Handling the fuel sell
BY JAMES STANFORD | 19th Aug 2008
Visiting Melbourne last week, Mr Burns stated GM’s view that there is no one solution to the looming fuel crisis and that various energy technology backers should recognise this.
“If this issue is as serious as it appears to be, then we can solve it,” Mr Burns said. “But we can’t solve it by being paralysed by all these different parochial views.” He said the various backers were creating a distorted picture of the viability of various alternative technologies that was detrimental.
“What’s happening is that people who like natural gas over-promote natural gas and overly criticise all the other (alternative fuels),” he said.
“The people who like ethanol overly promote ethanol and overly criticise all the other ones. The next thing you know, you’ve got all these people digging their heels in, thinking there’s a single answer and that’s the only thing you should invest in. In fact, we must invest in all of them.”
Mr Burns said it was important that various technologies be developed in order to provide a serious competitor to oil. This would not only reduce countries’ dependence on foreign oil suppliers, but also help reduce the ability of groups such as OPEC to set such a high price per barrel.
While clearly committed to alternative powertrains running on everything from LPG, CNG and E85 ethanol to electricity and hydrogen fuel cells, Mr Burns revealed his own plan that would impact the existing monopoly of oil giants.
“The best way to get the infrastructure is to get competitive alternatives to those who control it today.” Given a magic wand to tackle the issue, Mr Burns said that in the US he would look to nuclear-generated hydrogen.
“I would put one nuclear plant on a closed military base so it is secure and I would dedicate power to creating hydrogen, hordes of it. You can make a lot from a nuclear plant.
“I would introduce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles using that because they are exciting vehicles that customers like. Then I would go to OPEC and say, ‘Do you want to talk?’ “The reason that I would do that is because now we (would) have an alternative. We (would) have shown that we don’t have to rely on petroleum any more.
“It’s not to say that we don’t want petroleum – it’s just that there is not a competitive alternative. The reason it is $150 a barrel is because they can (demand it), so we have got to get a competitive alternative.” Even without his nuclear vision being enacted, Mr Burns said there is already enough hydrogen currently being produced to power millions of fuel cell vehicles.
“Right now there is enough hydrogen being produced to fuel over 200 million fuel cell vehicles,” he said.
“What is all that hydrogen being used for? It’s used to make ammonia for fertiliser, one half of it, and the other half of it is used as input to making gasoline. When you extrapolate that industry, there’s a fast-growing supply coming onboard and most of that’s at refineries.
“I would say, ‘Well, why not use the hydrogen directly rather than use it to make gasoline?’ I think that’s an appropriate question.” Mr Burns said GM wants to see stronger indications from energy companies that they will help build hydrogen infrastructure before committing to large fuel cell production, insisting that there was no reason this infrastructure could not be established at a relatively low cost.
“We have studied the infrastructure very carefully and we don’t believe there is any reason that it can’t be done,” he said. “It can be done very cost-effectively.” As for fuel cell development, Mr Burns said GM designs were coming down in price and engineers were aiming to dramatically reduce the use of platinum in the fuel stack.
He is confident fuel cells will be able to compete with combustion engines, which will become more expensive as car-makers invest heavily to make them more efficient.
“We are encouraged that it can compete on cost and durability and we know that it performs great,” he said.
Mr Burns said the current fuel issue highlighted the failings of US government policy.
“We have lacked an energy policy in the US. We had our oil shocks in ’70s and ’80s and then gasoline became very, very inexpensive for an extended period of time. That defined the consumer choice and the consumer choice was for more power and more size in the vehicle, and then along comes the run of what we have seen here in the last year and we are unprepared for that.
“I do think that you need an energy policy that brings stability to energy prices, and stability if they are high is fine as long as we have a chance to get the portfolio right and compete on a level playing field.” Interestingly, Mr Burns said car-makers would be hurt if oil prices fell dramatically.
“One of the things I get very concerned about is what would happen if petroleum drops back down to $20 a barrel. I don’t think that is healthy for the world and certainly not for the US and I think that we need to find mechanisms for stability. It is this volatility that is so problematic for the automotive industry.” He said that fuel prices had backed-off in the US after consumption dropped dramatically as consumers drove less in reaction to the recent rises.
Asked if he thought it was reasonable to think fuel prices could drop, Mr Burns said: “In the long term, I think it is very unlikely, but in the short term you have got all kinds of forces at play in various economies.” Mr Burns reflected GM’s enthusiasm for ethanol and especially the newly-developing processes that see the fuel generated from waste products.
He said that it should be an important fuel of the future, but indicated frustration at the Australian oil distributors’ lack of enthusiasm, as reported by GoAuto last month.
Mr Burns said traditional energy providers may simply refuse to use their infrastructure to distribute alternatives to petrol.
“You are running into that right here in Australia with ethanol. They said ‘Well, we are not going to put in E85 pumps’. Well, okay, maybe you can put in a different E85 pump at a different kind of a distribution channel,” he said.
Mr Burns even suggested carmakers could somehow come up with another way of bringing the fuel to the customer.
“Maybe we could monitor how much fuel you have in your car, because we can do that with OnStar-like solutions (real-time data acquisition technology), and we could bring the fuel to your car.
“I could give you a value proposition that you are never going to have to stop at a petrol station again, you’re never going to worry about having enough fuel, you are always going to use a green fuel and you have the peace of mind of that delivery promise.”
Read more:
Oil shock need not affect Australia, says GMHolden goes it alone on E85
Doubt emerges over hybrid Commodore
Holden Commodore hybrid and diesel are go
Ignore us at your peril, GM tells Oz government