Larry Burns says H2 cars are ready, calls on government and energy industry to provide hydrogen supply
During a keynote speech at the National Hydrogen Association conference in Sacramento, CA, GM's VP for Research and Development declared automotive fuel cell technology ready. However he said it can't move forward without a supply of hydrogen to feed mass quantities of cars. Between General Motors, Daimler, Toyota, Honda and Ford, automakers have demonstrated that the technology works and is reliable. GM and Honda in particular are working aggressively to create fuel cell designs that can be mass produced at an affordable cost. The latest designs have improved efficiency, durability and greatly reduced requirements for catalyst materials. At the conference, Burns is stepping up the call for the energy industry and government to start implementing a fuel distribution system. Previous analysis done by General Motors has concluded that supplying upwards of ninety-five percent of the population would only require 12,000 hydrogen stations nationwide. That compares to 170,000 gas stations currently in operation. That number of stations placed at roughly two mile intervals in all the populated areas and twenty-five miles apart on major highways would be sufficient to supply the nation with hydrogen for transportation. The estimated cost of that would $10-15 billion or about 1/3 of ExxonMobil's profits for one recent quarter. Without this investment, the U.S. will get left behind.
[Source: Hydrogen Forecast]











Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)
4-02-2008 @ 4:07PM
Johnstone said...
everyone here seems so happy forget about waste byproducts ...and not just the stuff coming out of tailpipes but from the manufacturing processes, maintence, and final disposal. I for one have much less of a problem with landfills full of crushed/wrecked ICEcars verses lanfills full of toxic batteries.
there is no reason for everyone to sit back bickering about which one type of green system is greener and has less of a "Big ____" behind it making unGodly amounts of money at the expense of the every-day man. THE FACT IS THAT SUPPORTING BIG OIL IS NOT SUPPORTING OUR COUNTRIES' INTERESTS.
That being said, there is no reason why fully EV cars cannot simultaneously coinside with H2ICE or maybe even a Hybrid H2ICE-EV. or hell, even WVO-Diesel-EVs. Mercedes' last geneva gem was a 4banger bio-capable diesel-hybrid WHICH HAD H2ENERGY CELLS yet was capable of unparalleled performance specs. the type of performance that can and WILL make alternative fuel infrastructures happen yesterday.
This "debate" will never cease as long as there are those who see cars as mere transportation and those who like to FEEL the pulse of the engine, hearing the air being pumped through in a symphony of meticulous timing and coordination. People need to REALIZE that there are others out there with other interests probably different than their own.
Personally i will NEVER love EV's as much as i do ICE's. but that is my personal opinion and i should be entitled to pursue this which makes me happy just as everyone else should be able and entitled to pursue that which they desire.
IF ANYTHING SUPPORT ANY AND ALL PROGRESSION THAT THIS COUNTRY (or any other country) MAKES AWAY FROM FOREIGN OIL
This article is good new for all of us (period.) Cause lets face it, as much as we hate to acknowledge it, nothing real is going to happen unless the BigDogs whoever they happen to be are onboard and involved.
Reply
4-02-2008 @ 4:41PM
Dave said...
Larry, as a stock holder, I don't want to hear one F@!#ING word about Hydrogen until you get the battery version of the Chevy Volt out the door! I would rather you spent MY MONEY looking for a better Li-ion battery cathode, than PASSING GAS!
Reply
4-03-2008 @ 1:47AM
Murc said...
I agree with what blackbird said.
Hydrogen is a good way to go.....for aircraft, not cars.
electric, electric, electric, electric, electric, electric, electric, ......I figure it I say it enough times, it will sink in to ALL the auto makers.
Reply
4-03-2008 @ 3:54AM
jake said...
@Johnstone
While I for one agree than ANY development in technology to wean us off oil is good, esp if the companies are willing to invest in such technology themselves without government help, I don't agree it is pointless to consider which one is actually more viable. I personally don't really buy into the "big oil loves H2" story; I think the bigger issue with H2 is that it is so much farther from viable than many of the other alternatives and we are putting our biggest money and hope into it, leading (or misleading) a lot of the public to believe that this will really solve all our energy problems when it's not clear it will.
The biggest issue with this article is that it claims somehow that H2 cars are "ready", when that is obviously very far from the truth, as mentioned by other commenters.
Also please don't put out the tired argument of "toxic batteries in landfills." "Toxic" would have applied in the late 1980s-early 1990s when most EVs were lead acid (with lead, cadmium, and mercury being the three most toxic metals), and even then the batteries could be recycled. Now batteries, such as nimh are much less toxic and most li-ion batteries are landfill safe (look it up). Also our lead acid car battery recycling programs are very good in it's 90% recycling rate (don't forget your typical car has a toxic lead acid battery, which obviously isn't directly landfill safe unlike more advanced chemistries used in EVs). Even in hybrid cars, automakers are paying bounties to collect and recycle batteries after their lifecycle. So I don't see how EV batteries, even larger batteries, will slip through and end up in large numbers in landfill, esp. if we already have a model to follow in lead acid battery recycling.
Reply
4-03-2008 @ 9:11PM
Kevin Nugent said...
I also approve . You cannot have a sustainable market without available resources. No matter how inneficent this technology might be right now . It will just get better and better
Reply