TreeHugger's Response to GM's Hydrogen Sequel

[racy]

I am not really sure where to put this because the article itself is less noteworthy than the reader comments.

If ever there was an uninformed group of people on the "Anything American is bad, GM is morally deficient and uninnovative, Toyota-ness is cleanliness is Godliness" bandwagon, this is the one.

" You North American "hydrogen skeptics" "

You can count me in this camp. GM is not exactly a company known for "technical Innovation".

In fact, the ONLY innovation (more like Big Brother) in the last 50 years, that I can think of where GM has been first to market, is OnStar.
=== authaor's response follows ====
GIven that you commented, I take that as an indication of open mindedness. GM has a sort of skunk works in upstate NY for FC development. Check out this story for an example: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._1/ai_88681559

The locale would tend to protect operational security as well as insulate from bureaucracy. And they are testing non-stereotypical configurations. Per the link, an on-board reformer (OBR) in an American style truck, has the advantage of emitting verylow SOX and NOX, and very low particulates. Because there is no ICE in such a design, the gasoline can be re-forumulated. No need for long chain hydrocarbons to control knocking for example. Reform-on-board fuels can be redesigned to be optimal hydrogen carriers. Methanol is the optimal with 4Hs per C (4/1). Ethanol is next at 6H to 2C (3/1) . Then comes propanol (2.5/1), etc etc. There are no so obvious tradeoffs between handling safety, power density, and emissions among these. So there might be a blending of fuels. Also, an OBR produces waste heat heat for the cabin and to get the actual fuel cell underway, which means that a heavy separate heater can be dispensed with. And so on.


Posted by: Lil' Hugger | September 19, 2006 08:51 AM | flag a problem


Ahh yeas hydrogen, lovely stuff. Burns to just water.

But it still has to compete with the energy used to produce it. It's EROEI is very NEGATIVE.

It might be green as Kermit the Frog by itself, but you have to evaluate how you make the hydrogen first.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2006 12:34 PM | flag a problem


It is no coincidence GM is giving these hybrids to the Marines. GM is counting on military applications for fuel cells being the early adopters, shouldering the high cost to get the advantages of a low noise and thermal heat signature. This would allow "stealth" operation of vehicles which wouldn't show up on infrared detection.

Quite a bit has been written about this and other "green" technologies being investigated for use by the military. Our tax dollars at work

=== author's response follows ====
Thanks for this thought. It's a tried and true strategy. Example: the WWII "JEEP" evolved to the Willis Jeep, which evolved to the Chrysler Jeep Cherokee. At that point the design taxonomy got complex as other companies cloned what JEEP had wrought, giving us many variations of the wasteful modern luxury SUVs. But it all originated from a military design and Federal support.

Posted by: military industrial complex | September 19, 2006 02:55 PM | flag a problem


"You North American "hydrogen skeptics" can keep making smug remarks..."

If you aren't a hydrogen (and a GM) skeptic, you're either seeing different science than I am or drinking the GM kool-aid, IMHO.

Not that hydrogen isn't a great blue sky idea, but there are so many problems with hydrogen it would be nice to see someone actually map out how it could be feasible without nuclear fusion to make the hydrogen. Even Jeremy Rifkin can't answer how this would work.

Hydrogen is a very inefficient lossy storage medium which uses up a lot of energy in the conversion to the tune of 65% waste. Not bad if you have free energy (geothermal, hydro) but there isn't that much free energy around these days.

And one more important thing.

Could you possibly use a nicer tone in your articles? I hate the feeling I'm getting put down / chewed out because I don't agree with you. A little positive energy would be appreciated.

Posted by: UofCgradstudent | September 19, 2006 03:18 PM | flag a problem


Nuclear fission will work. And since your so science orientated you'd know that there are some very clean designs out there for it. I agree getting the hydrogen is a problem. Many push EV's, what's going to power an EV? Low power batteries?

Posted by: JiltedCitizen | September 19, 2006 04:41 PM | flag a problem


Not for nothing, author, but you kind of boiled the long and storied history of the Jeep into a few incorrect sentences - but I think we get your point. Either Discovery, or TLC, or The History Channel (one of the good stations) did a series on military tech going civilian - was good stuff. Reruns maybe?

=== author's response follows ===
Thanks for pointers. Memory hole is getting blurry.

Posted by: Dave S | September 19, 2006 05:22 PM | flag a problem


um, how come a huge corporation like GM can't make a real-world electric car (that doesn't need a massive infrastructure change that itself raises enormous problems about the very generation of the fuel), when small companies like PML can make a real-world electric/hybrid car (mini QED) that simply thrashes even the best ICE's for acceleration, speed, and emissions.
Oh yeah, there was the EV1, but they crushed all of them, didn't they.
JiltedCitizen, maybe you should look at the Mini QED, TeslaMotors roadster, hell, just do a search for electric car, and you'll see that even what's going on at a grassroots level far exceeds what GM is trying to push. Batteries and ultracapacitors are getting better and better, and they don't require a science-fiction level of infrastructure change that simply will not happen in our lifetimes. Transport electrons, not explosive fuel. We need zero-emissions technology NOW, not in ten years time.

Posted by: paulo | September 19, 2006 05:47 PM | flag a problem


You have got to be kidding me!

I don't know of any "clean" designs for fission. Even the French are having problems with their reactors, and they are the best around. Fission reactors create one problem trying to solve another.

How are you suggesting to generate all this hydrogen? If you are thinking electrolysis, that would be crazy at the scale needed. Fusion on the otherhand could crack water easily for large amounts of hydrogen. But that technology isn't developed enough to be usable yet either.

If you use electricity for electrolysis, you are throwing away vast amounts of it in the conversion to hydrogen. That is why an EV is much, much more efficient, it doesn't have to go through a hugely wasteful energy loss in the conversion to hydrogen. A hydrogen car can't come close to an EV in effeciency unless there is a dramatic breakthrough in hydrogen production.

Posted by: UofCgradstudent | September 19, 2006 06:24 PM | flag a problem


I suggest you go research generation IV and III reactors.

Um, Paulo, where is Toyota's, Chrysler's, Fords, Honda's real world electric cars? All are huge corporations. Yes all those cars are cool. Are they real world? Why do not all the major car companies take note? In reality they are nothing but concepts and fringe cars. We could use flywheels today to make a real world EV car.

Posted by: JiltedCitizen | September 19, 2006 07:48 PM | flag a problem


JiltedCitizen, maybe the constant lobbying of the oil industry has had something to do with that - see GM's all-electric EV1 / 2 being crushed. Why? So they can focus on awesome gas-guzzling 2 ton SUV's, that's why. So much more practical.

I've heard Toyota is releasing a plug-in prius this year, with all-electrics to follow. Tesla Motors is releasing the all-electric Tesla Roadster next year. Rumour of Honda releasing plug-ins, too.

As for Ford, Chrysler and GM, they're so locked into whatever the oil indu$try want$ that they don't count any more.

Jilted Citizen, you should really take a close look at companies like Tesla Motors before you call all-electrics 'fringe' or 'concept'.

Posted by: paulo | September 19, 2006 11:46 PM | flag a problem


It's not that we don't think Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology isn't going to be viable. It's the simple fact that it won't be viable ,infrastructure-wise for a least 10 years. Moreover, Electric and Hybrid technology are here and will closely resemble or match in full the "ICE" experience.

Posted by: Gerald Shields | September 20, 2006 03:27 AM | flag a problem


Paulo, Toyota scrapped their electric car program too remember. If you want to hate GM for that you should hate Toyota too.
I agree the fuel cells are silly though.

Posted by: James Barker | September 20, 2006 05:29 AM | flag a problem


Toyota also sells SUV's.

You heard rumors.... oh then that MUST mean it's true.

Posted by: JiltedCitizen | September 20, 2006 11:51 AM | flag a problem


james, actually i hate all car companies. i don't own a car, and i will not unless zero-emission. they've all sold us out for years with environmentally reprehensible technology (10-18% energy efficiency for an internal-combustion-engine!) that our children will end up paying the price for.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006..._ratchets.html
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...TO03/609090302

jiltedcitizen, touche. my bad. honda just agreed that plug-ins were a good idea.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006...ssional_w.html
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2006/07...cept-with.html
http://www.teslamotors.com
http://www.plasmaboyracing.com/videos.php

don't shoot the messenger, guys...electric just seems to me to be the most usable technology that we have at present, for the simple fact that it does not require a
massive infrastructure change to implement. if you look at the sites i've given you then you might see that an EV does not have to have second-rate performance. (i find the home-build plasmaboy white zombie blowing off a 400hp corvette particularly beautiful.)
so, thanks for listening, and best of luck with it all.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2006 07:12 PM | flag a problem


"Toyota also sells SUV's.

You heard rumors.... oh then that MUST mean it's true."

What an unconstructive response.

I'm tired of your grade school level flame baiting, jiltedcitizen. Please respect the opinions of other people on this forum.

Posted by: fedupwithjiltedcitizen | September 20, 2006 10:08 PM | flag a problem


The man has a point though. People on this site do tend to bad mouth GM and praise Toyota when both make big SUVs. Infact GM's SUVs are cleaner and more efficient than Toyotas.

Posted by: James Barker | September 21, 2006 03:49 AM | flag a problem


...that anonymous comment with the links was mine, btw. please look them up. the electric datsun (white zombie) thrashing a 400hp corvette is pretty cool.

james, the reason that you may perceive people as being biased toward toyota is probably because of the prius - if the other auto makers were pushing hybrids then i'm sure the discussions about them on 'treehugger' would much more positive...

and there's also that little matter of GM killing a perfectly viable electric car. that doesn't look too good from an environmental perspective, does it.

the psychology of petrol heads is bizarre. even when presented with a car that has supercar performance and looks to match - if it doesn't have a petrol engine in it, they can't (or won't) even see it.

Posted by: paulo | September 21, 2006 05:33 AM | flag a problem


Toyota also killed their EV if you remember.

And I have no problem with electric cars if they perform well, have useable range and look nice, such as the Tesla and erm...that's about it.

Posted by: James Barker | September 21, 2006 08:55 AM | flag a problem


I respect their opinions, I just don't agree with them. I'm not fighting for petrol engines or cars. Nor do I specifically want to defend GM. I'm sick of the ignorance about them and other car companies. As just mentioned Toyota killed their electric car too. Yes Gm could do with more current tech hybrids. But so can all the other car companies. Why isn't all of Toyota's car's offered in a hybrid? When I can drive an electric car anywhere I can a gas car and fill up in minutes, then they will truly viable.

Posted by: JiltedCitizen | September 21, 2006 09:05 AM | flag a problem


Who cares about Electric Cars, Hybrids or fuel cell vechiles. They are not ECO friendly at all.They are Marketing scams to get your share of the Market in sales. Thatz it. They don't care about the Earth Conscience people at all. A bicycle is more friendly to the Envoirment. It burns no Fuel of any kind at all. A drop of oil on chain now and then and thatz it. You can talk ECO friendly all you want. But the truth is bicycling is more of an answer than anything else a a means of transportation.

Posted by: Bobby Bruch | September 21, 2006 09:56 AM | flag a problem

Link here:http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006...livers_hyd.php

[lol internet]

This ought to be an interesting thread.

[Bornfromparents]

what a bunch of fruits and nuts, the last post was dead on

[eaton53]

I like the last guy saying everybody should ride bicycles.
Great idea when it's 20 below and blowing snow....

[New_Mexico_Sunset_on_Rt66]

I didnt' finish reading all of the comments, but I have a good idea where it's going. If you understand that the "environmental movement" is NOT about saving fish, trees and birds, but about transforming the way we live, then it becomes clear.

The "Old Left" FDR, Kennedy, has been taken over by the "New Left" Gore, Hillary. Gore, W.J Clinton, Hillary and many others on the "lunatic fringe" of the left are products of the 60s and the SDS. One of the stated goals of the SDS was to destroy American institutions. Isn't GM one of the iconic American symbols.

I didn't make this up. Robert Bork talks about it in his book, "Slouching Towards Gamorrah".

You may delete this post. But you cannot talk about "evinronmentalism" without talking about the political implications of it. They are intertwined.

GM is still an American symbol which must be destroyed, according to the the "New Left". They may not say it publically, but it is one of their motives.

As I said months back. It dosen't matter what GM does. They are the villan which must be destroyed.

And people ignore that these so-called "plug-in" hybrids are NOT the Holy Grail. If everyone "plugs-in" at night, electric rates will go through the roof.

[awalbert88]

"In fact, the ONLY innovation (more like Big Brother) in the last 50 years, that I can think of where GM has been first to market, is OnStar."

I vote that this fellow's airbags be removed from his vehicle right away.

Oh, what's that? You weren't aware of GM inventing the airbag and then sharing it freely with everyone?

So many people in this world confuse the means with the end. The goal is to have a cleaner planet. I think almost everyone wants that. The problem is in the means, and so many people get caught up in fighting for a method of cleaning things up that they forget what it is they are trying to ultimately achieve. Thus, the "down with GM" crap.

EDIT:

As a side note, I walk or ride my bike to work daily. The only reason I can do this is because I live about two miles from my place of employment. However, I am paying through the nose for housing in order to be this close. The reason this is not a viable means of transportation for most people is because very few people have commutes that short in this country, and public transportation isn't up to the challenge.

[espo19047]

How does anyone get thru this?

[Sparta]

haha, fruitcakes.

[DuSpinnst]

Like I said the Internet is 99% stupidity.

Basically the internet allows any uninformed jackass to get together with other uninformed jackasses and spew garbage out amongst the world.

The problem isn't them doing that, the problem is when people believe them and think they are experts.

[dav305z]

Paint all these guys' bumpers an ugly black. That's what they looked like before GM's Endura bumpers.

[GotAWD]

to quote Eric Cartman, "GODDAM HIPPIES!!!!"

guess some people are to busy tying themselves to trees and complaining about GM, and praising toyota. nice to see some people standing by GM in that hell of a hippie zone.

[Swahili]

While I agree that some of the points brought up from the treehugger.com website are impractical but they do provide area of discussion that is terribly important.

Things need to change and soon. While things are getting better, the current state of I.C.E.s are going to cause massive environmental changes in the future, if they haven't already. People don't realize though that change can't come over night. It's taken the automotive industry approximately 100 years to get to this point, no one can change that progress to some alternative power in 5-10 years. It's going to take 5 times as long as that.

[Mischief007]

I stated on another forum to stop dissing GM. The line I used was "GM is darned if they do and darned if they don't."


Figures that everybody goes after GM no matter what. I'd like to see where those people will be when Ford and GM close shop for good. Probably sitting on the street next to GM asking them to make cars again.

Most of these people do need a lesson in history. GM has hybrids just not for commercial use yet. The only one coming right now is the Vue Green Line for a lot lesser cost than any other hybrid on the market. I will always have faifth in GM. They are a corporation first but without GM.....

Treehuggers, they are no good. Like another member said, they probably use a lawnmower powered by a gas engine which spews out more emmissions than anything else...lol.

[SigEpCutlass]

Wow what a huge waste of time reading that garbage in that link...can I get that minute of my life back...

No matter what GM does...the GM bashing never stops! **************** those people anyway...they'll never be satisfied unless it's a Toyota badged vehicle! Talk about cool-aid...they need to stop drinking the Toyota-aid.

[New_Mexico_Sunset_on_Rt66]

To understand the lunacy of these "professional protesters", 'National Review' had a blurb about a bumper sticker seen at an anit-lumber industry protest, the bumper sticker said, "Burn wood, Not Nukes".