GM Highwire

It's a couple years old but I can never get enough Hywire.

 

I love the car. I love the concept, too.
I'm convinced that if GM wants to walk away from Toyota, this is the kind of thing they need to start incorporating into their line.
The E85 baloney and "hybrid" SUVs are just a bunch of "Hey! Look at us! We're doing something, too!".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jdjeep98 @ Aug 12 2006, 06:09 AM) [snapback]302042[/snapback]</div>

Not really. The technology developed from the EV1 is going into the new hybrids and hydrogen cars. GM is the leader in hydrogen automobile technology and hopefully will have the first hydrogen-powered vehicles on the market if we can efficiently use hydrogen. The two-mode hybrid drivetrain going into 2008 full-size trucks and SUVs is definately a "real" hybrid, and it gives a popular segment an efficientcy boost that is very welcome. The BAS system, while much less of a traditional hybrid system will ultimately lower consumption and emissions for far less money than a conventional system. E85 means you are using 85% less gasoline! I thought using less gasoline and having lower emissions was a good thing?

 

Hi All,

I do not see the Hiwire happening any time soon. Its a great idea, but if they are going to try to cash flow it with SUV sales at this time, I think they will not succeed.

As for Hydrogen sources, they might make a garage located electrolyzer. This would in escence make the Hiwire an electric car. But one with a 50 percent efficiency penalty versus a battery car. GM just does not strike me as a company that wants anything to do with anything but the car they sell you. Even if that something else is neccassary for the car to run. Maybe I am being illusionarily critical here. That just an opinion. If GM wanted to fast-track the car they would need on-owner-premise hydrogen electrolyzer station. Will their executives let it happen once the liability lawyers chime in? Who knows?

Jumping from SUV's to hybrid hydrogen cars is a pretty big jump. One would think they would be making the jump to hybrid gasoline cars first. Gives the whole organisation a chance to get used to the idea and a learning experience that is not too great a jump. Remember, its not only the engineers that deal with these cars once they are on the mass market, its the whole organisation, down to the dealer technician. If the technicians were worth what they get paid, I would think it would be no problem for the change. But I also expect that the first carping we would hear if GM just did the Hiwire, would be from the dealer technicians that either just give up, or start putting in 16 hour days (for 8 hours of wages) to learn the new system. It would be sink or swin time in the dealer service bays, while the technicians learn power electronics. You have to be some kind of hot-shXt electronics tech to make what these car guys make, and on allot less training and knowledge.

The other issue is can the cars be made to work efficiently in 0 degree F weather? We midwesterners all know what the Prius is like in 0 degree weather. Now imagine not having that heat engine in the car either. Ooh - big problem.

A possible reason this keeps popping back up in the media is to woo investment Angels for GM. Either Venture Capital, or outright merging of the company with another car company that really wants the Hiwire technology.

As an engineer I know ALL technology is a doube edged sword. Toyota put in lots of hours to make the Prius and the HSD happen. Is GM up to it with the Hiwire? My opinion is they are already too late.

Maybe the US Government should just nationalise Texaco for anti-competitive practices that are a threat to national security - ie their limitation on NiMH battery technology. Yeah, I know where did I come up with that? Well the Hiwire with a really big NiMH battery rather than a fuel cell would be a good car for the warmer climates, and you would not even need the electrolizer in the garage.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndrewGS @ Aug 12 2006, 12:21 PM) [snapback]302114[/snapback]</div>

Hi AndrewGS,

But Ethanol takes about as much energy to produce from petroleum products, as the energy content it ends up with. So, it really does not reduce the national need for petroleum fuels. So, no E85 does not mean 85 percent less petroleum fuels consumed at all. Maybe in the future, it might be something like 30 percent less (complete guess).

This is different in Brazil, as they can use the by product from the Ethanol production in other co-located plants/farms. Its also different in Brazil, as they capture much more solar energy per acre on the equator with Sugar cane than a nation in a temperate climate can with corn. This might all turn around in the US with celulosic/enzyme processed ethanol. Big venture capital is chasing this goal. But it has not happened yet. The need for Ethanol for fuel oxygenation provides an economic path for new Ethanol production methods to happen. The Corn Farmers will not be so happy when this starts to kick in though.

So if you go out and buy E85 now, its no different in national petroleum consumption than buying any other gasoline. Hopefully that will change though. Maybe if all the biodeisel made from waste cooking oil was made available to ethanol farming tractors, combines and grain trucks, it could.

If you buy an E85 SUV, its allot worse for national petroleum consumtion than going out and buying a Hybrid Escape, or a Diesel SUV and putting in the real work to run it off homemade biodiesel, or waste cooking oil. Only problem is that if everybody started running Diesel SUV's off cooking oil, there would not be enough to go around. It will be a few years before that tipping point though. And once tipped, allot of those Diesel SUV's will be right back consuming regular Diesel. Unless the coal conversion kicks in by then. And that wont happen if Opec goes out and drops prices. China/India demand may preclude Opec control of the petroleum prices. The price may just go up and up.

I guess the term floating around for all this E85 hype is green-washing. You know like brain-washing, only convincing the customer their use of the product is not enviormentally detrimental.

 

Thanks for posting this.
The Hy-Wire is 4 years old though. This lovely concept car was heavily hyped throughout 2002, but clueless GM have shown no intention to put it into production. I wouldn't be surprised if all the smart people responsible for designing this car have quit in disgust.

Maf

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(donee @ Aug 12 2006, 06:47 PM) [snapback]302316[/snapback]</div>

You nailed it! That's the magic question.

The record low operating temperature is currently 20 F degrees... which makes the technology pretty much completely useless to any of us in the northern states.

The gentle dribble of clean water from the exhaust pipe (a dramatic increase compared to the current amount of vapor) will cause nightmare driving conditions too. So even when they do manage to overcome the startup problem, they'll still have to figure out how to prevent becoming a heavy contributor to ice on the roads.

By the way, the membrane in the stacks has a very short lifetime in the first place. Being exposed to routine freezing & thawing could shorten it even more.

 

I think GM should oust Toyota, a new discovery was made, so hydrogen stations at your house is relatively easy, and won't break the bank in power bills.

http://cgi.ebay.com/HYDROGEN-GENERATOR-fue...1QQcmdZViewItem

Jimmy

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(donee @ Aug 12 2006, 07:00 PM) [snapback]302320[/snapback]</div>

This is the current problem with E85; but if we start building ethanol refineries that use clean power like geothermal, solar, etc. we can use the benefit it provides. Ethanol is just getting popular in the US thanks in no small part to GM, and the more intrest the more investment.

Since it's on eBay I don't give it much credibility, but who knows what the near future holds for us in the way of power generation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndrewGS @ Aug 12 2006, 09:36 PM) [snapback]302384[/snapback]</div>

Really? Look back at the press releases from a few years ago that say "early next decade". That's less than 5 years from now.

For them to have extended the "available to the first consumers" date by an additional 10 years really screws up their stop-gap claims... since it puts them well outside the product life-cycle range. Interesting.

 

The last two pages of this article from Caltech's Engineering & Science magazine explain succinctly why hydrogen is a non-starter for transport: http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/EandS/ar...X2/EVlayout.pdf

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Aug 12 2006, 11:48 PM) [snapback]302446[/snapback]</div>

"Early next decade" was ten years from a few years ago. They now realize it will take longer.

So I guess every major automaker on the planet including Toyota and Honda are just throwing money away? I mean, since we're sure that within the next ten years we won't find a solution to some of hydrogen's problems as research continues. Guess we should give up on trying to find a cure for some deaseases since there's no solution right now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndrewGS @ Aug 12 2006, 10:36 PM) [snapback]302384[/snapback]</div>

Considering energy conversion rates and whatnot, the more effective, efficient, and cheaper method would be to develop clean power and utilize them for electricity rather than through all the energy losses of hydrogen and ethanol.

To develop clean power to utilize ethanol and hydrogen rather than where it would be most efficient (in the grid) is basically trying to advance your product (no matter if there's a better way) just because it's your product... if you catch my drift.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Aug 13 2006, 02:40 PM) [snapback]302633[/snapback]</div>

True, but if you can use clean power to make ethanol to use 85% less gasoline you would drastically cut dependancy on petoleum and emissions. Electric cars are great, but no matter what they will always have a limited range that is depandant on batteries. I say use clean power to make ethanol and build serial hybrids that run on E85; most of the time it's an electric car, but when you need backup power you can use cleanly-produced E85.

That is not to say forget about clean power for the grids, we need to start using more clean sources for all our power.

 

Does the Hywire appear to have worse crash-test survivability against a SUV than any current "small-car" out there with its bolted on wide-open cockpit? Notice the slow speeds they were driving at..

As I understand it, there's a limit to how much electricity you can extract from fuel cells if you don't use batteries or capacitors as a quick-draw energy dump. So what is its 0-60 time? Can it make it uphill? Will people get electricuted in the rain, or after a crash?

How much is it going to close per mile at the pump, if not end-to-end from the hydrogen creation?

Yes, I'm using all the classic anti-hybrid arguments here.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NuShrike @ Aug 13 2006, 03:07 PM) [snapback]302640[/snapback]</div>

Being that it is a CONCEPT CAR none of this matters. It's a technology showcase.

How does the FINE-S do in all of these areas? http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/future/fines.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndrewGS @ Aug 13 2006, 01:11 PM) [snapback]302603[/snapback]</div>

What, the majority is always right? Except for the amount of good PR it buys them, yes, they are throwing money away. The laws of thermodynamics which make hydrogen fundamentally expensive to make, store, and transport will not be repealed by further research. Better batteries and artificial hydrocarbons trump hydrogen.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(richard schumacher @ Aug 13 2006, 04:35 PM) [snapback]302668[/snapback]</div>

Well, I'm not a scientist so I'm not going to try and say something I don't know is true to rebut that. I will say that EVERY major auto manufacturer on the planet has a hydrogen fuel cell program. I'm sure they have plenty of people that know a lot more about hydrogen than us.

 

I hope you're right. Business-as-usual is killing us.