Bob Lutz, the ultimate auto insider, is now the
highest- level executive at General Motors to
acknowledge what we've been hearing: that they
are working on PHEVs.Lutz is GM Vice Chairman,
Product Development, and Chairman, GM North
America, His illustrious background includes:
Vice Chairman, President, and Chief Operating
Officer at General lMotors, Chairman of Ford
Europe, Ford Motors Board Member, Executive Vice
President of Sales at BMW. For his bio,
see <http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2005/01/lutz_biography_1.html>

On GM's blog (below), he said on Sept 20, "We are
also studying plug-in hybrids, and will have more
to say about those soon. The whole key there is
the development of significantly improved battery
technology. But rest assured I truly believe that
electric-drive vehicles have a real future in
this country and around the world; the only
question is the nature of the power source or sources.

And in an interview published a few days later
(also below), he said, the goal is not fuel-cell
cars but "an all-electric architecture where all
forms of engines as well as fuel cells can be
used".... "The thinking is that the hydrogen
infrastructure might not arrive, but we have an
architecture that we could use for all
engines..... "The real issue is petroleum," "and
the real objective is electric drive, whether
it's powered with a fuel cell or a lithium-ion
battery. Hell, we just want to get out from under the oil companies."

We'll be reporting about much news on PHEVs from
the Air Resources Board's ZEVTechnology
Symposium. But the other story at that event was
the continuing struggles by many companies to
overcome the economic and technological obstacles
that make fuel cell cars an always-far-off dream.
It appears that Lutz is acknowledging that after
sinking over $1 billion into their development,
GM is "not putting all of our eggs in the
hydrogen basket. It’s going to take time to make
the hydrogen economy a reality, and we have
several other alternatives in the works in the
meantime, beginning with the expansion of our E85
offerings, and the expansion of our hybrid lineup."

These statements are surrounded by continuing
insistence that they are committed to their
hydrogen program. But it no longer appears that
projecting an evolution at GM is simply wishful
thinking. Lutz recognizes that a fuel cell car
is an electrically-powered vehicle, if fuel cells
turn out to be less economically viable than
batteries to store electricity, perhaps he will
embrace the PHEV that appears to him now as a
fall-back and a consolation prize.

http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2006/09/the_moon_shot.html#more
Cars & TrucksThe “Moon Shot”
By Bob Lutz
GM Vice Chairman
Posted by Lutz at September 20, 2006 11:22 AM

You may have heard by now that last week I told
media assembled at our press event in Southern
California that GM has big plans for fuel cell
technology. The journalists were on hand for
their first drive of our landmark Sequel fuel
cell vehicle. I told them that this technology
was our equivalent of a moon shot and that I’d
recommend that we put fuel cell vehicles into production as soon as possible.

That’s all true. I think we should and will do
exactly that. But any speculation as to exactly
when we will do it and exactly how much it will
cost is just that: pure speculation.

What we’ve announced so far is this: we are now
launching a fleet of 100-plus vehicles to
demonstrate our fuel cell capabilities and raise
national awareness of the potential of the
hydrogen economy. Assuming we can maintain the
great progress we’ve made hitting the cost
targets of our fuel cell program, the next step
would be about a 1000-vehicle fleet in the
2010-2012 time frame. Then if cost and
infrastructure barriers were removed, or at least
significantly reduced, we’d look at more
significant numbers later in the decade.

The point is, this all sounds like science
fiction right now, but I assure you it isn’t.
Most journalists were duly impressed with what
they drove, declaring the driving experience to
be just like “a normal car.” And that’s the goal.
All along, we’ve staunchly maintained that we
wouldn’t produce fuel cell vehicles unless they
matched or bettered the performance, handling and
comfort of internal combustion-powered cars and
trucks. Well, we think we’re just about there.

Our goal is to be the first manufacturer to put 1
million fuel cell vehicles on the road —
profitably — in the global automotive market. The
key word there is “global.” Like I said last
week, China may be better equipped to switch to
the hydrogen economy than the U.S., since they’re
significantly less developed and would have a far
easier time of it. To really get the ball rolling
in the U.S., automakers, suppliers, government
and the energy companies have to work together
and work quickly. There’s simply no other way.

Let it also be known that we’re not putting all
of our eggs in the hydrogen basket. It’s going to
take time to make the hydrogen economy a reality,
and we have several other alternatives in the
works in the meantime, beginning with the
expansion of our E85 offerings, and the expansion
of our hybrid lineup, as you know. That will be
highlighted by the addition of our two-mode hybrid full-size SUVs next year.

We are also studying plug-in hybrids, and will
have more to say about those soon. The whole key
there is the development of significantly
improved battery technology. But rest assured I
truly believe that electric-drive vehicles have a
real future in this country and around the world;
the only question is the nature of the power source or sources.

We’ll have architectures that will be flexible
enough to accommodate a number of different sources.

And yes, believe it or not, this really is Bob
Lutz talking! We are sitting on the cusp of an
explosion of new technology that will change the
automotive industry like nothing since its very
invention. I never would’ve believed it, but I
must say I’m excited to be a part of it.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2006/09/23/nosplit/\
mfchev23.xml

Who's killing the fuel cell?
The Telegraph UK 23/09/2006)

The race to market the first hydrogen fuel-cell
car is speeding up, so why is General Motors
slowing down? Andrew English reports from the driving seat of the new GM Sequel

Bob Lutz is having a fine old day. Shaded from
the hazy sun in a luxurious pavilion facing the
rolling Pacific Ocean, General Motors' vice
president of product development leans back in
his mahogany steamer, surveys the beach and puffs
on a fat Monte Cristo. This is Camp Pendleton, a
sprawling training base for the US Marine Corps,
just down the coast from Los Angeles. The Marines
are Bob's old mob; he was a pilot.

CAPTION: Man and (green machine): Andrew and the GM Sequel

"Huh - 60-year-old technology," the giant,
silver-haired septuagenarian car guy growls as a
huge twin-bladed Chinook helicopter screams
overhead. Bob has Googled himself a spotters'
list of the latest Marine firepower and armed
himself with a telescope as big as his forearm.
The Hollywood Marines drive past in three roaring
LAV-25s that drown out all thought and
conversation; Bob's Aviators sweep the beach.

A slighter and more retiring man sitting beside
Bob leans almost excessively forward. This is Dr
Larry Burns, GM's vice president of research and
development and strategic planning. This should
have been Larry's show, but Larry is profoundly
hard of hearing and, in this racket, he cannot
hear a thing. He doesn't need to, however, as Bob
is answering everything today. Bob has taken over
and one wonders who chose this venue under
clattering skies to launch the Sequel.

After all, it was Larry's department that created
the hydrogen fuel-cell, drive-by-wire sports
utility vehicle we are here to drive, as well as
its 2002 predecessors, the Hy-Wire and the
fantastically innovative Autonomy "skateboard".

These were, and to some extent still are, the
absolute acme of hydrogen fuel-cell powered
transport. As Christopher Borroni-Bird, Sequel's
British programme director, explained back in
2002: "Electric power means a new sort of car,
built in modern factories, supplied by high-tech,
low-cost suppliers. GM is creating a new world order of personal transport."

The idea behind Autonomy was that all the major
functions in a vehicle would be controlled by
electrical wire, including brakes, steering and
of course the drive system, delivered via tiny
motors in the wheels. There would be no direct
connection between brake pedal and brakes,
steering wheel and wheels or accelerator and
engine. Driver inputs would be interpreted and
controlled by computer, and functions such as
four-wheel steering and braking, as well as
anti-lock, anti-skid, traction control and
emergency brake assist, would be simply a line of
code in the car's electronic brain. The
skateboard-like chassis contained all the main
vehicle functions and could be fitted with a
range of demountable bodies, allowing you to have
an SUV on holiday, a sports car at weekends and an MPV during the week.

Far fetched? Futuristic? You bet. This was
thinking of the highest order, perpetrated by
Larry Burns's brilliant 500-strong team of
engineers, scientists and thinkers. Even in the
heady and profitable days of 2002, it also
offered a way out of the mature, smoke-stack
industry problems of the motor makers. This week
these reached a nadir for Ford, with the news
that the House of Henry could lose as much as $9
billion (£4.8 billion) in 2006, while GM is also
in severe financial trouble. Rumours abound that
the two are talking about a merger.

The Autonomy project offered a chance for the car
industry - and especially GM - to reinvent itself
as a modern, low-polluting, lights-off factory
operation. But that was then and this is now. As
Lutz explains, Sequel is now just a means to an
end, and that end is not fuel-cell cars but "an
all-electric architecture where all forms of
engines as well as fuel cells can be used".

He explains: "The thinking is that the hydrogen
infrastructure might not arrive, but we have an
architecture that we could use for all engines.

"We are fixing [parts supplier] Delphi and saving
costs of $2 billion a year. We are reducing our
healthcare and pension expenditure and our
workforce. Our ongoing fixed costs will be lower
by $9 billion a year and that gives a lot of
daylight. Some of that will go into increasing
profits, but we are more than aware that our
20-year decline is partly a result of not allocating money to the business."

Lutz doesn't rule out hybrids, but says GM is
more than impressed with the performance of
lithium-ion batteries, which offer fast,
high-power, "memory-free" recharging. "The real
issue is petroleum," he says, "and the real
objective is electric drive, whether it's powered
with a fuel cell or a lithium-ion battery. Hell,
we just want to get out from under the oil companies."

CAPTION: The GM Sequel Electric dream: the
Sequel's range, speed and acceleration compare well with conventional cars

Lutz blames the American government for GM's
disenchantment with its world-beating fuel cell.
"The US government is dragging its feet over the
hydrogen infrastructure," he says, adding that GM
remains committed to producing one million
fuel-cell cars profitably - but that might be in
China, for Chinese markets. "China is building
loads of nuclear power stations," he says, "and
we know that nuclear can produce almost
fossil-free hydrogen and the Chinese government
is really keen to get involved."

Apart from this obvious cooling on the primacy of
fuel-cell research, you have to boggle at the
thought of GM returning to all-battery technology
after the debacle of the EV-1, a lead-acid
battery-powered car produced between 1996 and
1999. More than 1,110 of these sleek, 80mph
coupés were built and 800 were leased out to
customers, but if you took away the subsidies
from the US government, each car would have cost GM just under $1 million.

Eventually the company recalled and crushed most
of them. The EV-1 was the subject of this year's
nonsensical conspiracy movie, Who Killed The
Electric Car? But listening to Lutz it is hard
not to disagree with Wally E Ripple, a research
engineer interviewed in the film, who suggested
that because there is a trillion dollars' worth
of oil still left in the ground, representing
over 100 trillion dollars' worth of business for
car makers and oil companies, there is little
incentive to develop a viable electric (or fuel-cell) car.

Perhaps he's right. For all the current fixation
with Peak Oil and America's "addiction to oil",
no one has done a trustworthy, well-by-well audit
of what oil is left under the ground, so no one
really knows. This week, oil prices started to
fall to about $60 a barrel (£32.70 for 35
gallons) from their July high of $78, and the
heads of Exxon and Saudi Aramco, the oil company
with the world's largest output, made calming
noises about the state of current stocks.

They claimed, respectively, that the end of oil
was nowhere in sight and that at current
production rates there was a century's worth of
crude left. Well they would say that, wouldn't
they, but as long as we have no way of verifying
what stocks remain, their opinions are at least as valid as any other.

Some Western analysts might argue that Bob Lutz
is right, and that, however much oil is left, we
should eke out supplies by using a mix of hybrid,
electric and fuel-cell power. But there are other
issues. Reversing climate change will require a
reduction in the burning of fossil fuel and/or
the sequestration of carbon dioxide. Energy
security has become more of an issue since Russia
shut off its natural gas supplies to Ukraine in a
price row earlier this year, and since Osama bin
Laden vowed to attack Western oil installations.

And the rules of the game are changing. Since
April 2003, the California Air Resources Board
(Carb) has given car makers the option of meeting
part of their mandatory zero-emissions targets by
producing fuel-cell vehicles. Each company has to
produce a sales-weighted number of fuel-cell
vehicles to contribute to a total of 250 in 2008,
rising to 2,500 between 2009 and 2011, 25,000
between 2012 and 2014, and 50,000 between 2015
and 2017. Battery vehicles can be used to replace
up to 50 per cent of that fuel-cell requirement.
It's a tall order and to comply GM is having to
send 62 of the 100 fuel-cell Equinox SUV test
vehicles also unveiled this week, but the
American giant is late to the party. Rivals
Toyota and Honda already have large fleets of
fuel-cell vehicles on test and Takeo Fukui,
Honda's chief executive, is committed to putting
a fuel-cell car on sale within five years.
DaimlerChrysler has a test fleet of more than 100
fuel-cell vehicles and there's even a
DaimlerChrysler fuel-cell bus in London, running
on route RV1 between Covent Garden and London Bridge.

GM is falling behind, and when you are behind you
can no longer dictate the terms of the debate.
All the good things that GM was hoping might fall
into its lap as a result of its fuel-cell
research could be up for grabs once again.

Driving the Sequel

The market for family-sized, SUV crossovers is
among America's fastest growing, and it's no
surprise to find that Toyota's fuel-cell concept,
Ford's hybrid Escape and GM's Sequel are aimed at
this sector, where the potential savings can do most good.

CAPTION: Bob Lutz: 'Hell, we just want to get out from under the oil companies'

The first thing that strikes you about the Sequel
is the number of radiators on the front grille.
Fuel cells and their control electronics like to
operate at about 80 degrees centigrade, and there
are a lot of control electronics on this vehicle
- five complete systems, in fact. Sequel has twin
42-volt systems for the steering and braking,
plus the high-voltage electrical drive system and
twin 12-volt circuits for all the subsidiary functions.

It is powered by GM's own 98bhp fuel cell, with a
87bhp lithium-ion battery pack. It is capable of
about 300 miles between refuelling stops and,
with a top speed of 90mph and 0-60mph
acceleration in 10sec, performance is respectable.

There are three liquid-cooled electric motors:
the 87bhp three-phase unit in the front that
drives both front wheels via a reduction gear,
and two 22bhp Italian-made wheel motors, each of
which drives a rear wheel directly. They weigh
33lb each, a considerable reduction since we
first encountered them three years ago, but are
still too heavy to put into the front wheel hubs
without adversely affecting the handling.

About 17.6lb of gaseous hydrogen is carried at
10,000psi in three spun-carbon storage tanks
under the floor. It's the hydrogen strorage that
has failed the project's aims, as it is too
expensive and heavy. We will return to this topic
in the near future, but suffice it to say that
Larry Burns admits that while the fuel cell can
provide power at about $12-15 per kilowatt, the
complex hydrogen tanks push that figure well
beyond the total system cost target of $50 per kilowatt.

Like the Hy-Wire , the Sequel has no direct
connection between the steering and the wheels.
Unlike the Hy-Wire, the Sequel has four-wheel
steering. In fact the Hy-Wire was horrible to
drive, with poor calibration of its SKF-sourced
steering. Changing supplier (to Visteon) seems to
have paid dividends, as the Sequel's steering is
well-weighted and accurate, if lacking in
feedback from the wheels. The rear wheels
reverse-steer at very low speeds to aid parking
and steer with the fronts to decrease the turning circle.

Like all electric-drive vehicles, the Sequel has
a huge amount of torque and storms away from a
standstill. The electronics apportion current to
the rear motors when starting off and when
slippage is detected, so it feels very sure-footed.

Noise, so much of an issue on rival fuel cells,
is confined to the high-pitched whine of the
current inverter and a slight rumble from the
front motors; the rears seem to run almost
silently. The brakes, which on the initial push
merely turn the motors into charging units, feel
strong and the pedal feel is progressive.

A Soccer Mum's runabout par excellence, the
Sequel is quiet and refined and emits only water vapour.

CAPTION: The GM Sequel Future car: the Sequel's
steering is well-weighted and accurate, if lacking in feedback from the wheels

It is a great deal more attractive than Honda's
FCX and its drive system is somewhat
awe-inspiring, but as Bob Lutz says, the Sequel
has become merely "a test bed for a lot of technical integration".

Whatever that is, it is not the blueprint for the
future that this amazing fuel-cell car once was.

Deep thoughts

Is a hydrogen fuel infrastructure too expensive?

No, according to Byron McCormick, a former Los
Alamos US National Laboratory scientist. "To get
a hydrogen refuelling point to within two miles
of over 70 per cent of the US population and
every 25 miles on the freeway would cost around
$12 billion," he says. "To put that into
perspective, the creation of the great railroads
of America (in 1880s' dollar values) cost $5
billion. Eisenhower's Interstate building
programme in the 1950s (in current dollar values)
cost $163 billion. At its height in the 1960s,
the US government was spending $17 billion a year
on its space programme. The delayed Alaskan
pipeline will cost at least $6 billion and in the
coming years the oil industry estimates that it
will need to spend some $200 billion simply to secure its infrastructure."

Are hydrogen fuel cells too long in coming?

No, according to one GM engineer. "The first
automobiles were introduced into the US in the
1890s and it took 55 years for 25 per cent of the
population to reject the horse and adopt the car.
To get VCRs into 25 per cent of US homes took 44
years. The equivalent figure for microwaves was
30 years, for personal computers 16 years and for
cellphones 13 years. Technology adoption is
getting faster but it still takes time. You'd
better be in it for the long haul or you ain't gonna make it."

With oil prices falling again and conventional
cars as cheap as they've ever been, why worry about hydrogen and fuel cells?

"Hydrogen will change the way we think about and
do everything," says Dr Larry Burns of GM. "If
you take the revenue of the 50 largest companies
involved in power production and transportation,
you are talking about $1.8 trillion a year; just
think how much disruption there will be when this
happens. If you sit on the sidelines and you
don't seek to be involved in creating this
change, you will not have access to this
technology, and that could be a very dangerous place to be."


-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Felix Kramer fkramer@...
Founder California Cars Initiative
http://www.calcars.org
http://www.calcars.org/news-index.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power
http://www.bettah.org
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --