The Detroit News reports Los Angeles has a new hydrogen fuel pump. A commercial hydrogen pump, rather than a fenced-off hydrogen-only fueling station. LA City Councilman Bill Rosendahl showed up in a GM-furnished Equinox Fuel Cell and announced it was "the most joyous moment I've had since being elected to office." Of course, even though it's a commercial fuel station, drivers of the approximate 100 fuel-cell vehicles won't have to pay for the hydrogen they pump. They're all part of "demonstration programs by the motor companies." So what happens when the owners start having to put their debit card in the pump to pay for their fuel like the rest of us? Good question. So far no one's saying how much it costs to produce or dispense the stuff. And apparantly no one cares. The California Air Resources Board is spending $7.7m of the taxpayers' money to open three more fueling stations so they can give away more free fuel to people driving cars they don't have to pay to operate so the anti-ICE crowd can get more propaganda free publicity.

Whenever we talk about alternative powertrains in development, some people (this writer included) inevitably say: gasoline and to a lesser extent diesel are past, present, and medium-term future. But a number of sources claim Mercedes Benz is thinking otherwise; they're dumping the need for petroleum-based fuels in their future products in favor of electric, fuel cell, and (yuck) biofuels. Apparently Benz has spent billions of Euros on a "sustainable mobility" plan. According to the UK's Sun, Mercedes plans to spend another $14b or so in the next seven years to further develop the petroleum-free lineup. Will Mercedes give up sales in all the parts of the world in which there is no infrastructure for electric or fuel cell cars? The hedging response: their cars would still be capable of running on gasoline or diesel– meaning that biofuel flex fuel cars would satisfy this wild claim from the British tabloid. Even still, huh?

Forty or fifty years ago, every manufacturer built concept cars with alternative– and sometimes pretty outlandish– power plants (small nuclear reactor, anyone?). The gas turbine was a popular choice. GM, Ford and Chrysler were all deeply involved in gas turbine research, stretching back to the late '40s and early '50s. In 1963, Chrysler built a fleet of 50 distinctively-styled turbine-powered cars and gave them to consumers to generate real-world feedback. Turbine engines were the wave of the future– a technologically-advanced powerplant that could run on anything combustible that would flow through a pipe, from kerosene to perfume. Chrysler's test program racked-up over 1.1m miles. They continued turbine engine research until the mid 70s, when they actually planned to put a turbine into production. Then, suddenly, nothing. Chrysler's financial problems led to government loan guarantees that included stipulations that they abandon plans to produce turbines (too risky). GM and Ford had long-since been distracted by other shiny objects like rotary engines and winning LeMans. So turbine engine research halted. With all the emphasis now on alternative fuels, perhaps it's time to revive an engine that can run on hydrogen, biofuels, petroleum distillates or even coal dust. Combined with modern engine-control technology, it could be worth a second look. Or not.