Aerospace Industry Could Hold Future To GM’s Fuel Cell Technology
9
Sponsored Links
As automakers come under pressure to develop alternative powertrains and green vehicles, GM could look to the aerospace industry to absorb some of the massive development costs. Specifically, the aerospace industry could unlock economies of scale before the automaker actually fits its cars with a fuel cell powertrain.
According to Automotive News, GM will enter an exclusive partnership with France’s Liebherr-Aerospace to explore “opportunities to leverage Liebherr’s strong position as a supplier of on-board aircraft systems with GM’s fuel cell technology.”
Head of GM’s global fuel cell business, Charlie Freese, said the move is part of GM’s grander strategy to “evolve the technology rapidly to get it reduced in costs so it can be more suitable for a range of applications in the automotive space.”
Gas turbine engines currently power the aircraft auxiliary power units, but one day, GM could supply fuel cells instead. Like a battery-electric powertrain, fuel cells also do not emit any emissions. However, they require hydrogen fuel to create energy via a chemical process. But, hydrogen poses intense infrastructure and storing questions.
Aside from the aerospace industry, GM is looking at other avenues to also develop its fuel cell business and improve economies of scale. GM has partnered with Honda for future battery and fuel cell production, and the U.S. automaker has shown off two military vehicles that take advantage of the fuel cell powertrain: SURUS and the Chevrolet Colorado ZH2.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a Corvette Z06 and 2024 Silverado. Details here.
Sponsored Links
On the surface, batteries are heavy while hydrogen is lighter than air yet its still so expensive…If GM has the capability to lower the cost of fuel like hydrogen, why not lower the cost of fuels like gasoline? Get gas down to $.50/gal and 90% of EV advocates will disappear…
its very simple, EV’s aren’t about comfort, performance or saving money, (use the Bolt price calculator, you’ll find you can save 500$ a year against a cruze, which is 15-20K cheaper! take you almost 30 years to pay the difference, and 800$ against a Malibu which is loads bigger and way more comfortable, and at 10K cheaper, it will take you 15 years to pay the difference) its about saving the planet, which doesn’t work out as soon many gas engines are approaching the electric grid efficiency and dont have to deal with power line and electric motors inefficiencies. Electric cars dont make any sense.
EVs ARE about comfort, performance and saving money…EVs are smooth and have very little vibration…You can’t buy a Demon and if you could, even professionals are having a hard time getting it to hookup on prepped tracks to get to their advertised numbers…Not the case with the P100D not the mention the upcoming Roadster…Both are a bargain assuming you value performance…Furthermore, you’re buying into the MSRP myth…Look at when GM liquidates the Bolt with California leases, if you can qualify for multiple incentives, you can literally get one around the same price as an ICE Cruze…Lastly, the Bolt EV has minimal maintenance its entire life…
Here is the issues involved.
Hydrogen is not expensive. Fuel Cell technology is very expensive. The problem is this. Fuel Cells are limited in applications. The Space Industry has used them and they have seen very limited other use due to the cost. Until they find more use in more areas it will be difficult to reduce the cost of these systems with advancements.
On the other hand the Batteries are used in many things today from cars to, phones computers and tools. There is lots of opportunity to spread out the development cost due to the many use.
The reality is this. This is not about gas prices it is about meeting emissions and mileage regulations. EV cars like many early adopted technologies are expensive. The first computers, lap tops and cell phones were very expensive but over time they got cheaper and better. The same will happen here.
This is along range game not short term. You have to take in where this is all going not just what is out there today.
The tree huggers are believers and the rest of the industry is just trying to keep transportation viable with the ever changing regulations that we may agree or disagree about. To some it is saving the environment. Others it is getting off oil. Then most it is just trying to find a better way if it can advance to that level.
The time will come where EV products will be as viable as any Gas and they will be price very similar. Cars are not cheap not and will never get cheaper as we go. Just the higher priced technology will become more main stream.
The need to get off oil is not pressing, we have a millennia of it left thanks to fracking and Sasol is a company in south Africa that turn wood and coal directly into diesel. We have a long way to go before we run out of oil.
Just because it’s abundant, means we should use it? How about we find a way to convert oxygen into an applicable means of energy conversion. It would have a direct impact on human lives. Although it’s very abundant, should we use it? Probably not. Most would agree. Oil, sure it’s greatly abundant, and comes from the earth itself. Extracting it, refining it, transporting it, and selling it, costs billions of dollars. There isn’t much advancement left for Gasoline engines, with the exception of Mazda’s SkyActiveX engine technology. Even then, while it increases efficencies, it still comes at a long term cost of human health.
Think of it as the housing market. Would you buy a house with a cheap tag, where its value will Rise over time, and leave you enough cash to renovate, and still come on top with a surplus, or would you buy a rather expensive house, with stagnating value…? Oil is becoming a stagnating value, as electric mobility applications become increasingly more viable.
Once the capacity of batteries ?, meet the range hysteria that most consumers have, EV’s will soon take off faster than the Falcon Heavy did in Canaveral.
The need to get off oil is very pressing indeed, unfortunately, and I will explain why:
We are now entering a time of increased certainty about the causes and effects of large emissions releases in Earths history. The problem we face is that methane clathrates lying frozen within the ocean will start to thaw as ocean temperatures increase, leading to a new reality. The methane will drive further temperature increase, which will drive further thawing and thus further temperature rise. During the PETM 65m years ago, temperatures rose by 12-14°C. However, there is now almost double the methane clathrates, and the process is happening at a vastly accelerated rate, meaning that negative feedbacks are very unlikely to ever stabilise the temperature once it reaches a 20°C equilibrium. What are now carbon sinks (soil, vegetation and sea) will start to release rather than absorb carbon dioxide. There is no upper limit to this temperature increase.
This process will be initiated once we reach 2-3°C.
Data via James Hansen, the world’s most consistantly accurate climate scientist.
Temperatures, and sea level rise, are already increasing expontentially, with 1-2 meters predicted by 2100, and a temperature rise that is quite literally scary.
If oil is here we use it. It is relatively cheap and we have much more than some would like you to think.
But we should have options.
Putting all your eggs in one basket is a risky move in this era where economies are based on oil prices not gold.
Strategically if you have several options it could put you in a position of power in the future.
Oil consumption isn’t just about vehicles. There is heating, power, lubrication, other petrochemical uses, cosmetic uses – the list goes on.
A cleaner non-fossil fuel approach in ALL of these industries is necessary because FINITE oil. And the discoveries of new reserves (ie. fresh supply) is often at a much higher discovery price per barrel, for eg deep sea drilling, more remote drilling. Most of the land based oil is accounted for, except Artic and Antartic reserves. These latter 2 are unlikely to be fully explored because of multi-lateral agreements not to destroy these largely untouched wilderness.
The sea covers three-quarters of the world’s surface area. The sea is comprised of water: H2O. H2-oh is made of hydrogen and oxygen at its component parts. Make an efficient fuel cell that can literally “extract” the hydrogen from sea water and energy production becomes plentiful again – note: by-prduct equals oxygen. Burn the hydrogen to fuel a power generator and send the power to electric motors. Problem solved. Oil companies hate this idea because they create deep sea drilling rigs at $1bn dollars and then they cost $50 million a day to run. If people were just scooping up sea water from the beach and dumping it in their car (i know I’m simplifying this a little) oil companies and the products they peddle would literally (and figuratively) dry up and disappear.*
And I would be one of the first to shout an almighty; “Amen brother” to that.
* Declaration: I do not understand the technical operation of “today’s” fuel cell tech, but this is how I would like to see it work. I would also like to see a world where my (future) grandkids can walk around in and not have to inhale the toxic outputs of today’s ICE vehicles.