GM's naive, monopolistic and capitalistic fuel cell vehicle plans?
"Hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles could hit showrooms as early as 2011 and the technology will revitalize General Motors, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said as he delivered a hydrogen concept car to be test driven by Camp Pendleton Marines over the next few months." (more)
Hmmm. So, why will fuel cells revitalize GM more than any other automaker?
For decades GM has successfully lobbied the government not to increase fuel economy standards because such a move would interfere with GM's fuel cell development. For decades, GM has told the government, zero emission fuel cell vehicles were just around the corner. Now, once again, GM's fuel cell vehicles are just around the corner - at least according to GM execs.
Should we believe them this time, or has GM cried fuel cell one too many times?
Every major automaker on the face of the planet is working on fuel cell vehicles, and most of these automakers, as well as most automotive experts, claim that cost-effective fuel cell vehicles are still more than a decade away, at least. Other experts claim it will take at least two decades or more. Some experts claim it might never happen.
I think it'll happen and here's why.
Recently, fuel cell developers have started to dig the idea of plug-in fuel cell hybrid vehicles. For years now, Toyota has claimed that its hybrid vehicles were the beginning of their fuel cell vehicle platform. Even GM engineers have admitted that their fuel cell vehicles will also be fuel cell hybrid vehicles. This is because fuel cell vehicles will almost certainly require an electric drive, and hybrids offer that electric drive.
Yet, hybrid cars are too expensive for GM, but we are to believe that in a couple of years GM's fuel cell hybrid vehicles will not be? I'd like to see the numbers behind that kind of bean-counting!!
In fact, the idea of plug-in fuel cell hybrid vehicles might call into question the entire idea of the 'hydrogen highway' - and the foundation of GM's fuel cell vehicle program.
O.K. current hybrid vehicles are not the answer to the world's problems. I'll willfully admit that as FACT. Still, next generation hybrids, such as those powered by lithium batteries will almost certainly, easily, achieve over 100 mpg, and plug-in capabilities could extend this efficiency even further.
More important, plug-in hybrid vehicles could receive additional power from small fuel cells. Utilizing a small fuel cell would be far more cost-effective than using a large fuel cell - at least in the short term. Consequently, this could be the quickest way of both ending foreign oil dependency and investing in fuel cells, but the upside doesn't end there.
If you can have a fuel cell in your car, why not in your home? Such a fuel cell could be powered by natural gas, or, in many areas of the U.S., by solar power.
Imagine all of California's homes and vehicles powered by solar-powered fuel cells with excess energy stored in advanced lithium-ion batteries? Would places like California really even need a hydrogen highway?
Why not dare to dream? Why does GM only envision the future as just a subtle offshoot of today's world, of today's energy paradigm? In reality, does America really need a new multi-billion dollar hydrogen highway? Maybe GM does, but America might not.
I'm sure the monopolistic, capitalistic, corporate-lobby-controlled politicians can easily be sold on this idea, but we THE PEOPLE, should demand more. The hydrogen highway might be great for corporate America, but is it really so great for the people of America?
Hmmm. So, why will fuel cells revitalize GM more than any other automaker?
For decades GM has successfully lobbied the government not to increase fuel economy standards because such a move would interfere with GM's fuel cell development. For decades, GM has told the government, zero emission fuel cell vehicles were just around the corner. Now, once again, GM's fuel cell vehicles are just around the corner - at least according to GM execs.
Should we believe them this time, or has GM cried fuel cell one too many times?
Every major automaker on the face of the planet is working on fuel cell vehicles, and most of these automakers, as well as most automotive experts, claim that cost-effective fuel cell vehicles are still more than a decade away, at least. Other experts claim it will take at least two decades or more. Some experts claim it might never happen.
I think it'll happen and here's why.
Recently, fuel cell developers have started to dig the idea of plug-in fuel cell hybrid vehicles. For years now, Toyota has claimed that its hybrid vehicles were the beginning of their fuel cell vehicle platform. Even GM engineers have admitted that their fuel cell vehicles will also be fuel cell hybrid vehicles. This is because fuel cell vehicles will almost certainly require an electric drive, and hybrids offer that electric drive.
Yet, hybrid cars are too expensive for GM, but we are to believe that in a couple of years GM's fuel cell hybrid vehicles will not be? I'd like to see the numbers behind that kind of bean-counting!!
In fact, the idea of plug-in fuel cell hybrid vehicles might call into question the entire idea of the 'hydrogen highway' - and the foundation of GM's fuel cell vehicle program.
O.K. current hybrid vehicles are not the answer to the world's problems. I'll willfully admit that as FACT. Still, next generation hybrids, such as those powered by lithium batteries will almost certainly, easily, achieve over 100 mpg, and plug-in capabilities could extend this efficiency even further.
More important, plug-in hybrid vehicles could receive additional power from small fuel cells. Utilizing a small fuel cell would be far more cost-effective than using a large fuel cell - at least in the short term. Consequently, this could be the quickest way of both ending foreign oil dependency and investing in fuel cells, but the upside doesn't end there.
If you can have a fuel cell in your car, why not in your home? Such a fuel cell could be powered by natural gas, or, in many areas of the U.S., by solar power.
Imagine all of California's homes and vehicles powered by solar-powered fuel cells with excess energy stored in advanced lithium-ion batteries? Would places like California really even need a hydrogen highway?
Why not dare to dream? Why does GM only envision the future as just a subtle offshoot of today's world, of today's energy paradigm? In reality, does America really need a new multi-billion dollar hydrogen highway? Maybe GM does, but America might not.
I'm sure the monopolistic, capitalistic, corporate-lobby-controlled politicians can easily be sold on this idea, but we THE PEOPLE, should demand more. The hydrogen highway might be great for corporate America, but is it really so great for the people of America?
Labels: bob lutz, electric cars, Foreign Oil Dependency, fuel cells, fuel efficiency, GM, Hybrid Vehicles, plug-in hybrids, toyota
posted by Dahcredyns at
10:27 AM
5 Comments:
It is blatently obvious that plug in hybrid cars are viable today. They can easily acheive efficiencies of over 100 mpg. One has to ask: If a bunch of dedicated technicians can build plug in hybrids like this in their garages, why can't Detroit. Further, why is the do nothing Bush administration talking about "pie in the sky" like making fuel from switch grass when an easy solution is so obvious. It's enough to make a conspiricy theorist out of a republican. Maybe thats why 46% of Americans believe the administration is manipulating gas prices to look good right before the election.
The main problems with plug-in hybrids are the cost of materials and availability of those materials. Consequently, the government would probably have to provide tax incentives to make them a reality, which I think would be a better destination for tax dollars than fighting wars, paying off big oil, etc.
I don't believe that Bush is manipulating gas prices, and I'd rather not focus on that point.
If you want to blame Republicans for something, let's keep it to absolutely verifiable facts, such as Republicans have fought tooth-and-nail against any sort of fuel economy standards for decades. Of course, many UAW Democrats joined these Republicans because they've realized that 10's of thousands of jobs were at stake because of years of ignorance practiced by the Big 3.
Still, there is plenty of blame to go around, such as blame for consumers. I know many 'no-blood-for-oil' ranters that drive huge SUVs. That's hypocrisy in my book.
Ultimately, I don't want this to be a left versus right, Republican versus Democrat debate. I want it to be a right versus wrong debate. Politicians can't be the answer to America's problems, the people have to take on that responsibility. When we make better choices as consumers, as voters, etc, everything else will fall into place.
I love it when people look to save money bu "not fighting wars."
As though we have a choice in the matter - the extremsts Islamists are at war with us. Sticking one's head deeply in the sand isn't going to make our vulnerabilities any less.
This is so much like those who argued that we had no reason to worry about the Nazis during the 30's. People just never want to admit that there are evil souls out there, no matter how many innocent people they blow up with terror bombs.
If 46% of Americans believe that
Busg can manipulate gasoline prices, that is a sorry statement about the intelligence of the public. The media is responsible for the almost childish ignorance this represents.
Isn't it interesting that the claim is that Bush manipulated gasoline prices, not crude oil prices, whose
fututres are auctioned off every minute of every business day and are public knowledge. Let hear an explanation for how in the world a President can influence a commodity auction, and in particular, force prices down without increasing supply or dcreasing demand. I've
been around commodity trading for several decades and want to hear some knuckelhead tell me how such a scheme can be carried out by someone sitting in the oval office.
the bike -
I have to take issue with your 'not fighting wars' comment.
I don't necessarily disagree that, ultimately, the U.S. had to take serious action in the Middle East.
My point about 'not fighting wars' was that if not for our oil addiction, we wouldn't have garnered all the Islamic fundamentalist hate in our direction. Our oil addiction helped create some of the problems that led to war.
More important, if not for our oil addicton, we wouldn't have to spend so much money protecting our oil interests with our military even when we're not at war.
I never meant that if we didn't go fight in Iraq we could fund PHEVs.
I agree with you that Islamic fundamentalists hate the essence of America and the West. As cliched as it might sound, Islamic fundamentalists are completely opposed to freedom - all the more reason to stop funding their terror campaigns with our oil addiction.
Ultimately, just a few billion less spent on protecting our oil interests in the Middle East through the years could be or could have been spent on a new line of American-built plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Post a Comment
<< Home