Burns discussed his fuel cell development targets and the obstacles the industry faces with Harald Hamprecht of Automobilwoche, a sister publication of Automotive News and AutoWeek.

The auto industry is still 98 percent dependent on oil. When will that change?

The hydrogen age will begin during the coming decade, at the earliest. But the replacement of the internal combustion engine will still extend out over decades.

Five years ago, you announced the development of a commercially viable system by 2010. Does that still stand?

Certainly. And even in 2010 it will be able to keep up with today's internal combustion engines in performance and durability.

What will the system look like?

Our fuel cell will offer a range of 300 miles, exhibit an impressive acceleration and last at least 150,000 miles. We have already invested more than a billion dollars in it.

What progress have you made?

In the last five years, we have driven our prototype 275,000 test kilometers (171,000 miles) and learned from weaknesses in the system. Take our most recent prototype, the Sequel. We are presenting a driveable version based on this prototype in mid-2006.

This is an impressive bearer of new technology, but it really represents a technology that is two years old because the design freeze took place in 2004. By 2009, we want to once again cut the fuel cell stack size by 50 percent. In the last seven years, it has been reduced by a factor of 14.

Does that bring costs down?

Tremendously. Since 2003, we have lowered costs by 20 percent. And though we were 10 times more expensive in 2004 than the production model should be, today it is not more than fivefold.

What should the final price be?

As soon as we make the transition to mass production -- that should be just a few years after it is introduced into the market -- the fuel cell ought to be no more expensive than a comparable diesel engine. So it should not exceed $50 per kilowatt. For a midrange car, you need about 75 kilowatts of power. That is why we want to lower the cost and size of the electric motor by another 20 percent.

Let's move from the technology to the second major problem: the regenerative manufacture of hydrogen.

Here a large market is just emerging with many possibilities. For example, one company uses thermal technology to separate hydrogen. Another extracts hydrogen from biomass.

What about the third large hurdle, the infrastructure?

Based on our estimations, we need just 12,000 hydrogen stations in the U.S. to make it possible for customers in the 100 largest metropolises to have to drive no more than 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) to fill up. This project requires investments of about $12 billion. As a comparison, the U.S. spent more than $30 billion for the expansion of its freeway network in the 1950s.

As the largest manufacturer worldwide, won't GM have to force the issue even more?

We are totally aware of our responsibility, along with the seriousness of the issue. The reason is that the demand for oil is growing every year with the number of automobiles. We are even assuming that consumption in the coming six years will rise by 25 percent. Besides technological progress, there also has to be a change in the mind-set of the market, which is now taking place slowly. Wars, hurricanes and national power blackouts in the U.S. have made it clear to customers the fragile situation our dependence on oil and gasoline has led to.

Why is every company tinkering with its own solutions instead of pulling together?

I, too, am concerned about the fragmentation of the market. Cooperation would make sense. We are open to all discussions.