50 Years of Creating Hydrogen Vehicles, and Nevertheless No One Cares

The General Motors Electrovan celebrates its 50th anniversary asGeneral Motors

The year was 1966, and General Motors was working on the future. From January to October, some 200 people worked in three shifts on the Electrovan, the first electric vehicle powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. It had room for two, weighed 7,100 pounds, and could hit 60 mph in a not-quite-compelling 30 seconds.

But it was the first of its kind, a new way of doing things. Hydrogen-powered cars can be refueled in just a few minutes, are just as capable as their gas-loving counterparts, and emit nothing but water as a byproduct.

Today, GM heralded the Electrovan’s 50th birthday, noting it has since spent $ 2.5 billion developing fuel cell technology.

Rad, right? Yup, until you realize that for all that time and money, the automaker has made effectively zero progress getting humanity to ditch fossil fuels for hydrogen.

Plenty of folks are still pursuing this dream. Honda’s offering the Clarity Fuel Cell sedan in Japan. Toyota’s Mirai is available in the US, starting at nearly $ 60,000. Chevy just made a hydrogen-powered pickup for the US Army.

But no one’s solved the fundamental problems with hydrogen power: There’s no real infrastructure to get the fuel around the country and into cars. And while hydrogen’s the most abundant element in the universe, making it into a useable fuel often involves natural gas—hardly a zero-emissions process.

So yeah, GM marking 50 years of working on the stuff is like a a PhD celebrating his tenth year working on that thesis—and insisting he’ll be done real soon.

Go Back to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.


Ludicrous mode just got loonier.

Tesla Motors announced today its new Model S P100D model will hit 60 mph in 2.5 seconds, thanks to a bigger, 100-kWh battery. That’s an upgrade over the P90D’s 2.8 seconds, and just one tenth of a second slower than what the million-dollar Ferrari LaFerrari can do. Except that this is a four-door sedan. The P100D version of the Model X SUV will hit 60 mph in 2.9 seconds.

That’s the best stomach swirl for the money the auto industry has ever offered, and a terrific example of how much better electric cars are than internal combustion engines at delivering torque. The bigger battery will also offer 315 miles of range (up from just under 300) in the sedan, Tesla says—but not if you spend all your time enjoying that acceleration.

Of course, with great power comes great pricing. Well, great for Tesla, which is charging a base price of $ 134,500 for its fastest car ever. The P90D with “ludicrous mode” starts at $ 119,500. The Model X with the bigger pack starts at $ 135,500. If you’ve ordered a now measly-feeling P90D but haven’t gotten it yet, you can upgrade for $ 10,000. If you’re already driving one and now feel utterly lame, you can have the extra power installed, but it’ll cost you $ 20,000.

In June, Tesla introduced the cheaper Model S 60, powered by a 75-kWh pack running software that limits its capacity by 20 percent. Customers who later decide they want more power can hand over $ 9,000, for which Tesla hits a button to update the car’s software and “unlock” the battery’s extra capability.

It’s easy to imagine Tesla will do something similar with this bigger pack, for buyers who aren’t quite ready to spend the extra cash. Spend P90D money today, and once the 2.8 second sprint to 60 mph loses its edge, break out the credit card.

Is a 0 to 60 mph time improvement of .3 seconds worth the extra cash? Tesla hopes so, because it says every dollar it can make off its luxury models will help fund its efforts to build the long-awaited, affordable Model 3, which should enter production late next year.

The Feds Just Got Actual About Self-Driving Vehicles (It is About Time)

Even a year ago, the idea of autonomous vehicles roaming American streets seemed farfetched, and automakers had been claiming to be focused on “stepping stone,” incremental technologies.

That has changed. Carmakers are deploying robots, and federal regulators in charge of how humans drive are finally catching up. Nowadays, US Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx announced suggestions that define a new strategy to regulating—and encouraging—self-driving cars.

In an op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, President Obama wrote, “Government at times gets it incorrect when it comes to quickly altering technologies. That’s why this new policy is flexible and created to evolve with new advances.”

It’s about time: Last week, Uber launched the nation’s first autonomous taxi service in downtown Pittsburgh. Boston desires to begin testing its own driverless fleet inside a year. Ford has promised to place a substantial quantity of autonomous cars on the road by 2021. Lyft is partnering with GM to chase the same date.

But the feds? A year ago, the DOT had mentioned close to absolutely nothing about the technologies. As of December, though, Foxx’s men and women began operating to loosen humans’ fleshy grip on the wheel. The National Highway Targeted traffic Security Administration stated it would incorporate active technologies—the “building blocks” of autonomy—in its security rating program. In February, NHTSA sent Google a letter saying it would expand its interpretation of the word “driver” to consist of laptop systems. The DOT listed encouragement of self-driving automobiles as a criterion in its $ 50 million Sensible City Challenge, which Columbus, Ohio, won in June.

The full details will be published tomorrow morning, but automakers currently look pleased. Audi says it “applauds” NHTSA Daimler says “we are encouraged by NHTSA’s leadership on the concern and are heartened by the collaborative approach the Administration has taken.” The Self-Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, founded by Ford, Google, Lyft, Uber, and Volvo, calls the recommendations “an important step forward.”

A New Set of Guidelines

These new recommendations are the feds’ largest step however, since they represent a new method. Beyond setting expectations for automakers, they lay out new approaches to regulating the technology. NHTSA has constantly been a tiny reactive, letting automakers experiment and stepping in when it has observed outcomes. Now, it wants to get ahead of upcoming technology. “The government could sit back and play catchup,” Foxx says. But he desires his department to be flexible, and be open to the innovations that are currently changing the auto industry.

For manufacturers, the new rules need to imply quicker responses to requests for “letters of interpretation,” which apply federal laws to driving technologies. They’ll also let DOT grant a lot more exemptions to current requirements, to accelerate testing of new kinds of vehicles, and establish a “network of experts” to assist the agency comprehend the vagaries of computer software and deep learning.

The biggest bullet point here is NHTSA’s “15-Point Safety Assessment,” which sets a range of objectives for manufacturers around how the vehicle perceives objects and responds, how it records and shares information, the human-machine interface, ethical considerations (like the “trolley problem”), how producers system the automobiles to stick to targeted traffic laws, and so on.

The important is that NHTSA does not specify, or even care, how automakers verify these boxes, as lengthy as they do. “This marks an attitudinal change,” says Bryant Walker Smith, an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina College of Law who studies self-driving automobiles. Rather than mandating an strategy (like using sans serif font for the vehicle identification number and the precise kinematic viscosities of brake fluid), the agency will be openminded.

That signifies, Smith says, NHTSA doesn’t have to fight to hire computer vision specialists. Let’s face it, they’d rather operate for Google or Uber. If NHTSA representatives can figure out what kinds of concerns to ask, and have a very good sense of what a credible answer sounds like, they can reasonably judge what technologies are secure.

At least for now, those 15 points will not be needed. Foxx expects companies will function to meet them anyway, possibly as the basis for approving the testing or commercial use of new automobiles. When the inevitable lawsuits commence, they rules will offer affordable expectations for how autonomous vehicles behave. (Your honor, the accused couldn’t even meet the government’s simple standards!)

Or possibly they’ll turn out to be law. As component of its “new challenge, new me” pondering, NHTSA is hunting to pick up some new tools. How about pre-marketplace approval authority, so it can inspect new technologies prior to it hits the road? Or the correct to situation cease and desist orders, to stop negative actors with the thunk of a rubber stamp. (Congress would want to get off its butt to make some of these take place.) The underfunded agency would also appreciate “greater compensation flexibility,” a polite way of saying, “more money to employ much better men and women.”

These are just suggestions, and NHTSA’s opening the discussion for a round of public comments before finalizing anything. And, Smith says, the specifics of its policies could have severe effect. But for now, it appears like the feds have discovered a way to hold up in the race toward a globe of self-driving vehicles.