Honda: an automaker taking a chance

[Buford T. Justice]

I was browsing the Honda website (I'm interested in the Accord) and I noticed their hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Obviously they probably did not invent the technology nor did were they the first to build a vehicle using it. What I found interesting when browsing the site was their commitment to alternative fuels.



Honda has operated an experimental Home Energy Station in Torrance, California, since 2003. The Home Energy Station, which generates hydrogen from natural gas, is designed to provide heat and electricity for the home through fuel cell cogeneration and to supply fuel for a hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicle.

Honda believes in a future society powered by hydrogen, and we are serious about our commitment to contribute to the development of useful refueling solutions.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/home-energy-station.aspx

I found this by accident and I do not know if any or all other automakers have taken similar steps, but I am impressed by Honda.

[Hubbs]

I have no allusions about this being prompted by some sort of deep care for the planet on Honda's part. The first company to really make fuel cell cars work will reap absolutely enormous benefits. It's business, and smart business at that - in other words, the fact that you seem surprised that you haven't noticed this in Detroit is not at all surprising.

[mjah]

Most car companies run small-scale localized pilot programs of some sort... for research but also for the purpose of having something to point to and say, "SEE! We're doing all kinds of cool future-fuel stuff." They get tons of mileage (figuratively) out of these programss, even though the vast majority of them never get any bigger and end up quietly disappearing.

I like Honda and I generally find their cars to be better than their American counterparts, but I imagine this program will eventually disappear like most of its brethren...

[Mad Mike]

Most car companies run small-scale localized pilot programs of some sort... for research but also for the purpose of having something to point to and say, "SEE! We're doing all kinds of cool future-fuel stuff." They get tons of mileage (figuratively) out of these programss, even though the vast majority of them never get any bigger and end up quietly disappearing.

I like Honda and I generally find their cars to be better than their American counterparts, but I imagine this program will eventually disappear like most of its brethren...

Except that they haven't been quietly disappearing. They have been steadily growing. And what president devoted more money to hydrogen research than any other?


"With a new national commitment ...the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free. Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy."

President Bush, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

http://www.hydrogen.gov/thepresidentshydrogen_fi.html


The President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative accelerates the research and development of technologies needed to support hydrogen-powered fuel cells for use in transportation and electricity generation.

The goal of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which includes $1.2 billion over the first five years, is to develop hydrogen production, delivery, storage, and fuel cell technologies that enable the automotive and energy companies to commercialize fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen fuel infrastructure

Hydrogen Economy Fact Sheet

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030625-6.html

People want to create evil when none is present because it simplifies complex issues. But the fact is that the people who run the country and the people who run businesses also have children. There are many people who want to do the right thing but they cant run their companies into the ground to do it. They would loose their jobs and the companies would go out of business. So they invest what they can and work for the day that the hydrogen economy can take hold and turn a profit to maintain sustainable progress.

I've had the honor of meeting some of the top hydrogen experts in the world. I believe them when they say it is the way of the future. But I also believe them when they say it will not be easy and it cannot happen overnight.

[Mad Mike]

Chevy Hydrogen

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=Chevy+Hydrogen&btnG=Search

Chrysler Hydrogen

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=Chrysler+Hydrogen&btnG=Search

Ford Hydrogen

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=Ford+Hydrogen&btnG=Search

BMW Hydrogen :D

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=BMW+Hydrogen&btnG=Search

How about the evil oil companies?

Shell Hydrogen

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=hydrogen-en

BP Hydrogen

http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6656006.html

Big Oil Doesn't Hate Hydrogen

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2005/09/27/big-oil-doesnt-hate-hydrogen.aspx


Check the major oil companies' production figures. Many of them are struggling to maintain, let alone increase, crude oil production. U.S. oil production peaked long ago, and more than a few folks believe that we're close to a similar peak in global oil. That's bad news for the likes of ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM), Chevron (NYSE: CVX), and other big boys who need oil to sell. They're increasingly turning to expensive ventures like deepwater drilling and oil sand extraction to keep the pipes full.

Now, if oil companies had a lot of surplus oil lying around, I could understand why they might be a bit nervous about fuel cells' effect on demand for oil. But for most of the past few decades, the United States' problem hasn't been demand, but supply. And even if gasoline demand falls, oil will still be needed for diesel and jet fuels and a host of chemicals that fuel cells can't replace.

The launch of the first hydrogen-powered car won't instantly send every gasoline-powered automobile to the scrap heap. Even if automakers put their full weight behind fuel cell vehicles, it would take a decade or two to replace the existing fleet. That's a long time for Big Oil to keep selling its dwindling product. Think about it this way: How willing would you be to engage in a huge, expensive, and most likely illegal conspiracy to protect a market for a product you're starting to run out of anyway?

[mjah]

And what president devoted more money to hydrogen research than any other?
Uh, yeah, but Bush is the only president whose 8 years saw hydrogen fully emerge as a clear future-fuel competitor to battery-electrics. Bush saw the wave building and put in the money to make it notably bigger -- but it's more than a bit silly to trumpet his greater contributions to the effort, when no other president even got that same starter wave in the first place.

That's not intended to belittle Bush's financial allowances to hydrogen research. But Obama will devote more resources to hydrogen than Bush did -- and he might do it in just his first 4 years. That won't automatically mean Bush did too little for hydrogen. It just means the time is right for even more money as the technology gains promise and traction.

Remember all the buzz about battery-electrics in the late 80s and early 90s? Back then there were all kinds of electric programs that actually rolled through the streets, with EV1 being the most visible. Silently, they stalled for over a decade. Now here we are with hydrogen, and again -- I'd bet real money that most of these programs will suffer the similar fates until the other elements of the technology fall into place.

Nobody's suggesting there's "evil" at play, to borrow your terminology. Just corporate cynicism and near-term profit motive. All the brilliant, perfectly swell top hydrogen people in the world won't change that until the technology infrastructure comes around. That takes far more than car company demo programs and researchers can achieve by themselves.

[mjah]

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, forget it. Never mind. I'm not in the mood for it. I'll just concede and we can move on.

Hydrogen: Greatest ever or even greater than that? Discuss.

[Mad Mike]

Uh, yeah, but Bush is the only president whose 8 years saw hydrogen fully emerge as a clear future-fuel competitor to battery-electrics. Bush saw the wave building and put in the money to make it notably bigger -- but it's more than a bit silly to trumpet his greater contributions to the effort, when no other president even got that same starter wave in the first place.

That's not intended to belittle Bush's financial allowances to hydrogen research. But Obama will devote more resources to hydrogen than Bush did -- and he might do it in just his first 4 years. That won't automatically mean Bush did too little for hydrogen. It just means the time is right for even more money as the technology gains promise and traction.

Remember all the buzz about battery-electrics in the late 80s and early 90s? Back then there were all kinds of electric programs that actually rolled through the streets, with EV1 being the most visible. Silently, they stalled for over a decade. Now here we are with hydrogen, and again -- I'd bet real money that most of these programs will suffer the similar fates until the other elements of the technology fall into place.

Nobody's suggesting there's "evil" at play, to borrow your terminology. Just corporate cynicism and near-term profit motive. All the brilliant, perfectly swell top hydrogen people in the world won't change that until the technology infrastructure comes around. That takes far more than car company demo programs and researchers can achieve by themselves.

Maybe you should study the subject a bit before making such silly statements. Electric vehicles stalled because technology and battery design was not up to the task. There are still major problems with range, charge time, battery life before replacement, and cost. Not to mention the fact that batterys are nasty chemical things. Hydrogen has been around for decades and the promise has been apparent from the start but again the development of the technology takes time as well as money.

http://www.hydrogenassociation.org

http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/factSheet_history.pdf


1973 –The OPEC oil embargo and the resulting supply shock suggested that the era of cheap petroleum had ended and that the world needed alternative fuels. The development of hydrogen fuel cells for conventional commercial applications began.

1974 – Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu (I've met the man - been to one of the conferences) of the University of Miami, FL, organized The Hydrogen Economy Miami Energy Conference (THEME), the first international conference held to discuss hydrogen energy. Following the conference, the scientists and engineers who attended the THEME conference formed the International Association for Hydrogen Energy (IAHE).

1977 – International Energy Agency (IEA) was established in response to global oil market disruptions. IEA activities included the research and development of hydrogen energy technologies. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was also created.

1978 – National Science Foundation transferred the Federal Hydrogen R&D Program to the U.S. DOE.

Now I'm not suggesting that Bush is some sort of hydrogen super hero. I'm pointing out that the man who most americans think of as an evil oil man, is not. Obama probably will pump more money into alternative energy than any other president has. I hope he makes it a major focus and quadruples our investment at a minimum. That's one reason I voted for him.

But this idea that "the man" is keeping the technology down is just silly.

This statement...


Most car companies run small-scale localized pilot programs of some sort... for research but also for the purpose of having something to point to and say, "SEE! We're doing all kinds of cool future-fuel stuff." They get tons of mileage (figuratively) out of these programss, even though the vast majority of them never get any bigger and end up quietly disappearing.

Is COMPLETELY false.

[Mad Mike]

To be fair though. This was an insightful statement... :cheers:


All the brilliant, perfectly swell top hydrogen people in the world won't change that until the technology infrastructure comes around. That takes far more than car company demo programs and researchers can achieve by themselves.

Robert Heinlein wrote in his book "The door into summer"...


When It's time to railroad, you railroad.

Meaning that when all of the supporting technologies are in place, you can do something. Not before.

Hydrogen from renewable energy like solar... Greatest thing ever.

:cheers:

[mjah]

I'm really not interested in arguing about hydrogen specifics, but I guess I'll point out that you should be able to do better than this Mike:


Maybe you should study the subject a bit before making such silly statements. Electric vehicles stalled because technology and battery design was not up to the task. There are still major problems with range, charge time, battery life before replacement, and cost. Not to mention the fact that batterys are nasty chemical things. Hydrogen has been around for decades and the promise has been apparent from the start but again the development of the technology takes time as well as money.
In other words, batteries have always shown promise, but they currently have significant technical hurdles to clear before they can be a real alternative to gas.

By contrast, hydrogen... has always shown promise, but it currently has significant technical hurdles to clear before it can be a real alternative to gas.

Thanks for the clarification, man. Spoken like a true evangelist. ;)

Hydrogen has a lot of promise, but promise and demos don't make anything immune to technology stalls. Hydrogen has plenty of stall-worthy obstacles in its path, and it would take a miracle to miss all of them somehow.

All I'm saying is, there's a natural ebb and flow to car company research into future fuels. It gets big, especially when the economy is crap or gas is expensive -- and then it recedes into the background as things start to look better and gas alternatives get de-emphasized. With each cycle we get more serious because oil's future progressively looks worse -- but we're not yet crunched by a critical do-or-die point regarding oil supply or price. We've really only begun to feel the impact of expensive oil. It sucked, then it got better, and people foolishly are already forgetting what it was like. Already, SUV/truck sales are higher than car sales -- for the first time in almost a year. Humankind has a short memory when it comes to our conveniences. You never know when oil will spike again.

You can call that ebb-and-flow phenomenon "completely false," but it's actually predictable and understandable. No "evil" necessary, to borrow your term. If this is the one cycle that disproves that rule, then neither you nor I are in a position to know that yet. If this cycle is like all the past cycles, then we'll see alternative-energy research take a step or two backwards between now and the day when gasoline powered cars are the minority machines on the highway.

Sorry to be an unbiased voice of reason, but there's no reason to tell someone to "study the subject a bit" just because their outlook on hydrogen is more sober than yours. :whoknows:


But this idea that "the man" is keeping the technology down is just silly.Why are you repeatedly bringing this up? Can you indicate where anyone has made reference to "the man" in this thread? Are you referring to some other thread?

[PeterMP]

But this idea that "the man" is keeping the technology down is just silly.
It is a fact that GM did take the EV1's from people that were willing to buy them (for some reason to begin with GM would only rent them), sold the patents to the oil companies, and then there were no electric cars being made, and when Toyota started making the Prius, they were sued for patent engringement (even though the technology the were suppossedly enfringing on wasn't good enough technology for anybody else to use to make a car), and then as part of the settlement GM got access back to the technology to use to make cars, which is going to be the new Volt that still isn't as effecient as the EV1, and which had other advances (breaks that don't use break pads and therefore don't ware out) that won't become availible until the patents run out.

[Mad Mike]

Can you indicate where anyone has made reference to "the man" in this thread? Are you referring to some other thread?

Sorry. I didn't meant to offend. I'm trying to work on my abrasive nature. But you DID say that most companies use these programs for PR. While true that they try to get PR from them, It's only smart considering the hundreds of millions these programs cost. Your post sounded like you were dismissing real efforts.

[Mad Mike]

It is a fact that GM did take the EV1's from people that were willing to buy them (for some reason to begin with GM would only rent them), sold the patents to the oil companies, and then there were no electric cars being made, and when Toyota started making the Prius, they were sued for patent engringement (even though the technology the were suppossedly enfringing on wasn't good enough technology for anybody else to use to make a car), and then as part of the settlement GM got access back to the technology to use to make cars, which is going to be the new Volt that still isn't as effecient as the EV1, and which had other advances (breaks that don't use break pads and therefore don't ware out) that won't become availible until the patents run out.

Now here we go with more dis-information. GM never sold it's patents. The conspiracy theorists were upset because GM killed a program that was not viable. in other words, it was not yet time to railroad. They didn't sell the cars so that they could maintain ownership and not let competitors get access to their technology. And that brake thing? You've got that all screwed up. It was technology to capture breaking energy and store it. A technology that still lives.

TIme - The 50 Worst Cars of All Time - 1997 GM EV1

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658544_1658535,00.html


The EV1 was a marvel of engineering, absolutely the best electric vehicle anyone had ever seen. Built by GM to comply with California's zero-emissions-vehicle mandate, the EV1 was quick, fun, and reliable. It held out the promise that soon electric cars — charged from the grid with all sorts of groovy power sources, like wind and solar — could replace the smelly old internal-combustion vehicle. And therein lies the problem: the promise. In fact, battery technology at the time was nowhere near ready to replace the piston-powered engine. The early car's lead-acid bats, and even the later nickel-metal hydride batteries, couldn't supply the range or durability required by the mass market. The car itself was a tiny, super-light two-seater, not exactly what American consumers were looking for. And the EV1 was horrifically expensive to build, which was why GM's execs terminated the program — handing detractors yet another stick to beat them with. GM, the company that had done more to advance EV technology than any other, became the company that "killed the electric car."

http://americanhistory.si.edu/ONTHEMOVE/collection/object_1303.html


In the late 1980s and 1990s, General Motors worked to put an electric car on the market. Announced by Chairman Roger Smith in 1990 as the "Impact," the car that hit the streets in Arizona and California was eventually called the EV1.

The designers of the EV1 faced huge challenges. They were required to build a car with creature comforts (e.g., air conditioning and a stereo), safety devices, and enough range between charges to both live up to the company's original range claims of 120 miles.

General Motors engineers and their outside consultants designed the EV1 from the ground up. The automobile combined lightweight materials, aerodynamic design, a system that recharges the batteries during braking, and sophisticated computer-controlled propulsion to create an electric vehicle.

Consumers could get an EV1 through General Motors' Saturn dealers. Although there was a list price for the sporty two seater ($33,995), GM did not sell the car to consumers. It stead, the company leased the cars to consumers in order to retain control and ownership. The monthly lease payment ranged from $399 to $549, depending on where the lessee lived.

About 800 people-including some celebrities-took the plunge and signed on for the three-year leases. Many drivers liked the quick acceleration and smooth, quiet performance of the EV1. By 2003, however, GM had determined that the EV1 was not commercially viable. It decided to withdraw all EV1s from their leases, retain a few, and destroy the others. GM ended the consumer test project in 2004.

GM built 1,117 of the cars between 1996 and 1999, including 660 "Generation I" EV1 cars in the 1997 model year (1996-97) and 457 "Generation II" EV1 cars in the 1999 model year (1998-99). The Smithsonian's EV1 is a first-generation 1997, with serial number 660, the last "Generation I"car produced.

[SkinsOrlando]

It is a fact that GM did take the EV1's from people that were willing to buy them (for some reason to begin with GM would only rent them), sold the patents to the oil companies, and then there were no electric cars being made, and when Toyota started making the Prius, they were sued for patent engringement (even though the technology the were suppossedly enfringing on wasn't good enough technology for anybody else to use to make a car), and then as part of the settlement GM got access back to the technology to use to make cars, which is going to be the new Volt that still isn't as effecient as the EV1, and which had other advances (breaks that don't use break pads and therefore don't ware out) that won't become availible until the patents run out.


You make it sound like EV1's were a good product, they weren't, the battery technology was bad and GM never got a battery working they felt made sense. Also, the Prius first year in the market was 1997, the EV1's was 1996. EV1's were in production til 1999. I'd like to see you're proof that EV1's technology was sold to oil companies and they then somehow sued Toyota over a car that'd been on the market for several years already.

I'm waiting for your "source" to be "Who Killed the Electric Car" because thats what your posts reads just like.

[Mad Mike]

A little light reading. ;)

Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?

http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2006/06/who_ignored_the_facts_about_th.html


The good news for electric car enthusiasts is that although the EV1 program did not continue, both the technology and the GM engineers who developed it did. In fact, the technology is very much alive, has been improved and carried forward into the next generation of low-emission and zero-emission vehicles that are either on the road, in development or just coming off the production line. For example:


GM’s two-mode hybrid system designed for transit busses have been placed in more than 35 cities across the U.S. and Canada. Perhaps many have seen these cleaner-burning diesel-electric mass transit vehicles. The buses use technology developed for the EV1, such as the regenerative braking system.

The Saturn Vue Green Line, which will hit showrooms later this summer, incorporates a new, more affordable gas-electric technology. The Saturn Vue Green Line will be priced at less than $23,000 and offer the highest highway fuel economy at 32 mpg of any SUV, hybrid or otherwise.

GM is co-developing with DaimlerChrysler and BMW Group a new two-mode hybrid system for passenger vehicles. This new two-mode hybrid technology will debut next year in a Chevrolet Tahoe full-size SUV, which will offer a 25 percent improvement in combined city and highway fuel economy when joined with other GM fuel-saving technologies. Technology born in the EV1 is incorporated into this new two-mode hybrid system.

GM’s fourth-generation hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, which enhances the technology found in today’s HydroGen3 fuel cell vehicle, (currently in demonstration fleets around the world), will be introduced later this year and will represent a leap forward toward a production ready version of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. For the longer term, GM sees hydrogen and fuel cells as the best combination of energy carrier and power source to achieve truly sustainable transportation. A fuel cell energized by hydrogen emits just pure water, produces no greenhouse gasses, and is twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine. Although hydrogen fuel cell technology was cast as a pie-in-the-sky technology by the moviemakers, GM is making great progress in fuel cell research and development and is on track to achieving its goal to validate and design a fuel cell propulsion system by 2010 that is competitive with current combustion systems on durability and performance, and that ultimately can be built at scale, affordably.

[PeterMP]

You make it sound like EV1's were a good product, they weren't, the battery technology was bad and GM never got a battery working they felt made sense. Also, the Prius first year in the market was 1997, the EV1's was 1996. EV1's were in production til 1999. I'd like to see you're proof that EV1's technology was sold to oil companies and they then somehow sued Toyota over a car that'd been on the market for several years already.

I'm waiting for your "source" to be "Who Killed the Electric Car" because thats what your posts reads just like.

http://www.cobasys.com/news/2003/20001010.shtml

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/27/gm-battery-supplier-cobasys-in-bad-financial-shape/

http://wot.motortrend.com/6278400/auto-news/mercedes-sues-cobasys-battery-supplier-ml450-hybrid-suv-delayed/index.html

They sold their part of the company to Chevron. Now the company is in trouble (being sued for not be able to deliver on contracts), and they at least were talking about buying it back.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/moneybags-gm-to-buy-cobasys/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121270640726250245.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us_bu siness

Of course, they are interested in making electric cars again now.

The lawsuit between cobasys (the company that GM sold its share to oil companies and Toyota):

http://www.answers.com/topic/cobasys#Patent_dispute_with_Panasonic_EV_Energy

http://www.ovonic.com/PDFs/Financial_Reports/form_8k/8k_mbi_patent_infringe_settlement_7july04.pdf

http://www.cobasys.com/news/2004/20041014.shtml

Further extension of settlement that allows Toyota to continue until 2014 (the patent expires in 2015).

http://www.cobasys.com/news/2005/20050706.shtml

You know google is a wonderful thing. I don't know if the EV1 was a good car or not, but more than person has said they would have bought theirs if allowed to.

[bubba9497]

Honda is supposedly introducing production electric motorcycles in 2010, Yamaha in 2011

[PeterMP]

Now here we go with more dis-information. GM never sold it's patents. The conspiracy theorists were upset because GM killed a program that was not viable. in other words, it was not yet time to railroad. They didn't sell the cars so that they could maintain ownership and not let competitors get access to their technology. And that brake thing? You've got that all screwed up. It was technology to capture breaking energy and store it. A technology that still lives.

They sold their part of the company that held the patents to an oil company, which then merged as provided in the links above, hence the patents essentially came under the control of the oil industry (as given in the links I supplied in the post above).

I went to grad school w/ two people that now work (for separate companies) involved battery/electrical power related to things like cars. The oil companies in fact have been buying up patents/companies involved in various aspects of making electric/hybrid cars more effecient for a number of years.It'll have to wait a week or two (I'm leaving for vacation tomorrow), I'll give you a list of them (Of course, you could argue that they are positioning themselves in new technologies, but I'm told for the most part the rights to none of the patents are at least currently being leased/sold by the oil companies, which suggests they are sitting on them).

Of course, this was the perfect right of GM and Chevron/Texaco to do.

[Mad Mike]

http://www.cobasys.com/news/2003/20001010.shtml

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/27/gm-battery-supplier-cobasys-in-bad-financial-shape/

http://wot.motortrend.com/6278400/auto-news/mercedes-sues-cobasys-battery-supplier-ml450-hybrid-suv-delayed/index.html

They sold their part of the company to Chevron. Now the company is in trouble (being sued for not be able to deliver on contracts), and they at least were talking about buying it back.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/moneybags-gm-to-buy-cobasys/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121270640726250245.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us_bu siness

Of course, they are interested in making electric cars again now.

The lawsuit:

http://www.answers.com/topic/cobasys#Patent_dispute_with_Panasonic_EV_Energy

http://www.ovonic.com/PDFs/Financial_Reports/form_8k/8k_mbi_patent_infringe_settlement_7july04.pdf

http://www.cobasys.com/news/2004/20041014.shtml

Further extension of settlement that allows Toyota to continue until 2014 (the patent expires in 2015).

http://www.cobasys.com/news/2005/20050706.shtml

You know google is a wonderful thing. I don't know if the EV1 was a good car or not, but more than person has said they would have bought theirs if allowed to.

from your link...


n a joint statement, Stanford R. Ovshinsky, ECD President and CEO, and Robert C. Stempel, ECD Chairman, said, "This is a great transition for Ovonic Battery. We started out with the support and manufacturing development expertise of automotive leader, GM, and now we will have the broad reach and marketing expertise of global energy leader, Texaco. "This is the right move at the right time for the rights reasons – it's a win-win for our current and future customers, the companies and consumers."

And yeah, 5000 were on a waiting list but only 50 were willing to follow through with a lease. So what would it have changed to have a few people buy an incredibly overpriced care with no support system in place to maintain it?

Oh, and shame on that company for protecting patents on technology they created. :rolleyes:

Seriously. It's one big silly conspiracy theory. The equivalent of crying and holding your breath because a dozen people did not get what they want by a bunch of tree hugging wackjobs.

[PeterMP]

from your link...



And yeah, 5000 were on a waiting list but only 50 were willing to follow through with a lease. So what would it have changed to have a few people buy an incredibly overpriced care with no support system in place to maintain it?

Oh, and shame on that company for protecting patents on technology they created. :rolleyes:

Seriously. It's one big silly conspiracy theory. The equivalent of crying and holding your breath because a dozen people did not get what they want by a bunch of tree hugging wackjobs.

"In a joint statement, Stanford R. Ovshinsky, ECD President and CEO, and Robert C. Stempel, ECD Chairman, said, "This is a great transition for Ovonic Battery. We started out with the support and manufacturing development expertise of automotive leader, GM, and now we will have the broad reach and marketing expertise of global energy leader, Texaco. "This is the right move at the right time for the rights reasons – it's a win-win for our current and future customers, the companies and consumers."

I'm sorry, but that quote is halirious considering they are now being sued because they can't fullfill contracts (w/ respect to production of batteries for cars) that they signed.

I don't think it is a conspiracy. All of the records and transactions are public knowledge.

[Mad Mike]

More from your link


Texaco Ovonic Fuel Cell Company, LLC

In September 2000, Texaco Ovonic Fuel Cell Company, LLC was formed as a 50/50 joint venture between ECD Ovonics and Texaco Energy Systems, Inc. to develop and market Ovonic regenerative fuel cell technology.[26] It was later renamed ChevronTexaco Ovonic Fuel Cell Company.[27] In June 2003, ECD acquired Texaco Energy Systems' share for $1.00, effective December 31, 2002, and 100% ownership was assumed by ECD. The name was changed to Ovonic Fuel Cell Company LLC.[28]


Texaco Ovonic Hydrogen Systems, LLC

In October 2000, Texaco Ovonic Hydrogen Systems, LLC was formed as a 50/50 joint venture between ECD Ovonics and Texaco Energy Systems, Inc. to develop and market ECD's metal hydride hydrogen technology.[29] It was later renamed ChevronTexaco Ovonic Hydrogen Systems.[27] In December 2004, ChevronTexaco's share in the venture was traded to ECD Ovonic in a deal that granted Cobasys an expansion of their NiMH battery technology licenses given by ECD Ovonics.[30] The now wholly owned susidiary of ECD Ovonics was renamed Ovonic Hydrogen Systems LLC.[31]

Bad Texaco. Spending money on alternative fuels then selling their share in the company for $1.00 to someone willing to use it.

Seriously man. Read what you are posting. :silly:

[Mad Mike]

"In a joint statement, Stanford R. Ovshinsky, ECD President and CEO, and Robert C. Stempel, ECD Chairman, said, "This is a great transition for Ovonic Battery. We started out with the support and manufacturing development expertise of automotive leader, GM, and now we will have the broad reach and marketing expertise of global energy leader, Texaco. "This is the right move at the right time for the rights reasons – it's a win-win for our current and future customers, the companies and consumers."

I'm sorry, but that quote is halirious considering they are now being sued because they can't fullfill contracts (w/ respect to production of batteries for cars) that they signed.

I don't think it is a conspiracy. All of the records and transactions are public knowledge.

You are claiming a hidden intent to keep the technology off the market, That IS a conspiracy theory.

[Mad Mike]

Honda is supposedly introducing production electric motorcycles in 2010, Yamaha in 2011

Crazy stuff. Let's see how they sell.

[DCSaints_fan]

Drivers of the EV1 geneally liked their car, and didn't have problems with range, etc. There was a great post on the newsgroups by one of the former owners that cleared up alot of the disinformation when "Who Killed the Electric Car" came out.

I never bought the "it was too expensive" excuse. EVs are not terrible complicated. In fact they are conceptually alot less complicated than ICEs, whcih require both electrical and thermal components. People can do conversions for a few thousand, but they can't drive the vehicle because its illegal. So why would it be so darn expensive for GM to produce an EV?

Also, GM marketed the the car terribly, and only residents of California could get one. When there is no reason they couldn't have marketed to the entire US.

Yeah, perhaps the EV1 wouldn't have been "cost effective" in strict dollars per mile for most consumers. But I think ithere definitely would have been a hippie, tree-hugger contigent that would have bought and used the car. It would have been a status symbol and proof-of-concept, and might have spurred competition by other automakers. Maybe even by the time the time of the oil shock happened there would have been a more practical EV already on the market.

[PeterMP]

You are claiming a hidden intent to keep the technology off the market, That IS a conspiracy theory.

I don't think it was hidden. You sell the company to an oil company, and then the company turns around and sues Toyota.

[PeterMP]

More from your link



Bad Texaco. Spending money on alternative fuels then selling their share in the company for $1.00 to someone willing to use it.

Seriously man. Read what you are posting. :silly:

I'm sorry, but I thought the we were discussing car batteries. You know a technology that is actually getting used because it is (pretty) effecient vs. a technology that is pretty worthless at this time (at least w/ respect to cars).

Oh and read the 2nd part again and think about who has control of Cobasys.

[Buford T. Justice]

This thread grew more legs than I anticipated.

I think Honda and Toyota have done an excellent job of taking chances. It is something one would think that the larger (I think, but not sure) auto companies would be able to do. Being able to take a loss in order to establish a new product/technology with the consumer, seems like a natural benefit of being a large company.

[DCSaints_fan]

The oil companies and the Bush admin like the "Hydrogen Economy" because the technology is pie-in-the-sky and won't be ready in 20 years, if ever, ensuring that they can extort us for gas for at least that period. EVs seem a much more practical route, and we should start building more renewable and nuclear power now to meet the future demands placed ont eh grid. Even if hydrogen were practical as a source, you need to produce the hydrogen somehow. Unless you want still be stuck with fossil fuels, this means splitting water with electrolysis, which means more power plants anyway

Another problem is getting a company to produce an EV in sufficient numbers in order for it to be cost effective. Tesla Motors shows some promise but its a small company, and since they don't have the economy of scale a compnay like Toyota, Honda, GM, etc. has, its not feasible for them to compete on the low end.

[PeterMP]

The oil companies and the Bush admin like the "Hydrogen Economy" because the technology is pie-in-the-sky and won't be ready in 20 years, if ever, ensuring that they can extort us for gas for at least that period. EVs seem a much more practical route, and we should start building more renewable and nuclear power now to meet the future demands placed ont eh grid. Even if hydrogen were practical as a source, you need to produce the hydrogen somehow. Unless you want still be stuck with fossil fuels, this means splitting water with electrolysis, which means more power plants anyway

Another problem is getting a company to produce an EV in sufficient numbers in order for it to be cost effective. Tesla Motors shows some promise but its a small company, and since they don't have the economy of scale a compnay like Toyota, Honda, GM, etc. has, its not feasible for them to compete on the low end.

The pie-in-the-sky hope for hydrogen (which we are getting pretty close to reaching) is engineered organisms that are photosynthetic and produce hydrogen. Small-scale labs studies as recently as 2007 show this can be done in an energy effecient manner. The question now is can it be scaled up and at what gas/oil prices does it become economically competitive (especially w/ an absence of infrastructure for it).

(This all of course assumes that the oil companies don't step in buy the patents :silly:.)

[Mad Mike]

I'm sorry, but I thought the we were discussing car batteries. You know a technology that is actually getting used because it is (pretty) effecient vs. a technology that is pretty worthless at this time (at least w/ respect to cars).

Oh and read the 2nd part again and think about who has control of Cobasys.

Whatever dude. Nothing you have posted in any way shows an intent to keep technology off the market. NOTHING.

Meanwhile GM and everyone else is investing billions in alternative energy vehicles. If it survives the Carpocalypse, GM will come out with a better, more commercially viable EV than the crappy EV1 next year. WHY? Because it never stopped pumping money into the program. :doh:

[Mad Mike]

The oil companies and the Bush admin like the "Hydrogen Economy" because the technology is pie-in-the-sky and won't be ready in 20 years, if ever, ensuring that they can extort us for gas for at least that period. EVs seem a much more practical route, and we should start building more renewable and nuclear power now to meet the future demands placed ont eh grid. Even if hydrogen were practical as a source, you need to produce the hydrogen somehow. Unless you want still be stuck with fossil fuels, this means splitting water with electrolysis, which means more power plants anyway

Another problem is getting a company to produce an EV in sufficient numbers in order for it to be cost effective. Tesla Motors shows some promise but its a small company, and since they don't have the economy of scale a compnay like Toyota, Honda, GM, etc. has, its not feasible for them to compete on the low end.

More conspiracy theories. :doh:

Reality: Hydrogen has greater potential. It can be used in Jet engines and combustion engines in aircraft. Try that with batteries. Hydrogen vehicles can be lighter, have better performance, range, and are less toxic than batteries. Hydrogen vehicles can "charge" in the same amount of time it takes to fill up your gas tank now. Try going on a long trip in a battery car. Be sure to plan for the extra time to charge up.

You want the quick fix of electric? Great. There are plenty of options with the best available technology at any time. Hydrogen supporters don't stop anyone from developing EVs. In fact they support it because much of the technology crosses over.

But THANK GOD some people are looking at what is best for the long term. H2 FTW

[PeterMP]

Whatever dude. Nothing you have posted in any way shows an intent to keep technology off the market. NOTHING.

Meanwhile GM and everyone else is investing billions in alternative energy vehicles. If it survives the Carpocalypse, GM will come out with a better, more commercially viable EV than the crappy EV1 next year. WHY? Because it never stopped pumping money into the program. :doh:

Yes, after a decade they made a car that you could argue is better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

"According to the March 13, 2007, issue of Newsweek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek), "GM R&D chief Larry Burns . . . now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Volt) 10 years earlier.'""

[Mad Mike]

Meanwhile. Speaking of Electric... :silly:

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jalopnik/2008/12/Eliica_title.jpg

http://jalopnik.com/5120911/eliica-eight+wheeled-electric-car-in-case-the-tesla-isnt-fast-enough

[Mad Mike]

Yes, after a decade they made a car that you could argue is better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

"According to the March 13, 2007, issue of Newsweek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek), "GM R&D chief Larry Burns . . . now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: 'If we could turn back the hands of time,' says Burns, 'we could have had the Chevy Volt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Volt) 10 years earlier.'""

And the whole quote?....

http://www.newsweek.com/id/36484/Page/3


GM has given the go-ahead to the 150-miles-per-gallon Chevy Volt plug-in hybrid that lit up the Detroit Auto Show this year. It's proceeding despite the fact that the batteries needed to run the Volt haven't really been invented, or at least perfected, yet. But GM R&D chief Larry Burns is confident the batteries will be ready in time for the Volt to hit the road in about four years. Burns now wishes GM hadn't killed the plug-in hybrid EV1 prototype his engineers had on the road a decade ago: "If we could turn back the hands of time," says Burns, "we could have had the Chevy Volt 10 years earlier." Just like that old prototype, the Volt won't generate immediate profits. But times have changed. "We're the underdog now," explains GM VP Mark LaNeve. "So you're more willing to take risks."

[SkinsMaster88]

Don't know the latest in the fuel cell developments for cars, but the first time I heard about it was in Jan. 2002, when GM introduced their concept of the Autonomy for a fuel-cell drive-by-wire car.

Link: http://www.technocars.com.lb/autonomy.asp

http://www.technocars.com.lb/images/autonomy_main.jpg

General Motors unveiled the AUTOnomy, the world’s first concept vehicle built around a fuel cell drive system and free from the confines of traditional automotive architecture. Up to now, fuel cell systems have been integrated into production vehicles. AUTOnomy is the first vehicle designed from the ground up around this type of technology and the first to combine fuel cells with drive-by-wire functionality, which allows steering, braking and other vehicle systems to be controlled electronically instead of mechanically.

GM was the first automaker to demonstrate a driveable fuel cell vehicle in the late 1960s.
In 1998, the Global Alternative Propulsion Center (GAPC) was established with GM and Opel facilities in Rochester, New York; Warren, Michigan and Mainz-Kastel, Germany to intensify research and development on various aspects of fuel cell propulsion. The GAPC team in Warren is responsible for the basic system research while the crew in Rochester focuses on fuel cell and component development.
In 2001, GAPC made several major advances towards volume production of fuel cell vehicles. HydroGen1, a fuel cell prototype based on the Opel Zafira, set a total of 15 international records for fuel cell cars. At the “Michelin Challenge Bibendum”, an international competition for environmentally friendly vehicles, the Opel concept was the only fuel cell passenger car to master the 350 kilometers from Los Angeles to Las Vegas.

----

Other manufacturers have spent some time on alternative energy, but ones like Honda and Toyota really started the production into the consumer markets with their hybrids before everyone else. It remains to be seen when/if hydrogen fuel cells will be the ultimate of the revolution.

[mjah]

Sorry. I didn't meant to offend. I'm trying to work on my abrasive nature. But you DID say that most companies use these programs for PR. While true that they try to get PR from them, It's only smart considering the hundreds of millions these programs cost. Your post sounded like you were dismissing real efforts.
Hey, I'm trying to be less abrasive too. Old habits die hard. :cheers:
I don't mean to dismiss the efforts of real researchers and real programs. Having seen the workings of the American auto industry from a few inside viewpoints, I'm a card-carrying cynic when it comes to the way the programs are viewed and handled by this generation's dyed-in-the-wool board room level auto execs. But I don't mean to insult or demean the programs themselves, which are necessary and fascinating and helmed by brilliant people.

[Elessar78]

I'm really not a hippie by any means, but is there a grass roots type movement that can facilitate mainstreaming of hydrogen fuel cell cars?

As with any early adopter, it's gonna be more costly than going with a plain old internal combustion engine car.