GM Says Goodbye to Oil and Hello to Hydrogen
GM is about to launch a new corporate advertising campaign, beginning with a commercial to be aired on June 22 during NBCs Meet the Press.
The TV commercial will apparently begin with the following Dear John letter from GM:
“Dear Oil,
We’ve had this great relationship for many years. We think we will both be a lot happier and healthier if we see less of each other.”
It truly remarkable to see the changes that are underfoot. A massive industry, and a leading giant within it is beginning to swear off the stuff that made it all happen for the last 100 years.
Source (Automotive News, subscription required)
On a related note, GM has just announced a partnership with Clean Energy Fuels Corp to build a new hydrogen fueling station in Los Angeles near LAX. GM has been engineering hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for some time and already has a fleet of 100 fuel cell Equinoxes in consumers hands called Project Driveway (see my test drive video). The fuel cell generator Volt is also production intent (2012′ish), and now has Nick Zielinksi as its vehicle line director.
Despite GMs clear desire to bring fuel cells to the masses, they have been stymied by the lack of infrastructure. Apparently reluctant to wait for the infrastructure to build itself, and spurred by the latest gas and oil prices, GM has obviously decided to help do it themselves.
In the words of Mary Beth Stanek, director of energy and environmental policy & commercialization at GM, “Developing and growing hydrogen infrastructure is vital to GM’s efforts to bring larger volumes of fuel cell vehicles to the market.”
Source (GM)
Popularity: 7%
(11 votes, average: 4.45 out of 5) 
Loading ...
June 11th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I wish them well and I hope it does not turn in to another fiasco like food based biofuels.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I like the idea of hydrogen fuel cells; but the hydrogen infrastructure just isn’t in place. If GM can create interest in hydrogen and the development of the necessary infrastructure, more power to them.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
They do not have to have nationwide infrastructure, they can start with one city and work out from there. It is hard since Gas Stations are bound by contract to only sell gas…..
LA/California seems like the right place to start.
Hydrogen does have issues though….mainly storage and safety issues.
Even if they do not compress it to the point of having to cool it to keep it in liquid form, riding around with compressed hydrogen under my seat would give me pause.
I am sure this can be overcome though. I am still wondering about the life/replacement cost of the membranes in the fuel cells…..Anyone know the life of the membranes and how much they would cost to replace?
June 11th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I’m not sure that this is the direction we should be going in. With an electrical car the individual does have the option to generate power from the sun or wind right at their own home. Hydrogen powered vehicles tether us once again. It may be inevitable…time will tell. I”m waiting for my Volt.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Hydrogen takes 4 times the energy to create than it does to charge a battery to go the same distance with a car. It just doesn’t make sense. I’m really hoping for a breakthrough technology (EEStor? I know, probably vaporware) that will allow for all the benefits of a battery without the drawbacks of a chemical storage system.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Has appealing Hydrogen can be, it is not a short or even a medium term solution… more a long term solution.
Hydrogen will use for house fuel cell before it is commonly use for car
June 11th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I am not a big fan of hydrogen and fuel cells. In fact last week I was reading about some mileage contest. A bunch of students signed up and designed fuel cell cars. The designs were then evaluated. Twenty fuel cells were then handed out for the students to work with.
The story said the fuel cell were worth $82,000. Thats a little steep for me.
Take Care
Arch
June 11th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
I guess it is the Toyota/GM battle again.
Toyota have a new hydrogen membrane that gives a 516 mile range.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7566956
June 11th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Setting up hydrogen stations across the country today should be just as important to the government as the Manhattan Project was in the 1940s. It’s that important and should be dealt with the same urgency. Developing more powerful batteries for plugins such as the Volt should also be dealt with just as urgently. Just imagine all the money that would be pumped back into our economy instead of OPEC or some terrorist “KING” in Saudi Arabia!
June 11th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Hydrogen is dead. Unless you are going to strip natural gas, which would be more efficient to use directly as a fuel, then you need electrolysis. This process end to end is at least a factor of two less efficient than charging a battery directly with the required electrical energy.
You also don’t have to deal with H2, who has the broadest range of explosive mixture ratios with air of any gas and is the smallest molecule and thus the most easily leaked. Add to that the exorbitant cost of the fuel cell after over 30 years of development as well as the fuel transport, filling and on board storage issues. GM would be much better off diverting all of their hydrogen development resources over to EV’s.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Hydrogen is STILL a Big Oil idea.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
What a total waste of money. If they put the same amount of money into EV development as Fuel Cell development they would be a whole lot better off.
If you are getting the H2 from Gas it would be better just to burn it directly in CNG vehicles. If the H2 is coming from Nuclear power stations it would be better to just put the electricity directly into a battery.
Now where is my Volt?
June 11th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
They already have 100 fuel cell Equinoxes?
Lets see now, the current average price for a fuel cell vehicle is about a million dollars, multiply that by 100 and you get $100 million already spent by GM.
Now I see why they call them ‘fool cells’.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I can’t stand hydrogen. It’s so much less efficient than just plugging in. Why lose 60% of your electrical energy by converting electricity to hydrogen and then back again? The only quasi-smart argument I’ve heard is to overcome the range limitations of an EV. I guess it’s better to have a fuel cell range extender than a gas range extender but it would be better still to put the $$$ that the fuel cell costs into a larger battery in the first place.
I’m convinced that developing a quick charge system for EV’s isn’t that hard. It’s certainly less of a challenge than making fuel cell’s feasible. With a 110 volt current, it takes what? 6 hours to charge the volt? Double that too 220 volt (dryer plug) and you’re down to three hours. I can’t be that hard to create charging stations that are ~ 2000 volts and can charge your battery in 20 minutes or so.
I guess to really make it feasible you’d need a lot more juice than that to recharge an EV with a 300 mile range but it should still be feasible using capacitors and super duper charging stations.
What I hate is the misconception that hydrogen is this great energy source when really it’s just an inefficient way to store electricity.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I love the idea of a “Dear Oil” commercial and it definitely is a good move from a PR standpoint.
But here are the questions that remain:
1) Infrastructure? 1 station in California is not gonna do it unless a fill-up lasts for a couple years.
2) Is hydrogen really the answer? What this country (USA) needs is to settle on the best energy source to move away from Oil to. Then, through legislation if necessary, get the energy companies to chip in and start implementing that energy source apart of their national product.
I will say it is great to see GM trying to be a leader here. Even though the higher authorities are not being that. I just wonder if GM can get the necessary pieces to follow suit.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
So we’re bringing up hydrogen again, are we ? Well, #4 Eric C is correct. In my not so humble opinion, this Hinden-gas is a dead-end.
1) We would use an enormous amount of electricity to create the hydrogen, compress it to liquid form, and transport it is very heavily insulated container trucks to filling stations.
2) Your “gas” tank would also have to be heavily insulated - and heavy. Hydrogen tends to find the smallest defect in any container, and escape the container. Food for thought when you get in your Hinden-car to go to work, and light that morning cigarette.
3) Hydrogen uses fuel cells to be “green”. Fuel cells are expensive, as they use platinum as a vital component. Does anyone know the life span of a fuel cell used for daily driving ? Fuel cells perform poorly in cold weather, and can be damaged by the bumps and vibrations of daily driving.
4) Hydrogen is a poor substitute for gasoline. Even under cyrogenic conditions, hydrogen’s volumetric energy density (megajoules per liter) is small relative to that of gasoline - not as much bang for the buck.
If you want to educate yourself about hydrogen, use this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car
Right now ,barring EEStor producing something that actually works, the Volt is our best bet. It is the best marriage of pure electric, the choice to use gas or not, and the advantages of mass production. I believe a natural gas ICE would be even better than gasoline ICE, as natural gas burns cleaner, and the oil in the ICE would stay cleaner for much longer. Availability is the only problem, but LNG is far safer than hydrogen.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
yea right!! I believe it when I there is stations in CA AND!! within driving distance from my local community.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I am also skeptical of Hydrogen as anything other than a longest-range solution … for cars.
However, it might be just what the doctor ordered for Aviation.
I read a lot of comments on this blog about people expecting the Volt and similar vehicles to cause a drop in the price of oil, but few people realize just how much oil is burned in aircraft turbines. (A lot of oil is used in the manufacture of plastics chemicals and medicines, but I’ll leave that alone, for now).
NASA once proposed a test program which would stretch a commercial airliner to accomodate spherical liquid hydrogen tanks (maybe Nasaman can fill in some the blanks in my memory). Among other benefits, thinner wings (no longer holding kerosene) would be more aerodynamically efficient, turbines would burn it more easily, last longer doing it, and be lighter due to shorter combustion chambers. The hydrogen fuel would be much lighter than kerosene, and be easier to for the plane to carry.
The plane would have run a regular shuttle between Vandenburg and Kennedy Space Center (there being a ready supply of liquid hydrogen in both places for Space launches), collecting test data as it did so. It was hoped that this would lead to a commercial adoption of hydrogen fuel for aviation.
The funding was cut, of course, and the plane never flew.
What if this program was revived? There are a lot fewer places where aircraft of this size might refuel, and fewer facilities for providing liquid hydrogen would be needed than a meaningful system for cars. It’s hard to see what else could replace Petroleum for aircraft.
Interestingly, the adoption of hydrogen for cars could be an effect of this Aviation revolution; much of the infrastructure could spread from the Nation’s airports out into the cities, then the countryside.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I’m really glad to see so many savvy responses here. Hydrogen, as sexy as it is, isn’t an economical energy storage material. if we create H2 from natural gas, what is the point? With the inefficiency of electrolysis, we’d me much better off just charging batteries with the electricity and bypassing all the gas compression and safety issues.
Until it becomes cheap and environmentally/politically friendly to fill a tank with Hydrogen, the entire concept of a fuel cell car is academic.
(Tesla motors has some great material on the subject.)
Part of me wishes that the car companies would stop hyping fuel cells and get to work on delivering viable alternatives. I take refuge in the knowledge that most of the strides in fuel cell cars are really strides in electric cars. All you have to do is swap out the H2 tanks and fuel cell for some batteries and presto! Electric cars!
June 11th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
GM, ??, Honda with new CR-Z in 2009 @ 40+ mpg and calc the by-back vs. the “Volt”?? or, the new redesigned Prius with 20% more mpg and GM comes the loser…again…bye..bye. Also, Volvo with the the re-charge in “sleeper-mode” could be a “spoiler” for GM’s “Volt”.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
WHAT? They should use that time to promote the Volt or even the EV1. i would take either one instead of a hydrogen. I can’t beleive that are still going around the plug in cars. They have the solution now why not retool several lines of cars and start making them plug ins? All we hear is 2010 maybe for the volt. I want my Volt now or the EV1. I dont care which one, just give me an option that is ready now and not 2 or 10 years from now. It seems they are stalling so they can get the most out of the high price of oil. The economy is going down quickly. We need change NOW!
June 11th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
My point above in a nutshell (dang edit timer expired):
There is no compelling case for hydrogen powered cars, but there could be for hydrogen powered aircraft. If the things are done which need to be to make hydrogen the next great aviation fuel, this may result in hydrogen for cars.
Trying to make hydrogen happen for cars as a first case is probably doomed, unless some technology is developed which can only be used for making hydrogen (such as high temperature reactors which cause thermal dissociation of water, or a sunlight-driven chemical reaction to split water with a greater efficiency than would be attained with photovoltaic cells).
June 11th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
It’s probably waay too soon to get excited about fuel cells. The fuel cells are going to have to get a lot more durable, reliable and most of all CHEAPER before we can replace the IC engine range extender with a fuel cell range extender.
Maybe by 2015 or so, they’ll finally have mature fuel cell technology that’s cheaper and ready for prime time. Toyota is in the fuel cell technology race along with Honda and GM these days. Toyota said this week they have a fuel cell that can go 520 miles. I’m sure GM will build a fuel cell vehicle that can do the same thing before long.
Once GM and the other car companies can make fuel cell vehicles cheaper they should try to get corporate fleets to buy them …. companies like UPS, Fedex, USPS, Waste Management and Wal Mart. Those corporate customers could work together and build more and more hydrogen pumps in each city for their fleets. If the big corporate fleets like the hydrogen vehicles and they say they that they’re reliable and safe and so forth, then GM and the other car companies ought to get serious about bringing them to us mainstream customers … if they are affordable of course.
I’m sure most people would love to yank the IC engine out of their Volt and drop in a fuel cell in 5-10 years if that’s possible. The 1 liter IC engine in the Volt and a fuel cell are both just battery chargers. But the fuel cell is THE ultimate thing we could do to help the environment (and for energy independence) if they can get the hydrogen CHEAPLY from water via solar power or something. Getting it from natural gas isn’t too environmentally friendly. We’ll NEVER run out of hydrogen if we can get it cheap from water someday … plenty of ocean water you know. If that happens, fossil fuels and ethanol fuels will definitely go the way of the dinosaur.
Hydrogen fuel cells could save a lot of weight in future vehicles if there isn’t some sort of big breakthrough in battery technology like Dr. Cui at Stanford’s nanowire lithium ion battery or EEStor’s ultracapacitor. Hopefully, quick charging, lightweight batteries that have ten times more capacity will emerge and we won’t even need hydrogen. That would be THE ideal scenario. Who knows what’s going to happen in the next 5-10 years. I just know we need to get rid of the IC engine completely as soon as possible if we can do it. The world will beat a path to the door of whatever company can design a better battery and range extender battery charger.
The environment in polluted countries like China could use fuel cell cars SOON … like right now. You think LA has some air pollution problems? I hear Beijing, China is REALLY bad. They’ll be embarrassed about it during the Olympics this summer. For some stupid reason, I hear they are building new coal plants in China like crazy these days … and they probably couldn’t care less about capturing the CO2 either. People in America would be protesting like crazy if their cities were as polluted as they are in China these days.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Honda is “sleeping”, but that doesn’t mean they are “asleep”. The new stuff from Honda will smoke!!
June 11th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I’m trying to get off of the oil merry-go-round, so I’m not about to willingly get on the hydrogen ferris wheel.
I will not buy a hydrogen fueled car and will not recommend it to anyone else. If it was a choice between a GM hydrogen car and another car maker that had a range extended petrol car or a pure battery electric, I’d take anything but the hydrogen car.
GM tell me right now what will a “gallon/litre/cubic liter of hydrogen cost? How much hydrogen migrates out of the cars “fuel” tanks? How much hydrogen is lost while refueling the car?
The life of a fuel cell is very short, costly and I suspect high maintenance, is that the reason it’s being fanatically pushed? Looking for maintenance and parts revenue?
I have a dream of energy freedom and it’s very close to happening with an electric car and photovoltaics. Why would anyone give that up for the hydrogen ball and chain?
GM, please share the facts that we seem to be missing as to why hydrogen is the answer and your spending millions on a technology that isn’t even close to being released. Hmmm… if you had pursued the EV1 program with the same “energy” given to the fuel cell programs, the Volt would be on the roads now.
Change my mind with facts. Educate me, don’t just cram a product down my throat.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
China’s problem is not going to be oil. It will be potable water. The next “world war” will disguised as “oil” but will really be about water!!
June 11th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Gripe all you want, but the future will be PFCV’s (plug-in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles). Hydrogen doesn’t go stale, like gasoline, so it eliminates that issue in a range extender.
The city, state and federal governments like hydrogen, because they can tax that like gasoline, so that their road maintenance revenues don’t disappear.
GM is wisely getting into the energy business as well. After the infrastructure is built out, they can always sell their stake in the fueling stations.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Hydrogen is a “joke” in CA. there is no statioins to “fill-up”
June 11th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
If hydrogen is so great, why aren’t we using it in place of natural gas in our furnaces, stoves, hot water heaters, and clothes dryers?
June 11th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Regarding China and water, remember, Lake Baikal (biggest fresh water source in the world) is just to their North - in Russia.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Nuclear + wind + solar + electric is the answer.
We’ll use REVs until the electric car is ready to go all by itself. Hydrogen is not the answer.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Buy the time the hydrogen fuel cell in CA is ready, the technology will haven changed, thus making the “fuel-cell” a status symbol for the rich.
June 11th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
This is purely PR bullshit, Fuel cell may be another 10-30 years away. So long GM is a public company under constant pressure to cook the book every 90 days, it can never learn to act in its best interest in long-term.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I
L
O
V
E
H
2
June 11th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
My understanding is that large quantity, industrial grade hydrogen is produced by natural gas refining and a coal steam refining process. It is certainly not clean and efficient. Is it any wonder that George Bush and the hydrocarbon industry is promoting hydrogen use. Hydrogen is a George Bush red herring!!!
June 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I believe a diesel (powered by algae diesel) ICE would be even better than gasoline ICE, algae biodiesel is almost carbon neutral, would never run out, and the algae could actually help “digest” millions of pounds of CO2 from coal plants.
http://www.solazyme.com/news080122.shtml
Watch the video - this will work. 1000 plants making 10000 gallons per day = 10 million gallons of American made biodiesel per day! 100 jobs per plant = 100,000 new high paying American jobs.
Algae Biodiesel + Solar + Nuclear + Wind + Geothermal + Conservation + Plug in Hybrid cars = the answer!
June 11th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
NanoSolar
“”because there is no silicon used in the production of the sheets, they cost only 30 cents per watt of power produced.
“Traditional PV cells cost approximately $3 per watt, while burning coal costs about $1 per watt.
“This is the first time that we can actually drop the cost of solar electricity down to a level that would be competitive with grid electricity in most industrialized nations,” said Nanosolar co-founder Brian Sager.”"
Here’s the link to the article.
http://www.naturalnews.com/023389.html
Will hydrogen cost less than electricity from a NanoSolar array? How does a hydrogen powered car better my life? When I’m off at work the NanoSolar array is busy pumping electricity back into the grid and I’m receiving a check back from the power company. Oh you say, can’t charge the Volt on your solar array while it’s at work. True, but, the array is pumping electricity into the grid at likely peak rates. After work I drive home plugin and recharge the car during off peak rates. That would be a profitable situation. Hmm…. seems like the investment in solar arrays and an electric car would be much better than an expensive, high maintenance hydrogen-gas station tied fuel cell car.
Freedom from oil, freedom from corporate fueling stations, freedom from fuel price speculation, freedom from dealing with barbaric foreign nations, freedom from the carbon issue.
It’s freedom pure and simple.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
I love hydrogen too. Too bad it will not be the fuel of choice for passenger cars. No way will it beat the quick-charge BEV.
Hydrogen is:
1) Four times less energy efficient when compared to BEVs.
2) Ties us to another liquid fuel that can be taxed and controlled.
3) Expensive maintenance required. High pressure systems.
4) Must replace all kinds of filters (water, particulate). Clean water supply is needed.
5) Hydrogen is incredibly hard to store. embarrassingly so.
Don’t worry, the research is funded by us tax payers and is a worthwhile endeavor. Might be good for many niche markets. Much of the money is being used for car electrification development. All is well.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
H
2
R
A
P
I
D
R
E
F
I
L
L
June 11th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Hydrogen makes little sense. Expensive amounts of energy is required to sever very tight bonds in molecules to free up the hydrogen. Bob Lutz got this right - “If we can get battery technology to 300 miles a charge, why do fuel cells.” Apologies. That isn’t an exact quote, but this quote came from this website about two months back.
June 11th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
If anyone watches the video in the “Bob Lutz discusses….test drive” blog post he alludes to how difficult it is to develop H2 cars. Rapid refill is no reason to squander all that energy in conversion when it’s not needed. The rapid refill argument is pointless because by the time H2 vehicles hit the market we may have a 300+ mile range, and even if by that time it still took 30 minutes to charge the batt. what kind of problem is that?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:03 am
If hydrogen were the answer we wouldn’t have any coal burning power plants. If hydrogen is the answer it would still be more efficient to just have hydrogen burning plants and all electric cars. Apparently the range from batteries is closer than hydrogen cars.
June 12th, 2008 at 12:24 am
15 Jackson……
I was not involved in the proposed hydrogen-powered airliner test program you mention and I’m not aware of what happened to it, but I agree it seems hydrogen would be a better fuel for planes than jet fuel for the same reasons it works so well for rockets — high energy content and light weight. PLUS, it’s non-polluting!
June 12th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Just bought my new to me H1 Hummer , (wife runs Cracker B) free SWO , 75gl week , Keep the faith , times are going south , GM stock 16.20 (close to historic lows) , keep watching . GM stock at below $10 soon . Lets all get rich!!!!!!
The volts a dun deal. we all know that in 2011 gm will be selling e-flex cars like hot cakes . So do your pocket books a favor and GO AWAY . For real , get a life, make love, Go away . My shop is going to hell in a hand basket .My best last chance to make millions GM BELOW $7 soon
PS.. Life goes bye so fast , Stop and give a hug to the ones you love .
June 12th, 2008 at 12:35 am
The very fact that GM, BMW & other auto makers are still unabashedly promoting hydrogen strongly suggests to me that they know something we don’t. For example, I know there is serious work going on in labs around the world using various means to generate hydrogen locally by means other than electrolysis. Some of this work might be starting to look promising enough that GM, BMW or others are actually funding it –secretly. Intriguing? YOU BET!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Jeff J 39:
What are you talking about?
June 12th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Re: my post #40 above…….
By generating hydrogen locally, I mean IN THE VEHICLE. This way, the gigantic problems of storage (high-tech, expensive tanks), boil-off, infrastructure & distribution suddenly go away (or become much easier). VEHICLE-BORNE H2 GENERATION IS AN INTRIGUING POSSIBILITY!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 1:23 am
Correct Nasaman #42,
I follow you, three must be a way with gallium and aluminium like they do research in Purdue University.
Let’s go back in 2005 and reread this news :
http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=1326
Hope that helps.
JC
June 12th, 2008 at 1:25 am
1st I must say I’m so glad to see most folks (from those that have posted thus far) have finally awaken to the “hydrogen hoax/myth”) and are no longer being taken in by this delay tactic of the auto and big oil/gas industries.
Key thing to remember is that hydrogen is NOT a fuel source… it is simply a way to store energy from other sources (electrical or natural gas). Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but unless you go visit a gas giant planet or a sun, you aren’t going to find it naturally occuring on our planet because it’s bonded to other elements (oxygen as in water, and carbon as in hydrocarbons like oil, gas, coal). As has been mentioned it’s a very inefficient way to store electrical energy (by using it to free hydrogen from water) even before you compress (or chill) it and then store it. Natural gas, ie. CH4, is the most economical source of hydrogen using the process someone mentioned above, but guess what happens with that carbon atom, yup, CO2. And you also see why big oil/gas and the Bush admin has been spending so much of your tax dollars on developing.
2nd, folks that think a “hydrogen highway” will free them from the high costs of “filling up” are being naive. You are replacing one single energy source system (gasoline) with another (hydrogen). Hydrogen prices go through the roof and just like today we’ll have to grin and bear it. And since natural gas is the most likely source I can see the price of it skyrocket so those that heat with it will freeze, and electrical utilities using it will have to raise rates. All the while big oil/gas will continue to rank in record profits.
The real flex fuel (energy medium) is electricity… it can efficiently be produced from a variety of sources (coal, natural gas, wood, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, solar thermal, solar PV’s, wind, tidal, wave, garbage, algae, etc), efficiently transported, efficiently stored, and efficiently converted to mechanical energy. No single industry like big oil/gas can control the market. And as solar PV and wind prices comes down, more and more will be able to produce their own to electricity to charge up their BEV’s.
I must say I’m really bothered by GM (and other auto makers) continuing trying to push hydrogen. It really ruins in my eyes GM’s credibility they’ve been gaining with the Volt’s development. Tsk tsk GM.
ps: and to the person claiming hydrogen is better because it doesn’t go “stale” like gasoline… read other threads on this site… it’s not an issue. Hydrogen on the other hand, being the lighest of all elements, is hard to contain for long. You don’t have to worry about it going “stale” because it will boil off or otherwise disappate/leak. There’s a reason why hydrogen isn’t easily piped like gasoline is… it also tends to make things brittle.
pss: while at the point of use the “only” emission from a hydrogen fuel cell EV is water… a battery EV has no emissions! And I still continue to wonder what happens to all that water emitted by hundreds of millions of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Will fog replace smog in downtown LA, or will roads always be wet and slick or ice in the winter?
June 12th, 2008 at 1:44 am
nasaman… you have too much faith in big auto. If Detroit really knew what they were doing all these years, then why are they all in such bad financial shape?
What big auto knows is that there is money to be made just by keeping up the hydrogen facade. There is plenty of money, lots of it your tax dollars, paying for it. Not much different than the ethanol boondoggle.
And of course it can be generated locally by other than electrolysis… it’s called freeing it from natural gas (CH4). Lyle’s subject of this thread is really misleading… GM is not saying goodbye to (big) oil, they are simply saying goodbye to liquid fuels, and signing up for big oil to peddle their wares in a different form. I wouldn’t be surprised if we also see (if it doesn’t already exist) a process for freeing the hydrogen in oil, still leaving us with the CO2 byproduct.
I hope folks are also aware that syn fuels are making a resurgence. Gas to liquids and Coal to liquids. The latter is at least 60 year old technology the Germans were using near the end of the war. A real desparate measure, and both are a real threat to the environment. Don’t be fooled by their marketing… they make the claim that their synthetic fuels are cleaner burning… and they are right… but they fail to tell you they produce a lot more global warming gases to make. They are only economically feasible now because of gasoline prices… their production won’t help bring prices down.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:53 am
One can understand the apprehensions of some folks here on Hydrogen due to the numerous problems we face today, but I believe Hydrogen and nuclear energy will be fuel for the future.
Here is what Honda think about solving the Hydrogen Cars problems
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/fuel-cell/evolution/
June 12th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Summary of Weekly Petroleum Data for the Week Ending June 6, 2008
U.S. crude oil refinery inputs averaged 15.3 million barrels per day during the week ending June 6, down 161 thousand barrels per day from the previous week’s average. Refineries operated at 88.6 percent of their operable capacity last week. Gasoline production moved lower compared to the previous week, averaging about 9.0 million barrels per day. Distillate fuel production decreased last week, averaging nearly 4.5 million barrels per day.
U.S. crude oil imports averaged about 9.7 million barrels per day last week, down 98 thousand barrels per day from the previous week. Over the last four weeks, crude oil imports have averaged 9.4 million barrels per day, 819 thousand barrels per day below the same four-week period last year. Total motor gasoline imports (including both finished gasoline and gasoline blending components) last week averaged about 1.2 million barrels per day. Distillate fuel imports averaged127 thousand barrels per day last week.
U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excluding those in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) decreased by 4.6 million barrels from the previous week. At 302.2 million barrels, U.S. crude oil inventories are at the lower boundary of the average range for this time of year. Total motor gasoline inventories increased by 1.0 million barrels last week, and are in the lower half of the average range. Finished gasoline inventories remained unchanged last week while gasoline blending components inventories increased during this same time. Distillate fuel inventories increased by 2.3 million barrels, and are in the lower half of the average range for this time of year. Propane/propylene inventories increased by 0.5 million barrels last week but remain near the bottom of the average range. Total commercial petroleum inventories increased by 0.3 million barrels last week, and are near the bottom of the average range for this time of year.
Total products supplied over the last four-week period has averaged nearly 20.4 million barrels per day, down by 1.3 percent compared to the similar period last year. Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline demand has averaged 9.3 million barrels per day, down by 1.3 percent from the same period last year. Distillate fuel demand has averaged 4.1 million barrels per day over the last four weeks, up 0.7 percent from the same period last year. Jet fuel demand is 0.4 percent higher over the last four weeks compared to the same four-week period last year.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/txt/wpsr.txt
June 12th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Don’t have much time to post
1) There are at least 10 hydrogen stations throughout CA. This isn’t the first one.
2) Storage and “explosion” issues are taken care of long time past issue.
3) Already been proven in Europe.
4) Can’t charge batteries in ten minutes. Can fill a tank in 5. Sorry but in long trips I’m not waiting 3 hours to have my batteries charged. That’s what makes E-rev’s so popular quick recharge if necessary. Best combo: E-Rev Hydrogen Fuel Cell.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:58 am
Hydrogen is a crap idea pushed by oil companies for the status quo.
Why not store and use electricity DIRECTLY it’s lot more efficeint.
I’m disappointed GM is still following this pointless fuel delivery - invented by oil companies to keep their foot in the door.
Absolutely stupid.
Go Volt - Use electricity directly - MUCH more efficient !
June 12th, 2008 at 3:10 am
If you think an erev with a battery is expensive, just wait until you replace that with a fuel cell. On top of that, you still need a ready source of h2. Even if onboard generation were possible, it will be a very cold day in hell before that solution is cheaper or less complicated than a battery. The idea of spending any more effort on this makes me a little ill. I fully expect batteries to improve from a size and cost perspective to a point that a consumer could own two packs and swap them at home each day before fuel cells become any kind of comparable alternative.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:36 am
How much does a liter or gallon of hydrogen costs?
June 12th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Marcus #48
Very well stated indeed! And why does anyone think that there will ever be vehicle onboard H2 generation with big oil pushing this from all ends? So you can fill your car by garden hose and it’ll produce all the H2 you need?? Anyone seen the recent Shell, Chevron ads trying to promote H2? If I were big oil I wouldn’t be advertising H2 if I thought people would soon be filling their cars by garden hose and the car produced H2 at will. Would you?
Everyone….QUICK…what do Hydrogen and Eestor have in common?
June 12th, 2008 at 4:00 am
Nasaman, I’m surprised at your statement in #42. You want to use massive amounts of electric to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, to run a fuel cell, to get a fuel cell to make ELECTRICITY? It would be much simpler to chuck the fuel cell, and just use electricity.
To all the rest of the fuel cell fans, good luck with your platinum mines. It’s the only way to make fuel cells that are reasonably priced. Making hydrogen - an expensive way to use a lot of power to get a little power back. I guess there IS one born every day - by the way, I have a slightly used bridge in New York I’m willing to sell you - cheap.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:24 am
#50 Grizzly
Both require specific-built high capacity fuel / dispensing stations= no infrastructure from what I have read.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:31 am
I’ve read about 25% of the top remarks and I can’t believe all the negative responses by them about fuel cells. Hey, for those who think they know so much, lay off. You are not experts and give it a change! GM is not saying they are giving up the batteries. GM is probably looking at using both technology because they work hand in hand. Besides, the Germans, Japanese,Chinese, Koreans, and Americans are working on fuel cells so their must be something to it.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Jeff M, Grizzly and other fellow H2 cynics:
Thanks for posting your words of reason - at least somebody around here is talking sense!
June 12th, 2008 at 6:05 am
OFF TOPIC (BUT WELL WORTH 10 MINUTES OF YOUR TIME)……
http://www.westwoodone.com/pg/jsp/drew/audioarchive.jsp?pid=22506
For anyone who missed it LIVE yesterday afternoon, this replay of the Dr. Drew interview of our Dr. Dennis, although not a lot of new stuff to us here, is excellent! –GREAT JOB, Lyle!!!
June 12th, 2008 at 6:12 am
Well now Joe, Toyota is investing in Fuel Cells because they are getting millions in subsidies from the Japanese government.
Gm is also getting subsidies. I Wonder who got the governments so interested in fuel cells?
Grizzly,
Q. What happens if you put the EEstor 50kw recharge plug into your H2 tank by mistake?
A. Sprinkle with pixi dust to make the dream go away.
Nasaman
I am shocked by you. I thought you understood the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:15 am
The answer to the hydrogen infrastructure question will be answered by home fueling stations:
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/home-hydrogen-fueling-stations.htm
The only problem with them is the fact that hydrogen is so inefficient. It would require much more electricity to generate the hydrogen required to go 40 miles than it will to charge the Volt to go 40 miles. This is where, in the future, consumers will be offered a choice, and I think pure economics will win out. BEV’s, once heavily entrenched in the personal transportation market, will not succumb easily to hydrogen. The car companies will have to do some tricky marketing to sell these guys….the only tag line I can think of is “Hey, come buy this car that drives just like the electric car you have now, only it costs more to buy AND to drive! AND you have to buy a home fueling station for X,000 dollars!)
Fuel cell = Fool cell. Great idea sure, but there are much better ideas out there. They are in development because of the tax breaks involved.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:19 am
51 Terry K ……
My statements in #40 and 42 speculate that on-board hydrogen generation might conceiveably be possible OTHER than by electrolysis —hopefully, by a cheap, efficient, practical method!
June 12th, 2008 at 6:21 am
The only way I will be interested in hydrogen is if,
I can create it at home with energy created from electricity. This way I have several options on how to get that electricity.
I don’t want another fuel for the huge oil companies to sell me and be stuck paying whatever they want and have to go to stations to fill up.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:22 am
#32 Avatar,
I completely agree with you, and I’m very interested to see biodiesel from algae. The only problem is that, to date (as far as I know) they have only been able to produce mililiters of fuel, not gallons.
There is some very intensive research being performed however, to determine which species produce the most natural oils and under what conditions. I wholeheartedly applaud their efforts, and hope that some major breakthroughs are made soon.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:24 am
57 Nasaman,
But without some other form of an external fuel source, (like gasoline or an onboard battery) wouldn’t this equate to that ever elusive perpetual motion machine? Being able to completely refuel itself as it moved?
June 12th, 2008 at 6:30 am
#55 I totaly agree. End the subsidies and the hydrogen technology will vanish.
I think this is a place where the tax rebates which go directly to the consumer will help better than subsidies. This is what we should have:
$6,000 back for cars purchased over 50mpg with a phase out
$8,000 for hybrids that can drive daily 25 miles or more without gasoline.
$10,000 back for cars that will never use gasoline and have a range of at least 250 miles
If you had this instead of the billions of money spent on hydrogen I think we would have more cars available right now with alternative energy options instead of the very few.
Make the automakers earn their money not just receive it out of thin air to promise to develop something.
Consumers scare automakers while the government does not.
Consumers will cause change way before the government does. By offering governemnt tax breaks to consumers we let the government empower consumers.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:32 am
NEWS FLASH:
“New York City and New York State launched a joint project yesterday to use six million dollars in the most direct action possible: funding half of the cost of new electric or natural gas vehicles.” This will be worth keeping an eye on —will NYC’s taxi fleet be among the first to go plug-in (or at least hybrid?!?
—source: EcoTech Daily
June 12th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Hydrogen? Again?
Hydrogen is just like pulling some crude out of the ground refining it and putting it in a big tank waiting for someone to come along ang pay $5 bucks a gallon for it. I’m not sure if people understand the difficulties with it.
Besides that point is infrastructure….there is none.
So you having a good old time in your hydrogen car in California. You thought you’d be like Ed Begley Jr and have a fancy ‘new tech’ car…everything is pretty sweet…you can meet up with all your fancy friends at the pump everyday, life is good. But wait, turns out Hollywood doesn’t need a middle-aged pudgy white guy actor (how did that happen?). Now you have to move back to ‘hole-in-the-wallsville’ where you were born to work in dad’s tire store. I’m sure they will have a nice fancy, kazillion dollar hydrogen station ready for you to use there.
Just a quick example of a problem with hydrogen I don’t think people realize, beside infrastructure, cost, in car systems, etc. Simple transportation….to move hydrogen it has to be compressed or made into a liquid. Sounds easy, right?
Well…to liquify it, you need to get it’s temperature down to -250 deg C. If you know much about thermodynamics at this temperature, you realize this isn’t like popping it into the fridge. And more good news, you lose almost half it’s energy to complete this process.
You could compress it…you only need about 5,000 PSI…and in that state a tanker trailer would net you about 25 people filling their cars.
This is worse than bio. Why, oh why do this?
C’mon…electric people. Nanosolar quote not withstanding (you can’t get any at the retail level…still…or in the next…decade?) You can now buy raw paneling under $3/watt now…and the gov’t is pumping out the rebates like crazy. Couple that supply with electric cars…seems prettty easy/simple. And all the infrastructure is made grassroots by individuals, I can speak personally from the great feeling of accomplishment when you make your own power.
I have no clue, why this is not the ‘choix du jour’ for alternate fuel. Why is this not preached as the Bible?
June 12th, 2008 at 7:00 am
The sort of vague image advertising in the goodbye letter is just wasting time and money. GM would use their TV dollars better to explain their system for accepting deposits on Volts — that is, to sell cars and generate income by (?) visiting your local dealer (?) going to the GM web site (?) doing something else.
Right now their corporation is dying, and the marketing department is circling the water cooler dreaming up all sorts of stuff that is not bringing in any actual dollar income — that has to change.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:04 am
This is how the commerical should go:
“Dear Oil and Hydrogen,
We’ve had this great relationship for many years. We think we will both be a lot happier and healthier if we see less of each other.”
June 12th, 2008 at 7:06 am
I’ve never seem such a large bunch of experts on fuel cells at one place. I suspect none of you are scientists, but yet know so much about the subject. I guess all those real scientist don’t know what they are doing. And of course, they are only working on fuel cells because of government subsidies or because the oil companies are behind it. Get real!!
June 12th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Hmmm…did GM discover a technology that redefined hydrogen?
Hydrogen is an energy storage method…not an energy source.
At least until a dramatic tech is discovered to extract it from a raw material (like water) with little energy use.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:16 am
I really like the idea of focusing this hydrogen fuel cell concept on the airplane as opposed to the automobile…
I’m no expert but;
- I think there are a lot less airports than there are gas stations (less infrastructure to deal with)
- I think its lighter (planes must create lift to overcome their weight in order to fly)
- I think there are a lot less airplane accidents than auto accidents (if your plane goes down doest it really matter if its full of jet fuel or hydrogen?)
Just seems to make more sense to focus this particular ‘alternative’ on airplanes…but…I guess the Hindenburg keeps people focused elsewhere even though that was a freakin’ BLIMP that was painted w/ flammible paint !! not a jet !!
June 12th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Jason @ 23:
I don’t think that stale gas is going to be a major problem. I’ve stored gas for my lawnmower for more than a year without any kind of stabalizer and it worked fine when I used it the other day. Even if stale gas were an issue, a switch to hydrogen entails solving many more complicated problems than the relatively small problem of stale gas. In other words, switching to hydrogen fuel cells isn’t a very effective way to solve the stale-fuel problem.
I think the fact that tax revenue for roads will decline if people use less gas is a legitimate concern. However, I suspect that governments will find a way to tax electricity for the purposes of road construction just as easily as they will tax hydrogen. I’m not sure what they would do to tax people who are generating their own electicity via wind and solar… tolls maybe. Or just raise other taxes and pay for road construction out of a more general tax fund.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:26 am
I am NOT at all a fan of hydrogen. GM doesn’t have the cash to be toying around with implementing the infrastructure of the United State’s hydrogen system… Can you say GM is biting off more than it can chew? choke choke…gag choke.
Moreover, why would we limit ourselves to one fuel AGAIN? Electricity can be generated from solar, wind, water, coal, and numerous other sources. STICK WITH BEVs; THEY ARE MORE EFFICIENT BY FAR!
June 12th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Looks like GM still has too many idiots. Instead of wasting money on hydrogen should put that money into battery research and development, including supercapacitors.