Toyota, GM to scrap plan on fuel-cell car tie-up: report (AFP)

[Up2Late]

Toyota, GM to scrap plan on fuel-cell car tie-up: report

30/07/2005 17h29

TOKYO (AFP) - Toyota Motor and General Motors will scrap a planned fuel-cell vehicle joint venture over a disagreement on technology sharing, a report said.

The world's top two automakers had been aiming to start the partnership in mid-2005 but talks had stalled after they failed to agree on how much fuel-cell technology to exchange, the Asahi Shimbun said. But the daily said Toyota and GM would continue their cooperation on research and development in environmental technology for automobiles.

Fuel cells produce electricity through a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, leaving water as the only by-product.

Fuel-cell vehicles generate no harmful emissions and are one step ahead of other hybrid vehicles which combine conventional internal combustion engines with electric motors.

<http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/050730172924.vz2t2zh1.html>

(photo at link above)

[meganmonkey]

1. GM needs something to perk it up

This is not good news for that company.

[Coastie for Truth]

2. If past experience is any guide

GM may well have been trying to use this "joint venture" as a means to limit Toyota's marketing plans with some sort of sales limiting language that pushes the envelope of the anti-trust law.

GM had a series of law suits against Toyota and Toshiba<1> in the 1990's to try to limit Toyota's EV and hybrid marketing (these were the famous - or infamous - metal hydride battery law suits).

<1> Why Toshiba - because Toshiba was Toyota's original metal hydride battery supplier.

[Skink]

4. R.I.P GM

[ixion]

8. the article mentioned technology sharing... which means GM

was probably trying to do the deal so they could assimilate Toyta technology, which is far superior to GM.

That's my bet... but it's only speculation.

[Coastie for Truth]

9. The way these research joint venture contracts are written

The technology is divided into

1. "Background" -- what a party invented before the "effective date" of the joint venture agreement. This is the old Unocal oxygenated fuel blends issue, and the GM hydride batteries (electric vehicles, hybrids), and the GM super magnet game. NO OBLIGATION TO LICENSE THIS TECHNOLOGY TO THE OTHER JOINT PROJECT MEMBERS.

2. "Subject Technology" -- this is what they develop - individually or jointly, during the life time of the joint project, that falls within the terms and conditions and definitions of the joint project. This is what hs to be shared royalty free by the partners. They can extract royalties from companies outside the joint venture.

3. "Foreground" -- What a party invented after the "end" of the joint venture agreement. NO OBLIGATION TO LICENSE THIS TECHNOLOGY TO THE OTHER JOINT PROJECT MEMBERS.

GM (and a lot of big companies) plays the "Background" game very aggressively.

1. "Paper patents" - they file a bunch of paper patents (no real research or development - just "back of the envelope" guesses - perfectly legal) -- and if any of the guesses are correct -- their "paper patent" becomes very valuable "background."

2. Academic and garage inventors, small technology start ups - they buy these companies for their patents, and call this bought in technology technology "background" -- and after GM's immediate need is satisfied - they lay off these people.

A lot of mega companies that really have no commitment to the new product do this. All of the major oil companies have done this with at least some of fuel cells, photovoltaics, Sabbatier-Peltier generators.

I have gotten over any grudges or bitterness - been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, the wounds have healed, etc.

What do I expect -- a Toyota fuel cell vehicle system -- and a GM clone of it -- after Toyota develops the market and gets the highway experience and the service department experience. And if the Corvair and Chevette and Cavalier are any hint - GM still won't "get it right."

[Up2Late]

10. What I can't believe is, GM brings a "Concept Car" to the Detroit Auto...

...Show (what was it, 2003, or 2004?) called the "Hywire" (sp?), and expected anyone to believe they are taking this issue seriously.

I mean, come on, No Accelerator Pedal, No Break Pedal, and the name "Hywire!" That name is WAY to close to Haywire.

And No Accelerator Pedal, No Break Pedal on the first Fuel Cell car they put out!?!? :wtf:They might as well tell us it's going to drive by voice command too, for all the people who the lack of foot pedals would scare away would be huge.

[Nevernose]

3. Bet me: Toyota enters talks/ German-owned Daimler-Chrysler

I'll bet that they have far fewer problems with a European company that is interested in making a buck, or even a Chinese company or emerging Indian comapany, as opposed to a (typically) American company that is interested in making a buck at all costs.

(full disclosure: I've got an Oldsmobile)

[Gregorian]

5. In a way this is good.

Fuel cells produce electricity through a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, leaving water as the only by-product.

Fuel-cell vehicles generate no harmful emissions and are one step ahead of other hybrid vehicles which combine conventional internal combustion engines with electric motors.




Fine, but let's just not forget that fuel cells don't work all by themselves. You can't turn on a light bulb without electricity. These people have neglected to mention something very important. And that is- where the hell is the fuel cell going to get it's STUFF? Huh? Like where is the hydrogen going to come from. Or in the case of PEM fuel cells, which I would imagine they are using, petroleum products? It is not about the technology. It's about the use of energy that isn't produced by a process that doesn't harm the planet. And right now, it doesn't exist. Not in the present infrastructure, at least. Solar can work, but it hasn't been supported in a way that will develop it. We're getting there, but we aren't there yet. Don't let them fool you.

[Up2Late]

6. For a minute their I thought you where going to say something...

...intelegent, I was wrong.

Sounds like you have been listening to the anti-Hydrogen (a.k.a. the petroleum industry "where's the Hydrogen going to come from?" skeptics squad) who's dis-info goal is to make us all think this Hydrogen is something to fear. It's not, and it's not as difficult to produce as the Oil industry wants you to think.

Their are thousands of companies around the world working on Hydrogen fuel cells and on infrastructure problems, and almost none of them are in the U.S. We are going to be so far behind if we don't stop thinking up reasons why it can't be done and start focusing on the reasons and ways it can.

Do you realize it was about 30 years between the time the Gasoline Automobile first took to the local roads and when people seriously thought about driving long distances between cities and states?

Hydrogen Cars and truck will be coming to the big cities in the next few years, here are some links if you want to learn a thing or two, other wise, just go back and stick you head in the sand.

<http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid304.php>

<http://www.hydrogenics.com/>

<http://4hydrogen.com/index.html>

<http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Companies.html>

<http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage1592.html>

[SKKY]

7. Thanks for posting this response...

Because I was about to slam him- which you did much more eloquently than I would have.

[wuushew]

11. asking where the hydrogen comes from is a very valid question

if you do the quick calculations on the amount of additional electricity to completely replace gasoline with hydrogen electrolyzed from water at the very least you would need to double the existing electrical capacity of the United States.

Liquid fuels used in current internal combustion engines are an extremely mature technology with a support infrastructure that is able to serve them. Would it not be better to stick to bio-fuels such as ethanol or bio-diesel? When manufactured in a carbon neutral fashion the emissions are just as benign as that of fuel-cells (and no I am not neglecting NOX, that can be addressed in another thread).

[Up2Late]

14. Yes, I'm very much a supporter of Bio-Diesel, it would be a good...

...first step toward doing something NOW.

I haven't done the calculations (I'm not good with math), but I would guess that if the Congress moved most of the Farm Subsidies money (and the funding for Ethanol) into developing Bio-Diesel, their by, creating much larger markets (and better prices) for the Farmers to sell their Corn, Grains, Soy Beans and even Cotton Seeds, we could start moving our county forward again, where energy is concerned.

But what needs to happen is, take all these Tax breaks and subsidies that the new "Energy Bill" just gave away to "Big Oil," and invest in things like Solar Panels on some of the thousands of flat, Black-Tar roofs all over the county, that absorb, then radiate heat during the warm months, and Wind Farms in areas like the Great Plains and the coastal areas.

Hydrogen is not an energy "source" it's an "energy carrier" or "storage medium." It's also NOT as dangerous to produce, and burns instead of explodes (like Gasoline) when ignited. Another big advantage to Fuel Cells is that they can be used "Off the Grid" and eventually could run on a closed loop system.

Hydrogen can also be separated out of all the Methane gas that vents out of capped landfills, Sewage Treatment Plants and even Cow and Pig farms. Their are lots of ways to produce Hydrogen, the Government just needs to stop investing in the past and start funding the future technologies.

[Clovis Sangrail]

15. links

thank you very much for posting those links

[Javaman]

12. GM is doing the slow-motion spiral spin into the ground.

If they don't get their shit together in the next year or two and start producing environmentally friendly cars, or at least a couple that get high mileage, in 5 years they will be on life support and 10 years they will be dead.

[MrTriumph]

13. 'Employee-discount program' - Some interesting numbers

Some interesting numbers about GM's 'employee-discount program':

According to GM, sales of cars: June '04 - 6,307. June '05 - 6,495.

Sales of trucks: June '04 - 8,530. June '05 - 14,436

Do the figures tell us that despite the discount program, sales of GM cars is, well, almost flat? Or do they tell us that if discounted, GM trucks will sell very well?

The big question is this: now that GM inventory is back in balance, are GM '06s desirable enough to captures strong sales without deep discounting?