Wired: Gas-electric hybrids are the
automotive industry's biggest success story in years. So why is GM betting
the farm on hydrogen?
Burns:
I wouldn't call it betting the farm. The fuel cell and hydrogen program is
the largest in my budget, but you have to look at it as our long-term play.
Are we making a big bet? Yes. Is it an important bet? Yes. Is it our only
bet? No. Are we spending like drunken sailors to the point that we wouldn't
be able to do anything else if this doesn't pan out? No, not at all.
But you still have to catch up to
Toyota.
What long-term problem have we fixed with the
miracle of a hybrid? If you woke up tomorrow and all 220 million cars and
trucks in the United States had been hybridized to the degree that the Prius
has - all getting 25 percent better fuel economy - in six years we would be
consuming the same amount of petroleum that we are right now. Fuel cells
create a better automobile that's 50 percent more energy-efficient overall
and sustainable from energy and safety perspectives. We're going to compete
for customers by having good hybrids, but these vehicles account for less
than 1 percent of US auto sales. I admire what Toyota has done, but at the
end of the day, what problems are we trying to fix here?
So can I assume GM's hybrid cars, like
Ford's, will be part of a deal with Toyota?
No, you can't assume that at all. The
technology we're coming out with in 2007 is our own. We do not have a
collaboration with Toyota on hybrids.
Many scientists say it will take
decades to develop fuel cells and the infrastructure to support them. What
do you know that they don't?
The first question I'd like to ask them is,
when was the last time you were in a state-of-the-art fuel cell-development
laboratory? I work with a tremendous team of scientists and engineers who
are creating that capability, and my confidence in our 2010 timetable grows
every week.
But we still have to burn fossil fuels
to get hydrogen. What's the point of a hydrogen economy if it's powered by
carbon?
I don't believe that a hydrogen economy
depends on a carbon economy at all. Do you know how many nuclear reactors
China will be implementing over the next 20 years? Quite honestly, being in
the car business, I don't care whether the hydrogen comes from wind,
geothermal, nuclear, solar, or fossil. What I care about is that each local
economy plays to its strength. You get 5 percent from here and 10 percent
from there, and suddenly you've created a transportation energy market with
a number of pathways competing, as opposed to just a petroleum pathway.
OK, but you have to admit it's tough to
take all this seriously from the company that makes Hummers.
Yes, we do develop and sell Hummers. We're
also offering Americans more high-efficiency, high-volume-potential vehicles
than any other manufacturer. We're in the business of building cars that
people want to buy. The question I have for environmentalists is, Why do
some of them come across as anti-hydrogen? What's so threatening about a
solution that removes the automobile from the environmental debate?