Bob,

I only highlighted this portion of your post because I'm hoping we can get to the same page on this one. GM is not blaming labor for its current problems. There are some people who interpret the difference inlabor costs to mean that. There are much bigger problems in dealing with health care and other non-product related costs. There are also problems arising from Japan's consistent manipulation of the world money markets to intentionally under value the yen and over value the dollar in order to attain more favorable exchange rates on products exported to the US. Even though this has been a MAJOR problem for decades, you don't hear the US automakers complaining about it publicly. They are trying to manage it through lobbying efforts in Washington to put more pressure on Japan to straighten up or face trade sanctions. As you can imagine, very few election conscious politicians are willing to stand up for something that would have the net effect of increasing the price of imported goods.

but to get back to the point at hand. GM is not blaming labor or labor costs for the current situations. There is no one cause, but a lot of contributing issues.

Peace,

Martin

 

I'd say it's more of a situation of not deciding which pants to wear. Work has been on-going on all manners of alternative propulsion (hybrids, clean diesels, fuel cells, flex fuel, CNG ) for years. Our biggest problem in deploying technology in a timely manner is probably more an issue of getting all to agree on which technology to deploy where, not the actual development of technology.

Peace,

Martin

 

Fair assessment. The encouraging thing is that now that we've come to this realization and continue to accelerate new product launches, the new product is selling very well. We just have to replace the old product faster.

Peace,

Martin

 

Or what happens if they don't?

Are we really just looking at 'eye wash' levels or 'demo' fleets?

I'll use Google but I'm wondering if you have a recommended URL that explains this legislation. I'm surprised that it is fuel-cell specific versus allowing battery-only be used.

Bob Wilson

 

You'll be hard pressed to find clearest detail via Google. You might find the letter of the law, but you might have difficulty finding the strategic and product level impact. Six months ago I was living this dream and could have quoted chapter and verse, but since my responsibilities have shifted a bit, I can only go from memory.

It all springs from the original California ZEV Mandate. When it was revised, the revision allowed for credits to be earned through manufacture and sale of PZEV and AT-PZEV vehicles at various mixes. The credits are exchangeable up to a certain point, but are not equal (ZEV > AT-PZEV > PZEV). One of the qualifiers to have hybrid AT-PZEV credits exchangeable with ZEV credits is a requirement for each of the larger 6 manufacturers to provide a demo fleet of fuel cell vehicles to be placed in commerce in California by a certain date. The demo fleet fuel cells have a huge credit value, relative to AT-PZEV and PZEV. The size of the demo fleet for each manufacturer is based on the manufacturers volume and model mix sold in California. Then going forward, the relative value of credits earned by PZEV and AT-PZEV vehicles is gradually reduced. FCEV credits are also reduced, but are still worth significantly more than hybrids or PZEV. This is apparently to provide incentive for automakers to work out the cost issues relative to FCEV. This arrangement allows for bucketing of FCEV volume in three year increments through about 2014 - 16 timeframe. From that point forward I think the assumption is FCEV will be more mainstream.

Impact of not doing FCEV is to potentially have to totally re-rack whatever plans a particular automaker has for addressing ZEV Mandates. This would not be a minor undertaking.

Peace,

Martin

 

So, am I imagining things, or is the only way to produce huge amounts of hydrogen without creating huge amounts of greenhouse gasses to do the following:

-- Build a nuclear power plant.
-- Use the electricity it generates to dissociate water into oxygen and hydrogen.
-- Then use the nuclear power plant's electricity to store the hydrogen in liquid form so that it doesn't evaporate prior to consumption (this would require massive pressure combined with exceptional refrigeration.
-- Only then could tanker trucks ship liquid hydrogen from storage to the fueling stations.

I suppose that would be *a* solution. But doesn't it take something like 30 years to build a nuclear power plant? We haven't had a new one built since the TMI meltdown in the 1970s.

 

So Martin, does that mean that automakers are more or less obliged to develop fuel cell vehicles for political reasons?

Regardless of what the realities of developing / implementing FCEVs might be?

Might help me make more sense of what's going on if true....

 

That would be my PERSONAL opinion. It could be the right thing to do, but it may also be driven for the wrong reasons. Again, MY PERSONAL OPINION. I'm all for legislating cleaner air. I'm not in favor of governments steering the solution set, especially if it is focusing on a technologiy that is still largely in the development phase. This is where the 1st ZEV Mandate fell short. If you recall, that mandate was that every manufacturer that sold product in California had to sell at least 10 percent Zero Emissions Vehicles (spelled Electric Vehicles). Nothing wrong with ENCOURAGING the development and sale of electric vehicles, but to LEGISLATE it and to define market share with no regard for CUSTOMER want for the product. Well, that's just wrong.

The market share piece doesn't exist in the revised legislation per se, which means there is hope that people, even politicians, are capable of learning from mistakes. The more realistic model is set to define how many ZEV vehicles and/or fuel cells must be provided, based on volume and model mix experienced through real vehicle sales, not government dictated percentages.

(tucks soapbox neatly under desk)


Peace,

Martin

 

http://www.darelldd.com/ev/

It's so sad that we had a chance not that long ago, and there WAS a market, just not the high-dollar SUV one. Toyota included.

Read Darrell's site. It ALL makes sense. Fuel-cell cars take FOUR times the energy to move you down the road than current straight-up electric vehicles.

Why is this being pushed? Why are BEVs being completley ignored and crushed? Why can't we a species do the right thing for a change...

I no sooner want a fuel-cell car than another hole in my head.

Renewable energy, zero-emission electric cars. That's the future. Sustainable even. And please don't tell me about the dirty electric grid. Read up on the link above.

Cheers,
Curt.

 

A very interesting link, thanks for sharing it. I've been (Admittedly lately) of the belief that we should be an EV and hybrid society. EV for commuter stuff and hybrids for longer trips, with PHEVs to help bridge the two.