Print This Post
GM, Toyota Reject Fuel Cells
In a further step down the road to the electric hybrid lithium-ion battery solution to automobile fuel efficiency, GM and Toyota have abandoned efforts to develop a hydrogen fuel cell technology.
I recently stated my own opinion than fuel cells are an impractical fantasy. This news confirms my view of the future and is a further reason to own lithium producer SQM. It is also a good reason to be short GM (which I am) on the theory that the most poorly managed company in the history of business will probably end up in bankruptcy before the current U.S. recession runs its course. As reported below, it was only a few years ago that GM confidently began investing millions in hydrogen fuel cells.
Here is the Wall Street Journal report:
GM, Toyota Doubtful on Fuel Cells’ Mass Use
By EDWARD TAYLOR and MIKE SPECTOR
March 5, 2008; Page B2
GENEVA — Top executives from General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. Tuesday expressed doubts about the viability of hydrogen fuel cells for mass-market production in the near term and suggested their companies are now betting that electric cars will prove to be a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale.
![[Bob Lutz]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-FV457_Lutz_20051026145835.gif)
Speaking at the Geneva auto show, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz told reporters that recent advances in lithium-ion batteries indicate that future electric cars might be able to travel 300 miles, or nearly 500 kilometers, before they need to recharge, making them much more practical as a mass-market product.
“If we get lithium-ion to 300 miles, then you need to ask yourself, Why do you need fuel cells?” Mr. Lutz told reporters. He added that fuel-cell vehicles are still far too expensive to be considered for the mass market. “We are nowhere [near] where we need to be on the costs curve,” he said.
At a separate event at the show, Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe echoed the concern about the high costs of fuel cells and noted the lack of an infrastructure to produce and distribute hydrogen fuel to a wide swath of consumers. These factors leave him with the impression that “it will be difficult to see the spread of fuel cells in 10 years’ time,” Mr. Watanabe said.
The comments indicate a shift in the auto industry’s tone regarding fuel cells, especially at GM, which has spent the past two years highlighting its fuel-cell technologies as one of many initiatives it is pursuing to reduce petroleum consumption.
Fuel cells use hydrogen to create electricity, and have been hailed for years as the technology that will power no-emission cars of the future. Several years ago, GM essentially dropped its work on battery-powered cars to focus on fuel cells. Since then, Toyota has taken the lead on gas-electric hybrids, although it is working on fuel cells, too.
In the past two years, GM has been trying to improve its image with increasingly green-minded consumers by playing up its work on green vehicles, often with Mr. Lutz — sometimes referred to in Detroit as Mr. Horsepower for his love of big, powerful cars — as its chief spokesman.
The centerpiece of the effort is an electric car called the Volt, which includes a small gasoline engine to charge its battery on the go. GM hopes to launch the first Volt by 2010. Future versions may use fuel cells to charge the battery. The campaign has won fans among environmentalists for GM, a company previously scorned by many in the green crowd.
Mr. Lutz’s comments in Geneva come at an awkward time for him. A few weeks ago, he told a reporter that he thinks global warming is a “crock of s — ,” raising questions about his commitment to GM’s new green path. After news of his global-warming position spread on the Internet, he posted a response on GM’s blog saying his personal views don’t affect the company’s direction.
Not all auto makers are backing away from fuel cells. Daimler AG expects to begin producing fuel-cell cars in limited quantities in 2010, Chief Executive Dieter Zetsche told reporters in Geneva. If demand takes off, Daimler could get the technology “into the cost range of conventional power trains,” Mr. Zetsche said.
Tags: energy investment
Print This Post
8 responses so far ↓
1 Irv Miller // Mar 6, 2008 at 11:49 am
The WSJ headline and story stating that GM and Toyota are “doubtful” about the mass use of fuel cells is an example of sloppy reporting, at its finest. I will not speak for GM, but as for Toyota, hydrogen fuel cells will play a major role in our sustainable mobility strategy.
• Our current technology is robust, reliable and durable. Our prototypes have a range of nearly 400 miles and are fully operational in sub-freezing climates, as evidenced by our recent 2300-mile drive from Fairbanks, Alaska to Vancouver British Columbia.
• Cost reduction and infrastructure are the remaining hurdles. The former will be met by Toyota’s engineering and production savvy. The latter will require creative partnerships.
• At Toyota, hydrogen fuel cell technology has already moved beyond mere compliance with zero-emissions government mandates. It is now all about market preparedness.
• The arrival of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles at a Toyota dealership near you is not “just around the corner.” There are huge challenges ahead. But we are convinced they will be part of our future. And we will be there.
2 GM, Toyota Reject <b>Fuel Cells</b> | Hydrogen Fuel Cell . Net // Mar 6, 2008 at 4:11 pm
[…] In a further step down the road to the electric hybrid lithium-ion battery solution to automobile fuel efficiency, GM and Toyota have abandoned efforts to develop a hydrogen fuel cell technology. I recently stated my own option than … Read More […]
3 jkingsdale // Mar 7, 2008 at 9:36 am
Thanks for your perspective, Mr. Miller. I’m not surprised that Toyota is continuing to work on hydrogen since, as the leading car maker, the company needs to be knowledgeable about all potential automotive technologies. But I’m not clear on why anyone thinks hydrogen can be a cost- effective energy storage device given the enormous infrastructure investment that would be required nation-wide to utilize hydrogen fuel cells and the inherent instability of the gas itself. But maybe when the world runs out of lithium in a couple of dozen years….
4 Garry Golden // Mar 9, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I saw the article and thought that the WSJ reporters misread the long term strategy of automakers for Bob Lutz’s own personal legacy in seeing an EV car to market. They would have gotten a different answer from Larry Burns.
Informed people seem to agree that electric motors are the only alt. to combustion engine technologies. (Wheel based motors hold real potential for disruption)
What powers that electric motor is the debatable question?
While we fight ‘x’ versus ‘y’, it seems clear that the answer is a combination of fuel cells, batteries and capacitors. Not one will rule them all. It is not a zero sum game.
I’m sure you know that H2 is an emotional topic in the blogosphere. I have not intention to ‘flame’ here. But we can agree that the current ‘truth’ on H2 is - ‘a waste of time.’ It seems to be a very static view of H2 technology - as if it stands still.
Instead we might have a more enlightened conversation. H2 is just at the bottom of the hype cycle. And that all the criticisms do not stand when considering disruptive systems on the horizon.
What changes the game? Production - Nanostructured catalysts that reduce energy/costs of producing H2 from natural gas / water via electrolysis. All primary inputs are going to play a role. I hold no near term fantasies of ‘green’ H2. That is decades away. Beyond nano-catalysts; bio-hydrogen solutions in the long term.
Storage?
Solid state storage is the clear path forward. First via metal hydrides. But long term via physical adsorption in high surface area materials such as Metal Organic Frameworks (et al) The past 18 months have seen major advances in %/wt gains.
Distribution-
1) Retail shelves - sell bricks of H2 at corner stores and Walmart. Trade old ones for new ones; Quick. No worry about ‘plugging in’. Turn corner gas stations into more profitable businesses. Let go of the notion of a H2 gas station.
2) Home Production. Energy appliances. Grid fed electrolysis (again, nanostructure catalysts reduce costs) or via natural gas. I am not worried about ‘dirty H2′ here. Let’s not go down that rabbit hole.
Electricity needs H2 to evolve into the 21st century. Get GE involved in selling energy appliances that convert water or natural gas. Get Exxon involved in designing H2 sponges. And we can create a massive electron reserve system right in our garages.
Why do I dislike battery EVs?
Performance - Cars are not iPods. The fuel cell matches i.c.e performance. Batteries are huge, not scalable.
Infrastructure-
The notion that we have a plug-in ‘infrastructure’ is vastly overstated. How many people live within 15 feet of an appropriate plug? Reality- we’d have to build an electrical ‘last mile’ for battery cars. What if H2 bricks offer a cheaper route via retail shelves?
We can debate time lines.
But to dismiss FCs seems very short sighted and I believed mis-informed. Skepitcs of FCs seem to be recycling the same arguments and act as if innovation has stopped.
The eco-blogger world has turned H2 into the ugly step sister.
The auto industry does not place bets lightly. Bob Lutz is not the future of GM. He is the past- and he wants to leave with a legacy.
GM engineers know that they need batteries, fuel cells and capacitors to make the EV cars run well enough for consumers. Again, not one rules them all.
Again, no flame intended. Thanks..
5 RJ // Mar 31, 2008 at 3:18 pm
You’ve misunderstood the article- the key to this is “If we get a 300-mile range Li-Ion battery”
Is there any plan for a 300-mile range battery as of today? No. The biggest news in the EV world lately was the release of a 40-mile unit. So sorry, but your perception that they “reject fuel cells” is 100% wrong
6 Richard Harding // May 5, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Why don’t they promote Natural Gas? I just visited a Natural Gas filling station. The price was $2.46 per gallon (GGE). All we need is a nationwide map of where to fill up. The kits and the filling stations would be there to meet the demand for this proven technology. I sent an e-mail to the President to use his bully pulpit on this at no cost to the government.
7 Pavi Agrawal // Dec 15, 2008 at 1:33 pm
We are all talking about the electric cars. Has anyone thought of the impact it will cause to the electric grid if even 20% of the cars in the US are running on electricity. Will that not cause a big imbalance of electric power? Will it cause another big unknown issue something similar to the issue caused by usage of corn for fuels which resulted in increase in price of food by almost 150% in 1-2 years. I do not understand why people and companies always look at the micro picture while taking decisions and not the macro picture? Government also is always reactive and never proactive to a decisions by these big big companies be it finance or auto’s or technology. I think it is high time that such decisions are considered at all levels else the common people like me will taking the burden again and again by bailing out companies off the tax dollars.
http://www.TechHairBall.com/wp
8 Pavi Agrawal // Dec 15, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Again I am not opposed to the idea of electric cars but I think with more and more people using electric cars demand of electricty will increase since that will be used to charge your car.
Leave a Comment