AltCar 2009: Dan Neil, "Some Inconvenient Questions," and GM hints it could sell Chevy Volt gliders
by Sebastian Blanco on Oct 8th 2009 at 4:07PM 
On top of the test drives (Wheego Whip), test rides (Coda Sedan) and a visit to the unlimited energy booth, a highlight of the AltCar Expo last weekend was getting to hear the LA Times' premiere auto scribe Dan Neil moderate two sessions called "Some Inconvenient Questions." Neil was lucky to have on his panels some of the most knowledgeable people in the green car world who were able to discuss and promote their favored technologies (plug-in hybrids, hydrogen, etc.) without beating each other up. Well, Neil dished out a few critical hits at the idea of hydrogen cars but also allowed Honda's Steve Ellis to rebut his doubts about the efficacy of H2 as an energy carrier for vehicles. All in all, it was an entertaining three hours (four-and-a-half if you count the Tech Review Panel that took place just before Neil's events) in the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. We've got details and audio recordings of everything after the jump.
First, the one newsworthy bit. Responding to a question from an audience member during the Q&A for the Tech Review Panel, GM's Dave Barthmuss said that GM would consider selling Chevy Volt gliders (that is, vehicles without a powertrain) to EV enthusiasts who want to make their own pure electric versions of GM's halo car (the audio for this starts at around 1:15:00 in the file, see below). Selling gliders is not something that GM has on the table right now, but Barthmuss said "maybe that's a profit center for us ... maybe there's something we can give you to do your own conversions." Barthmuss also said, repeatedly, that GM will build "tens of thousands" of Volts in the first year. Later in the day, Barthmuss also said that GM is on record saying that they are prioritizing the plug-in powertrain of the Volt over the fuel cell powertrain in the Equinox.
Dan Neil touched on CNG, LPG, BEVs, and hydrogen during his first panel. While CNG is being promoted as an alternative to gasoline vehilces, Neil made the point that the competition for CNG cars is really pure electrics, because the range of the BEVs is approaching that of CNG cars and the infrastructure is more widely available.
Neil hasn't been shy about his distaste for hydrogen cars, even one as beautiful and sexy as the Honda FCX Clarity, and his opinion caused the first serious disagreement of the day. "Hydrogen doesn't have one problem, it has many problems on the road to viability," he said, adding that more stakeholders only multiplies the error. This prompted Honda's Steve Ellis, one of that company's hydrogen fuel cell technology's biggest boosters, to respond: "Dan is just wrong." Ellis added that the DOE's own timeline for hydrogen adoption was being met or exceeded, and the auto industry was shocked by the DOE's hydrogen vehicle funding cut earlier this year. One thing the panelists seemed to agree on was that the companies most invested in building hydrogen fuel stations – today's oil companies – make mountains of cash and yet want government subsidies to build the new stations. Mike Lewis, the general manager of Pearson Fuels, explained that hydrogen fuel stations are "money hole(s) the likes of which you've never seen." Insurance costs are outrageous, he said. Ellis then offered some slides that showed the cost wasn't that bad.
click either slide to enlarge
During his second panel, Neil said that cars like the Nissan Leaf and the Mitsubishi i MiEV have "punitive 100 mile ranges" (UPDATE: or maybe he said "putative"). Even though almost everyone would be perfectly well-served with an EV like that on a daily basis, selling electric cars that have a three-figure range is vital. Even more important is to educate people that a 100-mile range is more than enough in almost every circumstance. Want to hear more? You can listen to the full presentations using the flash players below:
Inconvenient Questions 1 (84 min)
Moderator: Dan Neil, LA Times
Panelists:
- Steve Ellis, Manager - Fuel Cell Vehicle Marketing, Honda Motor Company
- Mike Lewis, General Manager - Pearson Fuels
- Dave Barthmuss, General Motors - Western Region Environment & Energy Communications
Inconvenient Questions 2 (84 min)
Moderator: Dan Neil, LA Times
Panelists:
- Jeff Curry, Better Place
- Tom Gage, President and CEO - AC Propulsion
- Dean Taylor, Senior Program Manager & Scientist - Southern California Edison
Tech Review Panel (77 min)
Moderator: Rick Sikes, Fleet Superintendent - City of Santa Monica,
Panelists:
- Steve Ellis, Manager - Fuel Cell Vehicle Marketing, Honda Motor Company
- Dave Barthmuss, General Motors - Western Region Environment & Energy Communications
- Dean Taylor, Senior Program Manager & Scientist - Southern California Edison
- Terry Karges, ROUSH
Alternately, if you'd like to download and take the MP3 files with you, you can grab them (right click) here:
- Inconvenient Questions 1 (84 min)
- Inconvenient Questions 2 (84 min)
- Tech Review Panel (77 min)
Apologies for the skips in the MP3 files. Have no idea how those got in there considering we used a flash-based recorder. Also, thanks to Zan Dubin Scott for help with this post.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
letstakeawalk 4:35PM (10/08/2009)
Thanks. It'll take some time to digest the audio, but I'm sure it will add greatly to the discussion here on ABG.
Reply
Nick From Montreal 5:48PM (10/08/2009)
Sebastian,
Thanks for these recordings. Well-recorded & very informative. Going through them right now.
Reply
Serge 6:33PM (10/08/2009)
Speaking of "inconvenient questions", whatever happened to that HFC plug-in truck all hydrogen fans were raving about?
Reply
Serge 6:45PM (10/08/2009)
"One thing the panelists seemed to agree on was that the companies most invested in building hydrogen fuel stations – today's oil companies – make mountains of cash and yet want government subsidies to build the new stations."
If this is not the most outrageous case of corporate welfare, I don't know what is.
Reply
letstakeawalk 10:18PM (10/08/2009)
Just like farmers want government money to grow crops, and the battery companies want money to develop batteries, and the EV makers want government money to build EVs...
matte 3:59AM (10/09/2009)
letstakeawalk:
How many farmers are making Billions in revenue?
How many batteryproducers are doing that?
And most EV-makers (want to) get LOANS which they will have to pay back, if you want to compare with EV-makers you should point out the charging stations. (of which you get 100 for each hydrogen fueling station...)
letstakeawalk 11:44AM (10/09/2009)
Corporate farms in the US do quite well, and receive large subsidies to grow corn, soybeans, cotton, etc. Just check out ADM, for one. But let's not go off topic. Any major change in infrastructure is going to be very expensive. EV companies are already receiving grants, not loans, to establish infrastructure (the Nissan Leaf roll-out, for one). Battery makers are getting grants, not loans, to build batteries, and the last I checked, LG Chem and Johnson Controls were pretty valuable companies.
I'm not complaining about subsidizing the infrastructure - Serge was. I'd prefer it if companies could afford to invest their own capital, but when the government is just handing out money, it makes sense to go after it. Of course, Shell and BP have already invested hundreds of millions of their own capital into infrastructure and research as good faith money, and have committed to continue to do so.
Derek 5:07PM (10/09/2009)
matte: stop looking at revenue numbers and start looking at percentages. How many farms are making a 5% profit margin? (like Exxon-Mobil does) The farming industry as a whole probably does make billions in revenue however.
jake 7:04PM (10/08/2009)
Yes, did anyone dig any real specs like the kW rating of the fuel cell in that HFC truck. The spec sheet they have on the site seems to be just targets they want to hit.
On the fueling station argument, they do have a point that in sufficient volume, the cost of hydrogen stations related to the amount of people they can serve isn't much worst than a charging station. The problem is they don't have anywhere near that volume and the total cost of a single station is a huge amount (2-4 million, roughly 2x a gas station), which means a big investment in something that isn't likely to have a return in the near term. That is the main reason why hydrogen infrastructure is unlikely to see much private investment until it is made 100% clear hydrogen is the way to go (automakers making affordable hydrogen cars are a good first step). It seems the strategy is to target a roll-out first in southern California, where there are sufficient hydrogen stations for practical everyday use. If this is successful, then it may spur more investment in hydrogen infrastructure.
In both their fuel and station cost projections they seem to be focusing on local natural gas reformation. This would mean their slides about hydrogen infrastructure today is relatively meaningless (though it does show how hydrogen is being used in the industry) as the basis for cost projections are not based on a centralized source as the numbers today show. Also, this means a fossil fuel based focus and not the renewable energy focus both hydrogen and plug-ins were aiming for. This may be a strategy to get hydrogen into the market first by focusing on affordability, but then it will be a real headache to switch those reformation based stations back to a storage or electrolysis based station, if they get too far along this pathway. There needs to be some notice paid to improving costs in terms of centralized hydrogen production and electrolysis based hydrogen or we may end up paying a lot of extra cost when we once again put focus on renewable fuels. I'm guessing they were forced into this focus by the DOE funding cuts and competition from the plug-ins (reformation is the only place where hydrogen can come close to or beat plug-ins in terms of efficiency due to conventional natural gas power plants not being as efficient, though combined cycle plants & cogeneration obviously can push efficiency back to the plug-in side).
Reply
3PeaceSweet 7:31PM (10/08/2009)
You could easily have a 'filling' station with a supply of natural gas offering CNG, steam reformed hydrogen and a gas turbine to power electric vehicle fast charges. Stick up a wind turbine and add a biodigester and it gets even better.
A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle wouldn't travel any further on the same amount of natural gas than a CNG hybrid vehicle, but if you put the gas through a CCGT and charged an electric vehicle it would take you about 50% further. (Assuming 60% efficiency for steam reforming, fuel cell and CCGT with 35% efficiency for the hybrid)
Cwhite 9:28PM (10/08/2009)
CaFCP's FCV and Station Deployment Plan has some detailed cost information. The full version of the report shows how we calculated station costs ranging from $500k for a mobile fueler to $6 million for a huge-capacity station that serves buses and cars. We started with unimproved property in the LA area (highest land costs in CA) and included insurance and fuel in the O&M costs. The numbers are based upon costs of current H2 stations and as provided by government and industry. Overall, the cost of an H2 station is comperable to a gas station.
http://www.cafcp.org/resources/print-materials (third from top)
Chris White
California Fuel Cell Partnership
Patrick 10:50AM (10/09/2009)
Also, regarding costs, the NHA did a cash flow analysis based on how quickly the stations could reach a cumulative net positive cash flow (meaning revenue from station sales are outpacing costs and the payback of the original station cost) as more cars hit the road and fuel up. This happens in 2018 according to the assumptions made this analysis--pretty quick for beginning an expansion of the infrastructure from the 64 U.S. stations we have today. See the Energy Evolution report and the slides near the end of the deck: http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/evolution
Dave 7:16PM (10/08/2009)
"punitive 100 mile ranges."
I believe that was PUTATIVE 100 mile ranges, but I could be wrong
Reply
Sebastian 9:02AM (10/09/2009)
Hmm. Maybe you're right. I'll make a note in the text. Thanks.
Randy S 1:36AM (10/09/2009)
Wow, 4 hours of audio and the best thing I heard was at the very end.
The guy who wanted a Volt glider, or no gas engine, just a pure BEVolt.
Reply
Randy S 3:14PM (10/09/2009)
I’m just listening to the clips again.
It’s all very good discussion. Dan really nails the facts against hydrogen clearly and the responses from GM and Honda was very good spin, and really gave sound reasoning for their adamant positions, but unfortunately no matter how good or improved fuel cells are over ICE’s, a more improved solution by a factor of 2 or 3 times for pure BEV’s is still 2 to 3 times better, and its also safer and easier to implement.
So long GM and Honda, hello Nissan.
Patrick 9:59AM (10/09/2009)
Thanks Sebastian, for covering the comments by Steve Ellis and Dave Barthmuss in addition to the criticisms by Dan Niel. I was however surprised by two things. First, to see Steve and Dave called hydrogen boosters. They may be advocates, but only because they've seen with their own eyes what has been done by their own companies
and what will actually be possible tomorrow. Experts might have been more appropriate. And secondly, I continue to be surprised by Dan's reluctance, like Secretary Chu and others, to admit that significant progress continues to be made on hydrogen vehicles to make them ready for commercialization by 2015. You know, the status of technology development is changing every day which is part of the reason why the ridiculous and common batteries vs. hydrogen discussions are such a waste of time and just slow down progress. We need to embrace the collective progress made by both groups of technologies and realize that we'll be better off with both technologies in our vehicles instead of prematurely choosing one now.
Reply
dv 10:53AM (10/09/2009)
Why don't we just do away with MPG and all its variations all together. The new rating system we need is flat out range. Hear me out on this . . . so take whatever vehicle you want and your tests are like this:
For highway rated vehicle your xx mph is equal 65 and for others (NEVs) your xx mph is 30.
Highway Test
a.) full charged, fully fueled, both
b.) cruise at xx mph
c.) drive until vehicle is nolonger powering itself
d.) apply brake to bring vehicle to a stop
d.) measure distance in miles/km
City Test
a.) full charged, fully fueled, both
b.) travel two city blocks
c.) stop for 2 seconds
d.) repeat steps b and c until vehicle is nolonger powering itself
e.) apply brake to bring vehicle to a stop
f.) measure distance in miles/km
(details on how hard to accelerate and brake can be figured out, I get that can change things dramatically, this is just an overview)
Aside from a completely solar powered vehicle with a battery back that will get it through the night and maybe a storm, how could you not have a level playing field? If you care about how much each mile costs you, then do your math.
From these tests you can calculate mpg or mpge or fugu all you want, who cares. And all these cost equivalents are going to vary just as bad - everyone needs to be looking at outright, unadulterated range.
I want city and highway RANGE on my window sticker not MPG!
Reply
The Other Bob 11:45AM (10/09/2009)
So a company will look better just becuase it has a bigger gas tank?
Plus, who would spend big bucks on a Volt and then never charge it? Using range in place of efficency is just not real world.
We may need to switch to gallions per X miles, which is similar to what you say.
dv 4:53PM (10/09/2009)
@The Other Bob
I see your point and you're right. Range is not a measure of efficiency but I would argue that it is real world. But that really does become beside the point. Since MPG is mandated by the EPA its intent is to communicate efficiency. So maybe the calculation needs to be dumbed down to a simple average calculated from the range. Regardless of the power train, you'd just take the to dead range of the vehicle and divide it by the number of gallons, if any, fuel burned. If range and mpg were on the window sticker than an EV would simply have n/a for the mpg since no fuel is used during its operation.
I'm just tired of seeing all these different way efficiency is being calculated. I think that is the easy part - things just get out of control when you factor in costs since they vary so greatly.