Making Our Vision Reality
By Larry Burns
Vice President, Research & Development and Planning
People usually talk about the "golden days" of the past, but in the automotive industry, the golden days are now -- and in the future. For carmakers, this is an exciting time with tremendous opportunities for new technologies, new vehicles and growth potential. Consider the numbers.
By the year 2020, if present growth rates continue, there could be nearly 1.1 billion automobiles on the world's roadways. That's more than enough vehicles to circle the earth 125 times -- and a huge growth opportunity for our industry! But with this growth will come the challenge of sustainability. Simply put, we must find alternative energy sources for our products in addition to petroleum.
At General Motors, we are committed to reinventing the automobile, for today and for the future; to minimize its impact on the environment; to promote energy independence; and to create a better, safer, more responsive driving experience for consumers around the world.
To make this vision a reality, we are executing a multifaceted advanced technology strategy that includes advanced engines, hybrids and alternative fuels, like ethanol, today and hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles in the long term.
GM has placed a very high priority on fuel cells and hydrogen as the best long-term option for automotive propulsion. Here are a few reasons why:
- Unlike petroleum, hydrogen is an almost ideal fuel because it can be produced from numerous and diverse energy pathways - many of them renewable. These include biomass and geothermal, solar, and wind energy.
- Even the most efficient engines and hybrid systems emit carbon dioxide. Moving to hydrogen propulsion means we can eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions from our vehicles, since fuel cells emit only pure water.
- A transition to hydrogen will allow nations to reduce their petroleum import dependence because they can create hydrogen from the best local sources available, be it geothermal energy in Iceland, wind in Denmark, or solar energy and biomass in the United States.
Many believe that the hydrogen economy is a pipedream, something too complicated or expensive to accomplish. But every day and around the world, we see tremendous progress being made in the areas of hydrogen production, infrastructure and storage.
Which is why, starting this month, we will be traveling around the world to meet with governments, researchers and companies to share information on the many pathways to hydrogen production that will help shape our world for generations to come.
This month, we will make our first trip, to Iceland, where we will join with the Ministry of Industry, the University of Iceland, and Icelandic New Energy to witness how the country is using geothermal energy and hydroelectric power to produce clean electricity. These same energy resources can be utilized to generate hydrogen for fuel-cell vehicles, and Iceland is making tremendous progress today toward development of a hydrogen infrastructure for this purpose.
Later in the year, we will hold similar events across the country and Europe, examining what other researchers and companies, including GM, are doing to develop hydrogen fuel from other energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass and nuclear sources. Before and after each stop, we will post updates both here on Fast Lane and on GM's new blog. We also will be providing Guest Voices columns from our Pathways Partners. I encourage you to check back regularly to learn what GM and others are doing in this exciting field of research.
General Motors is committed to making the hydrogen economy happen, and we have made tremendous progress in our fuel-cell vehicle program, most notably with the Sequel, the first fuel-cell vehicle capable of achieving a real-world driving range of 300 miles. Our goal is to design and validate an automotive-competitive fuel cell propulsion system by 2010. By automotive competitive, we mean a system that has the performance, durability, and cost at scale volumes of today's internal combustion engines. GM has the enabling technologies well in hand and we are increasingly confident that we will be able to achieve this goal.
But we can't make this vision a reality without the participation of partners worldwide. To fully realize the vision of a hydrogen economy, we will continue to work in partnership with energy companies, government, other key stakeholders, and the automotive industry to address issues like hydrogen infrastructure, storage and production. Because the more closely we work together, the sooner we will build the hydrogen economy.
So, pack your sweaters and get ready for Iceland. We look forward to updating you on our visit.
30 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
Yes!!! Yes!!! Yes!!!
This is what I want to see from GM. Before, all I could find were little tidbits and small pictures of your Hydrogen efforts.
I also like how, just as with E85, you are working with governments and other partners to broaden the infrastructure for alternative fuels. People say it’s pie in the sky, but you all are making it happen.
As a big fan, I am one of GM’s hardest critics, and I must say you guys are overwhelming. Great job!
I also really like the Sequel a lot!
You keep innovating. The company I love is still there.
P.S. Some of my friends doubt that you can make a viable hydrogen car by 2010. My thinking was that if GM was bold enough to put such a timeframe out there (while other manufacturers won’t) then they had a lot up their sleeves, and could indeed do it.
Stay on track! I hope to have a Hywire–or better yet Sequel– to drive by 2015 or sooner.
By the way, I think the “skateboard” idea is brilliant.
Do you think you can post a video of the Sequel in action whenever you have time?
I found this amazing:
“GM recently developed a novel stack concept that enables an additional 50 percent reduction in stack size over the stack that debuted in the Sequel.”
Five inches?
The last stack was 11 inches thick. That is awesome.
Also, if you all increase the range upward of the 300 miles it has now, you are already going to be breaking barriers.
I have a question. You are supporting the E-85 campaign, you are advertising it.
So how come all your engines are not E-85 compatible? And I see some newer engines are not E-85 compatible that are replacing some that were.
Does this make any sense at all?
For once, be on the forefront. Make sure all of your customers have vehicles that are E-85 compatible and ready for the change.
Some things that weren’t mentioned that should be:
1. Water vapor produced by burning hydrogen gas is also a greenhouse gas.
2. You can never get equal or more energy back out when you make hydrogen due to laws of thermodynamics. There will always be a loss.
3. There are still problems with safely storing hydrogen gas under high pressure in tanks on cars. Hydrogen cars would have limited range unless the gas is stored under high pressure. And it takes energy to compress the gas.
4. There is no hydrogen gas distribution network and building all the tanker trucks, underground storage tanks and pumps at gas stations around the country will be slow and very expensive.
5. Wave power from the oceans is another source of clean energy. See http://www.oceanpd.com/
Dear Larry,
I was wondering if GM has considered the generation of electricity (for hydrogen production) from volcanic activity? This could be explored in Iceland or for that matter in Indonesia, where I am currently residing.
Indonesia, aside from an abundance of volcanic activity could also be an unlimited source of biomass for the production of both ethanol and biodiesel.
I am actually looking forward to the launch of the diesel-powered Chevy Captiva in Indonesia which I hope will be used as a platform for the promotion of Chevrolet as an active program for fossilfuel independency for the country.
If GM needs me, I would be more than willing to develop alternative energy programs with the cooperation of the Indonesian business and scientific community
Sirk Verelst
Jakarta
Mr Burns, you wrote: “Many believe that the hydrogen economy is a pipedream, something too complicated or expensive to accomplish.”
I think hydrogen is the future. I just don’t think it is realistic to hope for it any time soon. Despite the excellent strides made, GM still only has a handful of its vehicles with Ethanol flex-fuel capability, and its still an option that you have to order on the Impala, for instance. That, and the supply is just ramping up around the country to the point where I plan to buy an E-85 capable Impala as a local supermarket chain puts it in locally.
But conversion of a gas pump setup to E-85 is relatively simple and I’m assuming will be vastly cheaper than converting to a hydrogen pumping/storage system.
If you can’t count on a Hydrogen refueling station on a trip through the desert to Las Vegas, the Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles will be just as gee-whiz, but equally handicapped as the GM EV-1 electric cars were. At least a flex-fuel Impala could switch over to gas at any point on the trip, or even use gasoline exclusively with only an occasional fill-up of ethanol when gas prices spike.
You also wrote:
“Our goal is to design and validate an automotive-competitive fuel cell propulsion system by 2010.”
Is this not a slight departure from the “get Hydrogen vehicles on the road by 2010″ comments I recall hearing a year or two ago? Perhaps not from you, but from GM’s PR machine?
Really, I fear that much of the talk of Hydrogen from GM is a smoke-screen to hide the fact that GM does not get the kind of fuel economy in its compact cars like the Aveo, HHR and Cobalt that it should – something similar to Toyota or Honda. I’m buying an Impala with the 3.5LVVT V6 because it gets 31mpg on the highway. Last I checked, the 4-cylinder powered HHR did not quite match even that. Bravo for the Impala and the 60-degree V6 improvements, not so much for the HHR and the other Ecotec-powered cars.
The Hydrogen talk also striks me as going to obscure GM’s perennial quest for more large SUV sales for big profits. Even in the E-85 campaign commercials, GM focuses almost exclusively on selling big SUV’s that run on E-85 despite the horrible fuel economy numbers they get when running on Ethanol. Instead, we should see an Impala E-85 commercial touting this capability. Wasteful is wasteful, whether you’re talking about gasoline or E-85, and the big SUVs, despite fuel economy improvements, are still wasteful vehicles.
The last problem I have with Hydrogen is the sinking feeling I get that Honda will beat GM to the punch, and GM will end up looking like a follower, not a leader. Sure, we fans and GM employees all know that GM has been pushing Hydrogen innovation for some time now, but who will come out as the hero when the technology makes its big on-road, in-store debut?
I recall GM talking about Displacement on Demand (Active Fuel Management) 2 years or so before it became a reality, and Honda and DCX ended up getting to market first, without much pre-introduction hooplah.
Please, Mr. Burns, if you are serious about Hydrogen, then find a creative way to deal with the lack of infrastructure, and get to the market FIRST.
Some comments:
starting 2007 or 2008 _every_ GM passenger vehicle should be capable of running pure ethanol or biodiesel. If anything, Corvette could promote its ‘racing fuel’ capability since ethanol is what, 104 octane?
As for hydrogen, an interesting option would be to install reformulators in peoples’ garages and using natural gas pipelines for distribution as Honda does for its Phill Civic GX program. Also, a first step would be to release a flexfuel hydrogen internal-combustion vehicle like the BMW 745h. With a couple of generations of widespread hydrogen/gasoline FFVs (along with tax exemptions for H2) you could have a good proportion of the public infrastructure follow suit.
Less lip service and more actual product please! Before Chinese entrepreneurs buy GM out to have a legitimate brand to sell their imports with..
(then again, I’m looking forward to the 2008 Bluetec diesels, so whatever.)
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell technology is great..for the future..but what about right now? With gas prices the way they are GM needs to be quicker to the market with what the customer wants. Instead of idling all these plants, why not start cranking out the chevette again? Or make some of those teeny Opels here in the US and call them something else. GM has the technology and know-how, just not the boldness and quickness that it needs in todays market.
You didn’t post my last comment regarding the UAW, so maybe this one will make it to the blog.
I agree with Jason. Bringing back the something like the Chevette would be nice.
How about a diesel version of the Geo Metro XFi? That was EPA rated at 58 mpg with a gas engine. Based on that, a diesel version could likely get 70+ mpg. You’d have bragging rights to the most fuel efficent car on the road, and it wouldn’t even be a complex hybrid!
I realize the Metro XFi was discountined due to slow sales, but fuel was much cheaper back then. It’s a different market place now.
First and foremost:
All gasoline engines in GM’s lineup must be made E85 compatable as soon as posible,including and especally “SMALL CARS” so as to make alternative technology avaible to the people who can best make use of it “THE WORKING POOR”.
PAX AMERICUS
its good to lead the world with design and research, but does anyone really see this to be affordable by the public and maintainable on a global or even national level? I’m not as informed about this as i wish i could be, but at what point will this design be ready, and is the investment being put into it today be paid back at some point?
and if this investment is real, and their is a future for it… can you prove to the world that GM will exist long enough for that investment to be built into every vehicle? or will GM financial troubles destroy the entire idea?
I am hoping to see a lot more actions and not a lot of words from GM. Next year I will buy smart car. Why? Cause they have them now.
I think Hydrogen is a great future resource. Storage issues have held it back for years. Electric is here and now. I have sugessted many times in the past you take a lightweight Saturn put in an
EV design team with thee new Li Ion batties and you would have qute a story. I think you could even bring back the EV1 with Li Ion. None of this will happen. So all I want to see is action! Words I have heard enough of.
The 25K next year that goes to Smart could have been GM’s.
Despite some of the critical comments I made above, one thing seems certain. GM needs to have the leadership in Hydrogen technology for a reason: Patents.
Having the technology covered by General Motor’s own patents will be a good step towards owning the mindshare of the public. All of the articles that circulated with the rumors of Ford “needing to buy / license Hybrid technology from Toyota” had an impact on Ford’s image of leadership in hybrids (or a lack of it).
Even if GM isn’t first to market with a viable Hydrogen vehicle, if it owns the patents and works closely with suppliers to “hoard” parts like some claim Toyota has with Hybrid parts, that would strongly work to GM’s advantage.
Making it to the moon was a pipe dream, but was accomplished a mere eight years later.
Hire the best and brightest engineers in this field from the best and brightest colleges and universities, and things will happen.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/060510-6.htm
I read this article recently. So have many others and the general question raised about it is “Why does GM not advertise this to counter Toyota’s green hills and breathe commercials?”
Please, if someone there is listening, GM needs better advertising. People don’t know GM uses land fill gas…
And the Chevy Cmmercials are a bit bland. Spice things up, get the folks who did the Then & Now ad’s working full time.
Get the message out, the blog is too small
I read GM sold a Stationary Fuel Cell to Dow Chemical in Texas. Reforming natural gas for hydrogen. Is it possible for GM and GMAC to utilize this as a good business case to sell houses. Toyota and Honda both have home building divisions that put stationary fuel cells in the new homes. Along with heating and energy needs for the home, the fuel cell provides hydrogen for the car.
Hydrogen sounds like an ideal fuel. I wonder if there can be a safety issue with hydrogen in a crash.
“Hydrogen sounds like an ideal fuel. I wonder if there can be a safety issue with hydrogen in a crash.”
Hydrogen is highly combustible.
Think “Hindenberg”…
BUT, that’s a technical challenge GM is well aware of and mitigating that risk is high on the priority list.
Gasoline vapor, btw, is highly combustible also. Just ask Ford Pinto/Crown Victoria owners…
BTW… “water vapor made from combusting hydrogen is a greenhouse gas”…
Well then we better drain the oceans since they’re busy spewing gazillions of tons of water vapor into the atmosphere RIGHT NOW, thereby generating those deadly atmospheric anomalies known as “CLOUDS”.
Give me a break.
good job ,, way to go pacerx
Mr. Burns,
These are great medium and longer term strategies, but the imply differing and competing investments-really a portfolio of energy distribution sources. Moreover, the energy companies may have to take on their share of them, perhaps with some of the inventory profits from existing production. I asked your ethanol rep at the NY Auto show where I could fill up if I bought the E-85 vehicle and drove it out of the Javits center. The computer database did n’t have anywhere nearby that was feasible. That’s the rub.
J. Kevin Murphy
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but carbon dioxide from biofuels (biomass-produced alcohol or biodiesel fuels) are “greenhouse-neutral,” since the plants grown to make biofuels use atmospheric carbon dioxide. The same holds true for water vapor from biofuels.
The logical near-term solution is to manufacture smaller, lighter, more efficient vehicles. Spend a fraction of the hydrogen research budget on improved aerodynamics, and we’d see immediate benefits.
Since the EV-1 had clean aerodynamics with a low cd, and used regenative braking to extend range, I have to wonder what economies we would have seen from an EV-1 derived hybrid, incorporating a small ICE (gas or diesel) and removing 2/3 of the heavy battery pack.
For the record, I think scrapping the EV-1 project was a Very Bad Idea.
Let me suggest some new vehicle concepts-
First, for the rear-wheel-drive “performance” enthusiast- mount the engine behind the rear axle, to put the weight where it will enhance traction during acceleration; make the engine largely from aluminum, to save weight and allow for better cooling; make it a “boxer,” horizontally opposed 4- or 6-cylinder, for a lower CG and to make more interior room; make it air-cooled, for simplicity and reliability; make it available in 2-door, 4-door, wagon, van, and pickup versions: call it anything you like except “Corvair.”
Revive the ancient “Iron Duke” cast-iron 4 cylinder engine, convert it to Miller-cycle for fuel efficiency, install it in a rear-wheel-drive platform the size of the Malibu, make it in convertible and coupe 2-door, 4-door sedan, 2-and-4-door wagon, and “El Camino-ish” pickup versions, call it anything but “Vega” or “Astra.”
Revive the Chevette. Give it SUV styling, if you like. Call it anything but “Chevette,” and don’t bother making a Pontiac version. I’d like a blue one.
On all sedans, give us a simple locking trunk lid mechanism to hold trunk lids upright (or make trunk lids easily removable) so we can carry large, bulky things like lawn mowers, television sets, or washing machines.
Or, take any (or all) 4-door sedan(s) from your lineup, give it(them) a pickup-style bed where the trunk is (a la Subaru Baja), offer a lockable tonneau cover as an option.
I’m still looking for a passenger-carrying minivan that easily converts into a pickup truck.
Mr. Burns: Ming brings up some good points about better MPG from GM small 4 cylinder models. They are not world class and they could be, GM does offer a 140 HP 1.8L that gets over 40 MPG in European models.
Different vehicles are better suited to one technology than others; so GM should make E-85, VVT, AFM and Direct Injection Gas Engines more widely available. And where is the GM push for B20 (Bio-Diesel)?
Making vehicles with alternative fuel sources and other technologies will give GM a perception of a capable innovator of alternative fuel vehicles. It will also make the buying public more receptive to a Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle. More alternative fuel vehicles will also put pressure on the market to create a reliable distribution infrastructure.
Don’t get me wrong, I think GM is doing an excellent job of developing alternative fuel vehicles and have good Hybrid solutions with the BAS Saturn VUE and new Two Mode Hybrid Tahoe. I would be interested in a small V8 Turbo-Diesel Twin Mode Hybrid Sierra or Avalanche (preferable a GMC version of the Avalanche).
Recently I drove a Fuel Cell powered Zafira and was impressed with the power and drivability from what was an early generation model.
I like the “skateboard” technology and if you can get a Sequel to reliably perform at a level comparable to a gas powered crossover it will be successful.
Here again, I agree with Ming and am more apprehensive that GM will actually make a production version of the Sequel than I am that GM can produce one.
I hope your vision does turn into a reality; even if it is only part of the market it will make a positive difference.
I was watching HGTV last night and they had the Detroit Auto Show on. I saw the Tahoe Hybrid and it looked awesome. Three things:
1. Where was the Sequel??? I saw the competition taking up all the limelight, but no Sequel. That was sad. I know it was probably around some where, but the other model got too much exposure.
2. I wish they had talked more about the Tahoe’s fuel saving technology.
2. When they showed the Kodiak’s gas cap, I wish it had been yellow, so that we could educate more people as to what the yellow cap means.
I am really interested in the Tahoe Hybrid (someone mentioned it in another comment section). I was reading a little about it, and although I may not have any impact now, here are some of my suggestions:
1. Lower it by 2 inches–not 1 cm like it is currently.
2.Aluminum side doors and roof (in addition to the current Aluminum liftgate and hood). Maybe even a driveshaft and other key parts.
3. Make it squat even more at highway speeds. The Tahoe has some serious wheel well showing. They could afford to lower it at highway speeds.
4. Solar panels in the roof like the old M/B E-Class did. They ran the fan that cooled the interior. I say these could cool the interior as well as trickle-charge the batteries when parked.
5. Active Fuel Management that goes: 4, 6 and 8 cylinders instead of just 4 and 8. That way, the 6-cylinder operation could give some boost for immediate acceleration leaving 8-cylinder operation for high speeds and heavy loads.
DOD will be an expensive farce if the V8 always kicks in too soon.
There should also be a manual override so that one can run on any number of cylinders you want for as long as you say so.
Someone still needs to make a better case for me for using hydrogen. To use hydrogen, we first make electricity, then use that electricity to make hydrogen, then use more electricity to compress the hydrogen. Once it’s in the car, we use the car’s fuel cell to convert the hydrogen back into electricity to power the motor. The total efficiency of the system is pretty low.
Why don’t we just cut out the hydrogen steps and use electricity? Spend the money developing better batteries instead of fuel cells, so we get long-range electric cars. In the meantime, build plug-in hybrids. For the majority of people driving, their cars will run on electricity only, which has zero emissions. For longer trips, a small, fuel-efficient combustion engine will increase range.
People seem to get caught-up in thinking about how we can use renewable energy to generate hydrogen. Those plans are using renewable energy to generate electricity, though…let’s just use the electricity directly. We’ve already got a good distribution network for it, and the efficiency (and therefore environmental benefit) is much higher.
I want a plug-in hybrid with a biodiesel (B100) engine in it. Can GM build me that car?
“For carmakers, this is an exciting time with tremendous opportunities for new technologies, new vehicles and growth potential.” Great to hear you say that, I couldn’t agree more and I commend GM on placing a priority on fuel cells and hydrogen research.
Unfortunately, the use of alternative fuels will only solve one of the problems that will be compounded when 1.1 billion automobiles are being operated on the world’s roads. Currently, in the U.S. alone, about 40,000 people a year are killed in accidents on our roadways (about 5000 of those are pedestrians and cyclists). In China, where car ownership is growing at an incredible rate, the number of people killed on the roads in 2004 was right around the 100,000 mark. Regardless of the technology under the hood, the exponential growth in the number of cars that you describe will surely lead to higher numbers of annual fatalities and injuries going forward. I believe that making cars safer is one of the tremendous design opportunities that you described early in your post. Cars need to be safer, not only for the occupants inside the vehicle, but for everyone. What is GM doing to make the vision of safer roads a reality?
What is GM doing to make the vision of safer roads a reality?
Posted by: James at May 25, 2006 05:02 PM
Where have you been the last several decades?
GM’s cars (and pretty much every one else’s cars) Have been constantly, and tremendously improved. And they get even safer every year. The death rates have been dropping. By any measure you care to use, the carmakers have made TREMENDOUS strides in auto safety. And a lot of those improvements make cars safer in spite of unsafe drivers. Most of the world can only dream of having the safety record we do.
Certainly China has a much higher death rate. But wouldn’t you expect that? 5 years ago most of those drivers had never even touched a steering wheel. But like all newbies, the drivers will get better. Their highways will get better. Their cars will get better.
I am glad to see GM leading the way to cleaner fuels. I only wish Washington had the same commitment. Maybe more could get done quicker. Including a hydrogen manufacturing and distibution infrstructure. I know a lot is being done to improve fuel cells, but what about a hydrogen burning internal combustion engine. It could be cheaper to develop and get to the market faster than fuel cells. And, as one other pointed out it is good to have patents. I am getting more and more impressed with GM. New exciting and high quality products and leading the way to new cleaner fuels. Keep up the good work. Oh by the way have you considered selling fuel cells for home electrical power? I hate paying my electricity bill.
Following the point above, GM should be advocating for higher fuel mileage standards and for more rigourous flex fuel requirements (you lead in E85…) and turn that into a competitive advantage. Make the other guys play catch up, be the leader in moving away from petroleum (and the troubles related to importing it), add some diesels (& flex for biodiesel all the way to B100), and make one of these a rear wheel drive flex fuel sports car for me. Best of luck.
Please make sure you do NOT make these vehicles in China or offshore any part of the manufacture regardless of the advantage. You need to figure out how to this, even if it means adding tarriffs. Europe and Japan does this and are very successful at protecting their manufacturing base. Good luck!