GM is pulling back on EVs

[martinjlm]

I know we are far along on this thread, but let me pose an argument.

Since hydrogen burns absolutely clean. Has the highest specific energy density than any fuel other than nuclear. It’s naturally the most abundant molecule/fuel. It’s definitely cleaner than EV battery sourcing/ making and even more so than conventional ICE engines. Why is Toyota the only one moving in this direction and what would EV proponents have against this?

I can weigh in on this one <shocker!>. Toyota is not the only one pursuing hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. Hyundai, Honda, GM, and to a lesser extent, Ford are also in the game. Toyota and Hyundai are definitely pushing FCEV in their home market, and it makes a lot of sense for Japan. Much of Japan’s population base live in dense population centers and in high rise accommodations, so plugging in is a problem. Part of the reason for their pushback on BEV. Also, Japan is an island. It is possible to cover the entire country with relatively few hydrogen processing facilities. Providing coverage for the US is a much more daunting and super expensive task. As for Hyundai, similar dynamic. South Korea is on a peninsula, and you really don’t want to drive too far north, so it may as well be an island. Should also note that Toyota and Honda get extensive government support to develop FCEV.

Hydrogen may be the most common element on the planet, but it is very difficult and expensive to isolate. Even more difficult to transport and store.

GM’s approach is different from Toyota’s and Honda’s. I often say that fuel cell is the diesel of electrification. I did not make that line up. I stole it from Charles Freese who leads GM’s fuel cell technology and vehicle development. Fuel cells are less sensitive to temperature, speed, and load variation. So GM has been focusing the development of fuel cell tech and vehicles to focus on military (where they can maintain their own refueling infrastructure) and commercial vehicle, where there is likely to be the greatest benefit, as well as potential to develop a hub system for fuel cell refueling parallel to the current refueling hubs in place for OTR truck systems. Ford is closer to GM’s approach, but probably not as far along.

Sponsored

 

[AZlb5.0]

I can weigh in on this one <shocker!>. Toyota is not the only one pursuing hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. Hyundai, Honda, GM, and to a lesser extent, Ford are also in the game. Toyota and Hyundai are definitely pushing FCEV in their home market, and it makes a lot of sense for Japan. Much of Japan’s population base live in dense population centers and in high rise accommodations, so plugging in is a problem. Part of the reason for their pushback on BEV. Also, Japan is an island. It is possible to cover the entire country with relatively few hydrogen processing facilities. Providing coverage for the US is a much more daunting and super expensive task. As for Hyundai, similar dynamic. South Korea is on a peninsula, and you really don’t want to drive too far north, so it may as well be an island. Should also note that Toyota and Honda get extensive government support to develop FCEV.

Hydrogen may be the most common element on the planet, but it is very difficult and expensive to isolate. Even more difficult to transport and store.

GM’s approach is different from Toyota’s and Honda’s. I often say that fuel cell is the diesel of electrification. I did not make that line up. I stole it from Charles Freese who leads GM’s fuel cell technology and vehicle development. Fuel cells are less sensitive to temperature, speed, and load variation. So GM has been focusing the development of fuel cell tech and vehicles to focus on military (where they can maintain their own refueling infrastructure) and commercial vehicle, where there is likely to be the greatest benefit, as well as potential to develop a hub system for fuel cell refueling parallel to the current refueling hubs in place for OTR truck systems. Ford is closer to GM’s approach, but probably not as far along.

I would have thought, that more would have been done by now. BMW had started looking at this technology back as early as 2002. But we have to champ for multiple ways of propulsion and fuels. I say this because choice allowed for competition. Competition amongst manufacturers has always led for the consumer to win.

 

[K4fxd]

So as I keep saying…it ain’t the government, it’s the automakers.

I think it's a chicken and egg thing. IF Europe had not started these mandates and deadlines things would move slower, allowing infrastructure to come online.

I think some of the rush is due to possible fines ect.....

 

[K4fxd]

I do think the fuel cell technology is what will win. Just too many things wrong with battery tech.

Maybe someday a magical battery will come along. One that holds enough energy for 400 miles and charges in 5 minuets. Still need the charging infrastructure.

Hydrogen can be implimented faster if commercial users adopt it. If the truck stops had hydrogen generators it would be easy to pipe it to automobile refiling. Like today, they sell gas and diesel.

 

[AZlb5.0]

I do think the fuel cell technology is what will win. Just too many things wrong with battery tech.

Maybe someday a magical battery will come along. One that holds enough energy for 400 miles and charges in 5 minuets. Still need the charging infrastructure.

Hydrogen can be implimented faster if commercial users adopt it. If the truck stops had hydrogen generators it would be easy to pipe it to automobile refiling. Like today, they sell gas and diesel.

In your camp in this train of thought.

 

[sk47]

Hello; If Hydrogen (H) can be had cheap enough at least two obstacles remain. First to have a useful amount on board in a vehicle it needs to be highly compressed. I cannot quote needed pressures, but figure it can be considerable.
Next is the container to hold it. Has to be strong enough to hold the pressure. Has to be stout enough to deal with everyday bumps and bangs in a vehicle. Being the smallest atom means it has to be sealed well. All these things can be done and have been done.
A best part is a H station can be set up anywhere there is water and electricity. Such a station will likely be expensive. Lots of safety concerns.
After seeing too many pumping gas with a lit cigarette going might be a barrier to overcome. Might have to require a trained attendant to do the actual into a vehicles tank.

Guess H from natural gas is a black sheep thing now days???

Outside of the electric energy cost to do electrolysis of the water and run the strong pumps the environmental footprint is good. Back to the source of electric power question which looms over BEV's.

I like the concept of a H fuel cell. Bend a decade or two since i took a look at the state of development. One of those technological things always a few years away. Back twenty or more years ago I was much like todays pro EV folks. Had the idea a practical H fuel cell was just around the corner. I do hope the tech is very much better than 20+ years ago. Just have not looked into it in a long while. Gues it is still a someday thing.

Hydrogen in a combustion engine likely is more doable near term. Engines do not have to be completely reinvented. Also been a while since i looked into the current state of H combustion cars. I think they can only be fueled in California.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Accurate huh? Let us consider the known facts. You have and continue to post positively about EV's and when any of us post something negative you come back with a challenge of such negativity. You have told us EV's are the future and we doubters will just have to get over it. You post in favor of the mandates siding with Greg's who surmises we "morons" will not do as we are told without force. Your comments are many in this and other threads.

Yet you plan to purchase a new ICE soon. Don't go thru the reasons again. I understand. No EV's make the grade for your need, much the same as for most of us. ( SIDE NOTE- actually I could replace my car with an EV as over 90% of my driving is under 100 miles.) ( Not my truck tho.)

Now for my posts. I favor continued use of ICE's because they work in all ways. The infrastructure exists and does not have to be new built. I am fine with hybrids. I am fine with EV's if they and ICE's are left to compete without mandates and incentives. In fact if the EV makers can build one that out performs a similar ICE and be cheaper that would be great. That I can list several short comings of the EV's compared to the ICE are practical facts.

But call me a shill for oil if you wish. I once made and posted a pages long listing of the putdowns and names you and a few others called me in the science in cancelled thread. I survived that just fine. The same has continued in this thread. I do not hide in a safe space by putting any on ignore.

I don’t know how you keep misunderstanding me, but you do.
At no point have I suggested that everyone should rush out and buy an EV.
What I have said, repeatedly, is that those who can make one work, should PROBABLY do so. Whether that be for financial reasons or whatever reasons they might have.

At no point have I suggested that the EV is a direct replacement for an ICE in ALL instances. In some instances it’s abundantly clear that they aren’t able to get the job done.

In other instances, the EV is superior. It depends on the needs of the user.

Its really THAT simple.

Now back to that article again. The casual reader would've taken away from it that ALL EV’s were worse for the environment when being charged from a fossil fuel dense grid. The FACT was that Mitsubishi were talking specifically about LARGE vehicles, not smaller vehicles.
They stated quite clearly that smaller vehicles, regardless of the electricity source, were SUPERIOR in their emissions.
Now, if you were in the market for a small vehicle, that article might steer you away from an EV purchase, based entirely on false information.

If correcting poor journalism makes me a “champion”, I’ll wear the badge with pride.
YOU should’ve been equally dismayed at the poor reporting of facts, yet you weren’t. I wonder why?
Is it because it seemed to fit the narrative that you want to present?

The simple harsh reality is that if the average ICE could suddenly reduce its emissions by a large percentage, I’d be advocating for them. I don’t really care what the motive power is, just the end result. So, if a large EV, powered by a fossil fuel dense grid is worse in terms of emissions, and you happen to live in such an area, I say DO NOT buy one….until the equation makes sense.

Now go ahead and call me an EV champion again. I know you want to.

 

[K4fxd]

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/hydrogen-research-reminds-us-humanity-190000017.html

Now Hydrogen is BAD ! I mostly skimmed it but the impression I got is if we use hydrogen it will be worse than using oil products on climate change.

Gimme a break. I wonder if the study participants are battery investors?

 

[AZlb5.0]

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/hydrogen-research-reminds-us-humanity-190000017.html

Now Hydrogen is BAD ! I mostly skimmed it but the impression I got is if we use hydrogen it will be worse than using oil products on climate change.

Gimme a break. I wonder if the study participants are battery investors?

Welp here we go.

 

[Burkey]

Like other sources aren't biased the other way.

I didn’t suggest that they weren’t.
Why is every comment somehow misconstrued so easily?

I was giving a practical, real world example, of an opinion piece being dressed up as “news”.
When the headline doesn’t match the conclusion of the study, the authors intentions need to be questioned.

 

[K4fxd]

Why is every comment somehow misconstrued so easily?

We lived in a world of politicized journalism. Most is slanted in a leftist direction. My comment was to point this out and to rally against any slant at all.

Just the facts.

In the US we could group all the news organizations and just name them Pravda.

 

[sk47]

I don’t know how you keep misunderstanding me, but you do.
At no point have I suggested that everyone should rush out and buy an EV.
What I have said, repeatedly, is that those who can make one work, should PROBABLY do so. Whether that be for financial reasons or whatever reasons they might have.

At no point have I suggested that the EV is a direct replacement for an ICE in ALL instances. In some instances it’s abundantly clear that they aren’t able to get the job done.

In other instances, the EV is superior. It depends on the needs of the user.

Its really THAT simple.

Now back to that article again. The casual reader would've taken away from it that ALL EV’s were worse for the environment when being charged from a fossil fuel dense grid. The FACT was that Mitsubishi were talking specifically about LARGE vehicles, not smaller vehicles.
They stated quite clearly that smaller vehicles, regardless of the electricity source, were SUPERIOR in their emissions.
Now, if you were in the market for a small vehicle, that article might steer you away from an EV purchase, based entirely on false information.

If correcting poor journalism makes me a “champion”, I’ll wear the badge with pride.
YOU should’ve been equally dismayed at the poor reporting of facts, yet you weren’t. I wonder why?
Is it because it seemed to fit the narrative that you want to present?

The simple harsh reality is that if the average ICE could suddenly reduce its emissions by a large percentage, I’d be advocating for them. I don’t really care what the motive power is, just the end result. So, if a large EV, powered by a fossil fuel dense grid is worse in terms of emissions, and you happen to live in such an area, I say DO NOT buy one….until the equation makes sense.

Now go ahead and call me an EV champion again. I know you want to.

Hello; Thing is so far i have not commented on the article. I have read the link posted but you mentioned another and apparently different article from which you quoted. I ask for a link to that article. Too bad to have this view, but I want to read for myself. provide the article link if you can.

I get it. You will not be buying an EV. They do not work for you. Seems it was easy to post all the things you did before it became crunch time. Down to the wire you sensibly went for the ICE. Such is what most have been doing for over 20 years with hybrids and slightly fewer years with the BEV's.

 

[Burkey]

We lived in a world of politicized journalism. Most is slanted in a leftist direction. My comment was to point this out and to rally against any slant at all.

Just the facts.

In the US we could group all the news organizations and just name them Pravda.

Or maybe, the problem you’re having is that you see the media as only having two sides.
Everything is either left or right when you view it that way.

I’m not disputing that there are plenty of sources that allow their bias to not only shine through, but rather that they might exist for the sole purpose of pushing that bias.
I think we can all cite examples of that.

But.……there are still plenty of sources that aim for integrity in their reporting.

Speaking of which.
I managed to find this link in the hydrogen article you shared. It’s not the original study but it does get a little deeper into the weeds.
A good read, but I’m not entirely sure that I understand exactly what it all means in terms of moving forward on hydrogen.

https://scitechdaily.com/switching-to-hydrogen-fuel-could-cause-long-term-climate-consequences/

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Thing is so far i have not commented on the article. I have read the link posted but you mentioned another and apparently different article from which you quoted. I ask for a link to that article. Too bad to have this view, but I want to read for myself. provide the article link if you can.

I get it. You will not be buying an EV. They do not work for you. Seems it was easy to post all the things you did before it became crunch time. Down to the wire you sensibly went for the ICE. Such is what most have been doing for over 20 years with hybrids and slightly fewer years with the BEV's.

Here is the link to the article I was referencing.
https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/mitsubishi-no-big-evs-until-battery-costs-energy-density-improve

EV’s DO work for us. That’s the point. Are you deliberately misunderstanding again?

We didn’t elect not to buy an EV (or hybrid) on the basis that it doesn’t work for us. We didn’t buy one because the vehicle we need doesn’t exist in our market, unless I move to a more exotic brand, which then puts the nearest dealership more than 4 hours away, which would be fine for a weekend toy (like the Ducati) not so much when it’s the sole mode of transport for an entire family. My wife can’t drive a manual, so the Mustang is off limits.

If Ford (or any number of other manufacturers with dealerships local to me) had the vehicle we need, we’d have bought it already because it’s SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper for us to go that way.

This is the last time that I’m going to repeat myself on this topic. I’ve made it clear. Deal with it.

 

[sk47]

JPMorgan CEO Suggests Gov’t Should Seize Private Property For Clean Energy Projects (msn.com)

Hello; The notion seems to be clean energy projects are not moving along fast enough, so take private property to speed things along.
There is some pushback in a bill to limit the use of eminent domain.

The above is interesting enough but one bit caught my attention. That being the bit about the need to have a pipeline, apparently for ethanol. It is very possible I misread that part but it seems a pipeline is OK if it moves clean energy products. Have i goofed in my take on this?

Sponsored