Following up on Your Webchat Questions
By Beth Lowery
Vice President of Environment, Energy and Safety Policy
Thanks to everyone who participated in the webchat with me recently. I wanted to follow up with a post to answer a few more questions around topics that garnered significant interest.
Many of you raised questions about GM’s commitment to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and plans for commercialization. To clarify, we still believe that in the long-term hydrogen can be a key solution to the issues we face around energy supplies and the environmental impacts of personal transportation. Our work on fuel cell technology includes our “Project Driveway” test program. It has yielded great feedback on the performance and capabilities of the Chevy Equinox Fuel Cell vehicle in real-world driving situations. However, hydrogen infrastructure is still an important hurdle we face that requires collaborative efforts by government, academic and industry partners.
Several questions also came in related to GM’s future hybrid vehicle portfolio. In terms of the makeup of this portfolio, we plan to have a variety of vehicle types and hybrid systems, including the GM Hybrid System and our 2-mode hybrid system, to provide consumers with choice. Some hybrid vehicles we have on the road now include the Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, Chevrolet Silverado, GMC Sierra, and Cadillac Escalade.
Many questions were also submitted about ethanol and FlexFuel vehicles (FFVs). We believe that biofuels can be a significant contributor to offset rising vehicle energy demand and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Today’s ethanol is a good start, but next generation ethanol and other biofuels can be even better with a diversity of non-grain feedstocks and an improved greenhouse gas profile. To meet renewable fuel targets, more high-level blends (such as E85) will be required. GM has over 3.5 million FFVs on the road today in the U.S. and 17 current models across our four core brands; including our highest volume models. This FFV portfolio will continue to grow to meet our 50 percent FFV volume commitment in 2012 – we expect 28 models will be flex-fuel capable by then.
I hope this helps to answer some of the questions I wasn’t able to respond to during my chat. Thanks again to everyone that participated.
19 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.)
Sounds like you know your stuff.
What are the most promising alternatives to grain stocks for biofuel sources for ethanol?
Obviously some are actually highly energy intensive to harvest, yield and refine, while additionally requiring much phosphorus, and environmentally damaging farming techniques that have impacts on our waterways and gulf and coastal and freshwater bodies.
Is gleaning bio-fuel grass from along infrastructural locations that is normally just discarded or from specific venues such as golf courses, parks, sports fields, campuses a potentially high yield source if cannibalized properly?
Where does BioDiesel come in as a solution for highly pollutive trucking/construction vehicles?
Its such a joke, political B.S., there is no reason not to bring this great tech to the people now, I know its limited to certain areas but that will grow with demand, here our voices.
All the criticism of ethanol is akin to a bad doctor.
The baby has just been born. The bad doctor says,” We have bad news. Your new baby cannot walk so he will not be needing his legs.”
The argument against ethanol is the same.
Look people, we have to learn how to crawl before we could walk, learn how to walk before we could run.
Ethanol is still an infant industry for several reasons, the biggest reason is the breakthroughs and advances are happening so fast that plants only several years old cannot compete or compare with the most up to date ethanol factories coming on line today. In the labs and universities the new breakthroughs are happening so fast that even these up to date factories become old almost overnight.
I understand we live in a society where if it is not perfect at the start and making money for you by last quarter it’s too late. But slow and steady wins the race.
Now that baby that was born, that just might be the next Usain Bolt.
I’m not a doctor, but I can tell you, the potential of ethanol over oil is unquestionable when it comes to the marathon of long term energy use, say 40 years from now.
Forty years from now I am sure the corn fields of America will be as green as ever as the oil wells run dry, yes even the North Slope of Alaska if it is ever tapped.
Bottom Line?
Don’t judge a baby’s olympic potential by observing its first crawls in the hospital.
“Forty years from now I am sure the corn fields of America will be as green as ever.”
Edward –
Only as long as they keep dumping nitrogen fertilizers on those fields, since they long ago stripped the natural nutrients from the soil. Much of the soil in the Corn Belt is now nothing but a sterile matrix to hold seed corn in contact with water, nitrogen, phosphorous, pesticides, and herbicides.
Without the fossil fuel feedstocks used to make synthetic nitrogen, pesticides, and herbicides, those fields wouldn’t be very green.
Cornfields will have nothing to do with ethanol in 5 years let alone 40.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol
http://www.mascoma.com/
http://www.rangefuels.com/
“Cornfields will have nothing to do with ethanol in 5 years let alone 40. “
David,
I wouldn’t bet the farm on that ~ Big Corn and the Corn Belt politicians have too much clout.
Brazil can already produce ethanol more efficiently from sugar cane than we can from corn, so what did Big Corn do? A: They got the politicians to impose a tariff on sugar cane ethanol from Brazil.
If cellulosic ethanol really does make a breakthrough and become a threat to displace corn ethanol, the politicians will come to Big Corn’s rescue with the necessary subsidies and tariffs.
What the farm lobby does regarding ethanol (even if it’s not in their best interest in the long-term) is not really GM’s problem is it? GM’s job is to offer people alternatives that cost them less money at the pump and pollute less. One of those alternatives (and one of the easiest to implement on the vehicle side) is the ability to burn ethanol. The main problem I see here with the farm lobby is the lack of political will to really do what’s necessary to make ethanol successful not GM’s failure to at least offer the alternative.
Ms Lowery,
Your title says one of your responsibility’s is safety. So what’s the story on why Malibu did so poorly in the latest mid-size car bumper crash tests? Why can’t a Malibu take a 6 mph low-speed crash to the bumper without needing repairs in excess of $2,000? Exactly what are bumpers for if they can’t handle a speed of only 6 mph? Crash tests show mid-size bumpers costly to repair
“General Motors’ Chevrolet Malibu also received a “poor” ranking, with average report costs hitting $2,329.”
The cost to repair a vehicle after a low speed front end wreck and demand for increased pedestrian safety measures compete with one another. To protect a pedestrian on impact a vehicle must absorb the majority of the force, therefore the vehicle must be designed with means of dampening that force, not transferring it. A car that must crumple in a low speed collision will have body panels and other parts that will need replacing afterwards. Even with a $2k repair bill, it is still probably cheaper than the medical bills for that pedestrian you might have taken out.
“To protect a pedestrian on impact a vehicle must absorb the majority of the force, therefore the vehicle must be designed with means of dampening that force…”
Merritt,
That requires some explanation. Are you inferring that if I hit a pedestrian at 6 mph, the current day bumpers somehow will keep that poor fellow from being hurt, but that if I was driving a 1957 Chevy Bel-Air the same guy would be toast?
For a bumper to dampen the force, the pedestrian would have to be rooted in position firmly enough to bring a 4,000 lb car to a stop so that the bumper could crumple and absorb the energy and shock of the collision. It seems to me that a 4,000 lb car traveling at 6 mph will just brush aside a 190 lb pedestrian, no matter what bumper the car has.
Beth Lowery,
You’re a safety expert, please pitch in a give us the facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_protection_system
The bumpers on a modern vehicle are covered with soft energy absorbing materials that are less capable of absorbing direct impact without some cosmetic damage – these materials are used in part to protect people hit by vehicles (pedestrians). The earlier bumpers you refer to while less suceptible to cosmetic damage cause severe injury to pedestrians because of their lack of ability to absorb energy in a vehicle-pedestrian impact.
I probably should have said it more clearly before. Bumper standards and damage in low speed collisions have nothing to do with PASSENGER or OCCUPANT safety. They DO have a a lot to do with pedestrian safety.
A 4,000 lb vehicle traveling at 6 mph hits a 190 lb pedestrian. How can any bumper absorb that transfer of energy without the pedestrian coming out on the losing end? The kinetic energy is =1/2 mv^2, or 4804 ft-lbs.
* If the pedestrian is not anchored in place, the car will merely sweep the pedestrian aside.
* If the pedestrian is anchored, the bumper won’t absorb the energy stopping the car, the car will simply keep going, running over the pedestrian.
Bumper crash tests have not a thing to do with safety. The federal standard for bumper impact is 5 mph into another vehicle and 2 mph into a fixed barrier. The sponsor of the test; the IIHS is in the business of manipulating data to justify increases in insurance rates. The crash that they subjected these vehicles to is far above the required standard to maximize damage and far above the speed that most people would be driving while making parking manuvers. For reference, 2.5 mph is a typical walking speed and 6 mph (like the IIHS test) would be a medium-paced jog. If you liked the bumpers that were on cars in the 1970’s (Giant chrome behemouths that defaced many perfectly good designs) that’s what you are asking for here. Be careful what you ask for – a car with a giant chrome bumper isn’t safer for the occupants and it’s absolutely not safer for pedestrians.
The argument isn’t about whether or not the pedestrian comes out on the losing end. It’s about the regulations in place and how they influence the design in ways that make it less likely to withstand impact with hard objects at speeds 2-3 times the 2.5mph federal standard.
I’m pleased with GM’s effort to be direct with the public, something lacking from of your more “prosperous” competitors. I am concerned the anti-ethanol crusade will stain the bio-fuel rep and deter research into cellulosic, or even sugar-based, ethanol. I think it’s fair to say GM’s lost enthusiasm for the Sequel–once promised as a revolution for 2010.
David said: “What the farm lobby does regarding ethanol (even if it’s not in their best interest in the long-term) is not really GM’s problem is it?”
It is if GM’s actions reinforce the farm lobby’s behavior.
You might want to check into the companies that GM has actually invested in then.
http://www.coskata.com/
That’s hardly actions that reinforce the farm lobby’s behavior.
Here’s another.
http://www.mascoma.com/
How fast can the volt go? And how many horsepower does it have?