GM Delivers Hydrogen Powered "Sequel" to Camp Pendleton:

" You North American "hydrogen skeptics" "

You can count me in this camp. GM is not exactly a company known for "technical Innovation".

In fact, the ONLY innovation (more like Big Brother) in the last 50 years, that I can think of where GM has been first to market, is OnStar.
=== authaor's response follows ====
GIven that you commented, I take that as an indication of open mindedness. GM has a sort of skunk works in upstate NY for FC development. Check out this story for an example: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_2002_June_1/ai_88681559

The locale would tend to protect operational security as well as insulate from bureaucracy. And they are testing non-stereotypical configurations. Per the link, an on-board reformer (OBR) in an American style truck, has the advantage of emitting verylow SOX and NOX, and very low particulates. Because there is no ICE in such a design, the gasoline can be re-forumulated. No need for long chain hydrocarbons to control knocking for example. Reform-on-board fuels can be redesigned to be optimal hydrogen carriers. Methanol is the optimal with 4Hs per C (4/1). Ethanol is next at 6H to 2C (3/1) . Then comes propanol (2.5/1), etc etc. There are no so obvious tradeoffs between handling safety, power density, and emissions among these. So there might be a blending of fuels. Also, an OBR produces waste heat heat for the cabin and to get the actual fuel cell underway, which means that a heavy separate heater can be dispensed with. And so on.

Ahh yeas hydrogen, lovely stuff. Burns to just water.

But it still has to compete with the energy used to produce it. It's EROEI is very NEGATIVE.

It might be green as Kermit the Frog by itself, but you have to evaluate how you make the hydrogen first.

It is no coincidence GM is giving these hybrids to the Marines. GM is counting on military applications for fuel cells being the early adopters, shouldering the high cost to get the advantages of a low noise and thermal heat signature. This would allow "stealth" operation of vehicles which wouldn't show up on infrared detection.

Quite a bit has been written about this and other "green" technologies being investigated for use by the military. Our tax dollars at work :(

=== author's response follows ====
Thanks for this thought. It's a tried and true strategy. Example: the WWII "JEEP" evolved to the Willis Jeep, which evolved to the Chrysler Jeep Cherokee. At that point the design taxonomy got complex as other companies cloned what JEEP had wrought, giving us many variations of the wasteful modern luxury SUVs. But it all originated from a military design and Federal support.

"You North American "hydrogen skeptics" can keep making smug remarks..."

If you aren't a hydrogen (and a GM) skeptic, you're either seeing different science than I am or drinking the GM kool-aid, IMHO.

Not that hydrogen isn't a great blue sky idea, but there are so many problems with hydrogen it would be nice to see someone actually map out how it could be feasible without nuclear fusion to make the hydrogen. Even Jeremy Rifkin can't answer how this would work.

Hydrogen is a very inefficient lossy storage medium which uses up a lot of energy in the conversion to the tune of 65% waste. Not bad if you have free energy (geothermal, hydro) but there isn't that much free energy around these days.

And one more important thing.

Could you possibly use a nicer tone in your articles? I hate the feeling I'm getting put down / chewed out because I don't agree with you. A little positive energy would be appreciated.

Nuclear fission will work. And since your so science orientated you'd know that there are some very clean designs out there for it. I agree getting the hydrogen is a problem. Many push EV's, what's going to power an EV? Low power batteries?

Not for nothing, author, but you kind of boiled the long and storied history of the Jeep into a few incorrect sentences - but I think we get your point. Either Discovery, or TLC, or The History Channel (one of the good stations) did a series on military tech going civilian - was good stuff. Reruns maybe?

=== author's response follows ===
Thanks for pointers. Memory hole is getting blurry.

um, how come a huge corporation like GM can't make a real-world electric car (that doesn't need a massive infrastructure change that itself raises enormous problems about the very generation of the fuel), when small companies like PML can make a real-world electric/hybrid car (mini QED) that simply thrashes even the best ICE's for acceleration, speed, and emissions.
Oh yeah, there was the EV1, but they crushed all of them, didn't they.
JiltedCitizen, maybe you should look at the Mini QED, TeslaMotors roadster, hell, just do a search for electric car, and you'll see that even what's going on at a grassroots level far exceeds what GM is trying to push. Batteries and ultracapacitors are getting better and better, and they don't require a science-fiction level of infrastructure change that simply will not happen in our lifetimes. Transport electrons, not explosive fuel. We need zero-emissions technology NOW, not in ten years time.

You have got to be kidding me!

I don't know of any "clean" designs for fission. Even the French are having problems with their reactors, and they are the best around. Fission reactors create one problem trying to solve another.

How are you suggesting to generate all this hydrogen? If you are thinking electrolysis, that would be crazy at the scale needed. Fusion on the otherhand could crack water easily for large amounts of hydrogen. But that technology isn't developed enough to be usable yet either.

If you use electricity for electrolysis, you are throwing away vast amounts of it in the conversion to hydrogen. That is why an EV is much, much more efficient, it doesn't have to go through a hugely wasteful energy loss in the conversion to hydrogen. A hydrogen car can't come close to an EV in effeciency unless there is a dramatic breakthrough in hydrogen production.

I suggest you go research generation IV and III reactors.

Um, Paulo, where is Toyota's, Chrysler's, Fords, Honda's real world electric cars? All are huge corporations. Yes all those cars are cool. Are they real world? Why do not all the major car companies take note? In reality they are nothing but concepts and fringe cars. We could use flywheels today to make a real world EV car.

JiltedCitizen, maybe the constant lobbying of the oil industry has had something to do with that - see GM's all-electric EV1 / 2 being crushed. Why? So they can focus on awesome gas-guzzling 2 ton SUV's, that's why. So much more practical.

I've heard Toyota is releasing a plug-in prius this year, with all-electrics to follow. Tesla Motors is releasing the all-electric Tesla Roadster next year. Rumour of Honda releasing plug-ins, too.

As for Ford, Chrysler and GM, they're so locked into whatever the oil indu$try want$ that they don't count any more.

Jilted Citizen, you should really take a close look at companies like Tesla Motors before you call all-electrics 'fringe' or 'concept'.

It's not that we don't think Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology isn't going to be viable. It's the simple fact that it won't be viable ,infrastructure-wise for a least 10 years. Moreover, Electric and Hybrid technology are here and will closely resemble or match in full the "ICE" experience.

Paulo, Toyota scrapped their electric car program too remember. If you want to hate GM for that you should hate Toyota too.
I agree the fuel cells are silly though.

Toyota also sells SUV's.

You heard rumors.... oh then that MUST mean it's true.

james, actually i hate all car companies. i don't own a car, and i will not unless zero-emission. they've all sold us out for years with environmentally reprehensible technology (10-18% energy efficiency for an internal-combustion-engine!) that our children will end up paying the price for.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/04/toyota_ratchets.html
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060909/AUTO03/609090302

jiltedcitizen, touche. my bad. honda just agreed that plug-ins were a good idea.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/congressional_w.html
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2006/07/electric-powered-mini-qed-concept-with.html
http://www.teslamotors.com
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/videos.php

don't shoot the messenger, guys...electric just seems to me to be the most usable technology that we have at present, for the simple fact that it does not require a
massive infrastructure change to implement. if you look at the sites i've given you then you might see that an EV does not have to have second-rate performance. (i find the home-build plasmaboy white zombie blowing off a 400hp corvette particularly beautiful.)
so, thanks for listening, and best of luck with it all.

"Toyota also sells SUV's.

You heard rumors.... oh then that MUST mean it's true."

What an unconstructive response.

I'm tired of your grade school level flame baiting, jiltedcitizen. Please respect the opinions of other people on this forum.

The man has a point though. People on this site do tend to bad mouth GM and praise Toyota when both make big SUVs. Infact GM's SUVs are cleaner and more efficient than Toyotas.

...that anonymous comment with the links was mine, btw. please look them up. the electric datsun (white zombie) thrashing a 400hp corvette is pretty cool.

james, the reason that you may perceive people as being biased toward toyota is probably because of the prius - if the other auto makers were pushing hybrids then i'm sure the discussions about them on 'treehugger' would much more positive...

and there's also that little matter of GM killing a perfectly viable electric car. that doesn't look too good from an environmental perspective, does it.

the psychology of petrol heads is bizarre. even when presented with a car that has supercar performance and looks to match - if it doesn't have a petrol engine in it, they can't (or won't) even see it.

Toyota also killed their EV if you remember.

And I have no problem with electric cars if they perform well, have useable range and look nice, such as the Tesla and erm...that's about it.

I respect their opinions, I just don't agree with them. I'm not fighting for petrol engines or cars. Nor do I specifically want to defend GM. I'm sick of the ignorance about them and other car companies. As just mentioned Toyota killed their electric car too. Yes Gm could do with more current tech hybrids. But so can all the other car companies. Why isn't all of Toyota's car's offered in a hybrid? When I can drive an electric car anywhere I can a gas car and fill up in minutes, then they will truly viable.

Who cares about Electric Cars, Hybrids or fuel cell vechiles. They are not ECO friendly at all.They are Marketing scams to get your share of the Market in sales. Thatz it. They don't care about the Earth Conscience people at all. A bicycle is more friendly to the Envoirment. It burns no Fuel of any kind at all. A drop of oil on chain now and then and thatz it. You can talk ECO friendly all you want. But the truth is bicycling is more of an answer than anything else a a means of transportation.

Personally, I've been waiting for the H2 version of the 'Sequel'. That's what I was hoping to see when I clicked on the Camp Pendleton story link. I wonder if the Marines were hoping for that also when GM called. Anyway, do you think that GM, Ford, D-Chrys., et al., incl, the japanese, chinese, euro & indian car-makers are watching out for the under-the-radar guys? I read today about a TX company EEStor making a ceramic-aluminum oxide-glass electricity storage medium that will propel electric autos at highway speeds and over long destances, the numbers I don't exactly remember so I can't quote, though I like speed and long rides so I was impressed. They are saying it's not a battery and are selling it, for starters, to a canadian company called Feel Good Cars out of Toronto. I read about it online at cnn moneyline, a story headed '11 innovations to change the world' or something like that. Anyway, sounds promising. BTW, anyone want to buy an treehugging stonebuilt 12 century house near Barcelona, solar panels included? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Bobby, not everyone is lucky enough to live within cycling/walking distance of where they work/shop/see friends and family/etc.
It's great that you do, but please don't put others down for owning a car, it makes you sound like an idiot.

I don't think anywhere in my post. That i was putting anybody down. I am only pointing out the truth in transportation. If you feel Convicted by my post thatz on you. Urban Sprawl is a problem. It is attack on mother earth itself. Putting up homes in what was once beatiful natural space.Where once animals lived. You want to help Mr Barker quit committing such crimes to the earth. You can live in a big City and still have the whole Mother Earth Exp.

I don't think anywhere in my post. That i was putting anybody down. I am only pointing out the truth in transportation. If you feel Convicted by my post thatz on you. Urban Sprawl is a problem. It is attack on mother earth itself. Putting up homes in what was once beatiful natural space.Where once animals lived. You want to help Mr Barker quit committing such crimes to the earth. You can live in a big City and still have the whole Mother Earth Exp.

In response to "Lil' Hugger" if the Hydrogen vehicle wastes too much heat, then you can cool off with a GM airconditioner; seems like they were the first to put them into autos!

I don't think anywhere in my post. That i was putting anybody down. I am only pointing out the truth in transportation. If you feel Convicted by my post thatz on you. Urban Sprawl is a problem. It is attack on mother earth itself. Putting up homes in what was once beatiful natural space.Where once animals lived. You want to help Mr Barker quit committing such crimes to the earth. You can live in a big City and still have the whole Mother Earth Exp.

Bobby, not everyone is lucky enough to live within cycling/walking distance of where they work/shop/see friends and family/etc.

What does "luck" have to do with it? People choose where they want to live, and choose whether they will make their surrounding neighborhood better or not.

its unfortunate that you so called enviromentaly friendly people trash GM for not being an enviromentaly friendly corporation. it was said and has been proven that Toyota isnt exactly as enviromentaly friendly either with their large SUV's and Trucks. but everyone turns a blind eye to that now dont they?

GM shows the world what they are capapble of doing with the Sequel. They still get called out as a greedy cold blooded corpeoration looking for profits. here a news flash Sven. it takes money to R&D future technologie. call GM what you want but how do you figure toyota came up with the prius? and all they other Hybrids that they have? GM may change the car as we know it.

its unfortunat that just because the badge behind the vehicle is a blue square with 2 letters in the box people think its a total scam and theres more to it than that. as for GM hybrids, dont worry there coming. and its not going to be a little one mode toy car either. its going to be in somehting that other companies should have thought about instead of a little tin can.

So urban sprawl is bad but close concrete jungles are better? I'm not a fan of either.

People choose where they live, mostly it has to do with what they can afford. Sometimes it's not possible to live near your job.

I Agree with Bobby, these electric, hybrid and any cars are just as bad for the enviorment as gas guzzlers and they are both just marketing schemes who sold the country to the highest bidder.

Sometimes it's not possible to live near your job.

Baloney. One chooses one's job and one chooses where one lives. "Not possible" means "not possible to have a huge house with a yard in a quiet area near a specific job that a person chose".

That's not "not possible". That's personal preferences.

Baloney is right. I love how you make it sound so easy to find and change jobs. That maybe a possibility for some, others it isn't. All are not as privileged as Anonymous.

Dear Jilted Citizen-Concrete Jungles are not better but they already exist the Damage is already done. What the new Suburbs are doing is continuing the problem and the Damage. Urban Sprawl contributes to High gas Sales & Demand. Itz better to work with what already exist than waste energy creating somthing thatz not needed. When it already exist else where. Electric cars-put demand on Coal. Fuel cell vechiles use Hydrogen which has to be manufactured.(That takes energy to produce.) Hybrids run on dinasour pooh plus you have all those batteries to contend with. I commute 8 miles oneway every day to work. Plus i have MD i don't complain one bit about it.

I love how you make it sound so easy to find and change jobs. That maybe a possibility for some, others it isn't.

Really? How exactly does that work? People can't choose their jobs? Where to live?

I guess you live in North Korea. In the United States, people can make choices about those things. You didn't say it wasn't easy. You said it was impossible,

Go ahead. Give some real life, concrete examples and let's see how "impossible" it is.

All are not as privileged as Anonymous.

Oh, you're a real man of the people, aren't you? Tell me - please point out specific examples that require "privilege" to have a living wage job and have no means other than a car to achieve that end.

Can someone point out what drives someone who is ignorant to proclaim other to be ignorant, then go repeatedly to the "website filled with ignorance" that they repeatedly claim they hate?

That's a very very odd thing to do with one's time. Usually when I hate something, I avoid it.
=== editorial suggestion ===
Lets please let this go. We're already getting far astray from the post topic.

Bob Lutz post about GM's future
http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2006/09/the_moon_shot.html

The same Bob Lutz:

"Hybrids are technologically of doubtful benefit, and expensive, but necessary from a political and public relations point of view," Lutz told Just-Auto. "Toyota has said, economically, hybrids make no sense. The reduction in fuel [consumption] does not pay for the technological content and cost of the vehicle so therefore economically it remains fairly nonsensical, so that's the left-brain analytical argument."

"The right brain is it's the popular thing to do, many people believe that if we all drove hybrids the world would suddenly get cooler again and then it's the patriotic thing to do because if you drive a hybrid you will no longer be funding the Arab terrorists, and so forth."

"So, with all those beliefs out there, you have to do a hybrid for public policy reasons."

"I don't care how much money you get out but when you've got two drivetrains, the sophisticated electronics and a big lithium-ion battery, you've got cost."

Lutz says diesels are also problematic. "The modern diesel is becoming more and more expensive as we have to have to gear up to meet Euro 5, which is very difficult."

"Let's not forget, a diesel engine is always going to be more expensive than a conventional petrol engine, that's the laws of physics."

In March, Lutz said GM is most enthusiastic about ethanol. "We think running the nation on E85 makes more sense than all the hybrids in the world," he said.

bob lutz is an employee of GM.

Wow, it must be nice for those who are rich enough to chose where they work and live. Most of the world can not.
And Bobby, the computer you are using to looking at this site, what's it powered by?

Wow, it must be nice for those who are rich enough to chose where they work and live.

This again? Please tell us how one needs to be "rich" to be near a job which pays the bills. I've asked for concrete examples of how it is "impossible", but so far all I hear are platitudes and fake concern for the poor (who, btw, live in large numbers in urban areas - you know, the ones with all the high-paying jobs).

Most of the world can not.

Most of the world? Most of the world walks to get around. Perhaps you should go see the world and discover that.

And Bobby, the computer you are using to looking at this site, what's it powered by?

Can't speak for Bobby, but mine is powered by wind. Yours?

Not able to live near work?

Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/pd2kr

That's around a mile from the center of the San Francisco business district - home to a wide variety of jobs.

I can't think of a single US city where there's a lack of housing near good jobs.

Not lack of housing. Lack of affordable housing.

good to see we've stayed on topic.

i've tried to provide you EV nay-sayers with some evidence that the format is viable. jiltedcit and jamesbarker did you even *look* at the stats of the PML mini?
If it's too difficult for you here they are again -

* Emissions Zero - for 4 hours combined
* urban and extra urban driving
* Autonomy 1000km (predicted from bench fuel consumption trials)
* Top speed Approaching 240kph
* Acceleration 0-100kph in under 5 seconds
* Braking Regenerative only (other than handbrake for parking)
* Fuel Gasoline
* BHP > 640bhp
* Fuel consumption 65 – 80mpg

why can't big auto (including toyota) do this?
==== author's response follows ====
Fair question. The answer likely lies in profit margin. The more efficient the hybrid, the lower the profit margin, due to the experimental nature of early commercial designs. Toyota "ate" its margins on the Prius for several years until they got to today's sales volumes and got more skillful at manufacturing efficiencies. The US makers are under investor pressure to meet profit goals that reflect high profit SUV's sales and they are emotionally reluctant and technically late to the hybrid feast.

Not lack of housing. Lack of affordable housing.

There's no affordable housing in urban America? Is this what you're claiming?

Yes mass production matters. The PML mini is cool, but technically not a EV, it's a hybrid. How long will it last in wear and tear? All car companies are under pressure to be profitable. All produce SUV's and trucks to be profitable. I don't think any auto manufacturer is technically late, just different decisions on vision, for the right or wrong.

Paulo, when have I been anti EV or hybrid? I think you are making stuff up now.

The big auto companies will start making stuff like the PML MINI when it's not way too expensive to be just a plaything for the rich.

Too Bad the US Army has this BS idea of One fuel for all initiative and that fuel is diesel. GM is losing money fast with gluttony of Cars that are uneasy to to find comfort in while riding long distance, get lousy fuel mileage per gallon, and are so expensive that the poor can not buy a new vehicle if their lives depend on it. The bottom line of the CEO's and High Archy have not been snipped as much as the amount of workers that build the paychecks have of the workers, No amount of white collar, blue collar cuts will save GM! Upper management who rake in million dollar payrolls can not tell me they can justify their salary at the expense of their workers.
They need to do some research into sustainable business practices.
D~W

hmmm. investor pressure... keeps cigarettes on the market, too, doesn't it. (wayy off topic but nightly business report on pbs actually recommended one of the big tobacco companies as a 'good investment' recently... talk about an ethical void.)
it's a shame that this model of business has such a stranglehold on free-market capitalism - if it isn't immediately profitable, it doesn't get done - happens all too often. still, hopefully environmental pressures (ala california sueing big auto) will have some effect on product.
i don't believe that something like the pml mini would be prohibitively expensive when mass-produced, and no more so than fuel-cell hydrogen powered cars in any case. fuel cells ain't exactly cheap, either...

Sounds like you need to do some research Wraith, before you start spouting lies that is.

Paulo, no fuels cells are not cheap, nor is the conversion to a hydrogen society. That doesn't mean we shouldn't research them. If some large break though in battery tech comes about then hydrogen won't be needed. But so far that hasn't happened. The battery has hardly changed since it was invented. It is holding all other tech back because of it's low capacity. I think the PML mini is sweet. I hope some manufacturer picks up the idea. Say BMW. Did they say how much that Mini would cost? I never saw a price.

i couldn't find a cost estimate, but the cost of a development car bears little (if no) relation to the final price of a vehicle anyway - it's not unusual for a car company to spend $20 million on a new model in any case. (and i doubt pml would have spent anywhere near that much.) start thinking mass-production and the massive decrease in moving parts... these things could be very competitive.

actually i'd beg to differ on the advances of battery tech. recharging times are dropping dramatically - weight and safety are also improving.

nanotube ultracapacitors -
http://www.physorg.com/news10641.html

lithium nickel manganese oxide batteries -
http://www.physorg.com/news10928.html

ultra-fast charge polymer batteries -
http://www.physorg.com/news8853.html

what i think we need to look at is the combination of technologies that the pml is using - ultra capacitor for sudden bursts of acceleration, battery for main power source, small i.c.e for recharging and backup power. the i.c.e doesn't drive the wheels, just charges the battery. just reverse the setup that hybrids like the prius have, shift the dominance to the electric motor.

excellent article here on the pml mini btw -
http://news.hspn.com/articles
/570/1/PML-Builds-640hp-Electric-MINI/Page1.html

October 12, 2006

from: the energy blog

Assessing GM's Fuel Cell Strategy

A recent article in the MIT Technology Review "Assessing GM's Fuel Cell Strategy" supports The Energy Blog's view that GM's plans to introduce a test fleet of 100 fuel cell vehicles is a mistake. Plug-in hybrids are suggested as a more viable alternative. The most critical was Joseph Romm, executive director of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, and formerly in charge of energy efficiency and renewable energy at the U.S. Department of Energy:

Hydrogen fuel must be extracted from fossil fuels or water--both energy-consuming processes. Once produced, the gas must be compressed or liquefied for distribution, and this process and the distribution itself take yet more energy. By the time the hydrogen has been delivered to the fuel cell for conversion to electricity, then, a significant amount of energy has been lost to these processes.

"Along the way, you've thrown away nearly three-quarters of the electricity. No one in their right mind would do that--if your alternative is to just string a power line from zero-carbon electricity and charge a battery onboard a car,"

Romm goes on to say: "Money for research and development of fuel-cell vehicles and their related infrastructure is going to waste and the GM approach is "insane." He adds: "Hydrogen is the last thing you would do, only if everything else has failed."
=== author's response follows ===
We already have a hydrogen economy. But (as few realize) most of the production goes into gasoline refining. Approximately 9 million tpy of H2 are manufactured in the US alone. Much of that goes to "Cracking" benzene rings at the refineries. When you see that exhaust plume coming out of the back of the car in front of you this winter, think about the fact that it is from the combustion of hydrogen. The answer to your question: divert millions of tons of H2 from gasoline refining directly into the storage tanks of GM's new fuel cell powered vehicles. Skip the un-needed NOX and SOX and particulate emission and go direct.