GM Convinced the Future Is in Fuel Cells

Now 1 Million Miles Into Experiment with Test Fleet, Rescued American Motor Giant Looks to Greener Days

(AP)  General Motors Co. is now 1 million miles into its fuel cell experiment and company officials say having everyday people drive a test fleet of pollution-free cars has convinced them they are on the right track.

The automaker on Friday said it passed the 1 million-miles-driven mark in its fuel cell Chevrolet Equinox vehicles, with about 5,000 people rotating in and out of more than 100 cars over the past 25 months.

"They'll tell you that after the first week, they pretty much forget it's a fuel cell car, which indicates to us that we have accomplished our goal of making the fuel cell transparent to the consumer," said Daniel O'Connell, director of fuel cell commercialization at GM's research and development offices in Honeoye Falls, near Rochester.

"They get in the car and drive it like they've always driven their cars, and that really tells me that fuel cells are closer than most people would believe," he said.

Supporters see the fuel cell becoming a mainstream, eco-friendly alternative to petroleum-powered cars within the next decade. Powered by electricity, generated by a reaction between oxygen and hydrogen, the only emissions are wisps of water vapor.

"You put your hand over the exhaust pipe and the only thing coming out is water. That was such a cool feeling," said Mike Schwabl, a marketing executive who drove an Equinox for 10 days in western New York earlier this year. Other drivers tried cars in Washington, D.C., and southern California.

The cars look and handle like any other car, Schwabl said. "I would love to drive one of these vehicles (permanently)."

But numerous obstacles remain for GM and its competitors in the fuel cell race. Toyota Motor Corp. introduced a car powered by hydrogen and electricity last year and will introduce an improved hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in 2015. Daimler AG has spent nearly $2 billion and plans to spend another $700 million by 2011 for the commercial production of fuel cell vehicles, while Honda has leased a small number of FCX Clarity vehicles in California to assess hydrogen's future.

Auto companies do not disclose costs, but the vehicles are expensive to produce because most are hand-built prototypes. Also, the nation lacks a network of fueling stations.

Improving technology should allow the next cars to go farther than the current 168 miles per fill-up, O'Connell said. Until then, drivers have to keep a close eye on the fuel gauge to avoid drifting too far from one of about 70 fueling stations in the United States.

Test driver Laurie DeRoller learned that the hard way, stalling out five miles short of the filling station in Honeoye Falls during a weekend test drive in May. GM sent a flatbed to take it away.

"It was a rural road, we're talking cars that are mostly farmland type vehicles and people are driving by, and here's myself on the side of the road with the fuel cell car," said DeRoller, executive director of the International Business Council of Greater Rochester. "And people are slowing down and looking," she laughed.

The experience didn't change her mind about wanting to own one, she said, and she felt confident a hydrogen highway will eventually exist. Refueling the cars with compressed hydrogen takes about five to seven minutes in a process similar to putting gasoline in a traditional car.

O'Connell said the test program will continue for five more months and then the cars will be pulled off the road and upgraded with technology developed while they've been in use.

[OregonJames]

Fuel cells also belong in our homes.

I propose a solar array on the roof, coupled with a battery pack and an electrolyzer could provide hydrogen to your fuel cell 24 hours a day.

[sjc_1]

Solid Oxide Fuel Cells may belong in the home doing Combined Heat and Power. SOFCs can use natural gas directly and provide heat for hot water and home heating.

[sjc_1]

The big issues are cost and reliability. They use many ounces of platinum as a catalyst at $2000 per ounce, that makes them expensive. Mercedes had several versions with dozens of cars and only ONE made it 100,000 miles with out a complete fuel cell overhaul, that makes them less reliable.

[bdbeans]

The hydrogen fuel cell car is the biggest red herring ever devised by the US auto industry. Take for example hydrogen: It's abundant and cheap to produce (try tap water) via electrolysis. One cup of tap water contains enough hydrogen, separating the gas via electrolysis, inject it directly into the combustion chamber, and wholla! 100 miles of driving range. 100 miles, to the cup.

Now fill up your cars tank with just 1 gallon of tap water (1600 hundred miles between fill-ups). Build in a dehumidifier to allow it to extract water vapor from the air itself, and now you've got a car with a virtually infinite driving range. Oh yeah, and zero emissions. Zero!

Oh yeah, and what happens to all that hydrogen gas? It's stored in a small in-vehicle storage tank, and injected directly into the engines combustion chamber. Just like its done in natural gas powered cars.

Hmmm...

Utilizing the Chevy Volts internal gasoline powered generator motor, coupled to an all electric drive train and you've got a true hybrid vehicle with an unlimited range. Oh yeah, and zero emissions.

Guys, we're the country that put a man on the moon for crying out loud!

You mean to tell me that this article represents the best we can do in terms of automotive and power generating technology?

Come on!

[bdbeans]

The sad part is that you and I won't see this type of technology mass produced for the road anytime soon. Why? Because it's not as profitable as gasoline powered cars are. Because Green, doesn't necessary equal "Green" for Wall Street, and because being STUPID is the new fad.

Or maybe it's an old fad that just making a comeback?

[rf35]

It is truly sad that the American public and powers that be apparently have no interest in nuclear power. This is by far less deadly than burning coal or other fossil fuels. There are methods today that make the reactors of 20th century look like the dodgy, dangerous relics that they are. Less waste, recyclable waste, and far superior safety systems are the characteristics of today?s reactor technology. Unfortunately, after the disaster at Chernobyl and near-disaster at Three-Mile Island, the public and government is so afraid of nuclear power that they would rather continue burning things than accept the truth of modern nuclear generation. "...and the sheep are nervous."

P.S. Apologies for the spelling issues with that last post...I got distracted and hit the button before proofing...kind of like many CBS articles.

[bdbeans]

I couldn't agree with you more. France, for example, generates 90 percent of its electricity from nuclear power - alone. 90 percent! France lives in peace with it's neighboring nations, and doesn't have to resort to all out invasions of sovereign countries to safeguard supplies of fossil fuels - the fuels the US economy is dependent upon.

There are other renewable, green and non-polluting means of generating the power that the US economy depends upon; but in the absence of social responsibility, compounded by Wall Street driven corporate greed, the US is unlikely to see any true innovation in that field anytime soon.

[doc_holliday76]

by rf35:
"Less waste, recyclable waste, and far superior safety systems are the characteristics of today?s reactor technology."
------------------------------------



Maybe so, but recycled radioactive waste still leaves us with radioactive waste for thousands of years, and uranium is still a finite substance causing problems in mining and disposal -- not to mention the huge subsidies and cost for nuclear plants.

Also, this is about fuel cells and hydrogen to propel vehicles, where simple wind/solar power can be used to breakdown the simple water molecule into oxygen and hydrogen, totally clean and green!

[bptdude]

here is a quote
"By RF35: Pure electric still requires dirty coal to generate the power. "

see, people still have difficulty understanding that hydrogen is just a concentrated, super cooled, liquid form of electricty, far better than a battery, because you can just pour more in, from the pipeline it was shipped in on. and it still requires dirty coal, or whatever, for now, but later could be anything, including nuclear or sunshine.

what car companies are not telling you, is that if we had enough cheap hydrogen, we do not need fuel cell cars, we can just burn it in regular gasoline cars with a new special fuel tank and minor carboration tweaks. we could bring back classic American muscle cars, and they would not pollute, so no emision controls, and cheap to build.

:)

[rf35]

True. VW rolled out a prototype hydrogen combustion car recently. It was reported on Sky news, but I never heard a peep from American news sources. Even the Sky piece had little more than a photo of the car fueling up at a Europian hydrogen station.

Yes, hydrogen must be produced, compressed, delivered, and pumped using electricity, but it is far less that what is needed to charge a vehicle battery. The algae method of producing hydrogen is possibly the most effecient way being developed at the moment. I realize hydrogen fuel cells generate the electricity for a pure electric motor...I should have specified a battery-powered pure electric vehicle.

[sjc_1]

You are not going to ship liquid hydrogen by pipeline any distance. We are talking hydrogen GAS made at the point of use. Storing and transporting hydrogen is VERY expensive and difficult.

[golfered2]

IF the car is to be made and assembled by union workers, the car will be a peice of JUNK!!!!

[HGOODGUY]

I have to agree but when GM becomes exited over anything, I get nervous!!!

[billpl-2009]

"Also, the nation lacks a network of fueling stations"

yeah, explain that one to Starbucks....watch them laugh

[rf35]

A hydrogen infrastructure is being slowly put in place under the direction of the DOE. The department seems to be convinced that hydrogen is the future for cars and it does appear to be the most environmentally friendly option. Pure electric still requires dirty coal to generate the power. Hybrids still use gas and don't seem to get much better mileage than traditional small engines. My '94 Honda got better mileage than most hybrids. Plug-in hybrids like Volt get better effective gas mileage, but you're back to the coal. And all of these have batteries that are probably hazardous waste when they're done. Hydrogen has none of these drawbacks. Get that range up and develop the hydrogen filling stations...this is the alternative fuel vehicle that I am looking forward to owning sometime in the next decade.

[fiberglass3]

By RF35: Pure electric still requires dirty coal to generate the power.

Partially true however there are several sources of electric. (Wind, Coal, Nuclear ect.)
But even the dirty coal is from right here in the USA.

[sjc_1]

Hydrogen may eventually be used to propel cars. First we will have more hybrids, FFV hybrids and plug in hybrids. They we might see advanced batteries at lower cost for EVs, that is when the choice may begin. 10-15 years in the future it may be EVs versus FCs and the FCs will probably win. They will have to make the hydrogen at the fueling stations by reforming methane that is produced and piped by gasifying biomass, but that will be fine.

[doc_holliday76]

by fiberglass3:
"But even the dirty coal is from right here in the USA."
-------------------------------------




Maybe so, but it's still very dirty producing tons of bad emissions, requires dangerous mining or nasty mountaintopping, and is just another antiquated, finite, fossil fuel better off remaining in the ground!

Instead of remaining firmly planted in the past, get with the program, and understand that the article is about having a VISION for the FUTURE with FUEL CELLS and HYDROGEN -- clean and green for America's future!