Burned by hybrids, GM needs to decide if they are to be a serious player with fuel cell vehicles. A number of automakers will probably introduce FCVs in the 2012 to 2015 timeframe. All I can say is GM is now in American football sense in a third and long situation.

MSNBC Story

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated

Wow. Where's the infrastructure coming from to provide THAT by the 2010 deadline?

Sounds like more GM lip service to me. they could impress me more by building something other than $55K gas guzzlers that fall apart after 75,000 miles.

The commitment to Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCV) was political made in 2001 when the Republican administration decided to 'de-Clinton' and 'de-Gore' government. Al Gore's "high mileage vehicle" program was defunded to pay for the Republican hot-air, hydrogen fraud. But physics, chemistry and engineering have laws that 'commanding the tide not to rise' can not over come. Five years and billions of dollars can not reverse the laws of nature.

GM has had a nice ride . . . four years of business as usual with a couple of FCV 'demo' cars rolling around DC (and no where else!) But like the cell phone message from the guy who jumped off of the Empire State building, "No problems yet." The ground is rapidly approaching.

I have and will continue to offer a ride in my hybrid electric to anyone who wants to 'test drive' an H(2) vehicle at a local dealer. So far, no one has taken up my offer because FCVs are not on the show room floor. The laws of nature remain a hard barrier and that has not changed.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

As I read the quoted note I can look out of my window at one of the buildings where FCEV development is being done and ponder whether or not I want to let one of my employees apply for an opening on a fuel cell project.

No....wait...that can't possibly be true because AshenGrey has said that the fuel cell program is just lip service, and of course, he would know that better than I would. Darn.



Peace,

Martin

You mean as opposed to the one below that costs $68K and gets 13 city / 17 hwy?

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I will be man enough to admit that at least *part* of my skepticism stems from my relative ignorance of how FCEV technology functions. For instance, what fuel goes into a fuel cell? And what is the "cell" part? What is a fuel cell stack? How does it interface with the existing hybrid-electric technology.

Maybe if I understood how it all worked, it would be easier for me to believe that it could actually be built.

The concept of a fuel cell is actually not that difficult. The implementation is another story.

A "fuel cell electric vehicle" is one that converts a form of fuel into energy, usually through chemical reaction. The "fuel cell" itself is the chamber where the chemical reaction takes place. The concept of the GM fuel cell program is to react Hydrogen and Oxygen to produce electrical energy and heat, with the by-product being water. Basically (over-simplification ---->) you take a couple hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom and shove 'em together. Since they don't necessarily want to exist together, there is a lot of energy expelled in the "shoving together" process, which gets captured and stored in a battery. Once they are forced together you have H2O. Water. Couple problems have to be solved before you start putting them in showrooms......

1. How do you get the Hydrogen in the vehicle? In solid / frozen form? As a compressed gas? Compressed liquid?
2. How do you store this stuff SAFELY on a vehicle? Random explosions can pretty much ruin your day.
3. Once you've figured out #1 and #2, how do you produce it on an economy of scale that makes sense? (why does that question seem familiar?)

The following link will take you to a listing of milestones in the development of GM's Fuel Cell programs. Start at the bottom of the page and work your way up.

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/...ilestones.html

Peace,

Martin

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

^
^
^
^
^
That is the $ Billion Question

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

I am NOT the official voice of GM with respect to Hybrid issues

http://www.darelldd.com/ev/


Read ALL the EV vs. fuel cell stuff.

I for one think the hydrogen thing is a conspriacy to keep using oil. Why else would the auto companies crush EV vehicles that are the answer? Fuel-cells take FOUR TIMES the energy to move u down the #$%* road than does an EV. Sheesh, we are a stupid species sometimes...

'04 Seaside Pearl #7. Fumoto oil drain, mudflaps, rear bumper scuff protector & rear warn system, compass mirror, EV mode button, 8" subwoofer in right rear cubby & 6" subs under seats, power lumbar in the front seats, Coastaletech hitch w/ Aspen bike/snowboard rack. iPod2car, 2 amps, Alpine component speakers, and DVD video, solid 47 MPG @ 70000 miles.

Hi Martin,

That was a nice summary of fuel cell operation. NASA has been flying fuel cells in spacecraft since the 60s and the shuttle consumes millions of pounds of H(2) at every launch. I'd like to add a couple of comments to your problem list:
On getting H(2) into the vehicles, I'm fond of NH(3) since decomposition releases a relatively inert N(2) and pure H(2). Having worked with amonium refrigiration units, it can be stored either under pressure (bad idea) or in a light weight, cryro liquid (better.) NH(3) leaks are easily detected and though flamable, it is not nearly as hazardous as H(2). A mist of water or water with an appropriate acid should be sufficient to deal with leaks.

Producing H(2) in a way that makes sense is the really hard problem. When we see H(2) being used to enrich natural gas, I'll know that problem has been solved. But today, we decompose natural gas to make the H(2) needed for the shuttle and NH(3) production. Natural gas is the wrong feedstock and I don't see serious efforts to convert either hydro, renewable or nuclear power into an H(2) generators. The economic-energy equations don't add up.

I applaud GM's efforts for alcohol based fuels and with other bio fuels that is the way to go. But I just don't see H(2) as being a realistic energy source until it shows up in products such as laptop batteries at the local CompUSA or WalMart.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.