GM's HY-Wire Hydrogen Concept Car

I'm very skeptical about hydrogen in general, but it's interesting to see that GM's letting folks drive their concept car. They're getting nervous about putting their eggs in the hydrogen basket.

(As well they should be.. I'm skeptical because now that the HSD/Prius is working so well, I think large-battery technology will improve rapidly and electric cars will be much cheaper to buy, cheaper to operate, and simpler to use than hydrogen by the time Bush's "hydrogen pork barrel" program starts to show some results.)

 

First thing that struck me is how much the Profile looks like a Prius

[Broken External Image]:http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0513/csmimg/p1b.jpg

 

Bush's hydrogen pork barrel program? I see that line of thinking as very short sighted. 20 years ago, a President suggesting research and investment dollars into Hybrid technology would, also, have been labeled a "Pork Barrel" spender.
Having said that, I still love my Prius! It's a fine ride indeed. Perhaps we can at least agree on that.

 

I certainly agree that federal encouragement on gas-saving technologies is a good thing (generally).

However, I am concerned that the Bush administration is putting "all their eggs in one basket" with hydrogen fuel cell research.

The latest Scientific American has a very good (I think) analysis of hydrogen fuel cell technologies, specifically as a replacment as a fuel source for cars. They have some significant reservations for it being used for this purpose.

 

Probably inevitable. Another lead by Toyota: the aerodynamic teardrop shape.

 

Much like what's happening now in California, I believe that Bush dropped a couple of billion dollars into hydrogen research to avoid actually DOING anything. Keeps all those car companies happy, and makes it look like he's "helping the environment" or whatever, but it has no actual impact on reality.

It's entirely possible that hydrogen will be a Good Thing. It's entirely possible that, had the Prius launch tanked, the hydrogen infrastructure would end up winning the day.

But, my personal opinion is that Hybrid/Electric is VHS, and Hydrogen is Betamax. Two competing technologies. The one that hits critical mass first wins, because economies of scale kick in rapidly once mass production starts. In this case, batteries are going to win over hydrogen. The whole "$2/gal-equiv by 2010" or whatever the current predictions are is based on NOTHING. The numbers are just there to make it sound like a good research area.

My prediction:

By the end of 2005 (model year 2006), there will be hybrids in every major car category. By the end of 2007, there will be batteries in more than half the new cars sold in the US (not nec. full hybrids, but cars with the ability to have regenerative braking and power boost). In that same timeframe, there will be a car that's a large-battery hybrid that you plug in -- Electric with a gas secondary, rather than gas with an electric secondary (the most likely form will be a gas-fed pure generator.. wheels would only be driven by electric motors, ideally one motor per wheel). The gas tank gives extended range when needed, but otherwise it's a short/medium-range electric. Then, by the end of 2010, or sooner, there will be a mass-produced full-electric car released with similar sales figures to what the Prius has now, plus a range of over 400 miles.

By 2010, there will also be hydrogen cars, but you'll only be able to drive them in California or in the area of government installations. Availabililty will be similar to buying a hybrid in 2001-2 (available in certain areas, otherwise not). Range will be under 200 miles, and the cost per mile will still be higher than whatever the equivalent "good hybrid" (e.g. the 2011 Prius) has.

Barring major accidents, I expect my wife's next vehicle will be a 2007-era hybrid minivan (>30mpg), and my next vehicle will be that 2010 mass-market electric one

That's just how I see it. That's why I wish Bush would focus on battery tech (an evolutionary step in battery tech, utilizing existing electricity transmission systems for fueling), rather than a new hydrogen infrastructure (an unproven revolutionary step in energy extraction, requiring a brand new fueling infrastructure)

 

Hope that at least takes care of the "short sighted" accuasion

 

I know Toyota developed a ton of this technology in-house. How about the battery? I imagine a company like Toyota can push the envelope on battery technology even without (US) government sponsorship.

Anyway, Bush'll be gone by January 21, 2005. Not much time left for him to screw things up.

 

The problem is there are no real GOALS.

What the heck are hydrogen & fuel-cells suppose to deliver?

With Prius it is blatantly obvious: PZEV emissions and efficiency averaging around 50 MPG.

 

Well, hydrogen fuel cell cars are supposed to produce ZEV emissions -- from the car. The production of hydrogen fuel itself can produce emissions, depending on the way it's done (and there are many prospective ways.)

As to whether it would be cheaper than gas (at gasoline's current price), and it's renewability and the amount that can be generated -- all very good questions.

Again, I'll point to the Scientific American article -- this is just the kind of questions they're asking (and attempting to answer) in this article. (The SciAm has it online, but you have to pay to view it.

 

Like I said.. a couple of billion dollars. That's passed through Congress already, hasn't it? Or is that just potential still?

The hybrid tax deduction was part of Clinton's energy package, afaik. Bush's contribution to the hybrid cause was to phase the deductions out in 2004-6. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about when the bill was passed) Fortunately, I got my Prius in 2003 for the full deduction

 

I haven't read the SA article yet (I will tonite) but as I see it, a hydrogen fuel cell economy has three major problems:

1) There is no infrastructure for manufacturing or distributing hydrogen on a national scale.

2) Currently at 10,000psi, they get about 200 mile range. (10,000psi of ANYTHING is a dangerous thing - didn't you see "Jaws")

3) Fuel cells currently cost about $4,000/kilowatt. A car would need at least 100 kilowatts.

These might be overcome, but not in my lifetime.
Gas/electric hybrids will be commonplace in 5 years.

Jay

 

2) Currently at 10,000psi, they get about 200 mile range.

How long do you want to spend at the filling station?

Filling that tank could be rather time consuming... long enough to cause lengthy refill wait lines. Imagine having that type of delay to deal with every 200 miles.

 

No, can't say that it did!
Now don't get me wrong! Today's hybrid technology is here now. And both of us can enjoy and appreciate it in spite of any varying opinions we may have.
Peace to you.

 

I agree! But these are current obstacles that research can overcome. I'm wondering if this is a "slam Bush" session or a "slam hydrogen technolgy" session. I think it's the former.

 

Knock on wood! But the outcome of the November election is by no means certain. Kerry seems afraid to take on Bush at his weakest points: the decision to go to war against a country that had nothing to do with terrorism, the torture scandal, Bush's own murky past with insider trading and draft dodging, etc. The Republican campaign organization is technically very savvy. And world or national events could throw the election either way. Then there's the possibility of outright fraud (again), or hackers (a recent piece on npr said that those new Diebold voting machines are laughably easy to hack! This election could end up being determined by the hackers. And if Bush were to dump Cheeny and select Congolesa Rice as his vp, what might that do to the Black and the women's vote? I don't think anybody can be certain about the outcome.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"daniel\")</div>

 

> Kerry stands solidly and squarely on each side of every issue!

A senator represents the people. If they change their mind, s/he must reflect that change... even if it makes it look like s/he is changing sides.

Also, standing firmly on an issue is not always a good thing. Sometimes new facts reveal themselves later. Change is warranted then. Being stubborn and not doing that is bad.