Is There An Option More Promising Than The Plug-In Electric Vehicle?

Thomas Friedman recently published an opinion piece in the New York Times entitled, "While Detroit Slept," equating any congressional or presidential rescue of the Detroit auto industry to saving the mail-order-catalogue business on the eve of eBay or improving typewriters just before the advent of the personal computer and the internet. In his mind, the Big Three has been anachronistic, and entrusting them with an eleven-digit taxpayer loan would be foolish. He is probably right, even though the specter of a Depression triggered by their bankruptcy nevertheless cannot be totally discounted, so our domestic auto industry will no doubt be given one more chance.

He muses that the internal combustion engine/gasoline transport system is approaching obsolescence, and other concepts such as Shai Agassi's Better Place electric vehicle network model a more promising future. Appropriately enough, an agreement was announced early this month for Hawaii to be one of their first demonstration sites. A few days later, Maui Electric Company and Phoenix Motorcars signed a memorandum to use their electric pick-up trucks. All this is well and good, for Hawaii, naturally blessed with all the renewable energy options, has, for a variety of reasons, lagged behind much of the nation and world in going green.

A predictable trend is, no doubt, a gradual shift to battery-powered cars which can be charged with wind and solar energy. The lithium battery is poised to serve as this power source.

I say, let us support this effort, but be watchful for two impacting factors, one bad and the other, possibly monumentally good. First, the bad: my HuffPo article of December 7 on "A Gift for Planet Earth and Humanity" worries that the petroleum excursion below $50/barrel has, maybe fatally, dampened large-scale investments of renewable energy for a long time to come. T. Boone Pickens' abandonment of his wind farms is only one of many such crushed ventures you'll be reading about in the months to come. Crude oil, of course, will again shoot pass $100/bbl, if not next year, then certainly in five. However, financial organizations, rightfully so, are allergic to risk of any kind, and fickle oil prices have historically bedeviled all solar options. Thus, read the above posting to take advantage of this "gift" of time so that a range of remediative strategies can be applied.

The second factor has to do with the long-term viability of battery systems. It is possible that lithium might well be the end of the line. So, in answer to Mr. Friedman, an earlier HuffPost on "Simple Solutions for Our Biofuel Problem" suggests another next generation technology as maybe a more hopeful choice rather than plug-in vehicles.

Per unit volume, a fuel cell should be able to provide five times more energy than the lithium battery. Chapter 3 of Simple Solutions for Planet Earth found in one of the boxes to the right provides the details on fuel cells, but, in short, this device works like a battery to produce electricity, but uses hydrogen as the energy source instead of lithium, lead or cadmium. However, and this defies common sense, one gallon of methanol has more accessible hydrogen than one gallon of liquid hydrogen. Thus, the logic argues for producing methanol from biomass to power a fuel cell, as hydrogen is very expensive to manufacture, store and deliver. This simplest of alcohols is the only biofuel capable of directly and efficiently being utilized by a fuel cell without passing through an expensive reformer.

Yes, methanol has only half the energy value of gasoline, but the fuel cell has at least twice the efficiency of the internal combustion engine, so there is a wash, here, regarding onboard storage. And methanol is no more toxic than gasoline. You shouldn't drink either one.

But we have problem. The U.S. Department of Energy has prohibited providing funds for vehicular DMFCs, and furthermore, stopped supporting biomass to methanol R&D. It has mostly to do with ethanol and biodiesel being selected as the only national biofuels. Thus, we are probably a decade away, if not longer, from being able to convert to a biomethanol economy for transportation.

Thus, unless some sudden advancement can be realized in bringing a transport DMFC to the marketplace, it makes sense to cultivate options such as the plug-in electrical car system, hoping that electricity from the renewables can enjoy a quick commercial transition. In any event, watch out for the direct methanol fuel cell, for this virtually ignored opportunity could well either someday replace vehicles powered by batteries or in parallel maybe develop even faster.

Comments

[matk62]

I reference your story in a recent post on my blog:

( http://www.pay4rides.com/2009/01/detroits-lie-on-us/ )

I found your story very thought provoking. I agree investing in our current auto industry is a bad decision. They need to change their ways and spend more on gasoline alternatives. Ultimately, the best solution is to increase our conservation efforts through paid organized ride sharing.

[DavidRedstone]

Part 3

Patrick says: "methanol has only half the energy value of gasoline, but the fuel cell has at least twice the efficiency of the [ICE]"

I have been writing about fuel cells for ten years. I have never heard of anyone building a DMFC suitable for a vehicle that is twice as efficient as an ICE.

Patrick says: "The U.S. Department of Energy has prohibited providing funds for vehicular DMFCs, and furthermore, stopped supporting biomass to methanol R&D. It has mostly to do with ethanol and biodiesel being selected as the only national biofuels."

These choices are mostly about farm state politics (ethanol is made from corn) and fear of methanol resulting from problems a few years ago with a gasoline additive derived from methanol (MTBE).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTBE

Patrick says: "watch out for the direct methanol fuel cell, for this virtually ignored opportunity could well either someday replace vehicles powered by batteries or in parallel maybe develop even faster."

While I agree that methanol is a much better option than ethanol (because methanol can be made from many renewable sources more easily than ethanol - making fuel from food is stupid), DMFCs will never be a better option than batteries. We should be making as much methanol as we can for use in ICEs at the same time that we are pursuing plug-in hybrids and pure battery electrics as fast as we can.

David Redstone
http://www.h2fc.com

[DavidRedstone]

Part 2

Patrick says: "[A fuel cell] works like a battery to produce electricity, but uses hydrogen as the energy source instead of lithium, lead or cadmium."

This statement is misleading:
--Hydrogen is never an "energy source". Free hydrogen does not exist on earth. Large amounts of some other form of energy must be used to produce free hydrogen and to compress it to a density that would be useful in a vehicle.
--The lithium, lead or cadmium in a battery is not the "energy source". A battery is an energy storage device. Some other energy source must be used to generate the electricity used to charge the battery.

Patrick says: "[O]ne gallon of methanol has more accessible hydrogen than one gallon of liquid hydrogen. Thus, the logic argues for producing methanol from biomass to power a fuel cell, as hydrogen is very expensive to manufacture, store and deliver."

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The logic argues for producing methanol from biomass and using it to fuel an ICE.

Patrick says: "This simplest of alcohols [methanol] is the only biofuel capable of directly and efficiently being utilized by a fuel cell without passing through an expensive reformer."

Not true. A DMFC is not particularly efficient. People have built direct ethanol fuel cells (which are not particularly efficient either).

(continued in part 3)

[DavidRedstone]

Part 1

DMFCs are not nearly efficient enough to provide any advantage in transportation applications. They are no more efficient than internal combustion engines (ICEs). DMFCs also require much more platinum-based catalyst per watt than other types of fuel cells. A DMFC is delicate and easily poisoned and would not last nearly as long as an ICE in a vehicle. A DMFC is much less efficient than a battery. A system that reforms methanol into hydrogen and uses the hydrogen in a fuel cell is much more efficient than a DMFC.

Note also that any fuel cell used to power a vehicle needs to be hybridized with batteries (or ultracapacitors) in order to be able to recover energy during braking ("regenerative braking"). All of the automakers recognize this - none are trying to develop a pure (unhybridized) fuel cell vehicle. As a matter of fact, hybridized fuel cell cars and buses have trended toward less fuel cell and more battery over the years.

Patrick says: "Per unit volume, a fuel cell should be able to provide five times more energy than the lithium battery."

A fuel cell does not "provide energy". A fuel cell converts the energy in a fuel into power. For the purposes of a volumetric comparison of a fuel cell to batteries, the proper comparison is the amount of power (watt hours) you can get from from a given volume of fuel cell + fuel versus the same volume of battery.

(continued in Part 2)

[Patrick Takahashi - Huffpost Blogger]

Dear David:

Thank you for your generally on the spot comments. I've been challenging colleages and the Department of Energy for nearly two decades on this ethanol versus methanol issue, and your response is about the most meaningful feedback I've yet received. There is no doubt that:

1. Yes, the Farm Lobby is mostly to blame for our current biofuels predicament. How they now re-think their future will be crucial for helping us out of our current mess.

2. For the car, a fuel cell can be more than twice the efficiency of an internal combustion engine. Yes, you can upgrade biomethanol to a higher order hydrocarbon liquid, but the economics then become non-competitive.

TO BE CONTINUE IN PART 2

[DavidRedstone]

"For the car, a fuel cell can be more than twice the efficiency of an internal combustion engine."

A DMFC cannot be.

The beauty of methanol is that it is cheap and renewable. It makes a perfectly good fuel for ICEs. We should be displacing as much gasoline with methanol as we can as fast as we can.

There is no good reason to slow such a transition down by hoping for expensive, delicate, platinum dependent, inefficient DMFCs that have never been shown to have the power density required for vehicles..

[Patrick Takahashi - Huffpost Blogger]

PART 2

3. You should become more familiar with the direct methanol fuel cell for portable applications. A couple of Japanese companies are proceeding with commercializing the DMFC for computers, iPods and the like. Motorola gave up. Behind all this is that a fuel cell can power a device five times longer compared to a lithium battery.

4. Thus, the DMFC is real and close to reality. Unfortunately, because our government purposefully prohibited R&D for vehicular applications, we are at least a decade away from scaling up this technology for transport. Mind you, the whole concept might still not work because of significant bottlenecks, but IF it does, methanol will be the only renewable biofuel capable of currently being used...for hydrogen will continue to be too expensive and developmental for many decades to come. The tragedy is that we still don't know, when we could well have had the answer today, or at least know enough to write it off.

5. The bottom line is that hybrid cars are fine, if not great, as a bridge...and so, too, the plug-in electric vehicle, which, unfortunately, is apparently not the ultimate answer.

Hawaii, in particular, is in serious jeopardy regarding aviation, for what will replace jet fuel when oil jumps back up to $150/bbl? Maybe the Hydrogen Clipper...to be discussed in a later posting.

[DavidRedstone]

I have been following and writing about attempts to commercialize DMFC for portable applications in great detail for ten years. I do this for a living. I have been to the industry conferences and have visited the U.S. DMFC companies. You do not appear to be as well informed as you think you are on this subject.

Every year the big Asian consumer electronics manufacturers say they will have DMFC products in 2-3 years. Every year they push their commercialization schedules back another year. I do not believe that DMFCS will ever be commercially available for consumer electronics applications (cell phones, laptops). It is basically thermodynamically impossible at any acceptable cost. They generate too much heat and too little power, they cost way too much and they don't last long enough.

"the DMFC is real and close to reality"

I am sorry but it is not for either portable applications or vehicular propulsion. The only company that I know of that has had any success at all with DMFC is SFC Smart Fuel Cell of Germany, but they are focused on niche applications such as motor homes and traffic signage where size, weight and efficiency don't matter and the cost of the DMFC is hidden (and SFC is still losing money.)

[MarcelWilliams]

In the long run, I believe methanol fuel cells combined with batteries will be the ultimate automobile.

But what about the shortage of platinum?

Well, we currently have a space program that is costing us between 10 to 20 billion a year designed mostly-- to explore-- our solar system instead of helping us to exploit the natural resources of our solar system. Most of the platinum that we mine on Earth appears to have originated from major asteroid impacts in the past.

The asteroids in our solar system are an extremely rich resource of platinum. In fact, if you divided the total wealth of the platinum resources in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, every person on Earth's individual share would probably come out to be more than $50 billion dollars-- each.

There's a planet in our solar system that NASA would like to explore, Mars, that has two moons (Phobos and Deimos) that appear to be captured asteroids. Two moons that are probably far richer in platinum resources than even the richest platinum mines on Earth. So what are we waiting for?

[MarcelWilliams]

The best option, IMO, is fuel flexibility. And plug-ins give the consumer the flexibility of conveniently fueling up their vehicles at home.

However, I don't have much faith in future lithium resources to believe that all plug-in-batteries will be lithium-ion batteries. So I wouldn't be surprised if nickel-iron batteries ended up supplementing the battery technology for plug-ins with a much shorter range.

As far as ground transportation is concerned, methanol is the simplest and best solution towards energy independence from the petroleum fuel economy.

Methanol can be derived from any urban or rural biomass source. However, if cheap hydrogen from nuclear or hydroelectric electrolysis is synthesized with the waste CO2, then methanol production could be increased 5 times. The DOE estimated that rural biowaste could supply 30% of our transportation fuel needs by 2030. However, if nuclear and hydroelectric hydrogen were added to the mix, biofuels could supply 150% of our transportation fuel needs. In other words, the US would not only become independent of petroleum fuels could produce enough carbon neutral transportation fuel to become a major exporter of clean synfuels.

Future mandated flex-fuel vehicles need to include gasoline, ethanol (E85), and methanol (M85). American vehicles can easily be modified to use gasoline, ethanol, and methanol. Methanol can also be converted into gasoline and into dimethyl ether, a cleaner diesel fuel substitute.

Marcel F. Williams
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/

[Efried]

This is a valid point. Don't believe in hypes- check out the alternatives.
You may also read this article "The naked king..." at
http://www.sugre.info/Vorlage.phtml?id=588&sprache=en

[Patrick Takahashi - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for all the input. My original intent was to suggest the fuel cell, and, more specifically, the direct methanol fuel cell, as a parallel pathway for vehicles. But the overwhelming response was that the plug-in electrical car is a dead end technology, so the fuel cell should be the only option. Mind you, today, one of Warren Buffett's companies announced their backing of a somewhat fledgling Chinese plug-in initiative, plus, most of the current real activity you read about these days deals with plug-in hybrids. Thus, where are we? Our Nation and China seem to be surging ahead with plug-ins. Japan is convinced that the fuel cell is the most sensible future. Is there something we should be doing about this? The timing is ideal to affect policy as the Obama Administration is refreshingly new. So, the standard recommendation everywhere you look is to bring this matter to the attention of the appropriate transition team. But as everyone is already doing this, there needs to be a more effective strategy. Anyone with a good idea on how to proceed?

[GregBlencoe]

Patrick,

I agree that the timing is ideal for influencing policy with the new administration coming in.

However, my view is that plug-in battery vehicles are marketed very well, but they are actually a poor technology. On the other hand, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are not marketed well at all, but they are a great technology. There are far more stories in the media on plug-in battery vehicles than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. This has led to people believing that plug-in battery vehicles are right around the corner.

GM and Tesla have led the marketing blitz. GM is so desperate to beat Toyota, Honda, etc. that they started making all of these wild claims with the Chevy Volt. And Tesla always seems available to give journalists a test drive in their car. Lately, Better Place has gotten a lot of attention. But their "business model" ignores the fact that plug-in battery vehicles are extremely expensive. What about the short driving range of battery vehicles? And does anybody really believe that battery swapping stations are going to work? The batteries weigh many hundreds of pounds!

On the other hand, why aren't more people paying attention to Toyota and Honda who are the real experts? I think what needs to be done is to let the Obama administration know what Toyota and Honda are saying about hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and plug-in battery vehicles.

Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.

[Arthur954]

Mr. Takahashi,
I think that Obama should appoint a SECRETARY OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY to handle all these matters, and make sure that things are done in a way that benefit the American worker and economy ( all things made or grown in the US, through adequate trade, industrial and taxation policies )

Lets not have another free-for-all, but do things in a coordinated way like in Germany so that everyone benefits, not just a few people that get rich

[GregBlencoe]

Patrick,

I should note that a platinum-free fuel cell was developed by Daihatsu (which is 51% owned by Toyota), but it uses hydrazine hydrate instead of hydrogen. Therefore, I usually don't mention it.

Here is the press release from September 14, 2007:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1461117220070914

[GregBlencoe]

Leftcoastindy,

Here is a quote from an Edmunds article (see link below) where Honda research chief Masaaki Kato commented on plug-in battery and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles:

"Kato told Bloomberg that Honda engineers don"t believe lithium-ion batteries will satisfy most consumers because of their high cost and limited range compared to gasoline engines.

In Japan, he said, battery developers are still trying to meet a government goal of boosting energy storage capacity by seven times while slashing battery costs to just 2.5 percent of current costs.

"That gives you a pretty clear example of what type of gap we"re facing relative to a gasoline vehicle," Kato said. "At this point, I"d say it"s impossible to imagine a date at which such a breakthrough could occur."

He said Honda believes it will be easier, less costly and quicker to perfect the fuel-cell electric vehicle, such as the FCX Clarity that it is leasing in small numbers to select consumers in Southern California and Japan."

http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2008/09/hondas-rd-chief-says-automaker-prefers-fuel-cells-to-batteries-for-evs.html

[Patrick Takahashi - Huffpost Blogger]

Wow, yours is just the kind of response I had on my priority wish list. I was sort of wanting to be nice and not be a wet blanket for plug-ins because my State and the national policy are totally supportive of them. Detroit, too, appears to be leaning in this direction. HOWEVER, IF PLUG-IN ELECTRICAL CARS ARE A DEAD END, then the new Obama sustainable energy plan should purposefully abandon electric cars and go immediately into the renewable hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicle. While there remain serious questions about how much this fuel cell will cost when commercialized, if competitive enough, then the question becomes, METHANOL or HYDROGEN as the fuel. My heart is for clean hydrogen, but my engineering sense argues for methanol, as the infrastructure is already largely in place, it should be cheaper to produce, and this unreal fact: one gallon of methanol has MORE HYDROGEN than one gallon of liquid hydrogen. Thus, the highest priorities should be to perfect a direct methanol fuel cell for vehicular applications and development of a more cost effective way to gasify and catalyze biomass into methanol. All that said, to be safe, at this early stage, we should support both fuel cell pathways.

[GregBlencoe]

Patrick,

Thanks for the response.

Perhaps you might want to consider an article that discusses the problems with plug-in battery vehicles. Nobody likes to talk about them. However, I think it is so important to put the facts out there, so the energy problem actually gets solved.

For a list of problems with plug-in battery vehicles, I would highly recommend reading the article the "Top 25 quotes from Toyota and Honda executives criticizing plug-in battery technology." Here is the link to it:

http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/top-25-quotes-from-toyota-and-honda-executives-criticizing-plug-in-battery-technology/

Here are some of the problems with plug-in battery vehicles discussed in the link above:

1. Cost
2. Driving range
3. Fueling time
4. Space they take up in a car
5. Durability
6. Safety
7. Weight
8. Extreme weather performance
9. Environmental issues (half of the electricity in the U.S. comes from coal)
10. Infrastructure costs (if large numbers of plug-in battery vehicles are on the road, a new electrical transmission infrastructure will be needed)

[GregBlencoe]

Patrick,

Battery vehicles have so many problems that Honda is not even pursuing them.

I would strongly recommend reading the following article titled "Frequently asked questions about hydrogen fuel cell cars:"

http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2008/12/09/frequently-asked-questions-about-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars/

Question #16 is "What are Toyota and Honda saying are all of the problems with plug-in battery vehicles (a competitor of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles)?" The answer is a list of 25 quotes from Toyota and Honda executives criticizing plug-in battery vehicles.

Regarding the cost of hydrogen, Question #7 in the link above is "What is the cost of hydrogen produced from wind power?" I did an analysis that showed the cost would be $6.98 per kilogram.

Furthermore, the Toyota FCHV (Highlander Hybrid) gets about 80 miles per kilogram of hydrogen. And the Honda FCX Clarity gets about 72 miles per kilogram of hydrogen. Therefore, the per-mile cost would be equivalent to driving a car today that gets 20 miles per gallon and paying around $2 per gallon.

Moreover, regarding Semaj51's comment about platinum being required for fuel cells, there are platinum-free fuel cells being developed.

You can find more information in question #23 in the link above which is "Although each car company is very secretive about their hydrogen fuel cell technology, do you have any examples of work on platinum-free fuel cells?"

Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.

[Patrick Takahashi - Huffpost Blogger]

Isn't this amazing for the Big Three to again pick losers? Remember, GM has the VOLT as their innovative solution. Let me warn readers, however, about the tendency of next generation energy advocates to do a thorough analysis and arrive at incredibly attractive costs for their product. My book on SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth (see box at right) goes into some examples, but I'm afraid the combination of gaseous hydrogen and fuel cells for cars will be much higher than many seem to believe. However, when, eventually, the carbon tax is entered into the equation, this higher than anticipated cost will hopefully make them competitive, particularly when the externalities of the environment, security and health are included. So, in conclusion, I'm heartened that the comments to this article are supportive for our auto industry, with the prodding of the Feds, to purse a smarter path to their future...which should avoid the internal combustion engine, and, maybe too, the electric car.

[rosnow]

Don't forget that the idea of the volt is that it combines a battery with a gas engine OR other electric generator, so it could be a H2 or methanol FC.

[letstakeawalk]

Companies like Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies are moving forward very quickly into production of the next generation of automobiles. They are heavily involved with a new American Company, Fisker Automotive. Check out the Fisker Karma, and hope that small start-ups like Fisker, Tesla, and Detroit Electric get traction in the coming years...

http://www.qtww.com/

Currently, Quantum offers a Hydrogen conversion for the Prius which improves that vehicle's efficiency beyond its current gasoline powered ICE.

"Hybrid electric vehicles with ICEs (internal combustion engines) running on hydrogen are practical and affordable, can reduce or eliminate emissions, and offer most of the benefits of fuel cell vehicles at a fraction of the cost. Quantum's H2Hybrid package, currently available for the Toyota Prius, is designed to meet SULEV (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle) standards. Additionally, the H2Hybrid generates comparable power to the gasoline version along with increased fuel economy."

[Patrick Takahashi - Huffpost Blogger]

Nice to hear from companies actually doing something on which I only pontificate. Clearly, though, you will need a lot of help to prevail. Perhaps this series of HuffPo comments can be used to influence those decision-makers in D.C. This is the ideal moment, for the Obama Team is in transition. Go to it!

[letstakeawalk]

Just to clarify, I am not connected to Quantum in any way other than a very modest investment in their stock.

[leftcoastindy]

I see the technology for batteries and Solar panels progressing at the same speed. Both will be good enough in less than 2 years for solar powered recharges of plug-ins.
Current technology with manufacturing improvements to bring down cost.
In 5 years, even better (if only slightly) technologies will be available.
The worst case scenario is half of commuters will be able to get to work without the combustion kicking in.

[Patrick Takahashi - Huffpost Blogger]

Perhaps the lithium battery and solar PV electricity system is our only safe bridge over the next decade. However, as the above comments seem to suggest, is this the smart pathway?

[Semaj51]

The major problem against fuel cells is their cost. With the current technologies, fuel cells require platinum (more valuable than gold) and their life time is relatively shore (approx 150,000 miles). The only way for gasoline powered vehicles to be quickly replaced is to provide an affordable, practicable vehicle. The current fuel cell or battery (plug-in) cars are just too expensive for the average family or business

[SteveWeisert]

Electric cars charged by solar or wind power are fine - but not if charged by coal - burning power plants, putting out tons of black pollutants, and wrecking the ozone layer. No savings of emissions there !

[Patrick Takahashi - Huffpost Blogger]

Yes, I agree with you about the cost of the fuel cell, as noted in my comments above. I've been searching for a non-platinum system for a long time, and now and then read of something new. This should be a high priority development area for the Department of Energy.

[GregBlencoe]

Patrick,

The following link discusses two examples of platinum-free fuel cells:

http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/platinum-free-fuel-cells-will-be-arriving-soon-and-cost-much-less/

One of the problems is that Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Daimler, etc. are understandably very secretive when it comes to their fuel cell programs. I am certain Toyota is working on a platinum-free fuel cell. After all, their in-house hydrogen fuel cell program started back in 1992 (when I was a senior in high school!). However, none of these companies is going to share their R&D secrets.

But if other organizations are developing platinum-free hydrogen fuel cells, my guess would be that Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Daimler, etc. have developed ones behind closed doors that are far better.

Here is a quote from Larry Burns, General Motors Corp. vice president of R&D and strategic planning, about GM's work on platinum-free fuel cells in an article which was published back in November 2006:

"GM is striving to minimize the requirement of the costly platinum used in its hydrogen fuel cell vehicle to cut production costs for commercialization.

'The key is to spread platinum on the fuel cell membrane as evenly as possible via a catalyst-thrift technology to meet cost and durability targets,' Burns said. 'We are also investing in other materials that can replace platinum.'"

http://www.fuelcellstocks.com/Articles/hydrogencars/110607gmfuelcellcars.dwt