GM in fuel cell deal with government

[Abe Froman]

Under the five-year program, the world's largest auto manufacturer will spend $44 million to deploy fuel cell demonstration vehicles in Washington D.C., New York, California and Michigan.

The Department of Energy will contribute the other half of the program's investment under an agreement that expires in September 2009.

In a separate commercial agreement, Shell Hydrogen LLC will support GM by setting up five hydrogen refueling stations in Washington, D.C.; New York City; between Washington D.C. and New York; and in California.

Other program partners include the Army at Fort Belvoir, Va., and Quantum Technologies in Lake Forest, Calif. Both will provide facilities for GM to store and maintain fuel cell vehicles.

GM said it is also collaborating with the Department of Defense and would release news on that relationship later in the week

 

[Stunt]

Sounds like a publicity stunt to raise funds for their dying company. After GE pulled out 2billion, lowering profit forcast by 2billion, they needed to do something to shed some light on their situation.
Fact of the matter is, hydrogen fueled cars are a lost cause at the moment, for numerous reasons.
If GM wants to have a future, they'd quit with the SUV's which have had a massive demand/sales problem in the last year or so with rising gas prices. Get some hybrid cars out there so that when everyone is doing it, they will be competitive with the likes of honda and toyota.

If they are serious about the hydrogen economy, they'd rally the energy producers to convert to nuclear or renewable energy sources.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Stunt

If they are serious about the hydrogen economy, they'd rally the energy producers to convert to nuclear or renewable energy sources.

Oh yes, I forgot it was that simple.

Nuclear power is currently the only viable solution to our country's energy demands in the future that could possibly hope to produce hydrogen as an energy carrier for automobiles.

There are however several problems that we face:

1. Public opinion concerning new nuclear power plant construction is against it. TMI and Chernobyl killed the prospect of new construction in the public mind even though many people haven?t the slightest clue what actually happened at those accidents.

2. The lack of a permanent storage site capable of containing an amount of waste sufficient to support an expanded nuclear industry. I don't even think any of the other major nuclear powers have one either yet.

3. No Gen 4 nuclear plants optimized for hydrogen production have been designed and built anywhere in the world as of yet AFAIK.

GM might be powerful, but the only entity that could possibly influence the energy companies to do this would be the US government and believe you me that would come at a rather hefty price tag.

The market is going to have to decide when and where to move one on it's own.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Sounds like a publicity stunt to raise funds for their dying company. After GE pulled out 2billion, lowering profit forcast by 2billion, they needed to do something to shed some light on their situation.
Fact of the matter is, hydrogen fueled cars are a lost cause at the moment, for numerous reasons.
If GM wants to have a future, they'd quit with the SUV's which have had a massive demand/sales problem in the last year or so with rising gas prices. Get some hybrid cars out there so that when everyone is doing it, they will be competitive with the likes of honda and toyota.

If they are serious about the hydrogen economy, they'd rally the energy producers to convert to nuclear or renewable energy sources.

:thumbsup:

If they were really serious, you would see Hydrogen pumps installed at Gas Stations and that isn't happening.

Oh and $44 million, might as well be 4 cents.

 

[Stunt]

K1052, I do realize that it is an uphill battle for GM to lobby the energy industry. But it is the only way you can make hydrogen a worthwhile investment and goal. France has had a huge pro-nuclear rally for years, the US should adopt the same technique. 80% of France's power is generated by nuclear technology.

1) You always have to deal with igonant people, they must be informed.
2) I'm interested to see what France does with its waste, it must have a ton of the stuff. Also having a super large nuclear waste facility would be no less of an eyesore than a prison. Would you rather a small nuclear waste facility or millions of tons of waste get put in the atmosphere and create smog and health/environmental risks.
3) They just need to make electricity, hydrogen electrolysis is currently being done, and the conversion would be the least painful of the implementation when you consider the refill stations and the price of the hydrogen fuel cells.

GM has far more sway than one might think. And this is not just GM we are talking about, we are talking far cheaper power. Energy intensive companies like steel production, manufacturing, etc could benifit greatly from widespread nuclear tech.
As oil prices rise nuclear is going to look very attractive as uranium is abundant, cost is extremely low, output is constant and high.

Everything else gets lobbied in government, i'd like to see the other side of the equation. If environmentalists were smart they'd get on the nuke train as they don't seem to understand how much worse coal and oil actually are. I think France would be a good country to follow on this. (i know americans hate that...but suck it up)

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
Sounds like a publicity stunt to raise funds for their dying company. After GE pulled out 2billion, lowering profit forcast by 2billion, they needed to do something to shed some light on their situation.
Fact of the matter is, hydrogen fueled cars are a lost cause at the moment, for numerous reasons.
If GM wants to have a future, they'd quit with the SUV's which have had a massive demand/sales problem in the last year or so with rising gas prices. Get some hybrid cars out there so that when everyone is doing it, they will be competitive with the likes of honda and toyota.

If they are serious about the hydrogen economy, they'd rally the energy producers to convert to nuclear or renewable energy sources.

:thumbsup:

If they were really serious, you would see Hydrogen pumps installed at Gas Stations and that isn't happening.

Oh and $44 million, might as well be 4 cents.

You people do know that hydrogen is currently produced economically only by natural gas or oil reformation, right?

 

[Stunt]

I worked for a company during the summer where we had a sister manufacturing plant in the US where all variables were constant in terms of raw material, equipment, and finished product. These plants were massive, over 325,000 square feet, couple hundred employees, highly automated.
The demand for the product was low enough to only warrent one of the facilities as the product's sales were traditionally cyclical. Now even though the taxes were lower for the division in the US (operation was in west virgina) and the labour costs were significantly less, the cost of operations was much better here in Canada as energy prices were much better. (our energy is developed by nuclear and hydroelectric in the area the plant was)

So there is incentive to lobby for lower energy prices and i think that nuclear can offer this. Especially with today's new reactors, the decreasing density of coal supplies and the increase in oil prices.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: K1052
You people do know that hydrogen is currently produced economically only by natural gas or oil reformation, right?

Yes.
But that is only because most of the US's electricity is developed with Oil, Natural Gas and Coal. It is far cheaper to produce straight from the source as opposed to converting to electricity and then electricity to use in electrolysis.
With nuclear we would use the electroysis method. It would turn out to be far more economical than using the oil and NG route.

Again this would be the least of the worries for the hydrogen economy, you need refill stations and the cost of the fuel cells are far too extravegant.
You are far better off making the case for that

Why make thousands of hydrogen fill up stations if it is a fringe movement and each car costs over $100,000 for a piddly echo type car.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
If they were really serious, you would see Hydrogen pumps installed at Gas Stations and that isn't happening.

Oh and $44 million, might as well be 4 cents.

GM isn't in the business of installing hydrogen stations.
ALthough the people in charge of that are the oil companies. So maybe we can see some new entrants into this field. I don't see GM having enough capital to play with this sector. I'd say utility companies being a good fit. They have a lot of liquid assets and are making a killing on the current energy and electricity prices. The do have the expertise in transporting and distributing gaseous material...ref. natural gas and propane.

Also, $44mill was for the demo, i can see their hydrogen R&D to bemuch higher than this value. Also, how much will a few stations and some vehicles cost?...I wouldn't expect more than the stated value. It's actually pretty funny, because they are advertising to the ignorant environmentalists who have no clue about feasibility, whereas GM is not even making an effort on hybrids...a feasible project, with immediate results.

People are stupid. Anyone investing in GM for this project deserves to loose it all
If you believe in hydrogen...invest in a hydrogen tech company...either fuel cell r&d or hydrogen production companies. NOT GM

 

[StageLeft]

Sounds like a publicity stunt to raise funds for their dying company.

Yes, $44 M is chump change. I could almost raise that myself. For a company as large as GM it's nothing. Also, these are not going to be a line of production vehicles, but some silly ones in a test market or some such garbage.

 

[MisterCornell]

I fail to see where in this article it says that GM is claiming this small deal will save their company. I guess Stunt made a whole bunch of posts for nothing. Good job, Canadian.

GM isn't bankrupt, they are just in a bit of a slump. They've weathered worse storms in the past, and will probably emerge from the current one as well.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
I fail to see where in this article it says that GM is claiming this small deal will save their company. I guess Stunt made a whole bunch of posts for nothing. Good job, Canadian.

GM isn't bankrupt, they are just in a bit of a slump. They've weathered worse storms in the past, and will probably emerge from the current one as well.

I have no doubts that GM will weather the storm, where did i say they wouldn't.
To actually think that this is not a publicity stunt or luring investors is really quite ignorant as this is a demonstration...What do YOU think a demontration is?!

Good Job ignorant american. A post for nothing except proving you are a moron.

 

[MisterCornell]

You are talking out of your ass, in typical Canadian fashion.

Why don't you post some proof that this move is "luring investors". The only one chipping in here seems to be the U.S. government, for whom they are building these goods. It seems like if they are blowing money on technology that is not ready for primetime as you claim that would probably scare away investors.

That goes beyond your low Canadian IQ however.

 

[MisterCornell]

If it does "lure investors", I guess GM will have outsmarted a lot of people with this white elephant, including you. Although that isn't saying much.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: K1052
You people do know that hydrogen is currently produced economically only by natural gas or oil reformation, right?

Yes.
But that is only because most of the US's electricity is developed with Oil, Natural Gas and Coal. It is far cheaper to produce straight from the source as opposed to converting to electricity and then electricity to use in electrolysis.
With nuclear we would use the electroysis method. It would turn out to be far more economical than using the oil and NG route.

Again this would be the least of the worries for the hydrogen economy, you need refill stations and the cost of the fuel cells are far too extravegant.
You are far better off making the case for that

Why make thousands of hydrogen fill up stations if it is a fringe movement and each car costs over $100,000 for a piddly echo type car.

Oil makes up a very small percentage of fuel for US power generation. It is only used in certain places because coal, gas, hydro, or nuclear can't be used due to geographical problems.

The bulk of hydrogen production is to be done by a thermo chemical process, not electrolysis. This requires a substantial amount of heat significantly above what current reactor systems operate at so that is why international efforts are being directed to HTRs (high temperature reactors).

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
You are talking out of your ass, in typical Canadian fashion.

Why don't you post some proof that this move is "luring investors". The only one chipping in here seems to be the U.S. government, for whom they are building these goods. It seems like if they are blowing money on technology that is not ready for primetime as you claim that would probably scare away investors.

That goes beyond your low Canadian IQ however.

Are you kidding me? If you think this technology is going to scare off investors...(GM needs these right now)...why would they spend the money on it...let alone push for a government grant on the project.

I want you to define demonstration for me...you seem to think you have an exceptional IQ, this should not be too hard of a task for you to do.

Also, thankyou for the pointless generalizations and insults...you are really doing some justice coming back from your vacation...or at least pushing the limits on your likely ban. Why don't you make some more homosexual insults towards me...i'm sure that will make for more of the same logical reasoning that you have proposed in this thread.

PS. the majority of my posts in this thread were directed at hydrogen/nuclear production, and the odd comment for dave. These posts had absolutely nothing to do with GM. Why don't you just leave...you have accomplished your standard asshat comments and obviously have nothing to offer to the discussion.

 

[cliftonite]

They have to start somehwere...

 

[MisterCornell]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Are you kidding me? If you think this technology is going to scare off investors...(GM needs these right now)...why would they spend the money on it...let alone push for a government grant on the project.

I want you to define demonstration for me...you seem to think you have an exceptional IQ, this should not be too hard of a task for you to do.

Also, thankyou for the pointless generalizations and insults...you are really doing some justice coming back from your vacation...or at least pushing the limits on your likely ban. Why don't you make some more homosexual insults towards me...i'm sure that will make for more of the same logical reasoning that you have proposed in this thread.

PS. the majority of my posts in this thread were directed at hydrogen/nuclear production, and the odd comment for dave. These posts had absolutely nothing to do with GM. Why don't you just leave...you have accomplished your standard asshat comments and obviously have nothing to offer to the discussion.

Whatever. Half the posts on this thread were by you, and it doesn't seem like too many people responded to your half assed commentary. No one cares. Have fun posting to yourself.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: K1052
You people do know that hydrogen is currently produced economically only by natural gas or oil reformation, right?

Yes.
But that is only because most of the US's electricity is developed with Oil, Natural Gas and Coal. It is far cheaper to produce straight from the source as opposed to converting to electricity and then electricity to use in electrolysis.
With nuclear we would use the electroysis method. It would turn out to be far more economical than using the oil and NG route.

Again this would be the least of the worries for the hydrogen economy, you need refill stations and the cost of the fuel cells are far too extravegant.
You are far better off making the case for that

Why make thousands of hydrogen fill up stations if it is a fringe movement and each car costs over $100,000 for a piddly echo type car.

Oil makes up a very small percentage of fuel for US power generation. It is only used in certain places because coal, gas, hydro, or nuclear can't be used due to geographical problems.

The bulk of hydrogen production is to be done by a thermo chemical process, not electrolysis. This requires a substantial amount of heat significantly above what current reactor systems operate at so that is why international efforts are being directed to HTRs (high temperature reactors).

Why are they planning on not using electroysis? I've been told this is the only cost effective way to develop hydrogen. Oil and NG thing was a temporal thing as electricity output is nowhere near where it should be.
Also, can you tell me the geographic problems of implementing a nuclear facility?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Whatever. Half the posts on this thread were by you, and it doesn't seem like too many people responded to your half assed commentary. No one cares. Have fun posting to yourself.

First off i am discussing with forum members...you are not. You are throwing pointless immature insults.
I'm interested to see how you feel that my comments are half assed and yours are somehow enlightened or more thorough...Seems to me you are a ground feeding little troll with nothing to contribute.

 

[MisterCornell]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Whatever. Half the posts on this thread were by you, and it doesn't seem like too many people responded to your half assed commentary. No one cares. Have fun posting to yourself.

First off i am discussing with forum members...you are not. You are throwing pointless immature insults.
I'm interested to see how you feel that my comments are half assed and yours are somehow enlightened or more thorough...Seems to me you are a ground feeding little troll with nothing to contribute.

Good job crapping your own discussion. :laugh:

You can make all the trollish remarks you want about me, but at least I don't look like this.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: K1052
You people do know that hydrogen is currently produced economically only by natural gas or oil reformation, right?

Yes.
But that is only because most of the US's electricity is developed with Oil, Natural Gas and Coal. It is far cheaper to produce straight from the source as opposed to converting to electricity and then electricity to use in electrolysis.
With nuclear we would use the electroysis method. It would turn out to be far more economical than using the oil and NG route.

Again this would be the least of the worries for the hydrogen economy, you need refill stations and the cost of the fuel cells are far too extravegant.
You are far better off making the case for that

Why make thousands of hydrogen fill up stations if it is a fringe movement and each car costs over $100,000 for a piddly echo type car.

Oil makes up a very small percentage of fuel for US power generation. It is only used in certain places because coal, gas, hydro, or nuclear can't be used due to geographical problems.

The bulk of hydrogen production is to be done by a thermo chemical process, not electrolysis. This requires a substantial amount of heat significantly above what current reactor systems operate at so that is why international efforts are being directed to HTRs (high temperature reactors).

Why are they planning on not using electroysis? I've been told this is the only cost effective way to develop hydrogen. Oil and NG thing was a temporal thing as electricity output is nowhere near where it should be.
Also, can you tell me the geographic problems of implementing a nuclear facility?

The efficiency of the thermal processes is above that of electrolysis. Since we are talking about making enormous amounts of hydrogen, every percentage point counts for a lot.

I?m guessing that electrolysis will be used in some limited fashion during times of low load on the electrical grid and the stations have excess electricity available for use.

I meant geographically where implementation of oil for electricity is the best solution. Areas like small islands or isolated villages. I'd have to dig it up but IIRC the percentage of electricity generated with oil is VERY small primarily because of our huge reserves of coal.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
Whatever. Half the posts on this thread were by you, and it doesn't seem like too many people responded to your half assed commentary. No one cares. Have fun posting to yourself.

First off i am discussing with forum members...you are not. You are throwing pointless immature insults.
I'm interested to see how you feel that my comments are half assed and yours are somehow enlightened or more thorough...Seems to me you are a ground feeding little troll with nothing to contribute.

Good job crapping your own discussion. :laugh:

You can make all the trollish remarks you want about me, but at least I don't look like this.

So responding to your troll now counts as thread crapping...riiight :roll:
Tell you what, why don't you just shut up (as o'reilly would say) until someone invites your input on this topic...as you don't seem to be talking about anything relating to the OP in the least.
Insult my looks all you want, i'm quite content with them, i wouldn't post a pic on the net if i wasn't. I guess that enormous IQ of yours encourages you to make personal insults if you can't win on content or material.

Although, your emoticon does look like the guy from villiage people...are you secretly trying to hint something

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: K1052
The efficiency of the thermal processes is above that of electrolysis. Since we are talking about making enormous amounts of hydrogen, every percentage point counts for a lot.

I?m guessing that electrolysis will be used in some limited fashion during times of low load on the electrical grid and the stations have excess electricity available for use.

I meant geographically where implementation of oil for electricity is the best solution. Areas like small islands or isolated villages. I'd have to dig it up but IIRC the percentage of electricity generated with oil is VERY small primarily because of our huge reserves of coal.

I agree every percentage counts...(currently one month away from graduating mech eng with specialization in thermo-fluids and manufacturing)
I'd be interested in the efficiency difference as the cost of electricity from a nuclear faciility is far less over time than using large amounts of oil reserves.

The proposed idea is that in the electricity market the load is a maximun mid day and is a minimum at night. The electrolysis could be done at night and the nuclear plants could maintain a steady load (a dream for utility companies). It make sense to me as it is pointless to have all this excess capacity and not have it producing electricity.

Again the density of coal decreasing and having higher sulfur content, along with increasing oil prices will make nuclear far more attractive. I'm not saying we should do this all right now. But over time the free market will allow this sort of thing to become more feasible.

I truely think that electrolysis is a worthwhile technique assuming the capacity deficiency of the nuclear plants in the off hours. The efficiency will play a lesser role as it will be more cost effective.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: K1052
The efficiency of the thermal processes is above that of electrolysis. Since we are talking about making enormous amounts of hydrogen, every percentage point counts for a lot.

I?m guessing that electrolysis will be used in some limited fashion during times of low load on the electrical grid and the stations have excess electricity available for use.

I meant geographically where implementation of oil for electricity is the best solution. Areas like small islands or isolated villages. I'd have to dig it up but IIRC the percentage of electricity generated with oil is VERY small primarily because of our huge reserves of coal.

I agree every percentage counts...(currently one month away from graduating mech eng with specialization in thermo-fluids and manufacturing)
I'd be interested in the efficiency difference as the cost of electricity from a nuclear faciility is far less over time than using large amounts of oil reserves.

The proposed idea is that in the electricity market the load is a maximun mid day and is a minimum at night. The electrolysis could be done at night and the nuclear plants could maintain a steady load (a dream for utility companies). It make sense to me as it is pointless to have all this excess capacity and not have it producing electricity.

Again the density of coal decreasing and having higher sulfur content, along with increasing oil prices will make nuclear far more attractive. I'm not saying we should do this all right now. But over time the free market will allow this sort of thing to become more feasible.

I truely think that electrolysis is a worthwhile technique assuming the capacity deficiency of the nuclear plants in the off hours. The efficiency will play a lesser role as it will be more cost effective.

Well, nuclear power is pretty much immune from the price shifts of oil. The biggest expense is the plant itself and these can be considerable due to their complexity and increasing age. Newer, safer, and less complex plants can be built that would reduce those costs greatly.

I agree that the excess capacity should be used, when available.

It is just that we will require a crapload of hydrogen to use as an oil replacement. We will have to build dedicated plants that do nothing but produce hydrogen (maybe create some electricity as a byproduct if suffucent waste heat remains). These plants will most likely use thermal production.

The higher the efficiency, the fewer reactors and less nuclear fuel that will be required.