GM could have mass-market hydrogen vehicle for sale in five years
click on the image for a high-res gallery of the fuel cell E-Flex platform
In Shanghai this month, as you probably know, GM unveiled the fuel cell version of the E-Flex platform. It's also not recent news that GM wants to have 100-plus hydrogen fuel cell Equinox vehicles out for real world testing soon. And, of course, GM said in February they want to have a production version of the hydrogen-powered Sequel for sale by 2010 (in limited quantaties).
Where does all this lead us? Some would say it's likely to lead us down the road to the questionable benefits of a hydrogen economy. But from a GM-centric perspective, it's likely to lead us to a mass-produced GM hydrogen car in 2012. At least, that's what Motor Trend heard when they spoke with GM's Larry Burns (AutoblogGreen spoke with Burns in March, and you can hear the interview in our second podcast).
Burns told Motor Trend's Todd Lassa about the hydrogen future for GM, and pointed out this bit of information on how GM is looking at the hydrogen future for the rest of us:
"We did that same calculation [how many hydrogen stations would they need] for the 100 largest cities in the U.S. ... and we connected all the cities with stations on the freeway with stations every 25 miles, and that added up to 12,000 stations. Out of 170,000 total in the United States. Even if every station cost $1 million for hydrogen, that's $12 billion. The Alaskan Pipeline today would cost $25 billion. So for half the cost of the Alaskan Pipeline, you could have stations for 70 percent of the population." (See the DOE's hydrogen predictions here)
With fuel station problems partially solved for $12 billion, Burns said GM sees production engineering for high-tech, low- or no-emissions vehicles being the same as for any conventional car or truck in three to four years.
You can read the whole thing here.
Gallery: Chevy Sequel fuel cell concept
[Source: Todd Lassa / Motor Trend]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Peter 1:31PM (4/30/2007)
"Could" is the key word. They won't. And few would want them to.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 1:33PM (4/30/2007)
"But from a GM-centric perspective, it's likely to lead us to a mass-produced GM hydrogen car in 2012."
I'm not holding my breath. Unless heavily subsidized by my tax dollars, or coerced by government force, this will not happen.
Hydrogen is the fuel for people with more money than sense, or who can freely spend other people's money.
There is no scenario for the use of hydrogen to power cars that can't be made simpler, safer, less polluting, more efficient, and cheaper by leaving out the hydrogen part.
Reply
Tormod Henne 2:50PM (4/30/2007)
Here is a hydrogen application that actually seems to make sene. Not for cars, thuogh...
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9009038&contentId=7016768
Reply
Nathan 11:45PM (4/30/2007)
The two biggest stumbling blocks for hydrogen, as I see them at least, are cost and efficiency. Currently it's still cheaper to build an electric car than it is a hydrogen FC car, and you'll use less energy (thus create less CO2) to run it. If GM thinks they can get a fuel cell car out in five years, they obviously think they can change at least the cost aspect. It'll be interesting to see where they expect the hydrogen to be sourced from; methane's still the likely source, which effectively nullifies any claims of environmental friendliness.
Reply
PENIX 2:20PM (5/01/2007)
It better not look like a Prius, or I'm sticking with my rice rocket.
Reply
Tim 12:39PM (5/01/2007)
I agree Nathan, Another strong point against it is the emissions. Dumping water all over the road is a bad Idea for our ecosystems not to mention in Northern and Souther Climates (Canada, Chili etc) dumping water on the ground at below -0 deg C = ICE and lots of it. Good luck driving to work with 2 inches of Ice on the road.
Reply
Josh 2:32PM (5/01/2007)
Beyond the obvious fact more pollution is generated in extracting H2 from common sources than buring gasoline, there is a lot more infrastructure than just gas stations. Consider the transportation, distribution systems in place to support gas... now consider all of those systems were designed for a fuel source that doesn't cause rust and such. In the long run H2 might be the best portable source of power; however, it's a long run indeed. To mass produce H2, transport/distribute it safely, and convert the current vehicles would cost a whole lot more than a few billion... more like a few trillion. And that's assuming an efficient and plentiful H2 harvest method is feasible in the first place. I predict 20-30 years minimum.
Reply
Joe 8:17PM (5/04/2007)
Plug-in Hybrids are the way to go. GM already has one (had one) the EV1! Toyota the RAV4 EV. We have the distribution channel available today(the power grid). Lets see Wind and Solar for all power needs - plug your car in for refuels. Okay the biggest drawback is storage but 90% of the problem is already solved. This solution even works for Nuclear. Of course Big Oil is now out of business but who really cares. They've made so much money off of us its pathetic. Besides I really want to drive a Tesla!!! w00t!
Reply
billyswong 2:19PM (5/01/2007)
I agree Tim. Therefore I always believe methane/ethane, rather than hydrogen, is a better choice for fuel cell car. Liquid is a lot easier to handle than gas.
Reply
m 3:13PM (5/01/2007)
@ Comment #2 Howard...
"There is no scenario for the use of hydrogen to power cars that can't be made simpler, safer, less polluting, more efficient, and cheaper by leaving out the hydrogen part."
Blatantly untrue. There is no less polluting mobile technology.
@ Comment #4 Nathan...
"methane's still the likely source..."
Methane is a POSSIBLE source, but the biggest, most widely available source is water. Electrical current run through water breaks the bonds of the h20 molecule, releasing 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atom. Beyond that, methane is a by-product of animal waste being broken down. If not captured, it just vents to the atmosphere.
@ Comment # 5 Tim...
"Dumping water all over the road is a bad Idea for our ecosystems..."
Agreed. We should stick with the alternative of gas powered cars; I know my car only puts out about 2500 lbs. of noxious gases a year, I shudder to think of what the equivalent 299 gallons of water would do to the birdies.
Not to mention the oil, coolant, transmission fluid, and brake fluid from my car.
If too much humidity is the 'new pollution' I say bring it on.
-m
Reply
Joseph 5:26PM (5/01/2007)
So people will pay $12 Billion, and that doesn't include the new pipelines to transport hydrogen at $1 million a mile, and drive about 25 miles just to fill up on either expensive clean hydrogen or cheap dirty hydrogen?
Waiting an hour for your 250 mile rage EV to charge looks alot better!
Reply
Tod Glenn 6:23PM (5/01/2007)
Why does hydrogen have to mean fuel cells? Why not just burn it the way we do propane - in internal combustion engines that require relatively little modification?
As for infrastructure, who needs it. Make hydrogen locally from water and electricity. Heck, make it at home. It's the most abundant element in the universe.
The technology is already available in Europe. It's not a question of ability, byt will. As long as the US leadership rakes in huge profits from oil, not alternative is going to get far. It's short sited and stupid. And puts the US at the mercy of foreign governments, most of who loathe us.
ustralia's CSIRO has developed a hydrogen homestation based on electricity from standard rooftop solarpanels or a home wind turbine with an electrolyzer including compression and storage ready for use, the size of a filing cabinet, the expected market price would be $500 according to Sukhvinder Badwal. Extensive testing of the system will be going on for the next 2 years at RMIT University in Melbourne.
Reply
mikeinBuilding7 10:02PM (5/01/2007)
Hydrogen is a joke. Yes, it keeps the Utilities out of the Auto Fuel Business, and it's a kiss up to Big Oil which will become Big Hydro.
It reduces polution in the city, but moves it to the hydrogen conversion facility and is less efficient, so, we have to burn more diesel and coal?
Come on: The Electric/Bio-Diesel Plug In Hybrid is the answer NOW.
STEP IT UP.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 10:12PM (5/01/2007)
"Blatantly untrue. There is no less polluting mobile technology." --m
You are the one who is mistaken. The primary source for commercial hydrogen is a very dirty process of reducing FOSSIL FUEL to get the hydrogen. That's because methane-reduction is about 25% the cost of electrolytic cracking of water. Hydrogen is a gas that is notoriously difficult to contain, and it is the most potent ozone-depletion agent ever produced by man. It's more polluting than gasoline both coming and going.
Using hydrogen to power automobiles is insanely stupid.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 10:15PM (5/01/2007)
"ustralia's CSIRO has developed a hydrogen homestation based on electricity from standard rooftop solarpanels or a home wind turbine" -- Tod Glenn
It would be far more cost-effective and efficient to just use the electricity to charge a battery than it would be to waste 75% of it with a conversion to hydrogen and back.
Reply
Tim 6:54AM (5/02/2007)
Currently H2 tech is not feasible. Here's why.... http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/h_scam.htm http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
Even Al "Chicken Little" Gore is worried about having explosive gasses like LNG or H2 stored near juicy terror targets. http://www.timrileylaw.com/LNG.htm Yes, Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in space. On Earth, it is almost always locked up as a component of another molecule. That’s why life is possible here… NO FREE HYDROGEN!
The “Hydrogen Economy” is Big Energy’s attempt to change our addiction from oil to natural gas or coal. Don’t be a sucker!! When you look at the ENTIRE energy cycle, Hydrogen is VERY inefficient and very dirty!
Reply
Fabulo 12:05AM (5/02/2007)
Oh boy. Physics 101.
Short explanation: oil (and its derivate, kerosene, diesel, gasoline) is an energy source because it is found as is in the ground. Pump it out, burn it, you're spending the energy stored in the material, just like you do with firewood.
Hydrogen does not exist natively on earth. You don't find it in the ground, you don't refine it from raw material, is does not come as is.
Of course, you can get it from water, but that TAKES ELECTRICITY, it means that in order to get the hydrogen, you have to spend energy. And at best, that does not sound like an energy *source*.
Done correctly, hydrogen is a (not so) convenient way to transport energy from point A (where it is made from water) to point B (where it is combined to oxygen to make water)
Hydrogen = AA batteries. It's the same thing. Let's get energy independant by using hydrogen is about as good as let's get energy independant by using AA cells.
So the hydrogen economy as in hydrogen energy source does not exist. We'll still have to burn coal to make elctricity to make hydrogen.
Reply
Chris M 7:17PM (5/02/2007)
There are many problems for hydrogen fuel promoters:
H2 is a very bulky fuel. Chilled to −252.87 C (−423.17 F), a gallon of liquid H2 has only 1/4 the energy of a gallon of gasoline. The BMW gets only 120 miles on one 30 gallon tank of liquid H2. Compressed to 10,000 psi, H2 has only 1/5 the energy of of gasoline.
H2 is an expensive fuel, While there are many ways to make H2, all are costly. The cheapest method is from natural gas, but still costs much more than the equivalent in gasoline, and must cost more than natural gas. Storage is expensive, it takes a lot of energy ($) to compress and even more energy ($$) to liquify H2. High pressure carbon fiber tanks and liquid H2 dewar tanks are heavy and expensive. Storage in hydrides is even heavier and more expensive. Fuel cells are extravagantly expensive, current price at $5 per watt cost more than solar cells.
H2 is an inefficient fuel. Making it from fossil fuels wastes some of the fossil fuel energy. Burning natural gas directly is more efficient and uses less gas than converting it into H2 then burning it. Electrolysis is only 60% efficient, and PEM fuel cells only 50%. Add in the energy needed to pack away for storage, and overall efficiency is under 25%. Compare that with 85% efficiency for charger and batteries.
H2 is a leaky fuel. Being the smallest of molecules, H2 can leak through seals, can dissolve into metals, and slowly diffuse through most materials. Liquid H2 constantly boils away, leaving a 30 gallon dewar empty within 2 weeks - it's like having a petrol tank that leaks 2 quarts a day!
H2 is favored by big oil. H2 distracts people from other alternatives to oil. Oil companies collect government funds for H2 research, but can put off the transition for a very long time. If H2 does somehow catch on, big oil will be the ones selling the pricy new fuel.
But the biggest problem facing H2 promoters is getting everyone else to ignore all of the cheaper cleaner more efficient alternatives available!
Reply