[Chris]

Well, there is one positive comment - that he restates the Volt is due out in 2010...

http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/832592.html

But the rest of it seems to imply that GM will "do the Volt for now" but would really rather develop Fuel-cell vehicles. Which I personally think would be great...maybe we could then have boats that are powered by hydrogen too. I love my boat, but having a big block 454, it costs $5 just to start

 

[Texas]

Perhaps four wheel-hub motors and a a great battery are just too simple for them. I tend to agree. The complexity of the fuel cells, storage systems, etc. could keep a researcher happy for a lifetime. Add to that having another liquid fuel to manage, tax, and control will also keep the oil companies in the black.

As for me, I'll take the simple EV with great battery and power it with my inexpensive solar cells, thank you very much. Sorry so simple.

 

[DaV8or]

I think you're taking his comment about the Volt a little out of context. He was talking solely about batteries and used the Volt's battery as an example of the limitations of current pure EVs. He never said the Volt was a bad idea with it's range extender, just that pure EVs are not practical replacements for the types of vehicles that we now drive and enjoy based on current battery technology.

He basically says that the fuel cell is a better replacement for an ICE than a battery is at this point in time based only on performance in a vehicle. He also says that things are changing rapidly and so it's foolish to have all your eggs in one basket because we don't know where technology moving right now. Diversifying research is the way to go at this point. I pretty much agree with all he has said.

OK, now let's get ready for all the "fool sells" rants.

 

[Cybereye]

I'm not 100% into hydrogen. Hydrogen may have a better playing role in submarine and Space. Speaking as who win "hydrogen or electric" remind me of war with blue-ray DVD and HD-DVD. I believe it all come down with the most effective of use and cost. Larry Burns seem to rather have have diversity of energy. There will always be some forms of diversity of energy. The effective of use and cost will win. Oil is losing it effective cause it getting harder to find new oil with technology that we have. Humans always take the easy way out with the most effective of use and from there it cost. In my view, some form of energy storage and/or generate energy will win out. I prefer generate energy the most effective that it does not need any form of storge of energy. That technology is not there yet.

 

[Jason M. Hendler]

Hydrogen storage is no longer a "complex problem", as 700 bar systems are now the standard to which industries are planning. At 700 bar, the energy density of hydrogen is now at a point in which it is viable for commuter transportation, and not just trains, trucks and buses.

Boeing just flew their first hydrogen fuel cell prop plane, so look for air transportation to be the first adopter, as the price of petroleum plane fuel is driving many air-based companies into bankruptcy.

 

[jeremy wayne wilson]

Hydrogen tech is so backwards

Just buy the electricity only once with a electric battery car. Buying hydrogen involves production electricity use you pay for during conversion and since hydrogen is just a storage medium or carrier well you get to pay twice before it is converted back to electricity with a fool cell. I despise big oil and their economics and their foolish money hungry hydrogen scheme. All you guys just line up again and give away your hard earned money for a worthless" hydrogen battery"(so called fuel cell) powered car gimmick I will stick to a conventional EV and not pay out the azz for the rest of my life to go to work everyday by not giving away my money senselessly to big oil/hydrogen ect....

 

[pennor1]

Fuel cells offer the potential for something that batteries will never be able to provide. Quick fueling! A pure EV battery powered vehicle without an ICE to extend its range will take quite some time to recharge, even with the best forseeable batteries. Now imagine taking off from Seattle on a drive to L.A. Today you stop ever 400 miles or so for gas. It take 5 minutes +/- including a rest room trip and a 128oz Coke, and you're back on the road.

Now imagine a pure battery powered EV, even if the range could be extended to the same 400 miles with super batteries. You pull into a charging station, plug it in, and to get back to a 100% charge will take what? 4-6 hours at best? On the other hand if you had a fuel cell in that vehicle, your refueling time would be similar to gasoline or todays natural gas conversions. Maybe a couple minutes more than that but not much. Then you're back on the highway again. That's the advantage of hydrogen.

 

[dihaus]

I love my boat, but having a big block 454, it costs $5 just to start [/QUOTE]

Bute it will soon cost $ 7.50 and shortly thereafter $ 10.00

 

[Koz]

How about a third generation Volt 10 years from now with a 120 mile battery pack and gas powered range extender similar to the current model? The average driver would use about 15% of the gas they use now and many drivers would use 5% or less.

So why should we spend billions or trillions of dollars developing hydrogen production and distribution infrastructure? What will we have gained?

Ultimately, it makes a lot more sense to have a vehicle capable of holding 400 miles or more of battery range but sell them with range increments for regular use. I would buy 150 mile and the additional battery range for my 4-5 trips per year that it is needed. For those few that need more than 400 miles on a regular basis, there would still be gas powered EREVs.

 

[Koz]

"I would buy 150 mile and the additional battery range for my 4-5 trips per year that it is needed."

Grrr...should been: I would buy 150 mile and RENT the additional battery range for my 4-5 trips per year that it is needed.