"Fortunately we still have some free enterprise in this country. "

I agree. Lets cut all federal funding for hydrogen, and let the free market decide. Can't wait to see how those "free enterprises" plan on paying nearly a Trillion for this mythical nonexistent hydrogen infrastructure.


"If all of these auto companies are investing in H2 they must think there is a profit to be made."

Just a couple years they were all deeply invested in low mpg SUVs too.

↓↑report

Polo,

Will the electric infrastructure be paying back their accumulated subsidies?

↓↑report

Rob,

is there tax on electricity?

if so, then the answer is yes...

↓↑report

Matte,

They haven't even begun to pay it back! Property easements for power lines and substations, hydroelectric projects, nuclear plant tech, R&D on combustion processes, solar cell research dollars, etc. And speaking of getting taxed...not only are the producers taxed (and their monopolies endorsed) but the consumers are taxed too! There is a lot of hidden costs that the public has had to pay over the years. It's all just a game where someone gets rich on the backs of others.

↓↑report

Your comment makes no sense, except that "you don't like GM". What wasteful behavior?

I mean, just because GM has been working with fuel cells longer than anyone else...

Personally, I'm astonished that they've made the progress they've made. Assume, for a moment, that the Volt powertrain is around $20k ($8k for battery stack, $7k for motor, $5k for generator), then that means they've got fuel cell cost below $30k... and that's something I didn't think would happen for another 10+ years.

Personally, I still don't think fuel cells are the way forward for cars, but for car charging, certainly. That electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity -> motor chain doesn't make as much sense as electricity -> battery -> motor, at least to me.

↓↑report

GM has to do because Toyota does and they don't want to be down like hybrids times (missing the boat ).

But i have 2 questions for GM:
1) As per some company i herd today market making Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is 50,000 dollars . do you mean a 25k hydrogen car is not going to be there in near future ? do scale of economies work for GM ?

2) Toyota always PR with numbers on mpg - what are the numbers for GM fuel cell vehicles ( fuel economy numbers )

↓↑report

Yeah..if I was an investor I'd be a little worried about this. GM is not the position to be overextending themselves on two brand new technologies. If they're worried about the profitibility of the Volt.....then what do they expect to do with a car thats even more expensive with a thoroughly non-existest refueling infrastructure? This hydrogen program can't be cheap. I'd be pulling my money out of them at this point because I foresee big loses when these go into series production.

↓↑report

Polo... you know GM has been working on fuel cell technology for the last 12 years, right? And that their familiarity with the technology goes back to the mid 1960's?

While it may not be "consumer ready", that doesn't mean they haven't invested the time and effort to keep up with, if not lead, the fuel-cell industry.

http://www.gm.com/experience/technology/fuel_cells/fc_milestones.jsp

↓↑report

ufgrat: do you know that Ballard Power Systems, a leading developer of hydrogen fuel-cells since 1979 has recently pulled out of automotive fuel-cell market?
To quote Research Capital analyst Jon Hykawy: "In my view, the hydrogen car was never alive. The problem was never could you build a fuel cell that would consume hydrogen, produce electricity, and fit in a car. The problem was always, can you make hydrogen fuel at a price point that makes any sense to anybody. And the answer to that to date has been no."
So, why should we trust these "30% higher figures"? Where is the proof?

↓↑report

Yeah, I was wondering about that figure, too. What was it based on?

It couldn't be based on the price of actual H2 fuel cells being sold on the open market, at the current price of $4k per Kw, a barely adequate 80 Kw fuel cell would cost $320,000.

Doubt it is based on actual production by GM, they have the same material costs that result in $4k per K fuel cells from other companies. Platinum and Nafion is just as expensive for GM as it is for everyone else.

So, it is probably based on the DOE estimates that assume a dramatically lower cost would result from the magic of mass production. Problem is, those figures are well below the cost of materials needed, thus they are totally bogus. Those figures were created with the goal of keeping the Hydrogen Hype going and the research grants flowing.

Of course, even if GM has make several radical breakthroughs in fuel cells that they haven't announced, and those figures are somehow realistic, it still means that H2FC vehicles cost quite a bit more than equivalent EVs or PHEVs. With the high cost of H2 fuel and the lack of H2 facilities, H2FCVs still won't be competitive in 2012 or 2015.

↓↑report

No, they're just used to 8 years of generous grants for hydrogen tech thanks to GW and they don't want to throw the towel in 8 months into a new admin. Give it another year.

-"Most of the automakers seem to be committed to hydrogen and fuel cells for a reason."

LOL since when did the automakers become reliable oracles of the future?? Weren't they JUST bailed out to avoid a complete catastrophic bankruptcy?? What was their reason for being committed to poor efficiency SUVs for so long? They are making this decision because they are scared sh!tless about the future so they're playing all cards...and over-leveraging themselves in the process.

-"It WILL BE the long term solution for a new energy source for automobiles. Batteries are not."

Hydrogen fuel cells = 3x less efficient, significantly more expensive, prohibitively high infrastructure development costs. When the average EV has a 300mile range (say about 3-5 years) there will no reason or justification for anyone to buy a hydrogen car - even if they are priced the same, electricity will still be cheaper.

Do you know what it would take to develop the hydrogen infrastructure? A spending bill almost as big as the Stimulus...from a President that is set against hydrogen..in a political environment where rethugs complain that a $3billion-dollar car rebate program is going to bankrupt America. For what it would cost to develop this infrastructure, Obama could fully fund his high-speed rail program. NOT.GOING. TO. HAPPEN.

↓↑report

"LOL since when did the automakers become reliable oracles of the future?? Weren't they JUST bailed out to avoid a complete catastrophic bankruptcy?? What was their reason for being committed to poor efficiency SUVs for so long?"

polo I don't recall Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Ford and Daimler getting any bailouts. As for why ALL automakers made SUVs, it's becuase people wanted them, and bought them in huge numbers, people still do. Auto companies are not charities, they are in it for a profit.

↓↑report

This is the kind of one-sided discussion that will never allow anyone to make any progress. We need BOTH batteries and hydrogen fuel cells to create the cars of the future. Anyone who only advocates one is missing half of the solution. They both supply electricity to an electric motor, are complementary and each have unique benefits to be exploited.

↓↑report

I think fuel-cells are more useful to supplement the power grid. Drop a moderate sized fuel-cell into your local sub-station, run a natural gas line, and you have a compact, low-emission power source that can handle localized peaks in demand. Designed correctly, the CO2 emissions are minimal, and should be easily captured.

In the long run, I think super-duper-omg-capacitor type storage will win, and we'll use all-electric vehicles, but the breakthrough hasn't happened yet (unless EEStor really is more secretive than the Manhattan project).

↓↑report