GM: Hydrogen cars will re-establish company

[boise1]

'Going to make General Motors what it was in the '50s and '60s,' exec says

Associated Press
Updated: 37 minutes ago

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - Hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles could hit showrooms as early as 2011 and the technology will revitalize General Motors, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said as he delivered a hydrogen concept car to be test driven by Camp Pendleton Marines over the next few months.

Calling the effort a "moon shot," Lutz said it is vital the world's largest automaker commits to the new technology, so it can win back its reputation as an innovator and design leader.

"This is to re-establish our technological credentials with the American public and the American media," Lutz said Thursday. "And it has a huge re-moralizing effect in the company as our people see how serious we are."

Up to $9 billion has been freed up as a result of General Motors' recent restructuring, Lutz said. The company now has more money to invest in hydrogen fuel cell-powered cars, which will form an important part of the auto giant's long-term economic recovery plan.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14848423/

[Options Remain]

1. want to impress me GM

Make electric cars and forget the whole fuel required locomotion concept.

TearForger

[susanna]

37. Just asking, but where does the electricity come from?

Fuel required indeed.

[dipsydoodle]

2. Chances are that by then

the Chinese will in production and able to substantially undercut GM's prices.

[Dover]

7. Interesting statement in that article:

Many obstacles exist before fuel-cell cars hit showrooms, including the still high cost of using hydrogen and a lack of fueling stations. California leads the nation in installing hydrogen fueling stations, Lutz said, currently with 31 around the state.

But even if energy companies fail to boost hydrogen production, Lutz said GM would still have a potentially large international market share.

"Whether or not we get a hydrogen infrastructure, it doesn't matter, because China will be the first hydrogen economy," he said.

[napi21]

3. I don't think so, and the 2011 comment is the reason why!

Why it ALWAYS takes American car companies soooo long to change direction is beyond me!

They did the same damn thingback in the late 70's/early 80's when demand switched from flashy gas guzzelingcars to small fuel efficient ones. It seems to takeforeign companies 1-2 years to change direction andproduce what the feneral publicwants, but good old Detroit always needs5+ years to do the same damn thing!

2011? If they have a drivable prototype NOW, why in the world is it going to take 5 years to go into production????

[semillama]

4. well, i suppose that some factors could include:

-retooling of factories to produce the new engines and any other parts that will differ from standard gas-powered cars
-retraining sections of the workforce to produce the new engines
-design of the new vehicles and test marketing
-developing the infrastructure for hydrogen refueling in partnership with some energy company like BP or Shell
and so on.

Five years doesn't sound that bad. Part of the reason US car companies seem to take so long is that they are reactive, whereas one big advantage of Japanese firms is that they are mainly pro-active and start planning in advance.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

6. They had drivable prototype electrics (EV1) but

they recalled them all and destroyed them.

[napi21]

10. Yes, I know, and I wonder how many at GM are sorry they did that?

n/t

[calmblueocean]

5. Hydrogen is a dead end.

We already have battery technology that is more efficient at storing energy than hydrogen is, and we have a better infrastructure for delivering it. If GM is betting its future on hydrogen cars then GM is real trouble. The only saving grace is that a car that drives by wire and runs on electricity generated by hydrogen fuel cell will be easier to redesign into an all-electric vehicle than one that runs on gas.

[Ragin_mad]

11. Have to disagree on having the infrastructure for electric cars

When everyone begins to plug their cars in for a charge this will put a much larger strain on the electric grid. I'm not sure the transmission cables and transformers would be able to handle the additional load of everyone plugging in when they get home. Not to mention the additional electrical generation requirements of the electric companies.

[boise1]

12. Vehicle-to-Grid technology will help to alleviate that

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0729/p17s02-stct.html

So, you're thinking of buying one of those gas-electric hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius or Honda Insight. They're trendy, conserve fuel, and reduce pollution. But to really go "green," some entrepreneurs and academics say, you should try a Volkswagen Jetta.

Not just any Jetta. A dark blue one that a California electric-car company has modified so that it not only uses electricity but generates it for other purposes. So, once it's parked, you plug it in and sell excess electricity to a utility.

It sounds like a good way to meet car payments. But don't start counting the cash just yet.

Neither big auto-makers nor utility companies have yet seized on the idea, known as "vehicle-to-grid," or V2G. Still, V2G is an idea waiting to happen - and the push toward hybrids today is making it ever more likely, say scientists, entrepreneurs, and economists.

"As electric-drive hybrids begin to penetrate the auto market, you now have distributed power generation on wheels," says Stephen Letendre, an economist at Green Mountain College in Poultney, Vt. "You also have an asset that's sitting idle most of the time - just waiting to be connected."

[Ragin_mad]

15. Not a good idea in my opinion

No way would the electric company pay you enough to offset the gasoline you would be using to generate the electricity.

[sofa king]

19. No, but...

...The vehicle might be able to offset some of what the electric company is charging you to power your own home. Probably not if you're using gasoline, but if you're running the vehicle on, say, methanol produced from your family's own poop, then you've gone a long way toward making the home more self-sufficient.

[boise1]

21. This study suggested a payback of about $3k/yr

For battery-electric vehicles: http://www.greenmtn.edu/news/V2G.asp

[GliderGuider]

16. The changeover will not be overnight.

I share your concern about grid capacity, but the one thing to remember is that fleet changeover is an extended process. We'll see a gradual market penetration of PHEVs or battery electrics as the existing fleet ages out. That points to a 10-year ramp in the electricity demand due to vehicles, something we'll be able to cope with.

My concern is that there may be an overlapping trend towards electrical resistance heating if the price per BTU of natural gas surpasses that of electricity. There's a (controversial) theory called http://www.hubbertpeak.com/duncan/olduvai2000.htm">"Olduvai Gorge" that suggests that industrial civilization could be brought down quite rapidly by a destabilization and collapse of our electricity grids.

[greenman3610]

25. That sounds right, but it's not

Almost every utility has a certain amount of
reserve demand - usually on the order of 20 to 30 percent.

At 4 to 6 o clock on a hot july afternoon,in most states, that
reserve is almost completely in use, it's true.
But most people are going to be plugging their
cars in at night.

That reserve capacity is still there, since it's
too costly to shut those plants down overnight, they
continue to run - it's called "Spinning reserve".

Right now, that is wasted fuel. Putting it to
use to run transportation makes great sense.
In the meantime, getting everyone to switch to
CF bulbs etc will further free up capacity.
Longer term, Wind is already the most cost
effective new energy source, and solar
is not far behind.
Eventually, we'll have a totally "smart grid'
that will send you power when you need it, and
take the power that you generate on your roof
the rest of the time.

That said, GM's plan has serious problems.
Hydrogen will not be ready by 2011.

[truthisfreedom]

33. overnight is non-peak charging time. power companies will require that

cars have timers that don't allow them to charge until after peak power.

[Strelnikov_]

20. Yep.

And like you say, whatever company remains following the crash can transition the FCV's to EV's fairly easily.

I can envision a future of FCV/EV hybrids. That is, a generation of small, efficient EV's with a range of, say, 100 mi. For the times extended range is required, this can be supplied by a small fuel cell mounted on a trailer (rental?). Since the cell will only have to supply 'average' power demand, a much smaller cell than that required for a pure FCV vehicle would be possible. Since it is used only occasionally, the inefficiency of ethanol fuel cells would be acceptable, thus bypassing the need for H2.

Carrying the Energy Future- Comparing Hydrogen and Electricity
for Transmission, Storage and Transportation

Patrick Mazza, Roel Hammerschlag
June 2004

http://www.ilea.org/downloads/MazzaHammerschlagES.pdf

http://www.ilea.org/downloads/MazzaHammerschlag.pdf

"Future Cars: Electricity Might Beat Hydrogen"

H2 energy inefficiencies and a costly new infrastructure might be acceptable in the context of climate change, petroleum supply stress and national security concerns. All indicate the need for a new vehicle fuel. H2 is seen as a natural successor to petroleum, and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) the replacement for internal combustion technology. Another option is carbon-emissions-free electricity to propel battery electric vehicles (EVs).

The relative inefficiencies of H2 vis-à-vis direct electricity detailed in earlier sections play out in vehicle technology, as detailed in the accompanying chart comparing relative losses along the fuel chain. In effect, using electricity directly rather than converting it into H2 yields twice the miles per kilowatt hour.

Yet conventional wisdom has it that the EV is a technological dead-end hobbled by limited range and extended recharging times. Recent EV market development efforts have met only limited success. But advanced battery technologies could change the picture. EVs might meet the needs of a more substantial share of the market than is commonly understood.

[hatrack]

8. GM - Magic Beans Will Enable Theft Of Gold From Giant's Castle

:eyes:

[TlalocW]

9. Trying to jump on the train after it's already left the station

Is not what you call innovative. Kudos to GM if they can actually help reduce our dependence on oil, but no matter how rosy a picture they're trying to paint of themselves, they were drug in this direction kicking, screaming, and more often than not scoffing at the car makers who are ahead of them now.

TlalocW

[Dissenting_Prole]

13. There is nothing about car culture that is sustainable

Screw it. My next car will be a bike.

Besides, after 30 years, I'm sick of washing and waxing the damn things.

[GliderGuider]

14. Here's what Mr. Lutz is saying between the lines

Of course, GM is in heap big trouble and doesn't know which way to jump. That's not news, we've all seen that happening for years now.

IMO The important subtext in this statement is contained in two references: the first to the use of non-pertroleum fuel, and the other to the year 2011. What he is telling us with this statement is that GM has figured out that Peak Oil is for real, and that the decline in the world's oil supply is going to be indisputable by 2011.

GM knows they've already lost the fuel efficiency wars to the Japanese, but they are still faced with the problem of corporate survival in a world of shrinking oil supply and rising fuel prices. So they are thinking about a trying a Hail Mary pass, and hoping to reinvent themselves in an alternative energy universe.

The problem is, they are showing the same inability to innovate in that universe that they showed in this one. Hydrogen fuel cells are an unbelievably low-percentage technology to hang your corporate future on, especially overr the next five years. Battery electrics, maybe. Plug-in hybrids - absolutely. Fuel cells? GMAFB. Peak Oil is for real, but General Motors is not.

[jseankil]

22. 2011 has nothing to do with oil peaking

It's when GM will be ready to push the fuel cells out onto the public floor. "Experts" say that we are decades from using developed fuel cells and GM's response has been "You haven't been in our laboratories". Is GM just all talk? We'll find out in a few years and as far as a wide spread infilstructier to deliver, you don't think GM is in talks with everyone from Wal-Mart to McD's? GM should welcome the skeptics though, it will only blow everyone out of the water that much harder if they come through. To be contined...

[GliderGuider]

27. I'm sorry, the coincidence in timing is just too provocative

If they had said they would have fuel cells ready in 2016 I'd have been more likely to agree that the announcement reflected engineering timelines. But fuel cell development doen't take place in a vacuum (or in one lab at a time). There's constant cross-pollination of research and engineering ideas. Nobody else is saying they could have automotive fuel cells ready to go on a scale that would "save" GM within 5 years. Based on GM's past history of research and innovation, I'm disinclined to believe them on this. It's a marketing play, done in the full and clear understanding that they need to get the heck out of the gasoline internal combustion engine market if they want to save their corporate skins, and that they don't have very long to do it. Hell, the focus groups for the prototype designs will take them 5 years. They're toast, and I think they know it.

[w4rma]

17. Do the GM execs realize that hydrogen powered cars can be hybrid, also? nt

[Paulie]

18. GM, leverage the ElectroMotive division already

You know how to make real, FULL hybrids. Once you get hydrogen everywhere, change out the heat engine for a full cell. DONE. WTF is with all the drama????

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. One thing that nobody talks about..

If hydrogen-powered cars emit only "harmless" water vapor, what would happen if we had cars emitting water vapor at the same rate that they are currently emitting greenhouse gases?

I've heard that the climate in cities in Arizona is significantly more humid than it used to be, simply from people watering their lawns.

Wouldn't hydrogen cars, proliferating as gasoline-powered cars do today, lead to a "steambath effect"?

[w4rma]

30. Who cares? I don't. Don't over analyze. (nt)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. Who cares?????

:wtf:

I hope you were being sarcastic.

[w4rma]

34. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm not concerned about a "steambath effect".

Not in the least.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. For scientific reasons or because you like humidity?

:shrug:

[w4rma]

36. Because I just don't care one way or another about "humidity". (nt)

[elocs]

24. The Myth of the Hydrogen Economy

http://www.energybulletin.net/11963.html

"There is a lot of talk about the hydrogen economy. It is at best naive, and at worst it is dishonest. A hydrogen economy would be a pitiful, impoverished thing indeed.

There are a number of problems with hydrogen fuel cells. Many of these are engineering problems which could probably be worked out in time. But there is one basic flaw which will never be overcome. Free hydrogen is not an energy source; it is rather an energy carrier. Free hydrogen does not exist on this planet, so to derive free hydrogen we must break the hydrogen bond in molecules. Basic chemistry tells us that it requires more energy to break a hydrogen bond than to form one. This is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and there is no getting around it. We are working on catalysts which will help to lower the energy necessary to generate free hydrogen, but there will always be an energy loss, and the catalysts themselves will become terribly expensive if manufactured on a scale to match current transportation energy requirements."

Note: it says that hydrogen is not an energy source, but an energy carrier. There are lots of big time problems with hydrogen. Like nuclear? Check this out in the article:

"The only way that hydrogen production even approaches practicality is through the use of nuclear plants. To generate the amount of energy used presently by the United States, we would require an additional 900 nuclear reactors, at a cost of roughly $1 billion per reactor. Currently, there are only 440 nuclear reactors operating worldwide. Unless we perfect fast breeder reactors very quickly, we will have a shortage of uranium long before we have finished our reactor building program.

Even hydrogen fuel derived from nuclear power would be expensive. To fill a car up with enough hydrogen to be equivalent to a 15 gallon gas tank could cost as much as $400. If the hydrogen was in gaseous form, this tank would have to be big enough to accommodate 178,500 liters. Compressed hydrogen would reduce the storage tank to one tenth of this size. And liquefied hydrogen would require a fuel tank of only four times the size of a gasoline tank. In other words, a 15 gallon tank of gasoline would be equivalent to a 60 gallon tank of hydrogen. And, oh yes, to transport an equivalent energy amount of hydrogen to the fueling station would require 21 times more trucks than for gasoline."

This is a short and interesting and eye opening article. Hydrogen is more smoke and mirrors than reality or even near future reality.

[bigworld]

26. Until 2011, we'll just continue making crappy cars and try to hang on

[LeftHander]

28. shortsighted dumbass 1/4 profit thinkers....

GM has LONG had a reputation for stifling innovative development around fuel efficiency, safety, mass transit, all so they could get rich...and die. Selfish to the core.

Now the shortsighted US Corporate Chumly mentality is wacking them upside the head....

"DAAAAAHHHHrrrMMMMM...Gee Tennessee we should do something..."

When are people going start thinking beyond 3 months?

[depakid]

29. Bankruptcy

Is the only thing in GM's future.

That and golden parachutes for the irresponsible people in upper management that brought them there.

[Blue_Tires]

32. it will be interesting to see what happens

[Triana]

38. bullshit. hydrogen is not the answer. (n/t)