« California Argues Case for Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Limits; Moves for Ruling | Main | Everything Old Is New Again: Biomass Burners at Automechanika Frankfurt »
GM Chevrolet Announces Equinox Fuel Cell Vehicle; Commits to Launch 100-Vehicle Fleet in 2007
17 September 2006
 |
| Equinox Fuel Cell Vehicle |
General Motors announced its next-generation fuel-cell vehicle—the Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell—and said it will begin building the world’s largest fuel cell vehicle fleet.
The company will build more than 100 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles and begin placing them with customers in the fall of 2007, as part of a comprehensive deployment plan dubbed “Project Driveway.” Project Driveway will place fuel cell vehicles with a variety of drivers in three geographic areas: California, the New York metropolitan area and Washington D.C. The project is designed to gain comprehensive data on all aspects of the customer experience.
uGeneral Motors is demonstrating its commitment to hydrogen fuel cells as the answer for taking the automobile out of the environmental debate and reducing our dependence on petroleum. The Equinox Fuel Cell is powered by GM’s most advanced fuel cell propulsion system to date, and demonstrates an important milestone on our pathway to automotive-competitive fuel cell propulsion technology development.
—Larry Burns, GM vice president, research & development and strategic planning
The Equinox Fuel Cell is powered by a fourth-generation, 93kW fuel-cell stack. The stack will operate in temperatures ranging from 13° F to +113° F (-25° C to +45° C).
Three carbon fiber fuel tanks store 4.2 kg (9.24 lb) of hydrogen at 700 bar (10,000 psi). A 35 kW NiMH battery pack supplements the fuel cell and captures energy from regenerative braking. The 3-phase asynchronous electric motor generates 73 kW of continuous power (94 kW maximum) and torque of 320 Nm (236 lb-ft).
The Equinox Fuel Cell accelerates from 0-60 mph in 12 seconds; has a top speed of 100 mph (160 kph); and has an operating range of 200 miles (320 km).
The Equinox is engineered for 50,000 miles of life, and is expected to meet all applicable 2007 US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It also offers a number of standard safety features including driver and passenger frontal air bags and roof rail side-impact air bags; anti-lock braking system (ABS); StabiliTrak stability enhancement technology and OnStar.
The Equinox Fuel Cell is a real-world vehicle with real-world performance. The fuel cell technology is seamlessly integrated into a uniquely styled crossover vehicle that is distinctively Chevrolet. The Equinox Fuel Cell joins Chevrolet’s family of advanced gas-saving and alternative fuel vehicles.
These learnings [from Project Driveway] will directly influence future fuel cell vehicle generations and ultimate market acceptance. With Chevrolet being GM’s global volume brand, it makes sense that Chevy will lead GM’s fuel cell vehicle commercialization charge.
—Ed Peper, Chevrolet general manager
Last week, GM announced it had developed a driveable version of its Sequel concept fuel-cell vehicle, which is now part of the Chevrolet brand.
September 17, 2006 in Fuel Cells, Hydrogen | Permalink | Comments (51) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/6077009
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM Chevrolet Announces Equinox Fuel Cell Vehicle; Commits to Launch 100-Vehicle Fleet in 2007:
Comments
They are nothing if not determined.
Posted by: Neil | Sep 17, 2006 11:08:09 AM
Most excellent. Now if I can make hydrogen from solar panels on my roof and it costs under $30k I am all set.
Posted by: SJC | Sep 17, 2006 11:08:31 AM
I wonder what GM would say about an electric vehicle with a 50,000 mile lifespan.
Posted by: odograph | Sep 17, 2006 12:16:42 PM
GM building a fuel cell vehicle? And one that sounds promising? We shall see what happens. If their fuel cell vehicles can deliver, GM could really give Toyota and Honda a run for their money.
Posted by: Mark R. W. Jr. | Sep 17, 2006 12:49:15 PM
Is there any info on pricing?
It will be fascinating to compare this with the Tesla. Both started with initial manufacturing runs of about 100 vehicles, though it seems Tesla will manufacture several hundred next year.
The Tesla has longer range, greater life, better fueling infrastructure and much, much better acceleration.
So, the only thing left is price. Any info out there?
Posted by: NIck | Sep 17, 2006 1:01:40 PM
Is this another of those crush 'em at the end projects? like their electric car project that was underwritten with federal tax funding? Somehow, I can't take 'em serious when they claim innovation, especially when they still use pushrod engines. There has to be a catch or hidden agenda somewhere!
Posted by: Ladson | Sep 17, 2006 3:23:02 PM
Remember this isnt like the tesla this is more like the original elctric car tests done awhile back. The cells are enginnered to last at least 50k miles but they dont realy know for sure. As it only has a 4.2 kg tank cap and is a suv /car crossover im not shocked at the 200 mile range.
I suspect the 5th gen fuel cell will have a much beter set of specs. And that by gen 6 the gen they realy expect to start going general sales with it should be well over 200k mile lifetime and prolly a 350 mile range.
Posted by: wintermane | Sep 17, 2006 3:27:35 PM
3 carbon fiber tanks designed to hold that much price will probably be roughly the same price as the Tesla Roadster. Then the cost of 35kW-hr of batteries, electric motors and the fuel cell...I could see this easily costing double the price of the Tesla Roadster even though it already uses some mass produced parts (frame/chassis, suspension, etc) and the Tesla Roadster uses a much more limited run aluminum frame. On the other hand a Tesla roadster put into a Chevy Equinox body would probably give 2-3 second slower 0-60 times and maybe 2/3 to 1/2 the range of the Roadster but a lower price (by atleast $15,000 by foregoing the aluminum and high end limited run components off the Elise).
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 17, 2006 3:33:02 PM
What a load of crap! Will GM be solvent in 2007?
Posted by: Dursun | Sep 17, 2006 4:23:46 PM
If GM's EVs were too expensive, these aught to be WAY too expensive.
Price is the biggest hurdle to overcome, nothing else really matters to the average consumer.
Posted by: Erick | Sep 17, 2006 4:34:14 PM
You can count on these not being sold. If they see the light of day, they will be leased (ala EV-1).
Posted by: Bill Young | Sep 17, 2006 7:05:17 PM
It is very sad to see GM spending this money on something that really does not have an impact, because the Prius is already out there.
Posted by: Energex42 | Sep 17, 2006 7:15:25 PM
Correct me if I am wrong but a 35kw NiMh in a plug in Prius would give a range of 140 miles before the engine would come on.
Posted by: Michael | Sep 17, 2006 7:37:52 PM
Michael,
Sorry, (as you wished) this is a 35kw-power battery, and NOT 35kwh of battery capacity. The Prius has a 21kw NiMh battery and its battery-only range is but a few miles.
200mi range for only 4.2kg of H2, which is equivalent to but 4 US gallons of gasoline, this is pretty good for an SUV that looks somewhat larger than the Ford Escape hybrid capable of a lot lower fuel efficiency. If GM can manage eventually to mass-produced this thing for under $50,000 USD, then they will have won the battle. Hoping that the General is having a few more tricks up his sleeve to make FCV a reality. Likewise, Honda will also be releasing a sporty FCV in 2008, so , FCV technology can't be too farfetched.
Meanwhile, I've read somewhere that H2 can be reformed from crude oil (and natural gas, and coal) for about the same efficiency and cost as gasoline. Due to the difficulty of transporting H2 long distance, crude oil can be transported to each city and be reformed into H2 locally...making FCV refueling cost effective.
Meanwhile, Toyota will also be releasing the next gen HEV Prius capable of ~90mpg... The battle between HEV and FCV is raging on. Ah, I can't hardly wait, the near future full of excitement!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Sep 17, 2006 8:58:05 PM
Yup from what I can gleen it is an suv running at the equive of just under 50 mpg. Not bad for this stage of the game. And as some know the last gen fuel cell had only about a 10-20k range so we can expect some leaps with the next 2-3 gens.
Posted by: wintermane | Sep 18, 2006 12:11:47 AM
Wintermane, this is a fifth generation fuel cell vehicle. Remember that the first hydrogen fuel cell vehicle to hit the road did so in the 1970's:
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/kordesch.html
Posted by: odograph | Sep 18, 2006 4:54:32 AM
The biggest issue with this is the infrastructure required produce and distribute h2. Unless you are reforming h2 from some kind of fossil fuel it isn't very efficient. Any kind of hydrolysis would place major additional demands on fresh water supplies. If you think you can generate enough h2 at home with solar panels, think again, it will never produce enough.
Who is going to buy a car you can't guarantee to fill up and will only last 50,000 miles? An all EV vehicle is more practical or just go for a plug in hybrid.
Posted by: Paul | Sep 18, 2006 7:02:19 AM
Yes and no. See they have jumped 2 generations in just a few years because of course they have money. They were planning last I read 2-3 more generations before the 2015 deadline. Concidering how fast they went from gen 4 to 5 they likely will beat that goal.
Posted by: wintermane | Sep 18, 2006 7:20:01 AM
"The biggest issue with this is the infrastructure required infrastructure...."
with that attitude, i'm shocked we even have cars...we would all still be riding horses...
Posted by: carl | Sep 18, 2006 7:36:23 AM
why are folks comparing HEV w/ FCV. HEV does not remove our oil dependancy.
Posted by: carl | Sep 18, 2006 7:41:04 AM
I think it all comes down to finding a way to fuel transportation without an unacceptable environmental impact or adding to our over-reliance on fossil fuels.
Hydrogen from fossil fuels is a non-starter--it shifts transportation energy consumption so it competes with other uses for fuels. That leaves electrolysis for hydrogen production.
Electricity from wind and solar is highly desirable, but if you want to rely on wind and solar, you have to use it as efficiently as possible because of the still small amount of installed capacity from those sources. And making hydrogen via electrolysis and then consuming it in a fuel cell is far less efficient, in terms of BTU's/mile driven, than is using that electricity to recharge a battery pack in an EV.
Frankly, I wish the US gov't would funnel a lot more money into EV's and a lot less into HFC's, as that's where I think we're headed anyway for personal transportation.
(See the Car Technologies Comparison spreadsheet on the downloads page of my site (click on my name below) for some specific numbers on hydrogen, EV's, etc.)
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Sep 18, 2006 8:03:11 AM
There are home PV systems of 4-5kw. That could produce enough hydrogen for most uses. But I would rather see them reform CNG or methanol on board. CNG comes right out of the pipe in your garage.
Posted by: SJC | Sep 18, 2006 9:21:49 AM
"with that attitude, i'm shocked we even have cars...we would all still be riding horses..."
Not at all, I just don't think fuel cells are the way forward for automotive applications. The former head of ABB fuel cell research and the european fuel cell council has publicly stated that they don't think hydrogen fuel cells have anything but a niche future. In fact, they have stopped active research into hydrogen cells and will concentrate on solid oxide cells for local power generation. The problem is the overhead of creating and storing hydrogen just doesn't make it worth the effort. Better to use the energy directly in a EV or plug-in type application.
Posted by: Paul | Sep 18, 2006 9:24:17 AM
Take a read of this for more info on the sustainability of hydrogen fuel cells.
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
Posted by: Paul | Sep 18, 2006 9:31:52 AM
I was a big fan of hydrogen fuel cells, last year, but now, they just seem like an unreasonable fairy tale. With the rapid technological improvements in nano-tech batteries, celulosic ethanol combined in plug-in hybrids, we can be building and driving PHEV's in the next year. We aleady have ethanol and biodiesel stations poping up everywhere and electrical outlets--everywhere. I drive on ethanol in Eugene, Oregon and have an extension cord in my garage, just waiting for the flex fuel plug-in hybrids to show up on the car lots so I can put one in my garage. Much simpler technology, supporting local farmers and using already available, renwable electricity. Win, win, all around.
Posted by: Darrin | Sep 18, 2006 10:13:49 AM
4-5kW home PV systems are enough to power the home and provide juice for the battery system to give power at night but how is that rated? 4-5kW max output? What is the average energy over the course of a day (total for all hours of sunlight)...25-30kw-hrs? The average single family dwelling sucks down around 700 to 1000kW-hrs a month. I'm sure the most frugal people with home PV systems use less but we are talking about a transportation system for everyone not just the most frugal portion of society and I doubt there will be enough excess capacity in such a setup to really provide the amount of hydrogen needed to fuel a vehicle for day to day needs.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 18, 2006 10:14:41 AM
No one said they have to power the house too. At 10 watts per square foot, many houses have 1000 feet of roof to use. That is 10k watts for 4-5 hours per day. Either put that into EVs or make hydrogen, whatever works.
Posted by: SJC | Sep 18, 2006 1:24:27 PM
What about small wind? What about BIG wind? What about this...?
Posted by: Bike Commuter Dude | Sep 18, 2006 1:46:46 PM
Why would you have a solar power system and not power your house? You could power your house and an electrical vehicle much easier than powering a house and producing hydrogen. Especially since you still have to compress the hydrogen and safely store it. There will probably be alot of excess power generation that is unused during the day for a residential PV installation anyways.
Unless you live out in the middle of nowhere you can't put a wind turbine up. If you do live in the middle of nowhere then you waste energy on your commute. If you have a tall enough tower that you really get good wind power don't forget to add in the costs of FAA certification and the possible fines you face if you do not make sure you follow regulations to keep aircarft safe. [some say "regulations be damned" for the sake of power but I prefer to keep lives saved and use a bit more power rather than the other way around].
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 18, 2006 2:15:23 PM
From what I have read typical real world average output figures for solar PV is around a 1/3 of the rated output. The other thing is that it is actually pretty hard to find a house suitable for using them. I have been looking for a new house with the possibility of fitting PV in the future. It's hard to find one with a large enough south facing roof with unobstructed sunlight. I would say 50% of houses are unsuitable for PV. This is a real shame because with a bit of planning most houses could have been designed/situated to accept PV.
Posted by: Paul | Sep 18, 2006 2:30:44 PM
What is needed is another Amstrad - Alan Sugar's "build em cheap and get the price done" is what is needed. Petrols £4 per gal and we are still just dipping our toe into the Hydrogen pool.... jump in
Posted by: Alan McDermott-Roe | Sep 18, 2006 2:53:09 PM
I bet a very large financial backer of electric vehicles will soon appear. Berkshire Hathaway is starting to buy up Electric Utilities here and there.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 18, 2006 3:13:43 PM
This guy charges his car with PV. Maybe not for everyone, but he does it. Just got to think outside the box sometimes...
http://www.renewables.com/Permaculture/Charging.htm
http://www.renewables.com/SolarCharging.htm
After all...this IS a GreenCar site :-))
Posted by: SJC | Sep 18, 2006 5:28:16 PM
I can't believe gm and the euro auto companies are still researching and developing hydrogen fuel cells. Even Nissan with its western ceo is still pushing hydrogen.
Meanwhile Honda, Toyota and now Hyundai(which was at one point going heavily for fuel cells) are going all out for hybrids.
Posted by: aa2 | Sep 18, 2006 6:10:28 PM
Another GM red herring. No mention of price, not to mention, no mention of lease... They are, "...placing them with customers in the fall of 2007." I read this to mean that the massive Federal funding pumped into the hydrogen fuel cell fairly tale is paying for "placing" the 100 vehicles. Too bad, the funding wasted on hydrogen research could have extended tax incentives for purchasing hybrid vehicles ala prius, and perhaps reduced the time to market for a OEM PHEV. The GM announcement is purely a diversionary tactic to prolong the sales of a current product line that has much to be desired. They did the same thing with the EV1. There is no intention by GM to ever bring a viable fuel cell vehicle to market. Vote with your election votes, wallets, and letters to elected represenatives and auto manufacturers. We need PHEVs and EVs. Not gimmicky flex fuel and belt driven hybrids that only exploit loop holes rather than offer improved sustainable personal transportation.
Posted by: john galt | Sep 18, 2006 8:26:51 PM
To all H2 doubters,
H2 can be reformed from crude oil at same efficiency and cost as gasoline...but, H2-FCV is a lot cleaner and more efficient. Even H2-ICE-electric hybrid is also a lot cleaner and more efficient, and can be cost-competitive with current HEV. Local pipeline can be built from a local H2 production facility to a gas station.
Let's say a city of 1 million H2-capable cars require 1 thousand gas stations at $1 million USD a piece, then the cost is 1$ billion, plus adding $500 millions for a H2 reforming plant, and we have $1.5 billions for local H2 infrastructure investment.
To power 1 millions electric cars with battery packs costing $10,000 a piece will cost 10 billions USD, and how long will the battery last? May be 7-10 years, while the H2 infrastructure will last for 20-30 years at least, if not more!
H2 produced room-temp electrolysis by solar and wind electricity is inefficient and should NOT be done. Instead, Solar and wind electricity should best be used to charge BEV's and PHEV's.
H2 can be produced from waste biomass (and coal and natural gas) at higher efficiency than electricity from biomass (or coal or natural gas), and this would be a great source of RENEWABLE H2 for FCV's and H2-ICE-electric hybrids (H2-HEV).
Posted by: Roger Pham | Sep 18, 2006 9:12:52 PM
Can we all agree solar works when the sun shines, wind works when its blowin...they cannot be counted on during a peak situation. New nuclear and hybrid/battery tech is beyond promising. Ethanol and esp biodiesel look better and better esp with co or trigen...clean diesel could be given a huge push in NA.
Unfortunately H2 just seems like it can be useful virtually everywhere but not as a main vehicle propellant(space shuttles excluded)
Posted by: fred@dzlsabe.com | Sep 18, 2006 9:55:57 PM
SJC, that is what I was saying. Use the electricity for charging a BEV not trying to create hydrogen.
Roger, hydrogen can be pulled off of fossil fuels at the same cost as refining gasoline...but then you have to put in energy to compress or liquidize it. Furthermore, distribution is inefficient and you end up having to either set up many refineries all over the place (gotta love that smell in the middle of your city) or suffer the losses & cost from trying to transport hydrogen. Lets see battery electric vehicles last 7-10 years as you say but above we see that the fuel cell vehicle only lasts 50,000 miles (less than 4 years). Producing H2 from waste material is the only good option I see but then I'd rather not mess with H2 at all and just turn it into a fuel for a hybrid vehicle. Besides, if you just get hydrogen from fossil fuels you did nothing to facilitate energy independance or remove the problem of CO2 (centralized processes for production of H2 would ease sequestration but distributed processes make sequestration more difficult and expensive).
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 18, 2006 10:19:04 PM
Hey Roger,
Why produce H2 from biomass if you can produce liquid fuels from biomass? Hint: Liquid fuels are easier (read: cheaper) to transport, store and use than gaseous fuel. As the lightest of all gases, hydrogen is the worst (read: most expensive) to store, transport and use. As the smallest molecule, it is also the hardest (read: most expensive) to store without leakage.
Also relevant: producing renewable gasoline and diesel means we can use it in the same ICE we are all accostumed to. No need to build up a costly fleet of FCV's. Heck, we don't even need flex-fuel cars, with appologies to GM, who is once again missing the boat, thanks to visonary leadership...
Posted by: An Engineer | Sep 19, 2006 10:30:51 AM
"Why produce H2 instead of liquid fuels?"
H2 gives higher thermal efficiency in vehicles than gasoline, and is infinitely cleaner, no matter how the car is tuned or how the catalytic converter, if there is any, the car will not pollute. 200-mile range on the equivalent of 4 US gallons of gas is very good, and no SUV can achieve this type of efficiency on gasoline. The 5th gen of fuelcell may be can deliver 60% efficiency as someone has suggested before. H2 can be produced locally for local use to overcome the difficult in transportation. The energy to compress H2 is but 5% of total heating value, and can be recovered by an expander motor in the vehicle to perhaps power all the accessories or add power to the motor.
Remember that the most advance nations and states in the world are preparing for the future of H2 as transportation fuel, and GM and Honda and BMW and maybe Toyota etc... are producing or will soon be releasing H2-capable vehicles. It would be difficult to believe that all these industrial giants can be wrong. The potential problems of H2 have been researched extensively, and were found to be solvable.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Sep 19, 2006 2:51:31 PM
What the car makers themsevles have said is exactly THE reason h2 is doing what it is already.
It takes the car out of the envirnmental issue. The car makers and the fuel providera are willing to spend 100s of billions to PERMINENTLY take that issue and shove it.
Bateeries.... they will use them to make the fuel cell car easyer to make and cheaper to run but its gona be a long time before a car realy has the range needed for a battery car to be general purpose and take more then a few percent of the market place.
Posted by: wintermane | Sep 20, 2006 5:45:11 AM
Roger,
That is the nice half of the hydrogen story: if we had hydrogen, it would be great. We don't. Hydrogen has to be made. Care to look up the efficiency of making hydrogen? The associated pollution? Factor that in, and the whole picture changes.
As for the auto makers pursuing hydrogen: We know GM management can't make a good call to save their lives - if you see them going one way, it is a good idea to go the opposite way. BMW is toying with hydrogen as with many other technologies. Hey, it's nice to have money to burn. Ditto Honda and more to the point.
Posted by: An Engineer | Sep 20, 2006 4:59:09 PM
Its price tag will be atleast 100K. If people cry so much for a BEV which costs 40 K, do you think they will buy / lease a 100K vehicle.
In Fall-2007, Toyota is expected to come with Plugin Prius, since the current model is running 4th year with 2007 model. Or probably they will extend current model by 1 or 2 years max.
Really sad as why GM is going for such expensive technology like Fuel Cell.
Posted by: Max Reid | Sep 21, 2006 11:16:25 AM
"H2 gives higher thermal efficiency in vehicles than gasoline, and is infinitely cleaner"
Get REAL !!!
Well-to-wheel, a CNG hybrid will match H2 for clean, NOx.
A diesel hybrid will match H2 for CO2. I haven't seen the figures for a bio-diesel hybrid,
but I'd bet it matchs H2 for both NOx & CO2.
And that's with TODAY'S technology.
The 50% efficiency that's always said of Fool-Cells is a theoretical
that MAY come true in a decade or two.
Posted by: Dursun | Sep 25, 2006 9:49:26 AM
Since DME has an advantage of decomposition at lower temperature than methane and LPG, R&D for hydrogen source for fuel cell has been carried out.
If you would like to know more on the latest DME developments, join us at upcoming North Asia DME / Methanol conference in Beijing, 27-28 June 2007, St Regis Hotel. The conference covers key areas which include:
DME productivity can be much higher especially if
country energy policies makes an effort comparable to
that invested in increasing supply.
By:
National Development Reform Commission NDRC
Ministry of Energy for Mongolia
Production of DME/ Methanol through biomass
gasification could potentially be commercialized
By:
Shandong University completed Pilot plant in Jinan and
will be sharing their experience.
Advances in conversion technologies are readily
available and offer exciting potential of DME as a
chemical feedstock
By: Kogas, Lurgi and Haldor Topsoe
Available project finance supports the investments
that DME/ Methanol can play a large energy supply role
By: International Finance Corporation
For more information: www.iceorganiser.com
Posted by: Cheryl Ho | May 23, 2007 9:23:33 PM
I hate to burst anyones bubble, but hydrogen is the future, the potential of this element is going to make it the desirable fuel for everything when our time catches up and we continue to explore and refine its research and development.
"Im not going to settle for a Prius"
Posted by: yellabelly | Jul 25, 2007 3:41:41 PM
Ignorance really is bliss. GM is working on any number of vehicle propulsion systems. Granted, not all of them will be of the "save the world" variety, but - duh, the fact of the matter is: GM - - as well as all the other vehicle manufacturers - is in business to make money. The way they do that is to develop and sell a product that delivers a profit and allows them to stay in business. Hence the far-flung R&D efforts.
The FCV Equinoxes are not going to be sold or leased. They are going to be placed in the hands of users in order to gain some real world use and feedback. These are going to be a limited run of 100 vehicles, they will be cycled through different users . . . and yes, they are coming back to GM; the users do not get to keep them.
And . . . as an FYI, GM had the very first FCV; the Electrovan in 1966. It weighed in at a whopping 7100 pounds, did 0 -60 in 30 seconds and had a top speed of 100 mph. So, GM has learned a little bit about FCV in the past 40 plus years.
Posted by: mike | Aug 2, 2007 12:17:52 PM
Ya have to wonder now if GM will be moving up their timeline to try and outflank Honda with their Clarity? I'm thinking that the Hydrogen Highway will be created a lot sooner than most people assume because GM, Ford and Honda all have production ready fuel cell vehicles which means that if any of them sit on their hands, the other will roll out the infrastructure with stipulations of needing to have their car to use it.
Here is my prediction: By 2009, the west coast from San Diego to Whistler Canada will have a fully ready hydrogen highway, and that Honda, GM and Ford will all be leasing their fuel cell cars for all those living on the west coast. The East Coast will follow by 2010 and by 2012, they'll have at least one route from the east coast to the west coast.
Posted by: John | Dec 3, 2007 4:47:48 PM
what a sorry storry Gm could have made a car better 15 yaers ago you can make hydregen on demad you dont even naed tanks. sad the the company desent caer about the poulutoin.
Posted by: james | May 12, 2008 10:39:51 AM
this is sad we coul have stoped so much smog so long ago Gm and outhder companies dont realy what this to happen it could have happend a long time ago and it could bee even better that it is if they wanted that but i dont think thats what there after http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/hydrogencars1807-1986.htm
Posted by: tom | May 12, 2008 10:51:44 AM
The 1966 General Motors Electrovan is the first hydrogen fuel cell vehicle of record. The GM Electrovan was based on the 1966 GMC Handivan and carried all of the fuel cell parts and hydrogen storage tanks in the back of the van. The 1966 GM Electrovan was powered by a 5 kw Union Carbide fuel cell and the vehicle had a range of 120 miles, though it was only driven on company property.
why so long befor we the public can get theyse somthings wrong!
Posted by: tom | May 12, 2008 9:38:29 PM
