I’m just perplexed by why the notion that H2 might be worthy of research (because it poses an interesting solution to a complex set of problems) seems so threatening to a small minority of commenters.
In my experience, engineers do lots of developmental work. Some things are dead ends; some things pan out; advances come from unexpected places. But, evolving only your known technologies puts you out of business sooner or later. Ask the makers of buggy whips, radio tubes, etc.
Oh yes, on E85: it should be obvious that converting food into fuel is not going to solve anything. Last year 14% of the US corn harvest was used to produce 4 billion gal of ethanol. Sounds like a lot? It is enough to replace ~1% of the current US oil consumption (20+ million bpd). There is a ceiling on how much ethanol you can get from this source. Whatever it is (2%? 3%? 5%?) it is pretty insignificant.
So, to me, the whole E85 thing reeks of PC BS.
Evaluating E85 (and E15, E100, etc.) depends on the source of the biomass from which the ethanol is refined. Corn generates only half the energy content of sugar cane (which Brazil uses for its ethanol program), and sugar cane in turn has only half the energy content of switchgrass (which is not currently grown in any quantity).
No doubt someone’s calculated the various acreages necessary for ethanol to have a meaningful impact.
The entire flex-fuels thing started years ago as a low-cost way for manufacturers to get CAFE offsets. By spending a few hundred dollars per car, the CAFE rules credited the car with almost double its actual mileage–never mind that most of them would likely never, ever run on anything except gasoline.
Most owners had no earthly idea they were driving a flex-fuel vehicle until GM began putting bright yellow fuel-filler caps on them last year. Which tells you about how “real” the whole flex-fuel thing was intended to be until high gas prices hit.
In the future? Who knows. Depends largely on the price of gasoline. SOME of those companies and private investors who’ve dug into their pockets to fund ethanol refineries seem likely to lose their shirts. But we shall see.
Again, ethanol is an energy carrier. As you point out, the important thing is really the energy source.
As a carrier, ethanol has important draw-backs, like its tendency to absorb moisture, corrossion, etc. Which is why I expect us to stay with the market selected carriers-of-choice, currently diesel and gasoline…
…I expect us to stay with the market selected carriers-of-choice, currently diesel and gasoline…
“Market selected”? Huh? The market can practically select when alternatives are somewhat widely available. And markets take more than a few years to build. Let ethanol be widely available, in at least some regions, for 10 years, then decide.
I think the auto-fuel picture will become more complex. Local and regional tax incentives could make ethanol blends acceptable to consumers in some midwestern states.
But my real question about your assertion is, Over what time horizon?
As per my previous post: food-based etanol is not going anywhere. Cellulosic ethanol, while more promising, is still in its infancy.
More to the point, why switch? Ethanol has problems. If you have the ability to convert biomass to diesel and gasoline, that would work much better.
Doggone it! Seems like my long hydrogen post got lost in cyber space! So here it comes as good as I can recall it…
Let me point out that there are many influential people who have their doubts about hydrogen. One of the more interesting is Ulf Bossel, the founder of the European Fuel Cell Forum. (Could you be pro-Fuel Cell and anti-hydrogen?)
The first point is that hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a source. Hence hydrogen cannot replace an energy source like oil. To make hydrogen (like any other carrier) you need an energy source. As a carrier, hydrogen must compete with other carriers, like diesel, gasoline, ethanol and electricity. The main advantage hydrogen has, compared to the other carriers, is a high energy to mass ratio. Hence hydrogen is sometimes used as a fuel for space travel. Note that the fiercely competitive air travel industry is yet to use hydrogen on a meaningful scale. If hydrogen cannot penetrate air travel, where its advantage means something, why would it be the fuel of choice for surface travel where fuel mass is of little concern?
Hydrogen has several disadvantages compared to other carriers. Liquids are easier to store and transport than gasses – a thermodynamic reality that no amount (or $ billions) in research will change. Electricity is easier to transport, but storage is still a bit of a challenge. Recent progress (such as cell phone technology) suggests that this is something that can be solved with research. Hydrogen is also highly flammable, over a wide range of concentrations (4 – 75% in air!). You think Osama will be interested in having a hydrogen target sitting in thousands of locations all over the country?
Consider the hydrogen cycle: Water vapor (+ heat lost to surroundings) => Liquid water (+ energy) => Hydrogen gas (+ energy) => Hydrogen gas delivered to consumer (+ oxygen)=> Water vapor (+ energy). You loose energy every step of the way. Hydrogen proponents, who keep enthusing about how efficiently (and cleanly) the energy in the hydrogen can be recovered, are like someone telling you to build your house on the highest mountain in your area. They tell you (rightly) that you can free wheel to any destination in the area: clean and efficient travel personified.
The problem is, of course, not going anywhere, it is getting back home. All the energy you saved on your way to work and then some would be expanded as you go back home. Note that finding a different route home does not change the underlying fundamentals: you still need a lot of energy to get to the top of the mountain. Sure, some routes are better than others, but even the best requires that you spend more energy than you saved going down in the morning. Research into hydrogen may find all sorts of good and efficient ways to make hydrogen. But it remains a high mountain to climb. The coming down is never going to pay for the going up. Again, no amount of research can change that reality.
The challenge for any fuel of the future is this: you want to get from energy source to energy user while losing as little of it along the way. It would seem logical that going over the highest mountain in the area is not the route to go.
I am all for looking at various alternatives. At the same time, it seems that some alternatives can be eliminated out of hand. Why spend $ billions if the concept does not even make sense on paper? There are many better alternatives to pursue.
But the very first commenter, some 90 responses ago, got it right IMHO. Farago can’t have it both ways: It’s internally inconsistent to criticize GM for not innovating AND criticize them for fundamental R&D into things like H2. And GM is also developing hybrids … alt-fuels like E85 … a lot of diesel knowledge … so they’re covering many bases.
I think RF’s point was that GM is making a great landing … at the wrong airport. I agree with that. Even in the unlikely event that hydrogen does pan out, at this point in time GM has many other, more pressing issues to attend to.
I personally believe that the transportation propulsion technology of choice still is, and will be for many decades, the ICE (Internal Combustin Engine) in its purest form; that is to say, forget the hybrids and ethanol and hydrogen and everything else.
We are stuck with the 100% gasoline or diesel ICE, whether we like it or not. The fact is that Ethanol requires huge investments in infrastructure, hydrogen would require even larger investments, and hybrids are not refined enough.
My dislike for hybrids requires some explanation.
How many times have I read bloggers write about how they where getting very dissapointing mileage out of the Prius, only to blog some time later that they have “learned” how to drive these cars? I believe that the gains in mileage are a) never attained as advertised, and b) the result of a drastically underpowered vehicle for drivers with infinately huge patience who drive them like their grandmothers would. I do not know about you, but I would hate getting caught in a rainstorm at highway speeds with a Prius and their laughable thin “low friction” rubber band tires. This is not a practical car in any sense of the word, at least not to me it isn’t. It is woefully unsafe on account of its thin tires and lack of acceleration.
All of this hybrid technology is expensive to deploy into a finished product and, once built, expensive to repair. What would be the cost in parts and labor of replacing a hybrid’s electric motor, or any of its other large components? I would guess that it would be huge. Ok, so let’s say that Toyota and Honda hybrids are just as reliable as any other Toyota or Honda, and these components never break down. (I am just saying.) Batteries have a lifespan, and eventualy they will need to be replaced. What would be the cost of replacement? I have read that Prius owners are in for a rude awakening when they limp into the Toyota dealer with dead batteries: the answer is in the thousands of dollars.
Now lets talk about the Accord hybrid. This V6 cylindered hybrid is engineered more for an electrical boost in performance, not so much for an electrical boost in mileage. All of this talk about the Accord Hybrid delivering V6 power with 4 Cylinder fuel economy is all hype, nobody is getting this mileage. So if performance is the paramount prerogative and the mileage gains are next to nothing then what is wrong with using the time tested turbocharger? Or a bigger V6?
The number of Accord hybrid sales reveal that this is a failed product. In August of ’06 Honda sold 34,005 regular Accords and 499 hybrid Accords. That is 68 regular Accords for every hybrid Accord, and this is during a period of time when people are supposed to be buying more fuel efficient cars. Maybe the internet has clued people into how this thing jerks the transmission when the electric motor kicks in, or how the cost of gas has to be something like 4 bucks a gallon to even break even with the higher Accord hybrid purchase price in 100,000 miles of driving. (And these numbers are based on the EPA’s hyped numbers on mileage that nobody is getting. Gas may have to be more than 6 or 7 bucks a gallon to break even.)
About the only cost effective way of getting more efficiency is going to be diesel. Diesel makes alot of sense: The infrastructure is predominantly already in place, diesels tend to be very reliable, the cost of repairs and maintenance is comparable to gasoline engines, and they can be just as clean as gasoline engines. The Europeans have figured this out, they buy lots of diesels.
Maybe the whole world will start licensing or buying super clean-running diesels from Honda, maybe it wont. But in future years the manufacturers will eventuall come to their senses and there will be diesel sales in the USA, one way or another.
GM listen up! Get your diesel program in gear. In the early 1980’s your company built some of the most stupid diesel crap that was based on existing gasoline engine blocks. (This is what happens when a manufacturer of incredibly complex machines is run amok with bean counters.) Diesels are high compression engines, and they need heavier engine blocks that can sustain these higher compression ratios. Take a small portion of your hydrogen and hybrid budget and put that into designing solid diesel ICEs.
If we as a nation want to import less barrels of oil then the only other thing we can do is to migrate to smaller vehicles. But whatever happens, be it diesel engines or smaller vehicles or both, it will be precipitated by the price mechanism of fuel. There is no other way, pure and simple.
What about this:
Bet it costs less than the Sequel…
R&B
The Tesla lists at $100K or thereabouts. They’ve sold about 150 cars to date. First deliveries are next spring.
Right now they’re doing their crash-testing in the UK.
You are right. As with the Sequel quantities are not important at this point. California is a good place to do it given the incentives and “culture.” I’d be concerned in Detroit that any one was even remotely successful in this market for any number of sold cars. Perhaps, instead of 12 million more shares of GM a better investment might be right there.
R&B
Tesla has raised $60 million in venture capital; you can’t invest in their shares on the open market.
They will probably focus sales efforts on the West Coast (CA, OR, WA) and the Northeast initially, but that’s just a guess.
They have already announced that they intend to design a sports sedan (a la 5-series or A4) that will sell for $50K and be manufactured in five-figure volumes. That’s somewhat in the future, though. First they have to get the Roadster through US type approvals, manufacture them reliably and sell several thousand.
It is, however, wicked fast. They have achieved 0-60 in 3.7 seconds–identical to the new Ferrari GTB Fiorano 599, which takes a 650hp V12 to do the same acceleration!
You can’t exactly pick up 12 million shares of GM on a hunch either.
On the high end, their prices are in the market.
R&B
Right on, allen5h.
With one exception: I think plug-in hybrids (so-called PHEVs) have big potential. I agree that in general people have a non-rational facination with hybrids. One could even argue that hybrids, in their current form, make a rather insignificant difference, considering all the technology and complexity.
OTOH, when driving a Prius, I am always amazed at how seamless it switches between the different types of propulsion, or between using and recharging the batteries. Just getting that right must have required a lot of innovation i.t.o. control systems. Now invented, those control systems are bound to find other applications.
As for PHEV, I think these things are probably the most significant technology that can be used right now to significantly reduce the US oil imports. The electric grid is mostly idle overnight, hence the low rates at these hours. In other words, there is a lot of power available for charging batteries overnight. Doing so would replace imported oil with local electricity, i.e. coal for the most part. And as far as the environment is concerned, overnight a lot of coal is burned just to keep power plants running, so we already get the pollution.
Furthermore, unlike a “true” EV, PHEV offers you the option to drive as far as you like on any given day (without the X hours recharge), by switching to gasoline power. Can’t get much more convenient than that.
Conceptually, Plug-in Hybrids (PHEVs) are attractive. The issue is that the current generation of hybrid battery packs has to stay between 30% and 78% (IIRC, may have the numbers wrong) charge to deliver best performance.
The pure-electric mode, OTOH, assumes the ability to use pretty much 0% to 100% of the charge. If you look at Felix Kramer & Co., they all seems to add *new and different* battery packs to their Priuses to accomodate deep discharge to get those 30- to 50-mile pure electric runs.
I’m not saying the problem’s insoluable. But, it requires different characteristics from the battery pack(s): One is for immediate power, one is for durable energy storage. May be different chemistry. And obviously TWO battery packs imposes a major complexity, cost and weight penalty.
Engineer: I appreciate your views on the PHEV as a possible alternative propulsion choice for the future. However, I disagree that it will ever amount to anything.
Let’s talk about the Prius, and why Toyota decided not to go the PHEV route with this vehicle.
Prius batteries are replaced (because of car wrecks) at a retail cost of around $3,000. Obviously, the battery life has to be substantial, otherwise these frequent replacement costs would negate any gains in fuel efficiency, and would kill any future sales in hybrids.
The biggest single problem with a PHEV is that it would deep cycle the batteries. This deep cycling of batteries would drastically reduce the lifespan of the batteries.
The current Prius works on the basis of maintaining a total battery charge of around 40-80%. In other words, a substantial amount of energy must be maintained as a minimum (40%) and a substantial amount must be withheld from a fully charged state (20%). This reduction in deep cycle ability are needed to get the battery life to what Toyota claims to be an “acceptable level.” (Whatever this “acceptable level” is we will find out soon enough with the existing fleet of Prius’ on the road today.)
Toyota or any other car company would build a PHEV if long lasting deep cycle batteries can be built. Thus far, this has been an elusive battery technology fantasy for car companies, laptop computer makers, and cell phone companies.
The other thing about a PHEV is that its performance would never compete with that of a pure ICE. Even a “fuel efficient” hybrid (like the Prius, unlike the Accord hybrid) could never compete with a pure gasoline or diesel ICE in terms of performance. So we are stuck with the pure gas or diesel ICE for a long, long time; as most consumers will want the performance that we are so accustomed to.
The fact that we are stuck with the pure ICE for many years to come is not a bad thing in itself. The ICE of forty years ago was way better than the ICE of twenty years ago in terms of refinement and fuel efficiency, and the ICE of today is way better than the ICE of twenty years ago. ICEs will, with time, get to be even better.
I myself am looking forward to the engine advances of the future, and more specifically, the engines from BMW and Honda since these two car companies are now and historically have always been engine companies first, and car companeis second.
There will be new fangled technologies introduced from time to time, but as for me I will keep driving pure ICEd cars while I watch these technology fads work through their cycles of hype and bust.
I doubt it. Assuming you pay close to “retail” for your cars, you’ll drive whatever gives you the best mix of performance, features and economy for our own situation. Much of it likely varies with the cost of gasoline.
As for the performance of hybrids, I don’t think we disagree.
But the whole notion that you’ve prejudged “new fangled technologies” and plan to reject them … LOL.
I think most people here is guilty of not seeing the Forrest for the trees. What GM is proposing with its hydrogen technology is not only about the ICE or hydrogen. The track it is taking is changing the whole way you think about designing and building automobiles.
The hydrogen fuel cell car is essentially nothing but an electric car that is using hydrogen as its storage mechanism versus batteries or super capacitors. The real technology breakthrough here is also the skateboard approach to building these vehicles. By using the skateboard approach they do not care what the next advanced form of electricity storage is. They design the passenger portion of the vehicle totally independent of the powertrain portion with a predetermined interconnection that is standard regardless of power source. This will allow the stylist and passenger compartment engineers to not have to worry about what the powertrain or frame designers are doing. As a designer you know what your inputs and outputs connection are. Everything else is your area and no worries about more legroom or storage space affecting where the engine or drivetrain parts will invade.
On the power/drive “skateboard†portion of the vehicle they know the electricity/power input to the drive motors this is required to attain the predefined performance specifications. If you change from Hydrogen fuel cells to another source of electrical storage whether it be wet cell, lithium batteries or super capacitors does not impact the other 95 percent of the vehicle. All the other drive motor engineers care about is receiving the required voltage at the required rate for a predetermined period.
Finally it allows for a single frame and motor design to cross multiple performance spectrums with no major engineering changes. Today if you want to muscle up a car you accomplish this through larger engines or boosting the existing engines or transmission. You change the engine or transmission design you have impacts on every area of the vehicle resulting in major engineering changes. Now if you want to go farther or have greater performance all you need is more exotic electricity storage device in your “Skateboardâ€. This will be a tinkers dream
This is the kind of “out of the box†thinking that GM needs to do in order to remake itself and not be chasing the other manufacturers. Remember the first “automobile†was steam powered went 2.5 miles an hour and took 4 people to run. This was replacing a 4 thousand year old technology that ate grass and drank water. Imagine where we would be if everyone said, “How do you improve on thatâ€.
Stedwoo
Stedwoo: Agree with the bulk of your comments, but …
I suspect the current incarnation of the “skateboard” is built substantially around the presence of long, rocket-shaped H2 tanks. I’m not sure they could easily be swapped out for wet cells, ultracapacitors or whatever.
The other thing about a PHEV is that its performance would never compete with that of a pure ICE. Even a “fuel efficient†hybrid (like the Prius, unlike the Accord hybrid) could never compete with a pure gasoline or diesel ICE in terms of performance. So we are stuck with the pure gas or diesel ICE for a long, long time; as most consumers will want the performance that we are so accustomed to.
Not so sure about that, allen5h.
One of the advantages of the electric motor is the ability to put out high power at low r.p.m., unlike the ICE.
In the end, it is a race between different technologies: if somebody comes up with a good deep cycle battery, PHEV gets its nose in front. But I agree, ICE is by now means as dead as the MSM (and some environmentalists) would have us believe…
Seems like Consumer Reports are also having their doubts about ethanol…