Allow Me To Comment

Man! This is orgasmic. You guys actually respond to us. Thank you very much.
And please don't let Honda beat you guys to Hydrogen.

Hi,
I drove 14 leased Geo Metros in the early ‘90s while working for GM. That 3 banger had the best mileage, an actual 45 miles per gallon and better if I didn’t push it.
I would like that car today built in carbon fiber or fiber glass with a diesel engine and no frills. I would like at least 50 mpg.

If I wasn't a long time Chevy supporter, and owner of 6 Chevrolet vehicles, I wouldn't be spending my time following this blog.

I would buy a fuel cell car if it existed right now, even if it was inconvenient, just to make a statement. Alas, it doesn't exist right now, and time is running out.

Did you all see the press coverage yesterday on Honda's new plant, and its new, smaller, dedicated hybrid?

Can you hear the footsteps?

As the fuel cell car recedes into the future, if you don't have something to sell in the meantime, you won't survive to get there. That was the gamble all along, and it doesn't look too promising right now.

I agree with the many recent comments on the mileage of the Aveo and the Cobalt. Come on, you can do better.

FYI NJ is already planning changes in its building codes to take into account hydrogen fueling stations. Some will be in effect by the end of the year. The plan as of now is to re design the canopies above the fuel pumps, and store the tanks there, since there is no or little room in existing stations, and real estate is always at a preminum. They are looking at storage in long narrow tanks. The canopies would have to have a fire rating and of course structural changes for the weigh of the tanks. This is an easier problem that geting the car companies to design a mass produceable and reliable fuel cell, and then pricing it so it will sell. But once gas gets close to $4 a gallon it will sell itself.There has to be a carefull switch of old to new. As much as some/ most with current pricing, would like the petro companies to jump in the lake, we are all linked together as a world economy. The distribution system of fuels for auto and home are locked up. Hydrogen is NOT. Have no doubt this is going to happen.

I am the anonymous writer, and thanks for responding to some of my concerns, but I still have questions.

1. How much of this hydrogen infrastructure is not in the US? And how would you safely and efficiently transport large amounts of hydrogen made on other continents to the US? Remember that it takes energy to compress hydrogen gas or convert it from gas to liquid state. Liquid hydrogen is also extremely cold and requires a heavily insulated tank to store.

2. What types of energy are used to produce the hydrogen? How much of it requires burning fossil fuels that result in a net loss of energy?

3. How do you avoid the chicken and egg problem? Car manufacturers will be reluctant to produce and consumers will be reluctant to buy hydrogen-burning cars until the network of filling stations is in place. Petroleum companies will be reluctant to build a network of filling stations until there is sufficient demand from hydrogen-burning car owners.

4. Can hydrogen storage tanks and the fuel lines feeding the engine on cars be made as safe or safer than current gasoline tanks? I believe this is impossible with compressed-gas or liquid hydrogen because hydrogen is much more explosive than liquid gasoline.

Solid state storage looks like the only reasonable solution for storage, but there is still a very real risk of leaks anywhere between the tank and the engine, particularly in an accident or in an aging car. We may end up needing an additive to give odorless hydrogen a smell, or detectors with alarms on the car to detect potentially explosive and deadly gas leaks.

5. How long will it take to pump 10,000 psi (or more) of hydrogen gas into a storage tank on a car?

Something I've learned over the years is that even though something might not sound too difficult or complex, it is rarely as simple, easy or cheap as you might expect.

Hold up, hold up wait I'm still chewing down the corn.

GM look go E-85.

One investor said if cellulose technology is perfected he thinks gasoline can go below $1.00 a barrel. Sounds far out but he has a winning track record when it comes o identifying new industries.

Look just keep building more E-85 vehicles, stay in the lead.

Look since last month these things have happened.

1. Wal-Mart said it will offer E-85 at its fuel stations at its stores.

2. Archer Daniels Midland hired an oil executive as CEO, clearly to tap ethanol's potential and steer its growth.

3. California, Oregon, New York and Florida have announced their first large scale ethanol plants.

4. Ethanol producers seeing explosive profits with returns on their investments upwards of 30%. (Almost as good as GM stock this year ;)

5. Ethanol costs are covered within 6 months of productions beginning.

6. Brazil now energy independant.

7. Toyota is on board. (Well by 2008, but hay at least they are trying.)

8. Chevron is thinking about it. Entering the game with its profit muscle, one oil company like this can speed up this ethanol game for a decade timetable to a couple of dozen months.

9. Favorable ethanol laws both at the state and national level are on the front burner.

10. GM takes the lead and all of a sudden energy independance is not a pipe dream but finding the national will to make what is very possible happen.

Keep up the good work GM but don't stop, you were always more powerful than you know and still more important than anyone can ever realize.

It's not about the revenue or production numbers, it's about leadership and you are gaining on all fronts.

Wow, that's the best blog I've ever read. I'm motivated so let's talk more about the Sequel to the petroleum based economy. We will get there. Honestly when I read the $15 billion dollar estimate I was shocked that it would be so low, and it puts a hydrogen station within two miles of 70% of the population? Wow. That's pretty close.

We need more Sequels to really get the storage process down and drive demand for the infrastructure. I'd like one in the new H2 Blue. In fact, I'd like to put the H1 body on the Sequel. The Sequel to H1.

to second the fact there are hydrogen plants...

there is a chevron here in the pomona(chino) area, of Los Angeles, right in front of Kia Motors head quarters that sells hydrogen... its very futuristic looking...

but the sad thing is, thats still 20 years out, and ethonal which is 5-10 years out at least, and i know there are 4 stations in california, and 3 of them are private...

I have to be a bit skeptical about all this- after all, didn't GM order all the EV-1 vehicles destroyed? Wouldn't they have been fairly ideal testbeds for hydrogen fuel cells?

Besides, I'd like to know where all this hydrogen fuel is supposed to come from. Hydrogen gas doesn't occur in abundance naturally, as it readily forms chemical compounds (hydrocarbons, for example, like methane), so it has to be extracted by energy-consuming processes; electrolysis of water is a common example (not efficient at all), recovering hydrogen from refinery gas streams, and steam reforming of light hydrocarbons (like methane)are others, but all these processes require an input of energy to work- basic laws of thermodynamics require that more energy is put in than can be taken out. Hydrogen generation is going to require a major source (or sources) of processing energy, and outside of fossil fuel (hydrocarbon) processes (something we're trying to get away from, right?) the biggest contenders would be solar and nuclear. Solar energy collection is still inefficient, and we haven't built any new nuclear reactors sine the '70s. I think the bottom line is, hydrogen as fuel is always going to be much, much more expensive to produce than petroleum. For the short term (the balance of my lifetime, probably the next 30 years) ethanol blends like E85, and 100% alcohols like ethanol and methanol are better paths to follow (since new processes are being developed to extract ethanol from cellulose): both the Otto-cycle and Diesel-cycle engines have a good bit of development potential left in them. The Miller-cycle derivative of the Otto-cycle, for example, offers a 15% increase in economy with relatively little increase in production costs, compared to the policy of scrapping internal combustion engines and replacing them with hydrogen power. Biofuels such as vegetable oils can be produced much cheaper than alcohols, and many existing diesel engines can be converted to use them today. An idea for improving fuel economy, that works, and has been demonstrated to work, is downsizing cars. It worked remarkably well in the 1970s, but the idea was defeated by the popularity of (inherently heavier) SUVs and other light trucks.

Continue research into hydrogen fuel cells and other alternatives by all means, but for the rest of my lifetime give us smaller, lighter, more efficient vehicles, and make use of existing, proven technologies.

I have to say I'm VERY hydrogen sceptic.
Just how can it beat electric car? Battery technology makes big jumps all the time and
electricity comes free by sunlight. Check how cheap solar panels have become. Its here, today, its not space thing anymore.

The additional question is where all this Hydrogen is going to come from.

Natural Gas supplies are currently tight and, so far, off shore drilling for Gas has not been reinstated due to pollution concerns. LNG terminals are discouraged by most major cities, and the cost of importing LNG would only worsten our trade deficit.

As for distilling water to create Hydrogen, that will require enormous amounts of coal or nuclear power, and will actually waste energy as the conversion process is not 100% efficient.

Perhaps technology someday will create an efficient process to convert coal into Hydrogen and other useful byproduct? Or to tap the waste Methane from many growing landfills (as GM itself has done) or our sewer systems?

If you already have improved methods to store high pressure gases, would it not make sense to use compressed air as a energy storage medium instead of batteries in the present hybrid systems. You could really push the eco-friendly line if you brought this to market.

Forgot to add... If safe high pressure storage is a possibility, then in addition to the compressed air, use the exhaust, radiator, and catalytic converter heat to power a supplementary steam engine or other similar secondary drive system. The compressed air would take car of acceleration and load while the steam power could assist during cruise.

I have been an supporter of GM products since I was a kid. I think whats hurting GM is the design of your cars are of hum drum design. You need to go back to the 68/69 firebird and 76 trans am era and redesign the new concepts after the old. Like dodge and ford are doing. Put in new technology into these would boost your market tremendously! I know if you were to design one of these cars, I would be in line to purchase these cars. Every car dealer is so far ahead of what you have to offer. Take some risk's, and keep jobs in America!!!

I worked for GM in Canada,for 17 years and know the tremendous efforts and systems that GM has pionered over the last 10 yrs in both quality design and engineering to produce world class vehicels .Now its time for GM to blow its own horn,and change its focus some what in its advertiseing,and let the public see all this tremendous focus that goes on

Since hydrogen has to be compressed or liquified (dont think that will work cause of cold storage requirements)
why not just go with compressed air like the French car?
http://www.theaircar.com/
Seems like a more praticle solution. Making air compressors is not all that hard and they run on electricity.

Bob

I wouldn't dream of attempting to discourage research into alternative fuels, but I think it's premature to invest so heavily into hydrogen technology just yet.
Hydrogen, at best, is an energy carrier, not an energy source, and I think this is the point that the public isn't getting. To produce hydrogen, energy from another source must be used, and the conversion processes are a long way from 100% efficiency. Essentially, hydrogen fuel cells are simply a means of replacing the heavy, inefficient storage batteries in what is basically an otherwise unremarkable electric vehicle. For the moment, and for years if not decades to come, electrical generation by power companies and transmission to consumers who use home electricity tp charge electric vehicles is likely a more efficient and cheaper process. I'm not expecting to see mass-produced hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (with necessary refueling infrastructure in place) in my lifetime, at any sane, reasonable cost. Research dollars would be better spent on reducing the weight and increasing the efficiency and lifespan of storage batteries.
I'm glad to see GM venturing into hybrid and alternative fuel (FlexFuel E85) technology, I think more attention needs to be given to diesels, particularly vegoil, biodiesel, and WVO FlexFuel versions. I understand the reluctance GM brass might have to introducing a new generation of diesel engines, especially aftert the Oldsmobile Diesel fiasco (caused entirely by the corporate bean-counters), but partnering with a company with a solid reputation, such as Caterpillar, would give consumers an assurance of reliability.
I don't understand why more full-size American vehicles haven't been fitted with Miller-cycle engines. This would result in a 15% increase in mileage practically overnight; adding (intercooled) turbochargers to the list of engine options could give another mileage boost at a much cheaper price than hybrid technology- and combining hybrids with Miller-cycle or turbo engines could give another economy boost.
It's great that GM has introduced hybrid SUVs and light trucks and FlexFuel vehicles. I'd like to see you go the extra mile and offer even more efficient vehicle choices-in my lifetime.
I'd like a 30 mpg Miller-cycle Hybrid Suburban- in beige, please.

I find it unfortunate that GM is backing off prior statements of having a production Fuel Cell Vehicle available by 2010, to now having a goal "to design and validate an automotive-competitive fuel cell propulsion system by 2010." Honda just announced last week, that they will have for sale in 2008, a production Fuel Cell Vehicle. I fear that they will market it extensively in California where image-makers and people who can afford a vehicle in the $50,000-80,000 range, will purchase one and will find places to refuel it. Honda will steal GM's thunder, even if they only sell 1000-2000 the first couple of years. Opportunity lost. If the systems are designed and validated, why can't GM come out with something in '09 at the latest? Build it in low-volumes (1000-2000). Don't wait until everyone else catches up. And please use the skateboard concept. Don't just send out a bunch of Fuel Cell Merivas. BMW can send out hydrogen cars that look like normal cars.

I think it's great that the good folks at GM are aggressively starting to respond to the folks visiting the blog, i think it's a great way to develop dialog on various issues that consumers are concerned about. I hope that GM becomes the most environmentally responsible automaker hands down in the next several years. I am encouraged by the technical progress towards hydrogen, and I would also love to see more clean diesels and an initiative to make every GM gas vehicle flex fuel to give local station owners reason to convert to e85. There has been a lot of activity recently over creating new ethanol production capacity, and I'm sure the fuel will be more widespread in the next couple of years. Oh, and don't be afraid to make some of your more exciting vehicles flex fuel, not just impalas and tahoes. A flexfuel version of the new turbo ecotech would be an ideal candidate...

What about the Camaro?

Hybirds are only a stop gap and not a permanent solution to a now renewable resource. The biggest challenge to hydrogen, ethanol, and electric cars has been the lack of infrastructure, but at the inception of automotive production, there weren't gas stations on every corner. What partnerships does GM have with ADM, Shell, power companies, etc to expand the various "alternative" fuel cars?

it seems gm has the technology first but never translates that to production or sales. hopefully this is changing

I agree to Mr. Jeff Henderson's comment. Hybrids are not a final solution like fuel-cells and, what a lot of Honda- and Toyota-enthusiasts might forget, you have to consider the TOTAL costs of owning a hybrid-vehicle. I'd like to recommend the following, really interesting report by "Road And Track", which was published in April: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=14&article_id=3408

In the meanwhile Chevrolet Germany (by GM DAT) offers, as an option, all models with "BiFuel", what means in this case, you can use both gasoline or LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas). LPG is the cheapest way to run a car over here, it's about half the price of one liter gasoline here in Germany. We appreciate that (my wife got a brandnew Aveo) and it significantly helps to reduce pollution. By the way, it's even more widespread in some other European countries (e.g. Poland, France).

as a few people have suggested about compressed air i believe the answer to the question as to why it is not a good form of energy, is because its extremely violent if the tank is ever damaged. my father at school a few years ago witnessed a compressed air tank just about blow up when one of the workers dropped theirs on the valve, the tank shot off like a rocket and it was only a little 5 lb tank.

As a GM dealer, I am extremely interested in becoming part of the hydrogen gas distribution network. We have the locations, the need and the ability to make the investment in partnership with GM to make it happen. As we drive loyalty in the future, what better way than to provide the fuel source at the NEW GM dealerships around the world?

“Just how can it beat electric car? Battery technology makes big jumps all the time and
electricity comes free by sunlight. Check how cheap solar panels have become. Its here, today, its not space thing anymore.”
Battery technology has, in fact, been very, very slow in developing, and is the limiting factor in electric car designs. Solar cells have been improving cost-wise, but they still don’t create much actual electricity. They are mostly used for toys and very low wattage landscape lighting (got a few of those myself). And you still need those heavy (and toxic) batteries to store the power (the sun isn’t always shining).

GM has already done the “electric car thing”. The EV-1 was leaps and bounds beyond what anybody else was, or is, doing in the electric car field. But selling only 800 out of a market of 17,000,000 is a dismal failure. While those who bought them rave over them, 200 more of them just sat at the dealers unsold for years.

The fuel cell is certainly not ready to hit the streets yet (if ever) but it has certainly already surpassed mere electric cars.

Mr. Burns,

What happened to "XV8" engine that was revealed to the public on 2001?

I concur with the previous poster, please don't let Honda beat you to Hydrogen and become the next media darling while GM has laid so much of the groundwork.

For now, however, I strongly feel that GM is passing up a big opportunity to shine with Ethanol.

I am planning to buy a 2007 Impala with the E-85 flex fuel option. I am willing to forgo the LTZ or SS trim levels I might normally buy, because only the base (up to LT2) models offer E-85 compatibility. The 3900 will get it for "fleet" Uplanders, or so I've read, which is mystifying oversight (how many fleet Uplanders does GM sell, anyway?), but on the Impala its just the 3500.

I've said it many times but I haven't seen it yet: GM really needs to get out and advertise the Impala E-85 flex fuel CAR, and pull back with the SUVs and Avalanche already. The only thing you are accomplishing is tying the image of Ethanol to big SUVs. Now, how about a real solution - an already fuel efficient car running on Ethanol. That's right you sell it, GM, now advertise it. My friends have never heard of the E-85 Impala. Considering the 3500 gets 21/31 with normal gas, its much more realistic to run on E-85 than the much improved, but still fuel sucking full size SUVs, for which Ethanol is more of a feel good PR smokescreen than a practical solution, especially given the temporary (hopefully) spike in Ethanol prices due to the MTBE switchover.

Whether or not GM decides to back the E-85 Impala (and not just the profitable SUV's it wants to sell and spin as "green") with advertising $$$ will let me know if it was only so much PR spin, or if GM is serious about Ethanol as a solution beyond big truck engines.

QUestion of where does the hydrogen come from to make hrdrogen fuel? Did you drink and H2O today? Hydrogen is all around you. The one stumbling block that will prevent widespread hydrogen use will not be the technology that makes it work or the infrastructure to get it into the vehicles. The one thing is a little history lesson called the Hindenberg. Despite the safety that will have to be demonstrated with repeated high speed crashes and car fires, the public in general will be as receptive to hydrogen in gaseous form as they are to nuclear powerplants the size of grapefruits powering their cars.

I agree with Edward Hayes,
E-85 is probably going to play a big role in the next few years. Im glad to see that GM is grabing the bull by the horns and taking the initiative to build qulity cars that are E-85 compatible.
Keep up the good work!

I saw this article today.

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn9204-invention-hydrogen-fuel-balls.html

"Hydrogen is often promoted as an ideal clean fuel for cars. But the explosive stuff is also darned dangerous to transport and store.

"So the US government’s Department of Energy has been looking for ways to make it as safe and easy to pump as gasoline. The solution, according to one of its latest patent applications, could be to store it in tiny glass balls."

Petroleum and Steam autos. The gas engine would run, get hot, and boil the water creating steam. The steam engine could take over at certain parts of the driving.

The cars gas engine could run at low rpm's, just enough to keep the water hot enough to stay in a steam state (when the gas engine was not needed).

Steam is very efficient, and very powerful.

PLEASE get the commercial with the 2 dancing idiots off the air?
What were you people thinking? Please change your advertising agency ASAP!

I have to clarify what I wrote. An internal-combustion engine can not run at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. (It would overheat).

A vacuum pump would have to be installed so that the water would boil at a lower pressure.

Or a system similar to the Stanley Steamer would have to be used. A hybrid design of a fuel driven engine and a coal based heater for the water to boil, might be more efficient than the vacuum method (above).

A Stanley Steamer? Besides Jay Leno's commute, I don't think we can expect to see anything like that cruising our streets any time soon.

Hydrogen is an answer, but seeing that GM is still using OHV engines, lets get real. GM's only affordable alternative is to really push Ethanol, for which they already have several models capable of running on.

Ethanol need not be a "stop gap". It can be "the" solution.

getalifeagain-

Turns out BMW is already working on what you describe. Read the C&D article linked here.

The alternative to this is to run your engine more efficiently so there is much less heat passed on to your exhaust. Instead of using steam, exhaust heat can be recaptured with a turbocharger. I'd love to see GM do more with turbochargers to increase efficiency. Wasn't turbocharging expertise one of the reasons for buying Saab?

Or, you can run an Atkinson cycle engine, like the Prius, which runs more efficiently and generates less heat in the exhaust to begin with. To me, both of these are much simpler solutions than adding an entire steam-engine system to the car.

Steam?

There is only one major hoax in the vision of (almost) all OEM's. Fuel Cell. It isn't the holy grail in the hydrogen economy. Market penetration wouldn't be 100% and the fuel cell equiped vehicles would be mainly in the low price range, exactly the area where less money can be made. So all in all (automotive) fuel cells are a very expansive technology to invest in.

Good call Steve.. that commercial is GARBAGE!

Larry,

Since my comment on this subject wasn't posted (probably due to length) let me summarize for you: the Hydrogen economy can't happen in the next fifty years, let alone the next ten years. The reasons are varied, but let me give a brief categorization.

1. Hydrogen production and Storage
Hydrogen is produced en-mass today, however the world's production of hydrogen would need to triple in order to supply the capacity needed to run the fuel-cells in cars and homes that are predicted under the Hydrogen economy. This tripling would require a large amount of power generation as the separation is a very energy-intensive process. This power is not currently available and therefore the capacity must be built and brought online. Given the choices, the likely candidates would be solar and nuclear, much like several writers have pointed out. Good luck with that anytime soon at a reasonable price.

2. Distribution
yes, 10 - 15 billion is a drop in the bucket, but the problem isn't installing tanks and pumps. The problem is fighting the oil infrastructure that is already in place. In major cities, there isn't much available space, and if you think that the oil companies will sit idly by while you put them out of business you have completely taken leave of your senses. It's the same problem you're going to run into with E-85: the only oil company controlled filling stations with E-85 will be ones affiliated with ethanol producers owned or joint-ventured with the parent oil company. Otherwise there is zero competitive interest on the part of oil companies to let alternative fuels use their distribution network. If there's anything that we know about big oil, it's that they're all about the bottom line. Are you seeing the theme here?

3. Politics
Campaign speeches and empty promises go hand in hand. The fact of the matter is that oil company's are huge and influential lobbyists. They own most of Washington, much as the Big 3 auto companies did 20 years ago. A great deal of the hydrogen economy is dependent upon help from the federal government in terms of both legislation and federal funding in order to make it a viable business opportunity. Right now, that legislation isn't likely to get passed, and what does get passed will be extremely vague and watered down.

4. Economics
I'm talking global economics here. Doing this would completely de-stabilize the middle east. If you haven't been watching CNN for the past decade, let me fill you in. This is a region rife with religious fanatics that believe already that we're the great Satan. The hydrogen economy would lower our oil imports to zero. We would actually become a net exporter of oil to the world under this utopian goal. Now, this would mean that the world's largest consumer of oil (the US) becomes a leading producer of oil. This won't happen overnight, but it will happen much faster than the Middle-Eastern supply markets can react. Prices will plummet and competition will increase simply because of the laws of supply and demand: supply goes way up and demand drops significantly. The entire Middle-Eastern economy is dependent upon oil exports and the hydrogen economy would leave them out in the cold. A massive depression would occur that would make the Great Depression look like a picnic. I'm not exaggerating to say that unemployment and net income per capita in the Middle East would be affected. Hundreds of Billions of dollars a year would disappear from the economies of the region. And the finger will point directly at us. Politically, we simply can't afford to put an entire region of the world back 50 years economically. Militarily, we can't handle Iraq, let alone a united Middle East bent on getting revenge.

You may ask, how does this impact GM? The answer is simple: you're pouring billions of dollars you really can't afford to spend into a program that can never bear fruit due to the reasons above. The US government can't solve these problems, and there's no way that GM can either. E-85 is going to be tough enough. I'd spend the billions on better products and alternative fuels with a more realistic future and a more timely event horizon. Leave the pipe dreams to the politicians. As a consumer, I'm interested in GM producing a car that can be driven in my lifetime.

Sincerely,

Nathan

Can you believe GM pays an agency to come up with that crap?
It's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed as a GM fan and you can imagine how Cobalt owners must feel.
I could imagine how future Cobalt owners might feel, but with that ad, there may be alot fewer of them!

GM-Hire a new ad agency! ASAP

I'd like to see GM-Engagement in DME- dimethyl ether - solutions.

This low pressure infrastructure is so much more attractive and the efficiency wtw quite good, per the compression ignition cycle it enables, on several renewable pathways after an initial natural gas derivation (just like the hydrogenium's).

China is on this way with it's public transport buses.
Moscow, Sweden, Japan... researching.

Please excuse my weird german English.

A company in Florida called Hydrogen Technologies has made a MAJOR scientific discovery and has figured out a way to change water into a fuel
called "Aquygen". Has GM looked into this?

Steve, GM cannot advertise.
They only just began realizing that those nasty, gray pictures they used to take of their interiors were unflattering.
The new Saturn SUV and the Enclave now have much better pictures of the dashboards.
GM needs to hop off this "corporate" advertising and really get people into their cars.

The drive park in Las Vegas is going to be successful.
What a brilliant idea!
They need several more of those around the country--especially in Texas, Califonia and New England.
They need to get people in their cars (no strings attached) then find dealers for them.

Make them drive several models, so that they just don't drive a Corvette and go home.
Hand out tickets in the newspaper and to lucky supermarket shoppers in LOCAL markets.

Have friendly staff help them choose the vehicles they want to drive and build a proper "test track", complete with "parking lots", pretend "cargo" they can load up the cars and trucks with etc (like soccer balls, "groceries", lumber).
Also, open roads, twisty corners and other stuff--al on a few acres.

They also need to set up GM Stores in Malls all over America, where people can pop in and sit in some of their cars. Change them out from time to time and rotate your models around so that every week, mall shoppers can view a new GM model. Make sure you have the whole gamut from each brand:
eg. One week you have an SUV from Saturn, a mid-size Cadillac, a compact Chevrolet etc..
Or you can rotate the brands in and out of the stores.

Wives would see the cars and tell their husbands about it, and Husbands would be more eager to go to the mall.

Let them sit in the cars, and offer random test drives all day long to people who have never driven a GM car--or who seem very interested.

Also, sell (and give away) GM paraphernalia there like t-shirts with GM logos and images, caps, keychains, model cars, posters, videos, magnets (all at low prices but of high quality, so it doesn't become a "novelty" store.)

Lastly: Advertise LOCALLY. Small-town newspapers and local TV stations.

Where is GM's DIRECT competition to theCamry and Accord?

Does GM have any intention of focusing on the mainstream market anymore?

What are GM's plans to seize the crown occupied by the Camry (once held by the Ford Taurus)?

How will GM steal customers from this large segment, many of whom buy the Camry and Accord out of habit (although GM has few offerings it seems)?

GM needs a Chevrolet that is dedicated to attacking this important segment of the marketplace. A car, the same size as the Camry and Accord, with more amenities and better styling (and reliability) than the Camry and Accord.
It needs to sell ZERO of these cars to fleets and pour as much money into it as they can to make it upscale and regal yet not boring.

They need to seize the marketplace and redefine the family car. Those "trick" seats in the Impala are a start.

Four important things;
1. Quiet. Use quiet steel and active noise cancellation to make it vault-like.

2. Fuel economy. It must get awesome fuel economy (best-in class). By hook or by crook, they must nail this one to the wall. Nothing short of "V6, DoD, two-mode" or "carbon fiber"--whatever works.

3. Family. It must have recognizable family amenities. It must clearly be geared toward family comfort, versatility and enjoyment.

4. Smooth. It must run like butter and experience no problems.

Then they need to do all they can to get Camry and Accord drivers into it. They must directly target that hard marketplace.
They need to set a goal and formally de-throne the Camry and Accord for good.

I like the idea above with the GM stores in malls.

This segment may have less money in it for GM, but they need to lock down the mainstream, since this determines what next they consider. Better it be Cadillac/Buick than Acura/Lexus.

Would I be able to drive IN the mall? I've wanted to that ever since I saw "The Blues Brothers"

I'll probably get it from others for coming here but I just wanted to say great job!

I am an environmentalist who is really happy seeing the changes going on today, especially at General Motors. My website reeks of affection for GM for many reasons, not just environmental or energy independance.

Nearly 30 years ago my father was on patrol as a police officer and saw a house on fire. He called the dispatch and rushed in because he thought someone might be trapped. He searched the house and helped save a kids life but when he made it to the outside door he fell down foaming at the mouth.

He had to go on several medications and eventually had to retire young from the injury. Today he is alive at 58 driving his Saturn L Series with 80% of his lung capacity gone; his airways expanded and helped by medication.

I only bring this up because he is only alive because of the employee health care GM started in America that found it's way to the rest of working class.

Not only did it help my father, it saved my wife and allowed me to have a child.

I want you to know that there are some environmentalists out there that can see what great things you have done.

Thank you very Kindly.

No, you won't be driving in the mall. The purpose of the store in the mall would be to:

1. Allow people to sit in the car who otherwise would have had to go to a pushy dealer and worry about having wasted their time. These people presumably woul dnever have gone through the trouble to do that before because they would have dismissed Gm and gone to Honda.

2. Provide an atomosphere of immersion in which people can look at the GM features in-depth. There would be touchscreens explaining Active Fuel Management, Ultraview or whatever it is that GM wants to highlight.

3. Promote awareness by getting GM merchandise and literature out there in the form of T-shirts and magnets. People are always suckers for t-shirts.

4. Get feedback on the needs of people in a particular market.

Believe you me. People will always jump at a chance to sit in any new car.
Of course Gm needs to show their best cars (not those nasty plastic Pontiacs).

Steam Power

I would say easily less than ten years down the road, steam shall or should play a major role in hybrid automobiles.

Right now because of massive technological and engineering improvements, steam locomotives in the future will produce a 60% lower fuel consumption per passenger and a huge reduction in maintenance costs in comparison to advanced diesel or electric passenger trains. In 2000 a company was created to design these modern steam locomotives.

This means that because of the huge technological advancements, steam power would be feasible on a smaller scale such as in automobiles. The economy of scale would obviously have to be engineered, but with patience, it can be done.

In my opinion, hydrogen is a dumb idea. It's not a primary fuel, and there is too much inefficiency in using it either as a IC fuel or in fuel cells.

Biodiesel from algae seems more promising.

There is no hard data about the retirement of gas guzzlers after the first two gas crunches.

Ergo, consumers will still buy the higher gas consuming vehicles although gas prices have "skyrocketed." (Really adjusted for inflation, gas prices are where they should be. It's just that it was sudden).

GM's share of the large SUV segment as of April 30 is 67%. Last year it was 59%.

As posted by others, the laws of physics dictate you cannot get more energy out than you put in. Producing hydrogen requires energy. The amount of energy available in the man-made hydrogen will be less than what was used to process it.

As for solar or wind power, forget it. They're nice visible forms of enviromentally friendly energy production, but in reality they can;'t produce much. They can't even produce a fraction of what we need for our current electrical requirments, never mind producing fuel.

If we're talking centralised production then Nuclear is probably the way things will go. Of all the technologies that ewxist, nuclear is the only currently viable one. Unfortunately there is the issue of radioactive waste but I still see this as the only viable option so far.

Due to losses in distribution of any energy (for example elctricity) I do wonder if local production (ie at your home) backed by the electricity grid will be the way forward. For example, you could cover your roof with solar panels and have a wind turbine at your home and for situations where batteries are depleted and production levels are not high enough, you could fall back on the national network (as I said, most likely nuclear). That's all a long way off though, probably not in my lifetime in fact...

As for range, performance and safety, it's still early days. Look how safe cars are nowadays in an accident compared to how they used to be. Give it time.

E85 is good, but only a stop-gap solution really. It still requires 15% petrol which means that although consumption will drop 85% and supplies will thus last 6-7 times longer, they will still eventually run out...

I can see E85 working out as a stop-gap until the distribution and other issues of hydrogen are sorted out.

I'm from the UK, so what we'll do I don't know (can't see us having enough land to grow enough crops to make E85 cheap as we are overcrowded) and we don't get enough solar energy or wind power neither. Looks like the cost of motoring will remain high over here..

Safety is absolutely #1 in the manufacture of any goods. Quality is #2.

Taking the former, an example of a real life occurence is best. A new CEO was put in place in a manufacturing business. He stressed safety throughout the plant, including not only the factory, but the offices too. Accidents fell dramatically to a negligible amount (one or two). Also, quality increased because the retraction of errors was now cut off and efficiency replaced them.

So to put quality first may be erroneous because safety is not only more important, but makes the process less costly and more efficient.

I'm excited about hydrogen but I agree with most of the commentors that e85 should be the immediate stop-gap for GM.

Every GM car going out the door should be e85 certified. Many people have begun running e85 in their vehicles, risking the corrosive effects of e85 on gaskets and aluminum and the problems with PCM/fuel.

Listen to the people, GM. They're telling you what you need to do, right now, to make a difference.

I can totally agree with the earlier comment of the chicken and egg.
Technology needs to be pushed, but the "Hydrogen Economy" is going to come very slowly. the most promising solution in the farsee-able future is to push for more oil producing tech such as the "thermal conversion process", to not only make more oil from what we discard, but also reduce future pollution from land fills and toxic waste.

Can someone please explain to me the big deal about hydrogen-powered vehicles?

It is well known that hydrogen isn't a solution to global fossil fuel consumption, at least not over the next 50-70 years or so. During that time fossil fuels will continue to be used to manufacture hydrogen since it does not occur freely in nature in meaningful quantities.

The energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of hydrogen fuel is abysmal given the hoops we have to jump through to manufacture, dispense and store hydrogen in a practical form (to the point of being unprofitable and impractical). That is to say a form that will not leak from or embrittle its container and cause safety concerns. And a form that will not require substantially more onboard capacity (3-4X) just to maintain the same range as today's gasoline-powered vehicles.

Most importantly, even from an environmental perspective (since this is what the manufacturers are peddling to consumers), hydrogen isn't a solution...it's what I like to call problem displacement. Carbon monoxide gas is a byproduct of current methane-steam production of hydrogen.
So we're not emitting less greenhouse gas, we're simply shifting the production of pollutants from the vehicles to the plants that manufacture hydrogen.

The second law of thermodynamics dictates that we will always have to expend more energy deriving the hydrogen than we will receive from the usage of that hydrogen.

Reading today's headlines from automakers and the government, one might believe we discovered someone with the expertise to defy thermodynamics.

So, what's the big deal?

I love the fact that the technology is advancing so fast even in the refueling infrastucture, but I do believe we need to address the needs of the consumers here in the fact that at some point we need to have technicians starting to ramp up for the enevidable use of hydrogen. My question is where do we go to begin our education so far there has been nothing offered with the exception of base line principle and workings. I realy do not want to see a failure like high voltage electric which remains a serious problem here in the central florida area.

Mark

GM shouldn’t be spending money on Hydrogen because Hydrogen is just acting as a inefficient battery.

With Hydrogen you need electricity to make it, you need more electricity to compress it, then it has to be transported by a diesel power trucks to the fueling station.

Then there is the fuel-cell car. You have the hi-pressure fuel tank and the expensive complex full-cell that turns Hydrogen into electricity which powers the cars electric motors.

GM is spending money to try to build a car that is less efficient, more expensive and less safe then the EV1 with an extremely limited fuel infrastructure.

GM should be putting it’s money into battery powered cars because improvements in battery technology are going to make Hydrogen cars obsolete before they even become available.

I assume you have heard of the movie: Who Killed The Electric Car?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WALF-4QZ8V0&search=Who%20Killed%20the%20Electric%20Car%3F

Mr Burns
If GM starts getting new EV cars out ASAP you can turn this around and get a lot of good PR. If you continue this pie-in-the-sky Hydrogen stuff things are just going to get worse.

Please try to make cars using carbon fiber it is light and won't deplete our natural resources. Hydrogen seems to be the answer. Please make us some pretty cars. I am not interested in driving an ugly efficient car.

That commercial is the only GM/Chevy commercial I have ever acctually remembered. Because, IT WAS HILARIOUS! I cant wait to see it again..... Please. If you are not going to air it please post it online somewhere. I have been searching for it for a good 25 minutes now. Thats how I wound up here with you negative Nancy's..... what a bust.

We can,t afford not to go to
hydrogen technology if we care about the surviability of of our planet. What is more important,profit for the oil companies or our children,s future? America should be the leader in this venture.