The nascent hydrogen economy, if/when it arrives, will in the beginning look very much like the current ethanol/biofuel landscape, with less than the most efficient, environmentally-compatible processes and energy feedstocks.

Does this mean I think we shouldn't go through the growing pains of making mistakes? Absolutely not! But the current obvious debacle should give government and industry a learning model before they go making regulations, legislation and bringing things to market before sowing in unintended consequences what they reap from their decisions and actions.

If Burns thinks hydrogen infrastructure is so "viable and doable" why doesn't GM do it themselves then? How viable are million dollar fuel cells?
Or is the price expected to drop dramatically with mass production in the same way that battery prices won't.

I used to be a big fan of fuel cells 20 years ago. Now, electric makes so much more sense.

maybe in 2075 everyone will have fuel cell cars and it will make economic and environmental sense. but for now BEV's and EREV's make much more sense and rely on already existing infrastructure.

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source, unless someone perfects a way to produce, transport and store hydrogen in a manner that yields significantly more energy than it takes produce, transport and store, then what's the frackin' point.

Of course, from GM's perspective, hydrogen would allow them to satisfy the new milage mandates without actually reducing energy consumed in the transportation sector. As an added bonus, fuel cell cars will be high maintenance allowing the dealerships to keep the high profit service centers operating at brisk pace.

Nuclear Power, supplamented by renewable energy sources combined with BEV's / UltraCap EV's is the way to go.

Oil has convinced manufacturing that there's gold in the H2 hills. So why not let 'em run free and try to build out the infrastructure and compete with 40, 60, 100+ mile EV range PHEVs? The consumer will make a choice: drive ten extra miles to fill on H2, or around the corner to the E85 pump. And if the H2 leakage problem manifests in consumers losing fuel over a long weekend - the hydrogen future looks dim.

BTW, GM's vision is to convince public that big ol' SUVs gotto run FCs for power and hauling. And the maintenance contracts represent a major revenue stream for dealerships.

I think fuel cells hold great promise.Here in the UK we are expecting fuel cell and ICE buses to be running in London by 2010.Would it not be a good idea to roll out the ICE buses through out the UK, to encourage the hydrogen infrastructure to develop?
We can wait for the first gasification coal power plants with carbon capture and storage to provide the hydrogen, or retro fit a coal power plant with carbon capture and storage technology then use high temperature steam electrolysis to provide the hydrogen.
Both these options would require the ability to move the hydrogen to the filling station I think we could move it in the form of ammonia and crack it at the filling station. This method of H2 distribution requires a cost analysis and environmental audit.
The recent report from professor Julia King calls for the electricity supply network to be de carbonised then electrolysis would be the prefared option, but this would be a long term project and we don't have the time.
Perhaps in the short term local wet biomass or renewable crops could be used to supply hydrogen for ICE buses.
In the long term Mr Burns is right because your fuel cell car could be feeding electricity into the grid while it is in the garage or car park and with a compulsary feed in tariff you could be saving money on your electricity bill.
I don't think nuclear makes sense in the UK, I would rather pay a little more for my electricity, but sleep sound at night, not worrying which direction the wind is blowing in or which nation is about to develop long range missiles.

Hydrogen is a looser on so many fronts.
The only reason I see that GM pushes Hydrogen is
for control. An ICE engine gives them parts that break and
that gives them control over the consumer.
Simple engines like EV's can be made easy to fix replace and update.

Maybe the developed world can afford to build the infrastructure for H2, but what about the developing world? And what happens to all the H2 that leaks? Years ago nobody worried too much about the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and now look where we are. Nobody knows what effects the increased H2 in the atmosphere will bring about.
Keep working on electric cars, and the batteries and super-capacitors. Until the batteries are good enough, focus on small IC motors to recharge, but don't forget about advances in rotary compressed air motors!

Well, lets be American about it and throw Billions at the emmissions/alt. fuel problem. I'm sure our efforts will be undone by China anyway--with OUR (outsourced) money too! Sounds like a wonderful ending to this supposed "Global Warming" issue we have on our hands.

If there really is a "Global Warming Trend" going on, there surely will be NO solution to it as long as Humans want a lifestyle that Americans have had for decades. It will be increased, not decreased. NO amount of money or invention will prohibit it.

Humans like affordable luxuries. They like roaming to and fro on the earth. Having hot showers/dinners. This will NOT be stopped. It will be increased--and so will fossil fuel use.

Nate H.

Honda sell a fuel reformer that convert the natural gas at home to hydrogen. They can install this at the customer house and some too at the dealership. they can sell it too to the existing gasoline stations. Then they can install water electrolysers at the dealership or at the customer home that convert water to hydrogen gas. Itm-power is a compagny in u.k that build these electrolysers and it's compact and cheap. Then they can install a water tank with a small electrolyser in the car instead of their actual compressed hydrogen gas tank. The hydrogen is then made in the car while driving. After inventing this , car manufacturers can work on the flying personnal car.

Most hydrogen in the U.S. is derived from natural gas (NG). (And no one seems to care about the CO2 released in the methane reforming process used to make hydrogen....) So why not save several energy-wasting steps and simply go with a NG vehicle? GM even used to make them for the U.S. market, and they still make them for markets abroad.

A plug-in hybrid vehicle, running on electricity, and methane, including biomass-derived methane, would accomplish everything the hydrogen economy was intended to accomplish with lower overall cost and no significant infrastructure development (we already have lots of NG pipelines) and little technical risk. Add a 5-gallon tank for liquid fuel as well, and you will increase range further and allow for access to the extant fueling infrastructure as well.

We could do this NOW with no need for fuel cells or hydrogen fueling stations.

The pool of hydrogen advocates is slowly drying up. It is fitting that Larry Burns is flopping like a suffocating fish in the remaining shallow pond that is the NHA.

All this song and dance for a measly few 1000 units by 2014? That's not exactly going to make a big dent in air quality or energy independence, is it?

IFF politicians insist on pursuing mobile fuel cell technology, switching from PEMFCs to DMFCs in the context of an E-Flex architecture could eliminate a lot of headaches. First, the fuel cell could be smaller and operated either in its efficiency sweet spot or not at all. Second, methanol is a liquid fuel, so it's much easier to distribute and store useful quantities. Handling is an issue, but it can be addressed in parallel with DMFC development because ICE gensets can be optimized for methanol in the interim. Note that as long hydrogen is produced by steam reforming methane, DMFCs are no worse in terms of well-to-wheels CO2 emissions.

The alternative for getting cars off oil is to forget about fuel cells and focus instead on CNG/ANG fuel systems for ICEs, possibly in conjunction with E-Flex. Biomethane and SNG can be produced from cellulose today.

Hydrogen is on track to be overrun permanently by the rapidly improving electric storage technology. I used to be a big fan of this technology because other green alternatives did not look good at all such as lead acid EVs and cars running on compressed air. However, with new and emerging nanotech lithium batteries and possible breakthrough super capacitators from ESTOR the prospect for hydrogen to ever make it into the real world looks bleak. However, fuel cell technology may still make it into vehicles if it succeeds to be produced at substantially less cost per kWh than batteries. This is hard to imagine given the complex nature of the fuel cell system and the fact that batteries are already leading big time in this regard.

Jim:
Hydrogen with fuel cells are better than just using natural gas in an ICE because fuel cells are fundementally an order of magnitude more efficent than ICEs, even if you ignore that hydrogen CAN be produced by renewables (even though at this point they don't even produce more than a couple of percent of our electrical grid, let alone our liquid fuels).

I think hydrogen has a future, but not necessarly in light vehicles. Because things like busses, ships, airplanes, long-haul trucks, and locomotives are used energy at a far greater capacity than could possibly be supplied by batteries, and can't afford to spend hours of down time charging up, and the economics for fuel cells get better as the fuel cell gets bigger (I think), hydrogen will probably be usefull for those before it becomes usefull for light-duty vehicles. That would also build the infrastructure for hydrongen for light vehicles, if it ever becomes economical. It possibly has a future as a generator for PHEVs, but using just hydrogen for light vehicles probably doesn't make sense for the forseeable future.

Hey Larry, aren’t you supposed to be working on getting the Volt battery packs up to snuff, instead of being a huckster for the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Lobby?

If the Chevy Volt is the number one priority and you really are trying to get it out on time, why the hell are you still playing with fuel cells right now?

Fool me once same on you, fool me twice shame on me! I'm sorry, GM has used the Hydrogen Fuel Cell "bait and switch" to Kill The Electric Car once already!

NIGGA PLEEEZE !!!!!

Dan A.,

I know IC engines can be made about 25-30% efficient (HHV) with methane. So fuel cells can't be an order of magnitude more efficient, as that would be 250-300%. The most I've heard is about 40-50% efficient HHV for hydrogen fuel cells.

Let's put it another way. Assume a hydrogen fuel cell is 100% efficient (LHV, lower heating value) which is the best that could be hoped for. That translates to 82% HHV (higher heating value) efficiency. Note that hydrogen is 3.2 times more bulky than methane for storage, so even the most efficient fuel cell possible will require 1.2 times the volume for its fuel compared with a 30% efficient methane engine. With a more realistic efficiency (40-50%) the fuel bulkiness is that much worse. Add to this the likelihood of NG or even bio-methane to be less expensive than hydrogen for the foreseeable future and you have a vehicle that does not serve the consumer well. At all. It has bulky tanks, expensive, unproven technology, no infrastructure, and an expensive fuel source.

In contrast, a PHEV running on methane, with a small (5-gallon) liquid fuel tank as well, is buildable today, needs no new infrastructure, and makes efficient use of the fuels provided to it.

While we in the West stubbornly continue to pour million of dollars into a so called hydrogen future, Israel is acually implementing a 10 year plan to move their economy off fossil fuels onto solar generation and plug in automobiles. Their project is called "A Better Place." Their goals include being completely off oil, other than jet fuel, and to wire the country so that where ever there's a parking place, there will be an electric receptacle near by. Long distance travel will be handled by fast robot battery swap out stations. They already have contracts in place with Renault and Nissan to supply the BEVs. Denmark will be the next country to make this move and thirty other countries are currently evaluating the project for adoption.

Here we are still spinning in mud while all the fossil fuel stake holders in our country continue to argue over how they can retain control over the energy business and as long as our federal government continues to allow itself to be held hostage by Big Business, it will be a slow slog to flushing fossil energy out of our energy system. What we need is a new energy policy with clearly defined goals and mileposts in order to save this country from the economic disaster looming up from the current seriously flawed oil biased Bush energy policies.

"...while keeping automobiles affordable to own and operate."

I have yet to see a production price for an FC automobile. So I do not know how "affordable to own" they would be.

As for fuel, the car companies should have learned long ago that they do not want to be dependent on the oil companies for fuel.

If they had not lost so much money in recent years on their SUV dependence, they could put in the stations and provide the fuel themselves.

Lad, there is no such thing as long distance travel in Israel. Its a tiny little country, and Denmark isn't exactly huge either. Their "Better Place" project is a great idea, and I think it will serve them well, but North America is a different place in so many ways. Denmark already gets a substantial percentage of their power from wind, and Israel could potentially supply much of their relatively minute energy needs from a few big solar thermal plants in the Negev desert.

I'm not saying we shouldn't work towards a similar goal, and in fact, I think such a goal is really the only sustainable long term solution. I just think that we in North America have a fundamentally much bigger problem to overcome. We can't just blame Bush and big oil. This problem is a century in the making, and a few big government programs aren't going to have the effect that they potentially could in Denmark or Israel. It is going to take a herculean effort, not only on the part of government, but also from large corporations, and the public as a whole.

Hey, how come the vice president of GM's R&D sounds like a lobbyist? I hope this conflict of interest between EV and hydrogen does not cause a re-run of "Who Killed My Electric Vehicle?" to happen. Although the potential of a conflict is easily seen.

Since its ca that made policy requiring fuel cell cars they of course MUST also require thier own itilities and cities build the dang refuling stations... DUH!!!!

As doe cost of the car... ford is targetting a 4000 fuelcell for when it realy goes mass market..

As for nat gas.. there are some long term issues..

1 nat gas STILL emmits massive co2.. far too much to meet long term co2 regs AND its gone get spendy long term.

2 In the mid term they can convert ng into h2 and run a car farther then on ng ice and with all co2 issues confined to off car locations where it might be used in algae or other systems.
3 They have no clue how much ng they qill ewaly jave in 20 years and its highly unlikely car makers will get a break even if they did make ng cars so long term it doesnt help them either.

In the end we will have alot of all these types of cars each doing what it does best owned by people who have different needs. h2 gains alot of money because alot of people in power need exactly that kind of car and thus support its developement. Its not been a secret that lux/perf cars and suvs are poised to go h2 when needed.

If I had to bet I would go with NG/SNG in ANG tanks. It is easier to make, transport and store and can be used in ICE, HEV, PHEV and FC applications. Not to mention all those other NG applications like combined cycle power plants to charge the PHEV and EV cars.

Jim:
I confess. I said order of magnitude because it sounds cool. But regardless.

In terms of storage, there's been great progress in the use of nanomaterials that can store hydrogen signficiantly more densely and dramatically reduce compression costs, so that's a step in the right direction.

There are different types of fuel cells that use different fuels--I've heard of methanol, I think methane, and the military has started using (or experimenting with, can't remember for sure) a JP8 (jet fuel) fuel cell for tank APUs, but fuel cells are signficantly more efficent than the best combustion engine. I've heard ~60% efficency for hydrogen, but I may be wrong on that.

My point was that hydrogen makes a hell of a lot more sense for almost all forms of transportation than it does for light vehicles. For example, a locomotive needs far more energy than batteries could ever forfill, and they are too expensive to have waiting around for batteries to be charged anyway. Locomotives are allready essentially series hybrids without regenerative breaking (although GE is changing that), so all you'd thoretically need to do is yank out the diesel engine and strap in a fuel cell. If fuel cells/hydrogen fuell cells become economical, it would probably happen with things like locomotives before it happens in light vehicles.

Dan A,

Interesting point about a locomotive not being suitable for batteries because it requires too much energy. True, it requires a lot of energy. But on the other hand: it is huge.

The factor that is important is the ratio of propellant vs. total weight. I googled around a bit, and found this data for the Vossloh Euro 4000 diesel electric loc: vehicle weight: 123 tonnes, fuel capactity: 7000 l. Divide both numbers by 100, and you get typical numbers for an ordinary car: weight 1230 kg, fuel capacity 70 l. But it gets better: this is just the loc. The weight of an entire train is easily ten times the weight of the loc.

Conclusion: the energy-capacity-to-weight ratio of a train is much lower than that of a small car. This leads me to believe that the extra battery weight is LESS of a problem instead.

Add to that the fact that many miles of track are electrified, enabling battery charging on the go.

I think the same is true for trucks. Googling around a bit, I found a typical fuel capacity for a 50 tonne truck to be aroung 800 l. That is 16 l per tonne, considerably less than a small car.