Project Driveway Update
Listening and learning from 500,000 miles of emissions-free driving
By Mary Beth Stanek
Director, GM Fuel Cell Commercialization
Sometime next week, one of 100 Equinox hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles being driven in Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C., will drive the 500,000th emission-free mile of Chevrolet‘s Project Driveway. This is a huge accomplishment because we learn something about our vehicles, the hydrogen infrastructure and consumer acceptance of fuel cell vehicles with every mile driven.
Since the program began just over a year ago, more than 3,400 individuals have driven the fuel cell Equinox; either in short drives at media programs or special events, or as part of a longer-term loan. And with each drive we’ve learned something – most times it’s a pleasant surprise; other times not so pleasant. But each “surprise” has helped us identify needed refinements to the vehicles performance or resolve potential issues.
Overwhelmingly, the drivers love their experience, but that hasn’t stopped them from giving us candid feedback on everything from the way the vehicle looks, to technical input on brake “feel” and performance, to fueling experiences. To date, their feedback has led to the resolution of several hundred customer issues, and many of those changes have to do simply with how we set-up the driver experience.
The Project Driveway program has also provided us with insight into how these vehicles are being used under real world driving conditions. We’ve been able to use these experiences to extend fuel cell stack life and improve the regenerative braking system, which has already benefited our 2-mode hybrid vehicles since it’s the same brake system used on the Saturn Vue, Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon 2-mode hybrids.
Plus, the knowledge we’ve gained during the program on the fuel cell itself directly impacts the development of the Chevrolet Volt battery. Just like the Volt battery, fuel cells have several hundred repeating elements that need to be thermally managed, and we are applying the fuel cell thermal design knowledge to the Volt battery design.
From an infrastructure standpoint, the capabilities of the fueling stations have improved greatly to where many customers who used to spend 20 minutes or more refilling now spend about 6 or 7 minutes, which is very close to the average time to fill-up a traditional internal combustion vehicle.
True, hydrogen has a ways to go before it becomes a mainstream fuel, but GM is making real progress in vehicle development, which is also impacting other advanced vehicle programs as well. If you have some time, I recommend you check out the write-up in Motor Trend this month, which is a balanced account of where the Equinox fuel cell electric vehicle and hydrogen economy stands today.
37 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.)
Have you done any experiments with methanol-powered fuel cells?
Methanol can be readily derived from coal or from biomass-based syngas, and doesn’t present nearly the logistical hurdles of hydrogen. The current ethanol infrastructure could readily handle methanol eliminating the need to spend billions on a nationwide hydrogen infrastructure.
“I recommend you check out the write-up in Motor Trend this month, which is a balanced account of where the Equinox fuel cell electric vehicle and hydrogen economy stands today.”
Hardly balanced at all in my opinion.
The article failed to mention the basic thermodynamic fact that it will always take far more energy to break the bonds joining hydrogen atoms to other elements than we can ever hope to get back by burning those hydrogen atoms as fuel.
That means without an incredibly cheap and abundant source of clean energy with which to break apart the chemical bonds joining hydrogen to other elements, hydrogen will be an expensive and impractical fuel.
I agree it’s a good fuel, but as long as we have to burn other expensive or dirty fuels to make it, it won’t be either practical or economical.
What a great accomplishment. This is something to be proud of, but I’m sure there will be plenty of negative comments given here. Keep up the great work.
Bob
So what is GM doing to bring hydrogen fuel to the masses?
Hello Mary Beth Stanek,
Do you agree with the Chairman of GM North America, Bob Lutz, and his belief that carbon emissions do not cause global warming? He’s called the greenhouse gas theory, “a total crock of sh**.”
Since you’re asking the American Taxpayer to give GM the money it needs to stay in business, do you think we have the right to know – as your lender – where you stand on these issues? Will you go on the record and state whether or not you agree with Mr. Lutz that global warming is “a crock of sh**”?
Many thanks in advance for your reply… we’re waiting for it. Please give us, your corporate welfare providers, the dignity of an answer.
Thank you.
[...] Project Driveway Update [...]
VERY Awesome!!!
500,000 miles…wow. Congratulations, and I hope everybody involved with project Driveway is very very proud. Keep up the good work, and before we know it, we’ll be off of oil like it never existed.
Thank you Mary Beth, and thank you GM as well.
….on a side note….I cannot believe the government would consider this as part of a “failed industry”, and rather see it die, than support it 100%….unbelievable…
[...] [Source: GM Fastlane Blog] [...]
Congratulations. Excellent progress and a joy to read. Are there any plans for Fuel Cell Vehicle testing within the CVEP?
This is excellent. 500,000 fuel cell driven miles.
I am not sure that Congress and the rest of the american people are aware of all these accomplishments. Maybe GM needs to advertise and promote such excellent innovation and technological improvements even more.
@Charles – who cares what the individual opinions of some of the executives are – it is the actions that speak louder than words. GM has shown that they do care about alternative technologies and have put that into action with their fuel cell equinoxes. How many other companies can say the same?
What a great accomplishment GM!! As a GM employee it feels good to know I am working for a company so dedicated helping reduce CO2 emmisions around the world.
One thing you forgot to mention Mary Beth, is those 500,000 miles were free to the drivers. Unlike some other company who is leasing ($900.00/month) hydrogen cell fuel vehicles for their road testing. If some of the folks on this blog were truely interested in helping GM fight global warming you could be part of the solution by promoting GM’s many initiatives in advanced propulsion systems.
When you stand in the way of a Corporate giant like GM and be part of the problem with all the negative publicity, you’re making a statement that you really don’t care about global warming.
Thanks Mary Beth for the update and can’t wait to hear when we reach 1,000,000 polusion free miles.
I AM GM
Ms. Stanek,
Hydrogen fuel cell technology is too expensive to sell economically for the forseeable future and there’s no such thing as a hydrogen fuel distribution network.
So, how does Project Driveway solve your major product problem, which is that you can’t make money selling small, fuel-efficient cars today?
Charlie H. you confuse me.
On one hand, GM gets beat up for not being the technological leader in helping fight global warming despite their many different types of advanced propulsions. On the other hand, comments like the one you wrote clearly says you think GM shouldn’t be investing time and money into hydrogen cell fuel which is 0% pollution free out of the tail pipe.
If GM, or any company around the world, wants to invest in a new technology including hydrogen cell fuel ( and there are many) why would you make a comment saying you think they are wasting their efforts.
Let’s qualify GM’s stance in global warming. The company knows what the customer’s needs are by listening to the customer and taking marketing surveys. I see were even this blog site has had some influence on decisions our executives are making moving forward. GM is today and will be a global leader in fighting global warming and protecting our planet for future generations. Thanks to some of you who share good constructive ideas with GM through this blog site.
As for the H cell fuel infrastructure, well I guess our Government will need to support the efforts of GM and other companies as the auto industry is being transformed into a new generation of cars and trucks. You can either jump on the train for a great ride or get out of the way because it’s a historical time in the new auto industry around the world. You can be a positive force in making it happen by helping the auto industry get the American government involved. Other governments of other countries with an auto industry help their own achieve new technology. We have to start playing like other countries.
When I read comments like Charlie H. and others I can’t but help think about the Wright Bros. in the bicycle shop. I wonder what kind of negative comments came from folks who knew about their project. Now can you imagine what an uphill struggle these 2 guys would have had if they lived in the new media age? I swear if it was up to some folks we’d all still be riding in horse and buggies.
But honestly, if you really want to help GM and other companies succeed in the fight against global warming please contact your congress men and ladies and let them know what technology we have here in America. Let them know you support all the efforts from GM and tell them they too need to come to the table and help support what American consumers want.
There are many GM employees feeling the same way as you do about the global warming. This is our world too where our children and grandchildren breath the air every day. I feel very good about all GM’s future products in protecting the consumers in the future. If not, we would be voicing our opinions back to our leaders. But once again contact your government and let them know how you feel , they should be a big part of this new industry. I think we all saw firsthand how much resistance and or misinformed our politicians are to our American auto industry.
I wasn’t alive when the first cars were put on a production line and history was written but I sure will be when historians write the second part to the new auto industry. What a great exciting time to be involved in a positive way for all of our futures.
I AM GM
I AM GM: ” When I read comments like Charlie H. and others I can’t but help think about the Wright Bros. in the bicycle shop. I wonder what kind of negative comments came from folks who knew about their project.”
But at least the Wright Brothers weren’t going counter to the Laws of Thermodynamics as GM is attempting to do. They were instead breaking new ground by discovery the Laws of Aerodynamics, especially learning how to control airfoils.
It is one thing to discover new science as the Wrights did ~ it is quite another to take on an engineering problem that disregards known science as GM is doing.
Great response from I AM GM, and my hats off to the work being done by GM in the hydrogen arena. It always makes me reflect back on Thomas Edison. The light bulb was a fabulous invention, but what good was it without readily available electricity? In time, they were giving away light bulbs so that the electrical infrastructure could grow. Obviously, GM can’t give away H cars (although they essentially did ‘give away’ the first 100), and without some Government support, not much will be done to realize this future…at least here in the United States. I would be first in line to get a hydrogen powered home generator. Things like that will come, and can grow an infrastructure.
This is the next industrial revolution, folks. We can lead, or follow. It is our choice as a people. This is where we need to stop bickering and unite. We can do so much more than putting people on the moon. Imagine freedom from unfriendly oil regions. Imagine zero emissions. Do we want some other country to control this? If money is the obstacle, remember that we invented money too. It is really only its own obstacle, supported by our perceived need to evaluate each other.
GM has done some very good work in alternative fuels, and more than others including Toyota who released the Prius into the market, which is down 50% and forcing them to idle their new plant down south. The consumer really does drive the market, at least for now.
I had the honor of living on the west coast some years ago, and I have been to just about every state in the union and can tell you that the ratio of domestics to foriegn is not very good, but we are all trying very hard to change that over the 20 or so years after we had some image and quality issues.
Those Americans that continue to buy foriegn, we tried to offer you something, but we understand we cannot please everyone. What we can offer is value, great gas mileage, excellent warranties and a very good dealer supply chain to support our great products. The hybrid technology in the tahoe and cadillac suv’s are far more advanced that Toyota, and many from Toyota have stated that the prius isn’t even as advanced.
Our volt will become a reality, and people will see what GM can do, develop, design, produce something that attractive and very economical. All we ask for is a bridge loan to continue in our restructuring efforts that have been underway for well over 10 years. We are committed to supplying better cars, more attractive designs to our loyal customers. To our customers of the past that were disatisfied, we hope to change your mind, stop by and check us out, including Chrysler and Ford, we all have a lot to offer you.
I wrap this up by saying, I have worked for GM for a long time, and give my absolute best to provide the best designed part that will become just one piece of your new vehicle. I sincerely hope you go test drive a new car soon and there are millions of other Americans that do so as well!
Jim
“I AM GM,” There’s nothing confusing about this. GM does not build much in the way of fuel-efficient cars. And they are losing money. Still, they’re spending large chunks of money to develop hydrogen fueled cars, which is simply a waste of time. There is no H2 supply to support this. There is no H2 “factory,” and H2 is a fuel of inconveniently low volumetric energy density. And fuel cell technology is fundamentally expensive, so they can’t build an H2 vehicle that people can afford. This is a complete waste of time until we advance on at least one of those fronts.
The Volt program is a similar cash drain. Hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a car that will sell in minute quantities through 2015. This has no useful impact on the environment.
The Volt doesn’t even provide GM with a strategic advantage. The Volt is 2/3 of a Prius. When battery technology is economically ready, Toyota can remove the transmission from the Prius, install a bigger battery and – presto! – they’ve got an RE-EV. If they want.
However, had GM taken the same money and embarked on an XFE program for the automatic Cobalt, the Aveo and the Malibu and its clones, and delivered decent fuel economy gains, this would help the current generation of cars sell and deliver some useful CO2 abatement this year. And they might make some money (or at least sell some cars).
Or, GM could work to develop one of its existing hybrid technologies, either the BAS or the two-mode hybrid into mainstream vehicles right away. While the BAS system isn’t anywhere near as good as other hybrid systems, it does deliver useful economy gains. It’s not a bad idea; GM just hasn’t doen enough with it to make it pay off for GM. GM should be working to cut the cost and get it on the road (some have suggested including it as standard in a Saturn is a natural for that brand) in large volume today.
Or get the two-mode program out of low gear and into a large percentage of their GMT900s. Or stop fiddling around with SUVs (where it does not sell at GM’s current price point) and get it into a pickup to see if it will sell in a pickup market. It beats me why GM would see two different models of two-mode SUVs sitting unloved on dealer lots all this time and conclude that the next vehicle for two-mode hybridization should be another SUV. When have SUV owners ever really cared about fuel economy? SUV owners who decided they care about fuel economy simply buy smaller vehicles. But fleet operators with pickups… now they would be much more likely to see the logic of 1/3 better fuel economy. At least try something different.
GM does not need pie-in-the-sky vehicles that won’t ship for years and are dependent on technologies that don’t exist, they need practical projects that pay off right away.
We had the Hydrogen Equinox here at our dealer last month. It was on display and available for test rides for customers. I went for a ride in it and it was pretty awesome. The techs that brought it from the GM Hydrogen test center near our dealer said it is coming along nicely…but still many years away from production. One obstacle that will be faced will be the infrastructure for the hydrogen filling stations. It would cost billions to make stations across the country. Right now in NY,we have 3. 2 of them are within 5 miles of my dealer. They speculated that the existing gas stations would maybe take on the filling structures,but they also worried that they would take advantage of the public lke they did with gas. Who knows? I do know everyone who was a test driver for the program loved and raved about the Equinox……I saw on Hondas site that they have a similar test car…but you have to pay $600.00 per month to lease it!!! No way……..I really hope GM leads the way in this and shoves it right up the imports……uhhh…..uhhh……tailpipe!!!!
GM needs to blow their own horn in the mass media. The web is too passive. I get a GM email the other day loaded with good stuff, but snet to me, a believer. Wasted effort. You have to reach the non believers. The fact the the Malibu is rated higher quality, higher gas mileage, and lower cost than Camry or Accord needs driven home. Same with Cobalt. Same with Aura, Same with you name it. You have winners. Invite comparison. Challenge the public with a ” Drive theirs. Then drive ours.” How about “Built by your neighbor. – See what you neighbors been up to.”
And another thought… Why do I see the highly limited Honda Clarity all over the TV making them look like they are so far out front, when GM has more Fuel Cell powered vehicles on the road? Blow your horn! Change perception!
Charlie H is right and wrong about GM. He is wrong when he says they don’t do much in the way of fuel efficiency. GM offers more hybrids, and more vehicles with over 30mpg than any foreign competitor. They have the least expensive hybrid cross over in production, and they have more green manufacturing facilities. But, hey, don’t listen to me, or Charlie. Blogging is pretty much free from. Go on line and find the facts at reliable sources. Charlie is right; GM is losing money, along with everyone else in the economy. Oh yea, there are those plants in the south readied to build large foreign trucks that are being idled…who’s bashing them?
As far as hydrogen is concerned, again go online and look this up. There are many ways to produce hydrogen, and there is currently enough hydrogen to power millions of fuel cell vehicles (if they existed). There is also a vast amount of technology around the use of hydrogen. Vehicles are being driven daily with this technology. Why not hydrogen vehicles for GM? What about all the other auto companies working that side of the street? Sounds rather selective to me. (Again, go online and look this up). There is indeed a long way to go, but a journey starts with the first steps.
I appreciate concerns about where we are today, but what we do today defines tomorrow. Short sightedness is not an option for GM, or America, or human kind. I would personally like to see American industry lead rather than follow, but what would you expect, I live here. The big three are more than car manufacturers. They are Engineering, Science, Technology and Innovation. These virtues do not come for free.
Dean you are so correct !!!!
I moved to Detroit 25 yrs ago from the heart of Illinios and still have alot of family there. I have a brother who lives in N Carolina and a son in Florida. I ask them all the time questions about GM and the auto industry . I asked all of them if they have ever heard of the Volt or the hydrogen fuel cell Equinox. They looked at me like I had a burger hang’n from my nose. I hear out of their mouths exactly what the media writes.
My brother who is an executive in HR dept. for Time Warner Cable once said to me, “if you hadn’t told me about GM I’d never have known that. The best thing I would suggest for GM to do immediatly is to hire an outside firm for their PR. GM does not do a very good job promoting itself”.
I hear that all the time from different folks. Doesn’t matter what concessions we all take, what kind of restructuring happens, or how much we downsize or how good our cars are made, if we don’t promote ourselves to the consumers we won’t make it. The biggest problem I see with our marketing is it’s way too much in the midwest. Spend the dollars on the markets we don’t have captured like on the east and west coasts.
Also, I know we combat news media stories written incorrectly about GM facts after the story has been released to the public. It’s too late at that point. Peolple have already built a perception in their minds. My suggestion would be for GM to buy an hour worth of prime time TV and do an infomercial.
Let the people hear from the workers, dealers, familes who have a good story to tell about On Star, take them into Milford Proving Grounds, let them see a car on a 4 post shaker, share with them glimpses of future products, let them experience how we build safety into our products. GM could fell up an hour easily.
For those of you who want GM to be successful add your ideas how this company can better promote itself. I work here, I know what the products are going to be in the future. This company is worth saving.
One more thing that GM can easily do to promote itself. Start right here with this blog site. The GM folks need to get some answers to your questions. Sometimes just a little clarification helps. I see an immediate positive effect when your comments or questions get responses.
Respectfully
I AM GM
“As far as hydrogen is concerned, again go online and look this up. There are many ways to produce hydrogen, and there is currently enough hydrogen to power millions of fuel cell vehicles (if they existed).”
There are two principle ways to produce hydrogen as a fuel:
1. Use electricity to crack water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen.
2. Steam reforming of natural gas.
Neither is cost competitive with fossil fuels.
You’re correct there is plenty of hydrogen ~ the problem is almost all the hydrogen atoms on Earth are chemically bound to other elements making compounds that require a great deal of energy to break apart. More energy than we can get back by burning the hydrogen.
Thank you all for taking the time to respond. We think this milestone is important, and we appreciate you all taking a few minutes to read up about Project Driveway and provide your comments. I agree Project Driveway highlights how far we have come with advanced technology and our commitment to a brighter energy future. We are able to achieve milestones like this due to great relationships with our many partners who help us educate and develop technical solutions.
Wendell: GM R&D and Powertrain have an extensive history on fuels and systems, which includes methanol. As you know, there are differences in BTUs and emissions management for methanol and all other fuels. New investment will be required for methanol infrastructure. Methanol and ethanol are not interchangeable, and methanol handling will require additional research for health effects, etc. Most important, though, is hydrogen, ethanol, electricity, methanol and other fuels are all viable alternatives, and we need to work to mature solutions to ensure a competitive energy marketplace, energy independence and overall carbon management.
Laramie: I think you would agree that there are a number of ways to create hydrogen. Where we are today is not necessarily reflective of how we might derive hydrogen in the future. There are some very promising alternative approaches using solar and other more sustainable methods. There is a great deal of research in this area, and I think it is fair to say there will be more viable commercial and sustainable alternatives in the future.
Nate: GM has partnered with several energy companies including Shell and Clean Energy. We are working with several agencies and GM co-authored a paper on hydrogen refueling, which has been widely accepted by the industry as a “how to” paper on building out an infrastructure. Having said that, the most important issue we are managing is providing real world vehicle experience to demonstrate this is a ready alternative in support of emission free vehicles.
Ms Stanek,
Thank you for taking the time reply. I’m sure you’re busy and it does mean a lot to receive feedback from you.
Best regards,
Wendell “Wendy” Mercantile
“Laramie: I think you would agree that there are a number of ways to create hydrogen.”
Actually, I won’t agree with that. “Creating” hydrogen is something best left to the Big Bang or nuclear fission. Neither you nor I can “create” hydrogen.
I will agree there are a number of ways of breaking the chemical bonds holding hydrogen atoms to the atoms of other elements in order to use the freed hydrogen as fuel ~ the two most common being electrolysis of water and steam reforming of natural gas.
Would you agree that breaking those bonds in order to get free hydrogen atoms will always take more energy than we can get back by burning those hydrogen atoms as fuel?
GM Dealer Guy,
A few billion dollars for an H2 network… sounds good to me. How much do we spend on gasoline a day? as of 2008 … 80 billion barrels a day. If 20% of that is used to fuel cars and trucks…. at say an average of $70.00/barrel.
That gives us 1120 million dollars a day that the US spends on Oil. Of course my numbers are crude approximations but… thats a LOT of money that COULD be used to develop an H2 infrastructure.
Dean Caley,
A better strategy would be to offer free rentals for a month to people. That way they could be sold on it. But can you see the potential for problems.
Why do you see so many Hondas? Because people believe it when Honda speaks. They have street credit.
Geoerge Diebel, Charlie H,
You don’t get it though GM may claim to offer the most more then 30 MPG cars out there. But the average person sees a small increase in milage with GM’s hybrids. When they look at the competition they see huge numbers and think they are better. They don’t do cost analysis or understand the differences… some of them buy just to be green and don’t care about the truth of how green their cars really are or aren’t.
No one bashes the plants idle of a company who isn’t asking for a few Billion in loans/bailouts.
If you want America to lead then talk to everyone you know about the future of hydrogen and electric vehicles. Talk to them about Nuclear power and non fossil powered alternatives like solar and wind. Then convince them we need to support a few billion dollar project to put H2 and electric infrastructure in place… rather then the now approaching 1 trillion in loans and bailouts we’ve given to America recently.
I AM GM,
I agree GM’s marketing machine needs a lot of work. If GM were to be proactive they would do better. They need to focus on the trendy parts of the country. They need to make a new brand to sell to these people. A brand that they don’t associate with GM. And GM needs to keep that one close to their chest. They also need to keep guys like Lutz off the Air. Lutz doesn’t do well for non GM people. He always comes off as an ….. in my opinion.
GM needs to get the facts out about its new vehicles first and even offer a comparison to the competition right on TV.
GM doesn’t need an infomercial. They need an organized strategy and they need to get in the face of the press and get air time rather then Toyota. What people talk about sells on Monday… back in the day people talked about who won yesterday’s race… today we talk about what we see on the news.
GM is its own worst enemy. A lot of people dont’ like GM because GM is GM. The only way around that is to trick them into thinking you aren’t GM.
Laramie Jordan,
Do we really need to worry about cost competitiveness if we can make enough fuel to supply us for the next 200 years using power plants?
Mary Beth Stanek,
Why hasn’t GM went to congress with a proposal to convert the entire fleet of vehicles to hydrogen in the next say 10 years and say “these are the manufacturers and companies that exist NOW that can make this happen” Then go get help from all the major energy companies and manufacturers Like GE and Westinghouse etc…
“Listening and learning from 500,000 miles of emissions-free driving”
Sorry, but I have to challenge your claim of “500,000 miles of emissions-free driving.”
Unless you know of some magic way of making hydrogen fuel without using energy derived from another source, somewhere in the process there were emissions.
Just because the emissions didn’t come out the tailpipes of the “Project Driveway” vehicles doesn’t mean they’re not there. Granted, that may not always be true once we get fusion power working, or T. Boone Picken’s wind farm plan becomes reality, but believe me, for your tests, there were emissions somewhere.
Please get your process energy accounting right before you make the broad claim of “no emissions.”
“New investment will be required for methanol infrastructure.”
Ms Stanek,
My original question was whether GM had done any experiments with methanol fuel cells. You haven’t yet answered yet.
Certainly, methanol would require some infrastructure, but it doesn’t present nearly the logistics and infrastructure problems of hydrogen. There may be some toxicity questions about methanol, but there are also toxicity questions about gasoline, and a myriad of other chemicals that are trucked daily on our road systems. Methanol does have the huge advantage of being a liquid at standard temperatures and pressures, and requires neither high-pressure tanks, nor ultra-cold temperatures to liquefy it.
Building a methanol infrastructure would take a much smaller investment than building a hydrogen infrastructure.
So, I ask again: Has GM experimented with methanol fuel cells?
The claim that there are inefficiencies in the production of hydrogen fuel is a red herring. There are inefficiencies in all forms of energy conversion, transportation, and storage. Gasoline does not spontaneously appear in an automobile’s fuel tank. I will allow that the inefficiencies in the production of hydrogen fuel are great. However, its production does not require petroleum. If the goal is emissions free transportation and independence from petroleum, hydrogen is a means to that end.
The United States has a vast gasoline distribution network in place. Adding a parallel distribution network for an alternative fuel would be quite costly and would provide little immediate benefit. It would be better to introduce the alternative fuel in an emerging market that has little infrastructure in place. There are some countries that are eager to do that. I don’t believe the United States will beat them to a hydrogen infrastructure, but we can work hard here at home to develop the technology.
Some of the work that is done in various companies R&D labs results in patents. Some of them are patents that the company will use, and some are defensive patents that exist to prevent other companies from achieving the desired results through other means. If a company can lock up the best three or four ways to do something, they have pretty much locked the competition out of the game. Much money can be earned by licensing the rights to the primary of even the secondary technologies to competitors.
I believe it is valid to say that the 500k miles driven are emissions free. Besides water vapor, what else was emitted WHILE THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN that is within the vehicle manufacturer’s control? The emissions of the infrastructure are outside of the vehicle’s, or the vehicle’s manufacturer’s control. GM has taken the vehicle itself out of the emissions equation. That’s big.
The energy future is unclear so GM is busy on several fronts, developing, testing, and refining (and, yes, patenting) several technologies. One day a “winning” energy source will emerge. Whatever it may be, GM wants to be ready with refined technology to deploy vehicles that use that fuel.
IFull disclosure: I recently retired after 35 years at GM R&D. While I attempt to take a broad and impartial view, my view is naturally biased.
Dear Mary Beth,
I saw your name and went to this blog in the Retiree News. You make me very proud. Look at you; a Director, on such an important project too.
You go girl. I would like to feel that I had a little to do with your success way back there in the ’90s.
Keep up the good work. GM needs good people like you now more than ever. I don’t want or expect to have this posted. As a former supervisor, I just want to tell you how proud I am of you.
Ed Quenneville
Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. Bravo for GM to be the leader!. Let me know how to start a hydrogen filling station – I’ll even clean the windshields and check the tires.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Retired: “The claim that there are inefficiencies in the production of hydrogen fuel is a red herring. There are inefficiencies in all forms of energy conversion, transportation, and storage. Gasoline does not spontaneously appear in an automobile’s fuel tank.”
It’s not a red herring — it’s a make or break deal. Most hydrogen now comes from steam reforming of natural gas and requires huge amounts of energy, not to mention the energy in the natural gas feedstock. (Where do you think the heat to turn water inot steam comes from?)
Steam reforming over an iron catalyst was invented as one of the building blocks of the Haber-Bosch process of fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere.
For hydrogen to be a practical fuel that can compete economically with fossil fuels, there is not only the infrastructure problem, but we will need an inexpensive source of energy to separate the hydrogen from the chemical compunds– such as water or the methane in natural gas–that have it locked up.
Question for you: Instead of using energy to separate the hydrogen out of natural gas, why not just use that natural gas directly as a fuel? Natural gas already burns clean–the cleanest internal combustion engine in North America is in a Honda that burns natural gas. Using the NG directly as a fuel, we wouldn’t need to burn coal or some other fossil fuel to make the steam to reform that NG into hydrogen.
Where is GM’s research with respect to natural gas vehicles? That is an area for whch you could a get much faster payback than hydrogen.
——————————————————————————————————————–
Retired: “The emissions of the infrastructure are outside of the vehicle’s, or the vehicle’s manufacturer’s control. GM has taken the vehicle itself out of the emissions equation. That’s big.”
With all respect, no emissions out the tailpipe mean nothing if the emissions are merely moved laterally or upstream. All it does is give you a bragging point that means nothing.
For you to say, “The emissions of the infrastructure are outside of the vehicle’s, or the vehicle’s manufacturer’s control.” is just washing your hands of the facts. You’re just saying, “It’s not my problem.”
——————————————————————————————————————–
Retired: “Gasoline does not spontaneously appear in an automobile’s fuel tank.”
You’re right, gasoline doesn’t appear spontaneously, but it does have a relatively high return on energy invested. The current EROEI of gasoline from petroleum s about 5 to 1. (In the early years of the oil industry when oil was found at shallow depths and gushed out of the ground under its own pressure, the EROEI of gasoline from oil was about 100 to 1.)
Compare the current EROEI of 5 to 1 for gasoline to the EROEI of corn ethanol which is now about 1.2 to 1. The low EROEI of ethanol explains why it’s not competitive without subsidies, tax credits, and protective tariffs.
Another question for you: You were in research, so what is the current EROEI of producing hydrogen fuel using steam reforming? What is the EROEI of hydrogen from electrolysis of water?
I think you’ll find the EROEI on hydrogen production is not yet anywhere near being competitive with the EROEI of gasoline form oil.
Hydrogen has a long row to hoe without significant breakthroughs in making cheap, clean energy (such as fusion) or without government subsidies.
“The emissions of the infrastructure are outside of the vehicle’s, or the vehicle’s manufacturer’s control.”
That is an extremely lame argument.
That would be like someone going to to buy a fur coat and asking, “How were the animals killed to make this coat?” To which the furrier answers, “We have no responsibility for how these animals were killed. That is beyond our control. We just sew the pelts into coats.”
Of course GM has to be concerned in the process for making the hydrogen — how much energy it consumes, and the emissions it gives off. You have to look at the total picture, not just your few brush strokes.
From: The Hydrogen Hoax
The wholesale cost of commercial grade liquid hydrogen (made the cheap way, from hydrocarbons) shipped to large customers in the United States is about $6 per kilogram. High purity hydrogen made from electrolysis for scientific applications costs considerably more. Dispensed in compressed gas cylinders to retail customers, the current price of commercial grade hydrogen is about $100 per kilogram. For comparison, a kilogram of hydrogen contains about the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline. This means that even if hydrogen cars were available and hydrogen stations existed to fuel them, no one with the power to choose otherwise would ever buy such vehicles. This fact alone makes the hydrogen economy a non-starter in a free society.
And even if you are among those willing to sacrifice freedom and economic rationality for the sake of the environment, and therefore prefer hydrogen for its advertised benefit of reduced carbon dioxide emissions, think again. Because hydrogen is actually made by reforming hydrocarbons, its use as fuel would not reduce greenhouse gas emissions at all. In fact, it would greatly increase them.
To see this, let us consider an example. Let’s say you wanted to produce hydrogen. You choose to do it via steam reformation of natural gas, the most common technique used commercially today. The reaction is: CH4 + 2H2O => CO2 + 4H2 ΔH = +59 kcal/mole
(1) As the positive enthalpy change indicates, the reaction is endothermic (that is, heat-absorbing) and will need an outside source of energy to drive it forward. This can be obtained by burning some methane, which releases 205 kcal/mole, via the following reaction:
CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O ΔH = 205 kcal/mole
(2) Assuming an optimistic 72 percent efficiency in using the combustion energy to drive the steam reformation, this would allow us to reform 2.5 moles of methane for every one that we burn (or 5 for every 2). So if we take five units of reaction (1) and add it to two units of reaction (2), the net reaction becomes: 7CH4 + 4O2 + 10H2O => 7CO2 + 4H2O + 20H2
(3) As far as usable fuel is concerned, what we have managed to do is trade seven moles of methane for twenty moles of hydrogen. Seven moles of carbon dioxide have also been produced, exactly as many as would have been produced had we simply used the methane itself as fuel. The seven moles of methane that we used up, however, would have been worth 1435 kilocalories of energy if used directly, while the twenty moles of hydrogen we have produced in exchange for all our trouble are only worth 1320 kilocalories. So for the same amount of carbon dioxide released, less useful energy has been produced.
hi ms. stanek, i am a gm retiree and currently lease a 2007 flex-fuel yukon. this has been a great vehicle which i run almost exclusively on e-85. while i wish my next vehicle could be a hydrogen fueled yukon, i know this is impossible at the current level of tecnology. i was wondering, in the interem, why is gm so slow to increase the number of vehicles equipped to use e-85? once the non-food grain based ethanol via cellulose is developed this would make a great bridge to hydrogen. gas prices are going to go back up eventually, and i would like to see vehicles such as the acadia, traverse and colorado with the ability to burn e-85. keep up the good work and congratulations on the great progress made so far. every technology must go through growing pains before it reaches economic viability!
Fred Peterson said: “Let me know how to start a hydrogen filling station – I’ll even clean the windshields and check the tires.”
Mr. Peterson,
I don’t know if it was intentional, but that’s pretty funny ~ a hydrogen filling station.
Of course the first thing you’d have to know in order to run an economically profitable hydrogen filling station is a way around that confounded Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Happy New Year!